Split from "Anarchist Obssession...": Anti-human primitivism

[Ecopunk]

once again the commie's have a lot to say about anarchists, but may I remind you of the "great victory's" of the communists them self.

Some evidence: The so called great russian revolution, the suppost to be liberation of the workers, ended in a even bigger oppression of all the people by the communists them self. They would have been better of without the commie's. Not to say anything about Kronstadt of course. And this is just one story, history tells us how many times the red bastards had succes in actually liberating the people, lets count: ZERO.

So then there is the story of anarchists being obsest with the state. This is a very nerowminded view of anarchists. First, yes the state is one of the roots of the evil, there were it protects the capital.
But also the fact that the state has power, and power is the real problem. There where some one or some thing had power over others, oppression occours. And now of course all the commie's start to say: "but the real power is in the hands of the people. they choose the rulers" Well, that is kinda like how today's democratie works, and have you seen it work yet?? NO!! ofcourse not, because there is still some one of some few in power.

The whole problem is the will of order and a system. That's what diverts the people from the real problem. The real problem is not the state, or the capital, or the few in power. The real problem is the way we live. The way we keep to feel the (false) need of growth, to expand production and consumption, to keep fullfilling al the needs we don't realy have.
The way we live, the way we deal with nature, as if it is something that where not a part of, as something we can use and misuse as much at we want. But we are a part of nature, so we should get back in place again, back in the foodchain, back in line as we were we nature created us.
The goal of our life, of our sociaty must not be production, must not be to be the best, the biggest. It must be to live in harmony with nature, to use what we need and nothing more, to live sustaineble, to take care of the land instaid of putting it full of chemicals, and poisoning our own habitat, our own air, land and water, and by that our own body's.
And the only way to do this, is by living in small, local communitie's, to be selfsustaineble, and not wanting to unite and control millions of people under one system. That has never worked and it will never work, because that is not how nature works.

So all you communists, syndicalist, class-war anarchists, REDs. Stop trying to convert this system into something els. Because it is the system, a system that is the problem. And if you see that, than it don't matter what kind of system it is. Break down civilization, and go back to nature!

[KC]

Dude, shut up.

Go back to CrimeThinc.

[Junius]

The real problem is the way we live. The way we keep to feel the (false) need of growth, to expand production and consumption, to keep fullfilling al the needs we don't realy have.

The starvation in Petrograd in 1917 and onwards, I assure you, was very real and had very real political consequences (amongst a dozen other issues). And there was a very real need to expand production to meet that consumption, and to raise the standards of living for the working class.


The way we live, the way we deal with nature, as if it is something that where not a part of, as something we can use and misuse as much at we want. But we are a part of nature, so we should get back in place again, back in the foodchain, back in line as we were we nature created us.


Break down civilization, and go back to nature!

That would provide nothing but intolerable suffering and death for the great portion of the world population.

[Ecopunk]

That would provide nothing but intolerable suffering and death for the great portion of the world population.

I know this, and although its not a nice thought, I accept it.
It is the way of nature, we are to many, humans are a plague, we are way out of line.
Nature keeps limits to the population of all species. And we stept out of nature, out of our natural way. So in order de restore the balance, a lot of us have to die, mayby its me, or the ones I love.
I accept this, because in the end it is the best for all of us humans and non-humans. I know it sounds hard, but ether we accept it, or nature is going to put it with force upon us. You can see it comming, look at the climate-change, that's nature taking revange for us raping her. We are raping this planet and it will strike back, it will tamme us and put us back in line, back in the foodchain, where we belong.

When you accept this, you will see that your wasting energie trying to fight for something that just a part of the problem, and that the real solution is part of a something much bigger.

and @KC:
does it hurt so much to hear the truth, that you can not come up with any normal arguments any more, and fall back on rather simpelminded insults?

[KC]

There's nothing to argue about. You're a nutter. Have fun in OI.

[Ecopunk]

@KC: *Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* wake me up when you have someting usefull to say.....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know this, and although its not a nice thought, I accept it.

Really? I reject it. The mass death of human beings is unacceptable.


It is the way of nature, we are to many, humans are a plague, we are way out of line. Naturalistic fallacy - assumes that what is "natural" (defined how?) is "good".

"Too many"? By what measure?

"way out of line"? According to whom? Why should we heed them?


Nature keeps limits to the population of all species. And we stept out of nature, out of our natural way. So in order de restore the balance, a lot of us have to die, mayby its me, or the ones I love. It seems that so far humans are winning the battle against "Nature".


I accept this, because in the end it is the best for all of us humans and non-humans.Bollocks. Civilisational collapse will at best delay the apotheosis of the human species, or at worst will result in it's extinction. Neither scenario is desireable - delays could seriously fuck with our chances for long-term survival, and extinction is forever.


I know it sounds hard, but ether we accept it, or nature is going to put it with force upon us."She" has been trying to keep us in line for all of our past history, mainly with disease and natural disasters. Doesn't look like it's working, does it?


You can see it comming, look at the climate-change, that's nature taking revange for us raping her. We are raping this planet and it will strike back, it will tamme us and put us back in line, back in the foodchain, where we belong.Fat chance. We're too damn clever as a species to let something like climate change keep us down.


When you accept this, you will see that your wasting energie trying to fight for something that just a part of the problem, and that the real solution is part of a something much bigger.If we submit to Nature, "she" will surely kill us, as "she" did to about 99% of all species that ever lived.

However, if we use our brains to alter, colonise and exploit our environment as we always have done (and it's proven to be an incredibly successful strategy), and do so beyond this single planet, then we will have a shot at becoming masters of the Universe.

God did not create man in his image - Humanity will create gods in our image.

[Plagueround]

Ecopunk, have you ever done some research into the amount of carbon emissions computers and data centers (which hold almost every single bit of information the internet has these days) generate? If you're serious about this, you need to get off your computer and stop upholding this brutal rape of mother earth. I have very little to say to a primmie with an internet connection.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ecopunk, have you ever done some research into the amount of carbon emissions computers and data centers (which hold almost every single bit of information the internet has these days) generate? If you're serious about this, you need to get off your computer and stop upholding this brutal rape of mother earth. I have very little to say to a primmie with an internet connection.

I'm not actually sure that's a fair criticism myself; it reminds me of those cappies who call us hypocrites for working for a wage and buying goods, even though we're fundamentally against such things.

[Plagueround]

I'm not actually sure that's a fair criticism myself; it reminds me of those cappies who call us hypocrites for working for a wage and buying goods, even though we're fundamentally against such things.

I realize the similarity, however, I would say the difference is we recognize that we want a system that provides us with these things and are using the only means we have to obtain them, while still promoting our message. The primmies don't seek to offer an alternative means of obtaining these goods, they want them gone, yet they ridicule people for embracing technology while using it themselves.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well definitions are the fundamental issue here. I've 'clashed' with a number of anarchists on these boards who stick to the Weberian definition (ie monopoly of violence and so forth) but again I would like to hear from more class-orientated anarchists on this

That's a very obtuse statement. Many class-oriented anarchists subscribe to the view that the state is a monopoly of violence and class rule. Kropotkin comes to mind, as well as Goldman. Bakunin also felt that majoritarian rule was filthy. Social anarchists aren't constrained to just one branch.

[Bilan]

Posts from EcoPunk moved to this thread.

[#FF0000]

Ecopunk, have you ever done some research into the amount of carbon emissions computers and data centers (which hold almost every single bit of information the internet has these days) generate? If you're serious about this, you need to get off your computer and stop upholding this brutal rape of mother earth. I have very little to say to a primmie with an internet connection.

Forget about the data centers! Do you have any idea the sort of carbon emissions he generates just by existing!? How much oil is burned to produce your food? Your clothes? Your hair-care products? Your medicine? Your home? How much damage have you done simply by being there!?

If you are serious about this, not only do you need to get off your computer, but you need to put a stop to the unspeakable strain your existence has on the planet. If you want to save the planet, you have to kill yourself.

That is, Ecopunk, if you're serious.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Dear ecopunk

go top yourself

Lots of love Comrade Joe

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I could see a natural or man-made disastor creating a world that devolves into primitivism, essentially. Or some zombies do it. whatever.

Primitivsm can't work in my opinion, if we wish to avoid massive amounts of deaths (I think it'd be obvious). You can escape the system, though, Ecopunk.

[Bilan]

once again the commie's have a lot to say about anarchists, but may I remind you of the "great victory's" of the communists them self.

Some evidence: The so called great russian revolution, the suppost to be liberation of the workers, ended in a even bigger oppression of all the people by the communists them self. They would have been better of without the commie's. Not to say anything about Kronstadt of course. And this is just one story, history tells us how many times the red bastards had succes in actually liberating the people, lets count: ZERO.

Really? So the Tsar was better?
And you're advocating oppressing humans, you fucking hypocrite.



So then there is the story of anarchists being obsest with the state. This is a very nerowminded view of anarchists. First, yes the state is one of the roots of the evil, there were it protects the capital.

It's not the "root of evil", it's a political method of class domination.



But also the fact that the state has power, and power is the real problem. There where some one or some thing had power over others, oppression occours. And now of course all the commie's start to say: "but the real power is in the hands of the people. they choose the rulers" Well, that is kinda like how today's democratie works, and have you seen it work yet?? NO!! ofcourse not, because there is still some one of some few in power.


That is a shit analysis. And negates entirely that a politically democratic system does is undermined by an undemocratic economic system.



The whole problem is the will of order and a system. That's what diverts the people from the real problem. The real problem is not the state, or the capital, or the few in power. The real problem is the way we live. The way we keep to feel the (false) need of growth, to expand production and consumption, to keep fullfilling al the needs we don't realy have.
The way we live, the way we deal with nature, as if it is something that where not a part of, as something we can use and misuse as much at we want. But we are a part of nature, so we should get back in place again, back in the foodchain, back in line as we were we nature created us.
The goal of our life, of our sociaty must not be production, must not be to be the best, the biggest. It must be to live in harmony with nature, to use what we need and nothing more, to live sustaineble, to take care of the land instaid of putting it full of chemicals, and poisoning our own habitat, our own air, land and water, and by that our own body's.
And the only way to do this, is by living in small, local communitie's, to be selfsustaineble, and not wanting to unite and control millions of people under one system. That has never worked and it will never work, because that is not how nature works.

So all you communists, syndicalist, class-war anarchists, REDs. Stop trying to convert this system into something els. Because it is the system, a system that is the problem. And if you see that, than it don't matter what kind of system it is. Break down civilization, and go back to nature!


Nonsense.

[Sendo]

Dear ecopunk

go top yourself

Lots of love Comrade Joe

Top himself with what? Pepperoni? Whip cream? Cherries?

[bcbm]

Top himself with what? Pepperoni? Whip cream? Cherries?
Delicious gravy.

[Trystan]

I could see a natural or man-made disastor creating a world that devolves into primitivism, essentially. Or some zombies do it. whatever.

Primitivsm can't work in my opinion, if we wish to avoid massive amounts of deaths (I think it'd be obvious). You can escape the system, though, Ecopunk.

Which just begs the question, why doesn't he go and live the primmie life? I guess he has a college degree to finish or something. :rolleyes:

Primitivists are liberal hobbyists.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Which just begs the question, why doesn't he go and live the primmie life? I guess he has a college degree to finish or something. :rolleyes:

Primitivists are liberal hobbyists.

Yep. Much of the world is still "primitivist;" if you can't find it you're not looking hard enough.

[trivas7]

Ecopunk --
I pretty much agree w/ your analysis. Not to worry, according to http://www.chrismartenson.com/ the next twenty years will look nothing like the last twenty.

[Ken]

Ecopunk, have you ever done some research into the amount of carbon emissions computers and data centers (which hold almost every single bit of information the internet has these days) generate? If you're serious about this, you need to get off your computer and stop upholding this brutal rape of mother earth. I have very little to say to a primmie with an internet connection.

stupid stupid stupid. would Zerzan find it easier to advocate if he didnt have a website?

dumb nitpicking.

[Ken]

Which just begs the question, why doesn't he go and live the primmie life? I guess he has a college degree to finish or something. :rolleyes:

Primitivists are liberal hobbyists.

how do you know hes not?

Communists are godless Christians.

[Trystan]

how do you know hes not?



The fact that he's using a soul-destroying, alienating computer is a bit of a give-away. :lol: Is there much internet access in the woods?


Communists are godless Christians.

What?

[534634634265]

ecopunk, whatever the masses here think, history will pan out whatever truth there is to find. i would agree that this world is on an ever widening gyre, and soon it will fling itself apart. our best bet is to seek like-minded people, and prepare for this end. i don't judge for the use of a computer, or for the use of a car. all that these things do is hasten the end of a system i dispise. feel free to use the tools before you, but be prepared for that day when your toolset changes. learn skills that will have use in a post-industrial world. blacksmithing, luthiery, carpentry. also, try and form or find a collective in your area. short of that, come to websites like this where you can meet other people. or laugh at the rags still held before the eyes of the ignorant.

[Plagueround]

stupid stupid stupid. would Zerzan find it easier to advocate if he didnt have a website?

dumb nitpicking.

He would probably find it easier to condemn people and not look like a giant hypocrite...plus he's admitted technology possesses advantages that we would lose if he had his way.

[Plagueround]

ecopunk, whatever the masses here think, history will pan out whatever truth there is to find. i would agree that this world is on an ever widening gyre, and soon it will fling itself apart. our best bet is to seek like-minded people, and prepare for this end. i don't judge for the use of a computer, or for the use of a car. all that these things do is hasten the end of a system i dispise. feel free to use the tools before you, but be prepared for that day when your toolset changes. learn skills that will have use in a post-industrial world. blacksmithing, luthiery, carpentry. also, try and form or find a collective in your area. short of that, come to websites like this where you can meet other people. or laugh at the rags still held before the eyes of the ignorant.

No one is saying it's not a possibility that something like this could happen, or that it is a bad idea to learn some "pre-technology" skillsets. I personally think a catastrophic situation like the one you describe could very well happen...all the more reason to embrace society and help them, not remove yourself from the situation and scorn everyone who doesn't agree that this situation is a good thing.

We're saying we don't want it to happen and anyone who is advocating a massive die off has nothing to do with us. Misanthropes like this should not be praised or considered above everyone else.

[trivas7]

We're saying we don't want it to happen and anyone who is advocating a massive die off has nothing to do with us. Misanthropes like this should not be praised or considered above everyone else.
Either we are on the cusp of peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) or it has already occurred. Feelings re the subject are irrelevant and the consequences to civilization as we know it cannot be wished away. There is more than a little bit of a disconnect between an exponential money system that enforces a creed of constant growth and living on a spherical planet.

[Plagueround]

Either we are on the cusp of peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) or it has already occurred. Feelings re the subject are irrelevant and the consequences to civilization as we know it cannot be wished away. There is more than a little bit of a disconnect between an exponential money system that enforces a creed of constant growth and living on a spherical planet.

Ok. So say peak oil (a scenario I'm quite aware of) causes a mass die off of the planet's population. Is this a good thing and a chance to sweep away other technological gains and return to primitive society, or is this an unfortunate and tragic situation we can learn from when recreating society and hoping to reclaim or retain the beneficial achievements of modern science and industry? The notion that the devastation we face is a positive thing is the opposing ideology, which is why I place emphasis on the word advocating.

[534634634265]

honestly, i want the end of the world(peak oil) to be a relatively harmless event that simply drops us out of our current technological levels. i want the good to sustain, but its clear that not all great tech is gonna survive this ending. its more realistic to me that we end up around early industrial and heavily agrarian, maybe even city-states, since many cities are going to be incapable of sustaining themselves.

[pusher robot]

Peak oil is not going to result in a massive contraction of population because the decline in oil production will be gradual. Furthermore, we have other energy sources to bring online as that happens. Energy may cost a little more - maybe - so there may be some cutting back at the margins of energy expenditures. Civilization will roll on as it always has though.

[534634634265]

Civilization will roll on as it always has though.
i think that belief shows a scary level of acceptance of the false status quo. feudal serfs proabably said the same thing when the king died. slaves in the fields probably said something like that when they got sold to another master. "we just keep doing what we're doing, its beyond our control."

fuck that shit. i don't want people to suffer unnecessarily, but i don't forsee the collapse of the oil economy as some seamless shift to a better world. unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people are going to die due to the global economic collapse. whether they die as a result of resource wars or starvation and disease, they still will die.

[trivas7]

Peak oil is not going to result in a massive contraction of population because the decline in oil production will be gradual.
Furthermore, we have other energy sources to bring online as that happens. Energy may cost a little more - maybe - so there may be some cutting back at the margins of energy expenditures. Civilization will roll on as it always has though.
While peak oil is not synonymous w/ running out of oil, peak oil is the description of an extremely well characterized physical process. At the moment of peak half the oil still remains. At the halfway mark, where previously oil gushed under pressure at first, the back half usually has to get pumped out of the ground at higher cost. Where every barrel of oil was cheaper to extract on the way up, the reverse is true on the way down. Each barrel becomes more costly in terms of time, money and energy to extract. Eventually it cost more money to extract a barrel of oil than it is worth and that's when an oil well is abandoned.

Whether or not we are at peak oil is academic b/c the economic dislocations will begin as soon as there is a discrepancy bt supply and demand. Even now production is declining even as supply is decreasing worldwide. The day world demand outstrips world supply will result in massive price hikes and food shortages. Food production and distribution account for 2/3 of our domestic oil production. This is one reason a cessation of oil imports will be disruptive (The US imports oil the equivalent in energy of 750 nuclear power plants). Once the perception of shortage takes hold national hording of food will commence. IOW, it's reasonable to assume that these events will happen rapidly and overnight. Oil exports are being squeezed exponentially in two directions, by rising demand and declining production.

And how easily can we replace the role of oil in our style of a consumer-led, growth based economy? The amount of work oil performs for you is worth the equivalent of having hundreds of slaves. With the exception of biofuels, all renewable energy resources provide either heat or electricity, meaning that even if we replace all the oil used for heat and electricity with renewables, we would not have touched the use of oil for industrial and transportation purposes, which account for more that 90 per cent of oil usage.

Oil is of finite supply but of unlimited importance to our current way of life. Transitioning from one fuel source to another is a devilishly expensive proposition posing enormous challenges in terms of cost, scale and time. Our species transitioned from wood to coal b/c coal was a better fuel source and we transitioned over several decades from coal to oil for the same reason. And nobody has been able to advance any candidate as our next source of energy.

[534634634265]

thats because there is no real world alternative for oil. we've gotten so far out on a limb with oil, and every other limb is too weak to support our bloated body. eventually we'll get so far out on a limb with oil that it snaps. then you'll see every ostrich plunge their head into the sands of alternative energy, even as the world collapses around them. i especially get a kick out of the technocrats. honesty, how are you even fooling yourself into believing that claptrap? if we started right now preparing for the end of oil, we'd still crash and burn. nothing, nothing, NOTHING is going to save us. industry is based on oil, transport is based on oil, everything is based on OIL. i feel like the guy with the "the end times are upon us" sign.

[pusher robot]

i think that belief shows a scary level of acceptance of the false status quo. feudal serfs proabably said the same thing when the king died. slaves in the fields probably said something like that when they got sold to another master. "we just keep doing what we're doing, its beyond our control."

I'm NOT saying things will stay the same. Things WILL change. But humans have been adapting, improvising, and overcoming for some 10,000 years now. I'm supposed to believe that suddenly we won't?



While peak oil is not synonymous w/ running out of oil, peak oil is the description of an extremely well characterized physical process. At the moment of peak half the oil still remains. At the halfway mark, where previously oil gushed under pressure at first, the back half usually has to get pumped out of the ground at higher cost. Where every barrel of oil was cheaper to extract on the way up, the reverse is true on the way down. Each barrel becomes more costly in terms of time, money and energy to extract. Eventually it cost more money to extract a barrel of oil than it is worth and that's when an oil well is abandoned.


No, most wells require pumping long before they are half-way depleted. But you're mostly right, oil doesn't "run out," it just becomes more and more expensive to extract. Of course, as it becomes more scarce, "what it is worth" becomes a higher and higher value, leading previously abandoned wells to become once again profitable but also making alternatives competitive as well.



Whether or not we are at peak oil is academic b/c the economic dislocations will begin as soon as there is a discrepancy bt supply and demand.


There is never a discrepency between supply and demand so long as the price is allowed to adjust. That's economics 101.



The day world demand outstrips world supply will result in massive price hikes and food shortages.


Demand at price=0 oustripped supply the day oil was discovered, and it has ever since. Actual demand at price=X adjusts based on X. It's nonsensical to suppose that there's a single fixed demand and a single fixed supply and that one day they'll meet. That's not how commodities work at all.



Food production and distribution account for 2/3 of our domestic oil production. This is one reason a cessation of oil imports will be disruptive (The US imports oil the equivalent in energy of 750 nuclear power plants). Once the perception of shortage takes hold national hording of food will commence. IOW, it's reasonable to assume that these events will happen rapidly and overnight.


No, it really isn't. Imports won't simply "cease," they will become increasingly more expensive over time. As the oil imports become more expensive, the subsidiary products become more expensive. Some, like food, might still be worthwhile expenditures of petroluem. Others, like plastic action figures, might not, leading to a corresponding decrease in consumption. This will happen over time, not over night. As it gets more expensive, it's used for fewer things.


And how easily can we replace the role of oil in our style of a consumer-led, growth based economy? The amount of work oil performs for you is worth the equivalent of having hundreds of slaves. With the exception of biofuels, all renewable energy resources provide either heat or electricity, meaning that even if we replace all the oil used for heat and electricity with renewables, we would not have touched the use of oil for industrial and transportation purposes, which account for more that 90 per cent of oil usage.

It's not as hard as you might think. Oil is only used for things transportation because it's convenient and still cheaper than the alternatives. But it's silly to think there are no alternatives. Almost 100 years ago we had a fully electric railroad almost halfway across the United States. It was abandoned because diesel turned out to be cheaper. But we could build it again. With sufficient heat and electricity, we can synthesize replacements for almost everything petroleum gives us.



And nobody has been able to advance any candidate as our next source of energy.


That's just a lie. Solar and wind power are both economical sources of significant gigawatt-hours, and nuclear power is more than capable of providing.



if we started right now preparing for the end of oil, we'd still crash and burn. nothing, nothing, NOTHING is going to save us. industry is based on oil, transport is based on oil, everything is based on OIL. i feel like the guy with the "the end times are upon us" sign.


That's because you are that guy. What you are saying is like claiming that since we use email for everything nowadays, then without email, society would collapse because nobody could communicate! No. We use email - or oil - because it is marginally cheaper and more convenient that the alternatives. Without it, we might not be as efficient and productive, but we would manage just fine, and likely some other candidate would come along to make it unnecessary anyways.

[trivas7]

It's not as hard as you might think. Oil is only used for things transportation because it's convenient and still cheaper than the alternatives. But it's silly to think there are no alternatives. Almost 100 years ago we had a fully electric railroad almost halfway across the United States. It was abandoned because diesel turned out to be cheaper. But we could build it again. With sufficient heat and electricity, we can synthesize replacements for almost everything petroleum gives us.

Nonsense. If you think wind (or any other renewable) can substitute as a source of energy for oil you're dreaming.

[pusher robot]

Nonsense. If you think wind (or any other renewable) can substitute as a source of energy for oil you're dreaming.

Not by itself, of course not. But there's no reason it couldn't play a sizable role, much bigger than it does now.

[Mindtoaster]

Nonsense. If you think wind (or any other renewable) can substitute as a source of energy for oil you're dreaming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxXLW69rFgc

[RGacky3]

But we are a part of nature, so we should get back in place again, back in the foodchain, back in line as we were we nature created us.

MAAYYYBBEEE, us screwing nature over is also part of nature.

Also I don't want to be part of the food chain. How is that positive.

Also is'nt it natural to want to survive and live confortably? YES.


Break down civilization, and go back to nature!

We are in Nature, civilization is natural for humans.

[Oneironaut]

thats because there is no real world alternative for oil.

A simply google search for alternative energy would open your eyes up to a world of possibilities.