We should go back with hunter gathering society, our priority is destroying civilization and agriculture tbh.
Literally the single most reactionary position one could possibly take.
They let you post on pig farming forums from Florence ADX, Kaczynski?
Anarcho-primitivism is objectively the worst ideology.
I'd rather live in a totalitarian state with running water and ice cream than live in social equality where the most advanced invention is a bow and arrow.
Besides, technology has largely been a driving force for equality and liberty, not against it. They will grow in tandem in the long run.
Isn't primitivism just an unibomber meme? I don't want to live like a damn troglodyte, 8 doobies to tha face nigga fuCK dat.
Can't a primitivist just go out in the woods and do Primitivetechnology type shit?
That sounds like reactionary mysticism my dude
It's at least as old as Thoreau.
this is truly what should happen. HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS WAS A MISTAKE. But in order to do so would be to embrace the manic ravings of killers and end humans. Humanity was a mistake by nature, NATURE NEEDS TO TRY AGAIN
OVERPOPULATION is the killer in the world today and continues to rise and rise in strength as we see more people adopting this "sanctity" of life thing. My life as well as yours is objectively worthless in the senses of nature and the world. The only thing ascribing meaning to you is you. NATURE NEEDS TO TRY AGAIN
You don't know if tech will be at the same pace with equality and liberty, and if so, how can you say that? Technology is driven by human need and conflict, (ie war, hierarchy, social institution, religion, etc) nature needs to try again without so much need and conflict. This is the best we can hope for
History. The development of farming allowed for food production beyond a subsistence level. This is what enabled the division of labor, with all that that entails. The adoption of the firearm destroyed the noble warrior class.
Prosperity and equality are the long-term fruits of technology, because production is increased and because the capabilities of any individual person becomes more and more dwarfed by the capabilities of our technology.
We would have technological progress even if we had no wars. Though yes, sometimes, wars can drive technology, though that's usually a short-term and limited phenomenon.
Don't try to anthropomorphize the universe. It's indifferent. You're a human, you were never anything else, and you can never be anything else. You should want to maximize human happiness.
I agree with prosperity, yet I feel there is no such distinction with equality in history, could you explain?
I feel as though we all have our own visions of "collective human happiness". I say we cannot achieve this, and so such a generalized concept may not be possible but please prove me wrong
god that's dumb. wow
Tribal warfare has crazy casuality rates. Up to 50% death of the adult male population of all involved parties. For comparison, the WWs don't even scratch the 5%. So better drop the Nobel Savage meme.
Well, as I said before, the firearm is a good example. It was more lethal, and more usable, than the complex and expensive equipment that warrior classes used. There was no need to fit a rifleman for a suit of armor, or raise a horse for him to ride.
The printing press allowed far more people than ever before to put their thoughts into printed words and to distribute those words further afield than ever before. It was a major force for social change. The Catholic Church was very much against the printing press, in fact, because it could spread "dangerous" ideas (i.e., ideas that disagreed with them). This newfound channel of ideas was one of the driving forces behind democracy in Europe.
Even the development of capitalism itself was, at least at one time, a force for social equality. Capitalism took a feudal society in which all power was held by hereditary lords, and forced it into a society in which power was instead held by capital owners. Now, while this soon after became a regressive historical force, it had the function of ending hereditary nobility, and the inevitable social response to this end was to extend power to all citizens, through universal voting rights.
Turning to the future, imagine production a thousand years from now. Between advances in machine learning, self-replication, energy efficiency, and networking, the production of all (or at least most) basic necessities will be fully, or almost-fully, automated. People won't have to work just to survive–instead, they'll spend their time doing what they like doing. And a lot of that activity will probably involve production, too! The idea of "work" as a burden end.
Every individual has their own idiosyncrasies. But it's absolutely fair to say that, in general, most people want the same things, broadly speaking. They want to sate their biological needs (for water, food, sleep, sex, shelter, etc.). They want to develop social bonds, through things like friendship, marriage, children, rivalries, shitposting on imageboards, etc. They want the freedom to pursue their own interests, hobbies, desires, and projects. In other words, they want prosperity and liberty. Even a person who thinks this is untrue wouldn't then willingly submit to being another person's slave, or starving himself to death–and so is unwittingly proving that it is true.
The world is full of problems. Socioeconomic inequality, overpopulation, climate change, waste, war, superstition, prejudice. Given enough time, these can all be overcome. We have actually come a very long way already. There's no reason to think that we can't go any further.
Division of labor reduces individual autonomy.
You can be autonomous in misery or interdependent in plenty.
The division of labor is the only thing that allows anyone to have any occupation besides "subsistence farmer." Every writer, artist, inventor, thinker, or great builder is a product of the division of labor. It has only ever been a good thing.
Anarcho-primitivists are the only true libertarians. To advocate civilization itself along with its corollaries such as agriculture and collectively enforced private property (as opposed to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle) amounts to an initiation of force.
Ancaps aren't welcome here.
Even if a hunter/gatherer society was desirable, it is completely unsustainable with our current population. Implementation would require some type of mass extinction event.
I see, many thanks for the elaboration.
No problem. comr8.
Nothing is sustainable and we already are in the middle of a mass extinction event right now
You can start by not posting.
The problem isn't division, but the standards of that division; there's no reason someone can't be a doctor AND a factory worker, for example, but costs and training to be a doc are patently inflated to serve the capitalist interest; for example of this, look no further than college requirements: you need to take semester-long courses in shit like fine arts and foreign language even if you will never use them in the workforce all so porky can squeeze out more money from you. It's a waste of time for the prole.
I think it's good to have a basis in science, the humanities, the arts, and a foreign language, regardless of your major. It makes you more well-rounded, and it allows you to know just enough that you can start to see the interesting connections between fields of study.
Focusing solely on a useful economic skill should be the domain of trade schools, but those aren't as common as they should be here in Burgerland.
can anyone help me out. I consider myself a communist who cares greatly about environmentalism and (environmental)technocracy, but im definitely not anti-agriculture and care greatly about scientific advancment. Is there a name for this ideology?
Maybe something like this?
stone spear through the ribcage. We dont have metalsmithing so he's not wearing any sort of armor.
thanks user, that's the same thing I found. There's not a lot of info on it but I guess that's what happens when an ideology is so young.
I mostly just don't know what flag to use
Please stop making these threads.
All you fuckos in here advocating for technology like it's the best thing ever with no downsides need to read some fucking Kazcynski.
So here's a question for the thread: how come humans lived for such a long time with little to no technological advancement? I'm talking pre-agriculture, when people all over the planet were hunter-gatherers. Why did it take so long to start developing technology, growing populations, building cities, etc. Agriculture was an important part, what I want to know is why did it take so long to get there?
Most people were too concerned with just surviving to innovate.
If youre still part of this BEAST system, you would think so less of the serpent wisdom given to us by mother nature. If we had common love by recognizing our own divinity none of the behavior humans act out now would exist. We've been programmed to think we're above nature when we can get everything from it, but now it's filtered through a plastic illusion matrix.
You reading this, yes YOU, are a SOLAR ETHERIC BEING who should be eating fruit and sunlight and pooping in the ground to connect back to the divine mother goddess.
What changed though?
We really should
who knows man after all we're all one species!!! (even though recent data shows that whites/asians bred with neanderthals while africans didn't)
Humans left Africa for the first time about 2 million years ago.
Not dying of diarrhea. Not relying on hunting and gathering to hoard enough food to survive winter. And we had massive technological advancements. Fire allowed us to eat meat and also vegetables.
Holy shit you need to look that up dude since obviously you won't believe me when I tell you how fucking dumb you are. Maybe in your defense you don't actually know what the word "human" means lol
Fucking duhgenewate yellows and whites, irrelevant shiting without care for their culture and heritage
*fuck, shitposting foiled by filter
Fucking duhgenewate yellows and whites, miscgenating without care for their unique culture and heritage
now stop shitposting. mods, watch this guy.
also OP has a point and i respect anyone who leaves this shit society. that should pretty much increase his chances of survival for when we launch nukes in the atmosphere to create massive EMPs that take out all electronics globally during WW3.
it makes even more sense if before those videos you watch youtube.com
why would you ever assume anyone here would watch those trashy ccpgrey reddit videos? Are you from /r/socialism? lol
Humans had stronger immune systems previously and much less disease was common in general.
Most humans didn't live far enough north for winters to be a problem.
We already could, fire just made it easier for us to digest.
lmao what a fucking faggot my god
please come back to us when you turn 18 Brian
obviously triggered. mods watch this guy.
No, it was not. We will always lose the arms race with bacteria because we have much longer generations.
No, fire meant we could evolve the other way for grain. We can't eat raw meat now.
Which doesn't address my main point, that humans don't have to scrabble for survival and can innovate.
your trolling is bad, put some effort in it or go to bed.
Why did it become less of a problem?
OK, but why did a transition to agriculture, herding, etc. take so long to happen?
Yeah, but making fire doesn't require special tools. Any normal human can learn how to make fire from scratch.
If you restrict your definition to anatomically modern humans, maybe. Human species have been leaving Africa for a long time. Also, why would someone who presumably cares about muh white purity brag about crossbreeding with neanderthals? How is that not miscegenation?
Because we have better sanitation and medicine.
Because we were scrabbling for food.
Yeah, it does. Take any regular person off the street, put them in the wilderness and they'll have no idea how to make fire. Which is why it's such a big deal.
Culture is much older than our species, hell so is mastery of fire. People had to pass down knowledge of how to hunt and what to gather, they can pass down knowledge of fire as well. And no it does not take special tools to make fire. You can gather the necessary raw materials to do it in the wilderness, I have done it myself. It's just easier to do it with tools. Even if that were the case it doesn't explain why it took so long for humans to develop the "necessary" tools.
We do now motherfucker but I'm talking about the explosion in technological advancement that happened along with agriculture, and asking why it took so long for that to take place.
Yeah, and what I'm asking is why we stopped. Why it took so long to get to that point. It's clearly a much more successful strategy evolutionarily speaking to grow food instead of chasing it.
Irrelevant. Humans had better immune systems and disease was less widespread. Partly because of better immune systems and partly because of far lesser population density along with living conditions far different than unsanitary cities full of domesticated animals.
Certain foods weren't edible, but most were. Humans can still eat raw meat, just that because of our weakened immune systems it's more likely to make us sick along with being less energy dense.
No, it had to do with there being a significant lack of surplus resources for there to be individuals who did nothing except innovate or build shit. Humans survived just fine for thousands of years, and while agriculture allowed cities to be built and division of labor to be created, it severely fucked up human health and livelihood.
It was only a problem after civilization.
I don't know, the best I can think of was that it wasn't necessary to change. I don't know if any anthropologist knows why humans finally decided to turn to agriculture. It might have something to do with the ice age.
Yes, fire is an extremely old technology and is what lead to modern humans in the first place.
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel.
The short version is that agriculture wasn't really "invented." It was developed very slowly over tens of thousands of years, as mobile bands of hunter-gatherers would periodically return to areas where their favorite food plants grew. They would eat these wild plants, then shit out the seeds, favoring their future growth–all inadvertently. This inadvertent artificial selection and density of a population's favorite food plants would eventually spiral into sedentary life and agriculture, but only after these hunter-gatherer groups had also figured out methods to store harvested food for several months (which is its own story).
Even then, agriculture, like writing only arose independently in a few places. The first few groups of hunter-gatherers to stumble into it ended up being the ones to spread it to the rest of the world, either through war (because their food production meant that they could field more soldiers and thus defeat any rival hunter-gatherer groups) or through overpopulation, since the sedentary life of agriculture allowed women to raise more than one child at a time (whereas before they could only raise one or perhaps two at the most, since everyone had to constantly travel by foot).
Didn't mean to sage.
You do not know what a species is.
If you can fuck it and the result is viable offspring, you and whatever you fucked are the same species.
p spooky tbh
BOW TO YOUR NEW MASTER, COMRADES.
False. In fact, the development of agriculture led to humans living in constant contact with large animals for the first time ever. These animals carried many diseases, and in the long run, it led to agricultural populations becoming resistant to those diseases–mostly because everyone who wasn't just died out.
This was one of the critical factors in how Europeans managed to take over the Americas–by (inadvertently, then later deliberately) spreading the diseases that their agricultural ancestors had developed resistances to.
We fucked up when we let an intellectual being decide survival of the fittest was the best code to live by. The beings got to the position to enact this system because their lower self was backing them. Reality is a saturn-venus illusion and textbooks have people looking outside themselves for their salvation. A tribalist society looks bad to people cut off from their imagination (merkabah spaceship). As a solarian you have the power to go out of body and manifest any reality you want (heaven). So on the outside its mudhuts but really on the astral everyones driving bentleys one second and contacting their ancestors the next.
Fam, I appreciate the effort, but nobody's falling for it.
Primitive tribes are the only real proletariats in the world. Everyone else is living in a global labor aristocracy bought by technology and agriculture.
[message transcribed from Smoke signals by AT&T inc]
tell me more…
t. calcified tv watcher
Holy shit look at this creep, he wants to generate children.
Fuck didn't see this thread
Also if you think unabomber was anti technology you didt read even the manifesto since he was clearly pro personal and small group technology
Those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilization.
Sorry, but these genetic differences do not account for a new name-bearing type
uh actually they really werent built by jews/hebrews/isralites it was built by paid workers and the jews never exited in egypt at that time. exodus never happened.
Yes, living in constant contact with these animals made diseases more prominent, as I said. Just because you gain immunity to something does not mean your overall immune system is stronger.
R E A D A B O O K
even kaczynki doesn't say "let go live like hunter-gatherer again folks" stop simplifying shit and stop pretending like the only people that can think straight is you. ffs just read or don't comment on things that you didn't read. simple.
Even if this was true, it wouldn't work.
enjoy never living how humans were designed to live over millions of years of evolution.
civilisation was a mistake, we're still animals
This, a lot of people try to dismiss even the mildest technological skepticism by memeing that all primitivist want caveman society while even the most infamous one (kackzinsky) didn't think that. As I said earlier he supported personal and small group technology
bookchin has good theories without destroying the fucking civilization and agriculture
read more of that comrade
Dark Ages and Primal Ages were very bloody
Anarcho Primitivism is literally just larping cowboys and indians without the cowboys.
Why has your commune not yet killed you for usng a computer to post this?