The natural lifestyle in all walks of life.

85 posts / 0 new
Last post
Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 5 2016 01:46
The natural lifestyle in all walks of life.

I feel alienated and left out of the political process.

I'm a strong believer in social ecology and deep ecology. I guess I'm an anarchoprimitivist. But I am not against using computers or anything like that. I would only claim that in a perfect paleolithic environment, they wouldn't offer us any benefit. And also for things like guns, humans that only had stones would be far less likely to kill each other. I think natural ways and methods tend to be better, because humans are evolved for them. Basically I think civilization was all a terrible mistake. I think lots of people here might agree on lots of the main issues, it's becoming uncomfortably obvious that ecologists have been right about the way the world is headed.

I've read John Zerzan books and I learned some things from them. However I found him long-winded and I didn't always agree with what he was saying. He refers to philosophers and others I've not familiar with and talks in a vague way sometimes. I used to listen to his podcast, however he plays music on it, has this woman on it who's some sort of artist. I stopped listening after a while.

I don't like Derrick Jensen at all, going off on bizarre tangents. And a lot of such writing is just boring. I especially don't like heavy SJW and pushing of "gender neutrality". George Monbiot is certainly up my street and I have a few of his books. However to be honest I never got through most of them, because they're long-winded and lots of technical or difficult or just boring material. I don't have the ability to read through books in a day comfortably. I also have a bad memory. But there are so many people, and so much literature, and what are they really doing? I want a forum I can go and post and discuss and learn, that's how my brain works. These are my excuses for being so devoted to it for years and yet not having great knowledge of it. I feel alienated from others.

I've been a member of natural eating forums, science forums, permaculture forums and all have various uses. However with all of these groups it appears to be trying to produce a natural lifestyle for the individual. It's like constantly battling at changing your own circumstances and adapting to make your own life more natural, not tackling the root causes of the issues.

So guys, what do we do?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 5 2016 03:10

Damn, I thought we had our first libcom nudist!

Anyway, primal, there's a deep, deep critique of (indeed, an antipathy towards) primitivism on these forums. You can do a quick search for primitivism to see why. That said, folks will be willing to discuss with you, but you should probably be prepared for a less-than-receptive audience.

Might be good to check out the intro guides to get a bit better idea where most of the posters are coming from: http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Jan 5 2016 17:22

Primal, although the comments by Chilly Sauce make a good summation of the main contributors to these forums, the antipathy towards 'primitivism' are not universal. My personal grievances are with capital and not with any particular school of thought.

Jschul05
Offline
Joined: 28-06-14
Jan 5 2016 18:20

Primal, while JMB above makes great points, I also agree with you that primitivism is a very thought-provoking set of ideas.

David Graeber comments on anarcho-primitivism in direct action I think. Whatever we think of DG, he says something interesting. He suggests that we may not want to take anarcho-primitivism totally seriously: that it is a set of ideas that, at least in some versions (he points to Zerzan), are designed to challenge typical ways of thinking. In other words, it's designed to radically call into question how society and even anarchists relate to And see technology, and therefore isn't necessarily a doctrine or dogma to be embraced for itself. (It has negative or critical value rather than positive or dogmatic value.)

I bring this up because (a) it's an engagement with anarcho-primitivism you might consider.

I also bring it up (b) because I'm wondering what you and others think of this interpretation. Must we take Zerzan and others as serious? Or could we instead say that at least some of them are not necessarily being serious but rather just raising a critical set of ideas to challenge prevailing common sense about technology?

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 6 2016 00:01
Jschul05 wrote:

I also bring it up (b) because I'm wondering what you and others think of this interpretation. Must we take Zerzan and others as serious? Or could we instead say that at least some of them are not necessarily being serious but rather just raising a critical set of ideas to challenge prevailing common sense about technology?

Said earnestly - no, they really are just that batshit.

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 00:04
boozemonarchy wrote:
Jschul05 wrote:

I also bring it up (b) because I'm wondering what you and others think of this interpretation. Must we take Zerzan and others as serious? Or could we instead say that at least some of them are not necessarily being serious but rather just raising a critical set of ideas to challenge prevailing common sense about technology?

Said earnestly - no, they really are just that batshit.

Okay, what are your difficulties with anarchoprimitivism?

Keep in mind I didn't say with conviction I am an anarchoprimitivist, I stated I guess I am one and that I am not for the reduction of things like computers in today's society.

Jschul05
Offline
Joined: 28-06-14
Jan 6 2016 01:44

Can someone direct me to some of the arguments about, and against, anarcho-primitivism on Libcom?

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 6 2016 02:28
Jschul05 wrote:
Can someone direct me to some of the arguments about, and against, anarcho-primitivism on Libcom?

http://libcom.org/search/node/primitivism

Try reading the first article that comes up in that search.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2016 03:48

This is a good one, too:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

Anyway, in the early days of libcom, the site was there as a sort of pole of class struggle anarchism. If you read the early forums, they're in large part full of very funny, often bad-tempered, arguments against a creeping lifestylism and primitivism into the UK anarchist scene.

Quote:
My personal grievances are with capital

The thing is, primmos' grievances aren't with capital. They're with civilization or industrialization or technology or, for Zerzan, spoken f*cking language.

At best, primitivists have a grievance with capital in as much as they see capitalism as an outgrowth of those other things. In any case, primitivism has not a damn thing to do with anarchism if we understand anarchism as the anti-state wing of the socialist movement.

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Jan 6 2016 10:12

Jschul05:

Quote:
...it's [primitivism] designed to radically call into question how society and even anarchists relate to And see technology, and therefore isn't necessarily a doctrine or dogma to be embraced for itself. (It has negative or critical value rather than positive or dogmatic value.)

I think you make a very good point and make it much more lucidly than I ever hope to.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 6 2016 13:00
Jschul05 wrote:

Okay, what are your difficulties with anarchoprimitivism?

Mostly covered in the readings posted by Agent and Chilli. Also, this discussion has panned out ad-infinitum on these forums already. Reviewing those threads - and then posting your questions to them - rather than this one - is a better choice.

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Jan 6 2016 13:28

I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

So, back to this thread. Could any of the anti-anarcho-primitivists please tell me whether the concept of primitive communism is one that they accept? For the sake of good manners (don't laugh!) I should tell you that it is a reality that I accept.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 6 2016 13:59
James MacBryde wrote:
I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

A run in with the red and black penguin while trying to browse a user account is not an acceptable reason to give up reviewing the extensive discussions on primitivism that already exist on these forums.

Type 'primitivism' into the search function box; press the 'search' button. This will bring up both library and forum resources. Library resources have a comment section that essentially acts as a forum. Collectively, there are literally thousands of comments about this topic spread out over many forum OPs and library pieces. Many of the library pieces are in fact direct responses to your query about why communists think a-p is bullshit. Additionally, many of the library comments and forum posts discuss precisely this topic.

Finally, if your last post was a troll attempt, I must tip my hat. I absolutely love 'Ken M' style trolling and I think you really nailed it - if in fact it was your intention.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2016 14:24
Quote:
I have referred to the link provided by Chili Sauce and gone straight to the comments. After reading the first comment, I clicked on the link to the commentator's account but instead I wound up on a picture of a red and black penguin. I don't know why.

One, so that usually happens if someone's account has been closed down.

Two, what in the world does it have to do with this discussion and why would it inhibit you from reading the article?!?

Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765
EDITED to say this^^^ is wrong.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 6 2016 14:41
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jan 6 2016 15:10

Edited out for derailing.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 6 2016 16:11
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

me too.
i love the penguin.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2016 16:25
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Three, you don't even get the red penguin! - http://libcom.org/user/4765

i get the penguin to, are you a moderator?

Ah, I do have basic mod privileges.

Sorry James, my mistake!

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 18:01
Chilli Sauce wrote:
This is a good one, too:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

I have read some of it and am not too happy about it.

In my view this article is rubbish. Did you read it yourself, before posting it and calling it "a good article" in such a serious-sounding way? Did you honestly post it in good faith?

I would not have any faith in this author's reasoning ability or opinion on anything.

Quote:
On web sites like primitivism.com, primitivists tell us how the Internet should not exist. In printed magazines like Green Anarchy, they condemn printing presses and typesetting technology. And in events like the Green Anarchy Tour of 2001, they complain of the roads that enable them to travel, the electricity that powers the instruments of their tour's musical acts, and of the existence of the facilities that host their events. Primitivists enjoin their audience to live like early hominids, though they certainly don't lead by example.

The theory is that in an ideal world, none of those things would be necessary or helpful. All of those words are important. In the modern world, many of those things may be necessary and/or helpful.

The statement "The first: how can such ideas be seriously entertained by anyone?" taken at face value admits a clear lack of understanding of primitivists and shows the author does not know what he/she is talking about.

I find a lot of the language and insults really inappropriate and show a grievous lack of understanding by the author in not only of the theory but also how to construct a valid appraisal of something.

A terrible, terrible article overall, really a dreadful effort.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jan 6 2016 18:18
Primal wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
This is a good one, too:

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

I have read some of it and am not too happy about it.

In my view this article is rubbish. Did you read it yourself, before posting it and calling it "a good article" in such a serious-sounding way? Did you honestly post it in good faith?

I would not have any faith in this author's reasoning ability or opinion on anything.

Quote:
On web sites like primitivism.com, primitivists tell us how the Internet should not exist. In printed magazines like Green Anarchy, they condemn printing presses and typesetting technology. And in events like the Green Anarchy Tour of 2001, they complain of the roads that enable them to travel, the electricity that powers the instruments of their tour's musical acts, and of the existence of the facilities that host their events. Primitivists enjoin their audience to live like early hominids, though they certainly don't lead by example.

The theory is that in an ideal world, none of those things would be necessary or helpful. All of those words are important. In the modern world, many of those things may be necessary and/or helpful.

The statement "The first: how can such ideas be seriously entertained by anyone?" taken at face value admits a clear lack of understanding of primitivists and shows the author does not know what he/she is talking about.

I find a lot of the language and insults really inappropriate and show a grievous lack of understanding by the author in not only of the theory but also how to construct a valid appraisal of something.

A terrible, terrible article overall, really a dreadful effort.

So you didn't like it then?

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jan 6 2016 18:21
Primal wrote:
But I am not against using computers or anything like that. I would only claim that in a perfect paleolithic environment, they wouldn't offer us any benefit. And also for things like guns, humans that only had stones would be far less likely to kill each other. I think natural ways and methods tend to be better, because humans are evolved for them. Basically I think civilization was all a terrible mistake. I think lots of people here might agree on lots of the main issues, it's becoming uncomfortably obvious that ecologists have been right about the way the world is headed.

changes to the human genome have been happening since the paloelithic, so there is no basis that modern humans would be better suited to that environment. also, human genetics are variable in regards to their environment, becuase of activation due to epigenentics. while you decry sjw's and "gender neutrality", high infant mortality and natal mortality have been constants of human society till recently in certain social-economic conditions

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jan 6 2016 18:30

There's a bunch of stuff here but you won't like the comments.

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism#new

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 19:02
gram negative wrote:
Primal wrote:
But I am not against using computers or anything like that. I would only claim that in a perfect paleolithic environment, they wouldn't offer us any benefit. And also for things like guns, humans that only had stones would be far less likely to kill each other. I think natural ways and methods tend to be better, because humans are evolved for them. Basically I think civilization was all a terrible mistake. I think lots of people here might agree on lots of the main issues, it's becoming uncomfortably obvious that ecologists have been right about the way the world is headed.

changes to the human genome have been happening since the paloelithic, so there is no basis that modern humans would be better suited to that environment.

This doesn't follow. The changes have been absolutely negligible.

gram negative wrote:
also, human genetics are variable in regards to their environment, becuase of activation due to epigenentics. while you decry sjw's and "gender neutrality", high infant mortality and natal mortality have been constants of human society till recently in certain social-economic conditions

Infant mortality and natal mortality of our ancient ancestors are unrecorded. Mortality among closely-related primates living in ideal conditions is the closest we can get to that data.

Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jan 6 2016 20:16
Quote:
This doesn't follow. The changes have been absolutely negligible.

um, that really depends on what you mean by negligible, such as the ability to consume lactose into adulthood which originated ~10000 yrs ago: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

gram negative wrote:
also, human genetics are variable in regards to their environment, becuase of activation due to epigenentics. while you decry sjw's and "gender neutrality", high infant mortality and natal mortality have been constants of human society till recently in certain social-economic conditions

Quote:
Infant mortality and natal mortality of our ancient ancestors are unrecorded. Mortality among closely-related primates living in ideal conditions is the closest we can get to that data.

Much of what is imagined regarding paleolithic human populations by anarcho-primitivists, such as Zerzan's conceptions of the alienating effects of symbolic thought and language, are not recorded, either. I guess you dismiss that as well? Comparison to modern hunter-gatherers says otherwise (with all the caveats that go along with such a comparison): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248406002193

Don't take my critiques of anarcho-primitivism to assume that I am some positivist technocrat; I believe that there is much to criticize about the social effects of technological production and the medical industry; I also work on an urban, organic farm.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 6 2016 20:41
Primal wrote:
Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

that'll be up to the individual facing death to decide. language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory.

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 21:13
gram negative wrote:
Quote:
This doesn't follow. The changes have been absolutely negligible.

um, that really depends on what you mean by negligible, such as the ability to consume lactose into adulthood which originated ~10000 yrs ago: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

Absolutely negligible compared to changes we could see with designer babies and genetic modification.

gram negative wrote:
Much of what is imagined regarding paleolithic human populations by anarcho-primitivists, such as Zerzan's conceptions of the alienating effects of symbolic thought and language, are not recorded, either. I guess you dismiss that as well? Comparison to modern hunter-gatherers says otherwise (with all the caveats that go along with such a comparison): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248406002193

I already stated I am not impressed by the modern hunter-gatherers as a way of obtaining information about the lives of our ancestors.

There is no need to pull up these links of such basic ideas of anthropology, I am quite familiar with all of those articles.

gram negative wrote:
Don't take my critiques of anarcho-primitivism to assume that I am some positivist technocrat; I believe that there is much to criticize about the social effects of technological production and the medical industry; I also work on an urban, organic farm.

Good, I wish you the best of luck.

petey wrote:
Primal wrote:
Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

that'll be up to the individual facing death to decide. language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory.

How do you know the unborn baby 'wants' to live in such circumstances? You're bringing up a lot of assumptions here such as that we always should assume a baby wants intervention to live. Primitively that intuitive reasoning makes a lot of sense, with modern medicine it's getting more and more tenuous. What if for example the baby would have to be hooked up to a machine for the rest of his/her life and would always feel extremely tired? Would you wait until they are 18 and then they would be able to sign a paper saying they don't want to live anymore? With modern technology such human tendencies and instincts to save someone aren't always valid.

"language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory"

No. I am claiming that death is not always the worst thing as a rule and that on an individual basis everyone would eventually agree that they would rather death than to go on. It's a clear observation of human behaviour. "colonize" is a very strange word to use there.

IMO it is a fair point because many people hold the rule that death is the absolute worst thing ever and that we must do anything to avoid it, you yourself were using similar assumptions when you made your point about infant mortality. This mindset is also keeping a lot of old people alive in pain and often ludicrous circumstances.

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jan 6 2016 21:37

So, when Zerzan refers to the Trobiand islanders, or other contemporary hunter-gatherers, this represents something different than when someone critical of anarcho-primitivism refers to the anthropological research? If you want to dismiss anthropology and archaeology, that's your decision, but how could you then make any claim about the conditions of the paleolithic? Is this then a religious belief of yours?

My point is that the supposed anthropological basis for anarcho-primitivism, one of the sole bases for its truth claims, does not hold up, as I have shown with your claim that modern humans would be better suited for the paleolithic. Nowhere did I say that I support designer babies or genetic modfication, you just don't having any meaningful response to what I have presented.

Also, what I find most troubling regarding anarcho-primitivism, is the perspective that you have shown mandating that this lifestyle would be the best for all of humanity; that to me violates the principles of free association and strikes me as authoritarian. If people want to live in an anarcho-primitivist manner in a postrevolutionary society, I have no problem with that - but to decree that for everyone?

Anarcho-primitivism also sidesteps the many ecological issues which would need conscious attention in the immediate future to prevent further catastrophe and encourage flourishing, such as soil remediation and the maintenance of nuclear plants to prevent meltdowns.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 6 2016 21:52
Primal wrote:
petey wrote:
Primal wrote:
Death is not always a bad thing. It's often a lot better than the alternative. We could all reach a point where death is the number one choice. A dependency on medicine and machines for life is not always better.

that'll be up to the individual facing death to decide. language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory.

How do you know the unborn baby 'wants' to live in such circumstances? You're bringing up a lot of assumptions here such as that we always should assume a baby wants intervention to live. Primitively that intuitive reasoning makes a lot of sense, with modern medicine it's getting more and more tenuous. What if for example the baby would have to be hooked up to a machine for the rest of his/her life and would always feel extremely tired? Would you wait until they are 18 and then they would be able to sign a paper saying they don't want to live anymore? With modern technology such human tendencies and instincts to save someone aren't always valid.

this is unanswerably confused and freakishly arrogant.

Quote:
Quote:
"language like "we could all" is an attempt to colonize others' experiences for your own theory"

No. I am claiming that death is not always the worst thing as a rule and that on an individual basis everyone would eventually agree that they would rather death than to go on. It's a clear observation of human behaviour. "colonize" is a very strange word to use there.

you just did it again.

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 22:35
gram negative wrote:
So, when Zerzan refers to the Trobiand islanders, or other contemporary hunter-gatherers, this represents something different than when someone critical of anarcho-primitivism refers to the anthropological research? If you want to dismiss anthropology and archaeology, that's your decision, but how could you then make any claim about the conditions of the paleolithic? Is this then a religious belief of yours?

I am very wary and skeptical of looking at indigenous tribes as any sort of indicators of ancient man. I noted in the opening post there's a lot of Zerzan I don't agree with. I admire and respect him a lot but I don't agree with his summary descriptions of these people as reflecting a lot about the primitive world. I would rather follow the evidence and logic, not any particular person. It would seem very suspicious to find someone who agreed exactly with another person on everything. You will never find me hold up contemporary hunter-gatherers as any sort of ideal - the evidence is looking more like ancient man was more the hunted rather than the hunter as described in Sussman and Hart's Man the Hunted.

gram negative wrote:
My point is that the supposed anthropological basis for anarcho-primitivism, one of the sole bases for its truth claims, does not hold up, as I have shown with your claim that modern humans would be better suited for the paleolithic. Nowhere did I say that I support designer babies or genetic modfication, you just don't having any meaningful response to what I have presented.

I actually was unaware what point you were making there. The development of partial tolerance among some people for one particular allergy of modern life hardly proves that man wouldn't do better in his natural environment. The very fact that the genes of humans of old are being "weeded out" is in my view a troubling development. The reason I brought up those two matters is because I think they could be spell the end of anything even resembling humans with the ambivalence and kneejerk responses most people are treating them with. Our genes are us, they're humanity itself, for good or for bad, to change them to me is disturbing.

gram negative wrote:
Also, what I find most troubling regarding anarcho-primitivism, is the perspective that you have shown mandating that this lifestyle would be the best for all of humanity; that to me violates the principles of free association and strikes me as authoritarian. If people want to live in an anarcho-primitivist manner in a postrevolutionary society, I have no problem with that - but to decree that for everyone?

First of all, anarcho-primitivists aren't allowed to walk where they please, eat what they like and sleep where they like. The modern world prevents them from doing this. The modern world has created hazards and toxins everywhere, walls and appliances to prevent others from doing as they please. Anarcho-primitivists have their freedoms destroyed by the modern world.

Would you trust every person on the planet? Yet technology is in general pushing as much power as possible to every single person. There are laws to prevent them doing anything outrageous, but the main reason that they don't destroy everyone is because it's not possible for them to.

Let's suppose everyone could build a nuclear weapon. Should everyone be allowed to have one? No, because it's a terrible idea. Someone would have a really bad day and abuse it.

Should everyone be allowed release self-replicating DNA or nanobots? No? But that's the sort of thing we're going towards with this continued development of technology.

Freedom to do what you want is an ideology. It's a great rule on an individual basis for everyday life, but when you add in special cases, particularly with modern technology and abilities, it starts to fall apart sometimes.

All of these technologies are coming to the fore and being promoted and advanced faster than ever. Everyone knows regulations and laws don't work.

If there's religious thinking here it's the people thinking that it's all going to end up okay. That there'll always be some intervention somewhere to prevent us all going up in smoke. As Bill Joy wrote in Why the Future doesn't need us, in the modern world there is ZERO reason to think humans are always going to just come out of it all with such immense potential for catastrophe all around and such power in the hands of any individual on the planet.

gram negative wrote:
Anarcho-primitivism also sidesteps the many ecological issues which would need conscious attention in the immediate future to prevent further catastrophe and encourage flourishing, such as soil remediation and the maintenance of nuclear plants to prevent meltdowns.

Perhaps, but solving the root causes and getting to the real power structures is very important wouldn't you say? It's no use putting some patchwork on things and continuing in the same way, as a lot of green advocates seem intent on doing. A conventional green party in government will only make incremental changes. Maybe I should add I am studying ecology at third level as a mature student. So I'm certainly doing my best to be aware of ecological issues.

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Jan 6 2016 23:03
Primal wrote:
I actually was unaware what point you were making there. The development of partial tolerance among some people for one particular allergy of modern life hardly proves that man wouldn't do better in his natural environment. The very fact that the genes of humans of old are being "weeded out" is in my view a troubling development. The reason I brought up those two matters is because I think they could be spell the end of anything even resembling humans with the ambivalence and kneejerk responses most people are treating them with. Our genes are us, they're humanity itself, for good or for bad, to change them to me is disturbing.

What is humanity's natural environment, and what evidence do you have for that claim?

Regarding your paragraphs on technological dangers, what plan does anarcho-primitivism have to deal with these issues? I see a lot of outrage on your part, but little discussion on how to deal with these dangers.

Primal
Offline
Joined: 4-01-16
Jan 6 2016 23:12
gram negative wrote:
Primal wrote:
I actually was unaware what point you were making there. The development of partial tolerance among some people for one particular allergy of modern life hardly proves that man wouldn't do better in his natural environment. The very fact that the genes of humans of old are being "weeded out" is in my view a troubling development. The reason I brought up those two matters is because I think they could be spell the end of anything even resembling humans with the ambivalence and kneejerk responses most people are treating them with. Our genes are us, they're humanity itself, for good or for bad, to change them to me is disturbing.

What is humanity's natural environment, and what evidence do you have for that claim?

It's undisputed as being the sub-Saharan African savanna/jungle. The Out of Africa hypothesis uses DNA evidence and otherwise to show man's migration from Africa about 8,000 years ago. The other theories that aren't in favour also have man emigrating from Africa.

gram negative wrote:
Regarding your paragraphs on technological dangers, what plan does anarcho-primitivism have to deal with these issues? I see a lot of outrage on your part, but little discussion on how to deal with these dangers.

It's hard to say. Cutting off the huge public funding given to dangerous technologies sounds like a good practical start doesn't it?