Anarcho-primitivism

[Andrew Brunelle]

I write here today to explain a way of living that would be beneficial to all life forms on the planet. It would allow us to live in balance and in small autonomous tribes of no more than 150 people. We would survive by hunting and gathering and our existence would be mostly play and slacking off. It is the way that every other animal in the whole world lives and the only reason we broke off was the advent of agriculture. The consequences of this agriculture is way too much to put in a forum post, but it's caused the greatest mass extinction of biological life and the disappearance of diversity in the world.

Anarcho-primitivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a link for some more information. It seems only natural that we should start progressing back to this way of living because it is not only sustainable, but far more satisfying than the insulated world we have today.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[vMike]

Evolution can only go one way.

[Inthon]

I prefer sleeping in my comfy bed, eating delicious varieties of foods from the grocery store, being warm in winter and cool in summer and having sex with my clean significant other.

Sorry, not interested in joining any tribes!

[joecooool]

Originally Posted by Inthon

I prefer sleeping in my comfy bed, eating delicious varieties of foods from the grocery store, being warm in winter and cool in summer and having sex with my clean significant other.

Sorry, not interested in joining any tribes!

well modern society has tons of bad points that go along with it. the trick is to try and get as much good as possible while avoiding all the bad.

some of the bad being: organized religion, modern medicines we are brainwashed into taking, pollution, jobs working with machines all day, crime. etc...

modern society, like life on earth, was not designed, it simply emerged from lots of cumulative small steps. and so it would go against the default to have blocked 'progress'. we need evidence that it is more bad then good overall to go against the default. we will have that evidence in the future if it all crashes and burns.

or maybe our technology will take us to the stars and make us gods.

[aphorist]

Interesting, the way this could work is if you did get a bunch of idealized people together and started. There are already many groupings of people across america who do something of the sort, although they are based in agriculture. These groups are green, they create all electricity on site, they farm the land for a few hours in the day and relax and play music for the rest of the time.

The problem is that they still need modern doctors if they break a limb, they still need mills to give them materials to build with, they still use machines to till the land (run off of vegi oil). So there is still some dependance. I think we'll see a lot more of these types sprouting up as the economy further declines. There's already a tent city in sacramento gaining hundreds by the day. Grapes of Wrath anyone?

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by vMike

Evolution can only go one way.

No it doesn't. We could also Darwin ourselves out of existence, or at least relevance.

[Angela]

You're gonna have to give up your computer, Andrew. Are you ready to do that?

[vMike]

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

No it doesn't. We could also Darwin ourselves out of existence, or at least relevance.

Yeah, but that wouldn't be evolution then.. more like devolution, or rather you'd be among the species that failed to follow the evolution path. That happened to many ancient civilizations who preferred to stick to the old ways - which is the reason we rarely hear about them.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by aphorist

Interesting, the way this could work is if you did get a bunch of idealized people together and started. There are already many groupings of people across america who do something of the sort, although they are based in agriculture. These groups are green, they create all electricity on site, they farm the land for a few hours in the day and relax and play music for the rest of the time.

The problem is that they still need modern doctors if they break a limb, they still need mills to give them materials to build with, they still use machines to till the land (run off of vegi oil). So there is still some dependance. I think we'll see a lot more of these types sprouting up as the economy further declines.

There are also the Amish and Mennonite communities who do build and raise just about everything that their communities require. They have their own doctors, midwives, sawmills, etc. What they can't provide for themselves, they trade with their neighbors for. Now, they also work from dawn to dusk, and don't sit about smoking weed and playing music all night long. They are also peaceniks, and tend to stick to their principles, so there is no telling if they will be able to survive if 'English' society begins to collapse. Their beliefs may not even allow them to barter food for defense, even if their lives were threatened.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by vMike

Yeah, but that wouldn't be evolution then.. more like devolution, or rather you'd be among the species that failed to follow the evolution path. That happened to many ancient civilizations who preferred to stick to the old ways - which is the reason we rarely hear about them.

You are right. Western society needs to find a better way of doing things, or we are going to wind up like the Incas or Minoan Crete.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

You are right. Western society needs to find a better way of doing things, or we are going to wind up like the Incas or Minoan Crete.

Even if we do find a better way of doing things, we'll still end up like the Incas or Minoan Crete.

[Infinite Knowledge]

Yesterday a fiber optics cable was cut unknowingly by a construction comp. near by my home. The entire neighborhood's cable, Internet, and telephone service was completely shut off for 24 hours - including my own.

I was literally going nuts without these 3 technologies.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

You are right. Western society needs to find a better way of doing things, or we are going to wind up like the Incas or Minoan Crete.

Only if you choose not to go along with the progress like the Op suggests.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by vMike

Only if you choose not to go along with the progress like the Op suggests.

As others in this thread have stated, in order for this to work, everybody would have to do it, voluntarily. That is not going to happen. Also, with the current population, there is not enough habitable wilderness for everybody to thrive in a hunter-gatherer paradise. Just finding potable water is going to be an extreme challenge for 99.9 percent of the people who try this. Dysentery ain't fun...

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

The consequences of this agriculture is way too much to put in a forum post, but it's caused the greatest mass extinction of biological life and the disappearance of diversity in the world.

Some would say that the advent of photosynthesis was the cause of the greatest and most desctructive extinction and loss of biological diversity ever witness by our planet.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I think that we really have a way too human-centered view of the world. Most people will disagree with some of the points I made in my original poost and that's fine because I see that from where you are coming from, you are right. But we lived off the Earth instead of dominating it for what I understand was 3 million years. You can argue the exact amount of years, but the truth is that the Earth was a paradise for millions of years with humans in it and now it's become a vast wasteland of pavement and strip malls. Even comedian George Carlin saw this in one of his bits. I can't find the link, but he said something to the extent of, "Only a nation of non-enlightened half-wits could turn this beautiful country into what it is today, one big ****ing shopping mall." We don't have to live like any past civilization because it will just lead back here again. We need to live like pre-historic people, hunting and gathering, not becoming part of this domination culture all over again. I doubt it is ever going to happen on a massive scale simply because the majority of people would rather take the path of least resistance and keep their televisions and running water, and computers, which in turn lead to the exploitation of people you'll never meet. Even the supermarket is filled with exploitation, not just by the workers, but the people thousands of miles away that picked your food in terrible toxic conditions due to the pesticides and herbicides. Our planet is becoming a toxic waste dump because of our vision of progress. Our species is in danger of eventually being phased out if we do not get back into balance and the Earth would be justified in doing so.

That's all I have to say about this for today.

[Andrew Gubb]

existence would be mostly play and slacking off

I don't think people would want to slack off as much if they didn't have the phantom of captalist bosses or teachers standing behind them with a whip. Slacking off is a kind of rebellion.

I think the main reason we don't live like this nowadays, at least speaking for the light side of society, is because we want to enjoy deeper, more fulfilling lives than simple survival. We want to explore science, music, philosophy, magick, art, spirituality, relationships and all of that. We want to live comfortably and powerfully.

Social advancement is not the same as disharmony with nature - they've just gone together most of the time. You get light magick and dark magick, and you get light technology and dark technology. In both magick and technology we have to face the reality that we are aspects of God and our nature is to actively co-create the universe we live in.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I don't think people would want to slack off as much if they didn't have the phantom of captalist bosses or teachers standing behind them with a whip. Slacking off is a kind of rebellion.

I think the main reason we don't live like this nowadays, at least speaking for the light side of society, is because we want to enjoy deeper, more fulfilling lives than simple survival. We want to explore science, music, philosophy, magick, art, spirituality, relationships and all of that. We want to live comfortably and powerfully.

Social advancement is not the same as disharmony with nature - they've just gone together most of the time. You get light magick and dark magick, and you get light technology and dark technology. In both magick and technology we have to face the reality that we are aspects of God and our nature is to actively co-create the universe we live in.

I was with you, right up till that point.

[Fullcrum]

I believe the very things you seek to achieve, Andrew Brunelle, can be achieved while keeping most of our technological advancements alive. Many of our social constructs would die; it is these we should focus on in order to manifest this greater order.

As the consciousness of more people are awakened, or the new consciousness gains serious monetary support (for its spreading), this change will happen. More people will realize the futility of many of their actions, their careers, their thoughts and the pain all of these are causing.

It would be difficult if not impossible to organize a large group of people towards the creation of something collectively valuable in an anarcho-primitive society.

Organizing large groups of people for a shared cause, though leading to many bad things, is required for many of the good things we have today.

I believe our most precious asset today is the widespread distribution of information that allows people to grow and achieve their full potential.

Your proposed society lacks but one quality, potential, and that is what makes all the difference.

[Eric Revelin]

Going backward won't fix our problems. We are unique among the creatures of earth in that we can take conscious control of our evolution. Forsaking our potential would be a travesty.

Anarcho-primitivism would not change the state of the human heart. At most it would stunt our growth and ensure more exploitation occurs. When survival becomes more difficult people are easier to scare and thus manipulate. There is no paradise to be found in the stone age. The only way out of our current situation is to move forward.

[IceWolf]

Agriculture allowed a large increase in population density. As the linked article said, "Both critics and proponents of anarcho-primitivism generally agree that if everyone lived as a hunter-gatherer, the earth would be able to support far fewer people than today's population of over 6.5 billion."

If we only reduced the population to hunter-gatherer-appropriate levels, while keeping civilization and technology, this would by itself solve the major human-caused environmental problems (except for the irreversible damage of course).

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

But we lived off the Earth instead of dominating it for what I understand was 3 million years. You can argue the exact amount of years, but the truth is that the Earth was a paradise for millions of years with humans in it and now it's become a vast wasteland of pavement and strip malls.

See, I disagree. I like our current world. I enjoy the conveniences of air conditioning, an occasional cup of coffee, conversations with friends on the other side of the world. It is nice not having to make my own clothes or gather my own food. There is something rather nice about having proper medical care when I am ill, and there is something truly wonderful about still having friends around who would be gone if not for modern medical advances.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a guy who has "hike the Appalachian Trail" on his bucket list... but I enjoy neon and concrete, electronic music and movies, comfortable and stylish clothes with new fashions, and discussing topics with insightful, intelligent, and caring folks from all around the world. This is a fantastic world with wonderful people in it (my thanks to everybody here for being wonderful people in it). We need balance between ourselves and our environment, but do we have to cast off the achievements of the modern world to achieve that balance?

You see a wasteland, I see little pieces of paradise.

[schola]

I don't think going back that far would be a good idea. Part of what makes us human is asking Big Questions. Ancient people couldn't ask Big Questions because they were constantly preoccupied with surviving.

Getting rid of agriculture is a bit extreme. Many civilizations lived in harmony with nature for hundreds or thousands of years and still farmed the land.

I wouldn't mind seeing a movement back to the land though. It's a lifestyle I'm investigating right now.

[bluedragon]

The only motivation for regressing to that kind of society and staying that way could be the desire for peace and well-being of the next generations.
When people will be compassionate enough to be willing to make that kind of sacrifice, don't you think they'll also be ready to use their technology safely without harming others anymore, instead of renouncing it?

[Brutha]

The only motivation for regressing to that kind of society and staying that way could be the desire for peace and well-being of the next generations.

Hunter gathers aren't peaceful. Those tribes often attack neighboring tribes.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Hunter gathers aren't peaceful. Those tribes often attack neighboring tribes.

True. However, those were usually just border raids over cattle, women, food and water. It wasn't until people became 'civilized' that we began fighting over ideologies and other intangibles.

[Brutha]

True. However, those were usually just border raids over cattle, women, food and water. It wasn't until people became 'civilized' that we began fighting over ideologies and other intangibles.

I don't see why border raids where one kills all the man and afterwards rapes the woman are better than wars for the modern reasons.

I also consider neither WWI nor WWII a war over ideology but wars over power and land or even wars without real reasons because complex systems don't reasons to act that you can explain in a few paragraphs.

[Indiana]

Without agriculture we wouldn't be able to sustain the earth's current population by hunting and gathering.

The first thing to happen is that the weakest would become prey.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Without agriculture we wouldn't be able to sustain the earth's current population by hunting and gathering.

The first thing to happen is that the weakest would become prey.

Sure, some people would die, billions perhaps. But it is an inevitability. Is it better to get it over with now or for us to have a massive crash in the near future? This will be a change, sustained through many generations, that will eventually get us down to a sustainable population as well.

The weakest would have been selected out in a hunter-gatherer way of life and would have died well before they reached adulthood. But it's not really viewed as a bad thing, but a good thing. People often fetishize death when it is simply a normal friendly part of living. We all die. It's just a matter of when. I just think a highly conscious human race would take steps today to help reduce population and eventually make our way back to hunting and gathering.

However, I feel that it will take a very long time for this ever to happen. There will have to be a major event that shows us how this civilization will not endure forever and will prompt us to try living the natural way. But to each their own. Many people like the society we live in and I can't expect everyone to agree with me or the philosophy of anarcho-primitivism. It's a personal choice and I'm no better or worse for identifiying with this way of life. It just makes sense to me and to a small subset of the population. Don't worry, though. I'm not the next Unabomber. We will make the transition when we are ready as a species.

[Plato]

Are you a fan of Fight Club? I think Tyler Durden is probably the most famous anrcho-primitivist in popular culture.

Personally I don't think moving backwards is the solution. Teaching the pleasure and virtue of "oneness" is a higher goal, and is far more actionable... unless you want to blow up city buildings, destroying the records of major credit card companies and bring us back to ground zero.