NKOS' stance on primitivism, technology & genetic engineering

[Sentinel]

Also, let it be clear that this ofcourse should not be forced by anyone, that would simply be counter-productive.

So, it's more like a personal distaste then? Please elaborate. Your opinions about genetic modification of food crops, animals etc are a bit controversial, but i'm no longer sure whether your paradigm is unacceptable within the group. I'm splitting this into a thread of it's own, so that we'll find out where the group membership stands on these issues.

Could you please elaborate on 'sympathy for primitivism' and 'opposition to genetic modification of food crops, the cloning and genetic engineering of farm and companion animals' (why are these things bad, and are you unconditionally opposed to them, or just under capitalism etc?), and why you oppose certain technologies such as TV and automobiles. Opposition to polluting technologies such as gas-driven cars is actually quite understandable, as long as one strives to replace them with something as efficient but more sustainable.

The TV thing escapes me though, as I said it approaches the primitivist position of 'evil alienating technology'. I'm trying to determine whether or not your opposition to these certain aspects of technology is bioconservative in nature or not,and also whether or not you oppose primitivism and bioconservatism enough to be in a group which was largely formed for the specific purpose of opposing them -- I hope you understand.

Finally, did you read the group self introduction before applying, and do you agree with it?:


A discussion group for all progressive comrades on RevLeft, CC-members or not, who firmly take the anthropocentric position against capitalism/the price system, religious superstition, bioconservatism in any of it's forms, neo-luddism, primitivism and any other attempts/tendencies to halt or regress development.

We are leftists of the variety that always puts the well being, pleasure and freedom of the human being in the center in a rational, socialistic, anthropocentric fashion and shuns technophobia as madness -- whether we otherwise identify as anarchists, marxists, or technocrats. A wish to combat reactionary forms of bioconservative or 'green' influence within the left is a uniting trait for the group.

We are a group of comrades who recognise human progress, material abundance and technological development, but also a society consisting of individuals with a healthy and rational mindset, as essential requirements for the building of a truly equal, classless society. This means that group members are to be atheists, support the advancement of atheism and secularism, as well as oppose the influence of religion in the society.

The group is not by any means meant to be exclusively for transhumanists, but for all leftists whose goal is the total liberation of mankind from both material, biological and moralistic limitations. In other words, for all those who realise that all the of the 'old crap' must go, if mankind is to reach it's full potential!

To summarise, to be eligible for membership in this group, you have to:

- Recognise the existence of anthropocentrism and biocentrism as two opposed paradigms, support and promote anthropocentrism and oppose biocentrism

- Support and advocate increased scientific research and technological progress, oppose any attempts to hinder/regress these

- Advocate a secular society and the promotion of atheism, oppose organised religion and defend the right of every child to a secular education

[Enragé]

So, it's more like a personal distaste then? Please elaborate

No, it's a distaste based on Marxist theory (i.e situationism), with which i agree.

Referring to Débord's The Society of the Spectacle here.

I don't think it should be forced in the sense that if anyone should do the smashing of those commodities it is the insurgent proletariate (which in fact, they did in the Banlieues in France and continue to do both there as elsewhere).


Could you please elaborate on 'sympathy for primitivism',

I sympathise with primitivism in the sense that yes, perhaps it is all better if we revert back to walking around in nature a bit, building some huts, hunting and gathering, "working" 4 hours a day and then just loafing around, and fucking eachother silly. I definitely would have no problem if life would be about that. I don't agree with it since that would take the death of the larger part of the human race. Perhaps, however, as many primitivists say, this is unavoidable since we already fucked nature up to the extent that it can now only fuck us back [and then, i'll stand on the side of nature fighting back, since that is the only way equilibrium can be established which allows for the survival of the human race, as well as all the lovely animals/plants].

Which is why capitalism cannot survive another hundred years. The material reality, nature, simply cannot support another hundred years of capitalist pillaging. All the cappies can do is deny nature, the real economy, and all which can happen are crises like the one we see now, to which the only response in their paradigm can be increasing or decreasing intrest rates. And, ofcourse, declaring war on other cappies/bureaucrats.


and 'opposition to genetic modification of food crops, the cloning and genetic engineering of farm and companion animals'?

1. Since there is no reason to do so because enough is already being produced to sustain the human race threefold. The problem has to do with hierarchy, not lack of efficiency.
2. My most controversial point: what "right" do we have to tamper with animals, which for all intents and purposes evolved from the same gene pool as we did? Let them live, eat them if you want to [i sure do like the taste], but why go fuck up their evolution? I simply do not see the point, except for personal entertainment ofcourse, but then, go play with your cock/clit, probably more fun than surgically inserting a machine into your pet, or having him/her grow another ear.

[Cult of Reason]

I sympathise with primitivism in the sense that yes, perhaps it is all better if we revert back to walking around in nature a bit, building some huts, hunting and gathering, "working" 4 hours a day and then just loafing around, and fucking eachother silly.

And dying at the age of 25, catching terrible diseases due to lack of vaccination and medicine, losing a lot of your (huge batch of) children and, of course, then causing humanity to have to go through agrarianism, despotism, feudalism and the industrial revolution all over again.

Personally, I would rather have a Communist Technate, where I could probably get away with 4 hours per week, if at all.


Perhaps, however, as many primitivists say, this is unavoidable since we already fucked nature up to the extent that it can now only fuck us back [and then, i'll stand on the side of nature fighting back, since that is the only way equilibrium can be established which allows for the survival of the human race, as well as all the lovely animals/plants].

It is not yet unavoidable, and the best way to avoid it is probably to build Technates.

Nature can go fuck itself if it is a choice between it and humanity (which it seldom is, in the great scheme of things). The animals can go to hell too, if necessary. Fighting on the side of 'nature' against humanity is definitely a primmie position. What would you be doing? Randomly shooting people?


1. Since there is no reason to do so because enough is already being produced to sustain the human race threefold. The problem has to do with hierarchy, not lack of efficiency.

How about this: this 'biotechnology' reduces the total resources needed to produce food and hence is less exploitative of the environment, more sustainable and less polluting? With less land being used to grow crops, it could be "rewilded", or crop rotation could be used to reduce strain on the fertility of land that is already cultivated. Less land would have to be cleared for crop and pasture, so saving the forests. Less fertiliser might have to be used, so less goes into streams as runoff.


2. My most controversial point: what "right" do we have to tamper with animals, which for all intents and purposes evolved from the same gene pool as we did? Let them live, eat them if you want to [i sure do like the taste], but why go fuck up their evolution? I simply do not see the point, except for personal entertainment ofcourse, but then, go play with your cock/clit, probably more fun than surgically inserting a machine into your pet, or having him/her grow another ear.

What right? Human betterment? Self-interest? Sustainability? Anthropocentrism?

[Sentinel]

I have copied these posts from the thread discussing NKOS's positions in the HPG forum, so that the debate may continue, as he is now removed from the group.

[Cult of Reason]

NKOS PMed this to me days ago, I forgot about it and did not reply:


Since i got kicked out of the group, here's my response to a part of what you said


And dying at the age of 25, catching terrible diseases due to lack of vaccination and medicine, losing a lot of your (huge batch of) children and, of course, then causing humanity to have to go through agrarianism, despotism, feudalism and the industrial revolution all over again.

Personally, I would rather have a Communist Technate, where I could probably get away with 4 hours per week, if at all.

1. I'd rather die at 25 then at 80 if those 25 years are free of all the shit we see today.
2. Your line of thought is deterministic. Agrarianism etc as we saw it is not necessarily agrarianism as it can be, in fact most land was held in common up untill the industrial revolution. With the benefit of hindsight, future primmy societies could avoid the bullshit.
3. Personally, same here.
4. I was mostly playing advocate of the devil, but apparently i really am biocentristic.

Regarding hindsight: how can there be hindsight if civilisation is destroyed and, along with it, most likely, written records? Oral tradition? Superstition? Even if that was the case, people would still engage in agrarianism if found due to demonstrable material benefits.

Most land was held in common, yes, but under the sway of feudal landlords, empires or tribal chieftans. The latter is, perhaps, less bad than other situations, but is in no way guaranteed, just as it is in no way guaranteed that you will not get absolute monarchy again (especially since even that does not require an industrial revolution).