Anarcho-Primitivism - Imagine a world without industrialization an technology

We wouldn't have overpopulation because there's no medicine, and natural selection also has it's own way of immunization.

We wouldn't have cultural conflicts because disease and climate build a wall between them.

We wouldn't have health problems because food isn't run by cheap, moneyhungry industries.

We wouldn't have an oppressive national government because each village governs itself the way it wants.

Politics wouldn't be an issue because each village would have it's own beliefs and culture.

We wouldn't be lazy and weak because natural selection would kill all the betacucks and undesireables.

We should stop fighting nature, because the more we fight it, the more we fight ourselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

we wouldn't have video games or online pornography


You stupid fuck, communism would have all the positive qualities that primitive communism had except without the constant struggle against nature. Also, how exactly do you propose we transition to an AnPrim society without killing literal billions of people?

Or Cantonese watercolour exchange forums.

yeah but i can play video games without tearing my acl again

How is an-prim not the most reactionary ideology out there? And how does it work within the current mode of production?

They are tho retard.

video games also have negative health effects though

they may be different physically but they are no different mentality. they both invoke the same hormones and general emotions and feelings.

most anprims will tell you that those billions of people will end up killing each other due to overpopulation.

yeah but i can play mapgames with my shitty eyesight till i die. im never gonna play intense sports because i dont want my knee to bend the wrong way

This line is ironic considering that technology is what allowed humanity to stop fighting nature in a literal sense. Life before technology was a constant struggle against nature to survive.

The primitives would get conquered by more advanced societies with better military technology and cease to exist. Its evolution.

our life span will be only forty years anyway. by now you would almost be in retirement

Not what I asked. I don't care if they'd hypothetically end up dying anyways, I asked what a transition to an AnPrim society would entail. Are you going to answer the question or not?

Not that user, but read this:

Basically climate change will cause states to withdraw from certain areas, allowing for anarchist societies to form (maybe).

am I supposed to feed you some idealist trash about how the transition will somehow happen peacefully? I thought this was Holla Forums ffs

Then Anarcho-Primitivist society would be inevitable and advocating for AnPrimism is pointless. The energy would be better spent on ecological restoration, which ironically requires technology to do.

Honestly I just want you to answer the question user. Would a transition to an AnPrim society be peaceful or not? If not how many people do you think would have to die?

I don't clutch my pearls at the thought of violence, but abandoning agriculture would necessitate the deaths of all but a few million people. Of course, they would just turn on and kill the anprim vanguard trying to condemn them all to death first

what the hell am i gonna do when i retire, whittle wood and fish like a faggot?

This ideology reminds me somehow of the Khmer Rouge.

The definition of overpopulation used by ecologists is a condition where there are more members of a species in an area than the environment can support. You actually want to create more overpopulation by getting rid of technologies that allow the earth to support more people.
Not an issue in the first place.
Neolithic humans still developed cancer and tooth decay, and most people born died before age 5.
What stops a village council from becoming oppressive?
There won't be any collective decision making at all?
Why is laziness bad? Why is it so good to work all the time when you don't need to?
You mean virtually all human beings presently alive?
This statement means fuckall, go back to Holla Forums with the other reactionaries.

With each passing day I hate An-Prims more than Fascists. I no longer have any rational, proper response to them. It is only rage and a hate so hot it makes the sun jealous.

No, you are supposed to answer the damn question

Made a meme. Do it OP.

possible line of response a) yes these technologies increase the amount of people the earth can handle, but the point is that their quality of life is shit, and that this egregious sacrifice does not justify ANY of the benefits of technology
possible response b) technology is inherently unstable, atleast in the form in which we currently have it, that is, dependent on somewhat predictable, but still chaotic forces like electricity (for example). Therefore, you have not actually increased the capacity of the earth for life in a reliable way, so therefore anprim.
why not?
True I'd say you have them there, although some might take the "soap creates super bacteria" tac; one legitimate counter might be that the mass of psychological ailments associated with the modern world would likely be alleviated
There would, but the extreme strictures placed upon decision making bodies by the limitations in technology (dearth of resources, manpower, communication, transport etc. for wars et al.) would render distrurbances within humanity to always fall within a threshold whereby they don't endanger the rest of the fucking species.
It's an unfortunate fact about humanity, or atleast a vast slice of humanity, that without something to busy themselves with and to brace themselves against, they fall into sloth, and self hatred. Don't pretend as if there aren't lots of lazy people who would desperately like NOT to be. Again it seems a mental health issue.
Well that's one way to put it; each generation is "undesirable" in the sense that some members of the species will be massively disadvantaged by events and the environments they find themselves in, e.g. we all have weaknesses, but the point is to render the level of these types of people to a managable level. Again it seems you discount the the person who feels degenerate and wants OUT.
(don't agree with everything anarcho-primitivists say, but they've got a point)

How do you plan on achieving that, OP? You can't un-industrial revolution the world

And this isn't because someone else is taking all the surplus value, but because the evil machines are oppressing people?
Resource exhaustion hasn't been a problem yet, because of constant innovation. Copper prices climbed all through the seventies, but most of the mines were shuttered as satellite and wireless communications advanced.
Because I'm not a racist who feels threatened when people eat food I think smells weird.
Why do you blame these solely on technology and not the method of social organization? Being ordered around all day and doing work you don't enjoy probably does a great deal more psychological harm to people than not having to wash your clothing by hand.
I don't like nuclear weapons any more than you do. But why can't you just eliminate the conditions that led to their creation and proliferation, ie, competing nation states, instead of chucking lots of other technology out the window too?
There are plenty of things to do besides work and watch TV. The rich manage to find something to fill up the time, as do adolescents.
Survival of the fittest still applies today. This argument only makes sense if you use a bizarre, wholly aesthetic definition of fitness.

No. If humans don’t colonize the planets we’ll eventually go extinct.

I hope this is a joke but in any case, we used to have anarcho-primitivism. Society evolved into what it is today out of anarcho-primitivism. This shit literally makes no sense.
is retarded. We are nature, everything we do is technically "natural", thus as a result cities are natural formations, in the same way ant-hills and beehives and beaver dams are natural. Our drive to better ourselves is a natural thing, to revert to what you describe as our "natural state" is actually fighting our true nature.

Other primitivist here

The thing is, in terms of progress, we have no idea what we're doing half of the time.

After every invention we make, there's a flaw, and the bigger we jump, the more flaws that grow.

Soon we'll accidentally destroy the planet because we've progressed so much, and since greed and reputation ravage our minds, these flaws remain unfixed.

the anprim would probably respond that practices that lead to our destruction as a species are anti-natural.

Also, acknowledging your view that beaver dams and honeycombs are also natural..

The reason these are natural is because they are a natural instinct.

The only natural instinct we humans have is to just make something.

What makes something natural/unnatural is if it tries going against the balance of nature.

primmies are wierd af man

Ant hills and beaver dams aren't made from refined steel and concrete. A beaver makes his dam the same way his pappy did. A quadcopter is enough to make these things go 9/11. An Oahu-snackbar throwing his shoe is enough to make a beehive go 9/11.

Just like how everyone responds different to the same foods, everyone's "natural state" is different. To impose the same vision of pure authenticity to everyone is despotic.

And then you get your shit wrecked by the villages who actually try to change things. Even if you could manage to have a global luddite society you'll just end up being wiped out by some natural disaster. Ain't no natural disasters that'll hit two planets at once, which is why we need to colonize space in order to secure a future for human life in general. This is true regardless of race or species.

I would literally kill myself if anime didn't exist

I hate anprims as much as the next guy. Fucking luddite schmucks, but Look faggot. This meme is basically the same thing as a classcuck reply "hue hue why do you use a computer when its capitalism that brought you that" using a computer as a means to an end is more effective than just chomping out on it and not being able to spread your ideas.

uck uck
ok in primmie

Primmies believe that the use of computers reduces the quality of human life. By using computers in their leisure time, they are voluntarily oppressing themselves.

So basically what you are advocating for is a specific form of nihilism. Because other than some sort of rhetorical extradimensional or divine intervention, everything we did was nothing more than a reflection of our innate desire to innovate, to build, and to survive. From a materialist standpoint, we simply do what we do, to be very base and blunt.
Point being, regardless of whether or not there are flaws, largely our institutions and advances are not overall that flawed. Certain institutions or rules, like private property or religion could be viewed as flawed, but organization and thus civilization itself isn't inherently flawed. For instance, for primitivists, where do you guys draw the line? Are the Amish too advanced for you guys, with their agriculture, butter churns and low key mills? Or do we need to revert to complete hunter gatherers?

This misconception could largely be avoided by simply implementing communism, not necessarily destroying all progress we make. If decisions to implement risky technologies that could kill us all were voted on by the public in a manner that was not purely for the pursuit of profit, I think these things could be deterred simply out of community self interest.

Machines can't oppress people because they don't have intent; other people oppress others by using machines; so take away the machines that make it possible.
Good example but it doesn't prove that resource depletion won't be an issue in the future.
You may not be, but most people are. Whether you choose to trivialize that by, absurdly, equating genetic makeup with food, is your right, but for most people on the planet interracial violence is a social engineering problem that needs to be solved and you seem to want to sweep it under the rug.
I don't but the technology certainly contributes. traces of prescription drugs in our water etc.
The anprim argues the two are historically linked, and that speculation that apparatus can exist without technology is just that, speculation, an unscientific FAITH. In our world, all those things came about as a direct result of technology, and the only historically reliable method of removing them is through the destruction of technology (or atleast the destruction of the knowledge needed to create it).
Indeed! Often they commit crimes and engage in reckless behaviour that endangers others, the modus operandi of stock brokers and teens alike. Idle hands.
Perhaps. The only point I was trying to draw out was to say that you seemed to imply that simply identifying most of humanity as "undesirables" is self defeating because with numbers this large nothing can be done about it! I then tried to communicate that a general statement to this effect is not so meaningful; of course, EVERY human deserves a bullet for one reason or another, including you and me I'm sure, but that seems to take a unmanagabley wide sense of culpability. I say we restrict the notion of human "culpability" to a few easy to follow rules 1. No cars 2. No guns 3. No electricity etc. etc. this is so much easier than maintaining a status quo of perfectly informed non-racist ancom civil geniuses.

He's making an observation, not a metaphysical CLAIM. You could reliably couch in blockheaded "empirical" garb and it comes out just the same. He's not saying everything we do is inherently meaningless because we always just mess it up, he's saying that SOMEHOW (never mind that part) we always DO mess it up, and that at some point we will need to LEARN from this.
Correct, diversity of social organization is permitted under anprimism, but not of technological means. As far as where to draw the line, that is a very controversial topic, but you're right it must be drawn. Most hardcore anprims I find draw it at the stone age, specifically Derrick Jensen.
how would voting on risky technology mitigate the risk? What if we vote on a risky technology that kills us all and destroys the planet?

Computers are like windows; when you are in hell, the window is all you have and you grow to love it. From the outside though, the window just looks like another part of that shitty dilapidated building, and you have no use for it.
(People voluntarily oppress themselves all the time in order to mitigate a larger or more serious oppression, see substance abuse among those in abusive relationships, etc. It's still wrong and you're still right to call anprims out on it, but it's not exactly unique.)

t. someone who has been homeless off grid for years at a time

but primmies are not right tech makes my connection with the people I love, with the ones I enjoy and make my life better easier. It satisfies me, so I won't give it up because I don't want to.

What's wrong with that belief?


But social media dulls those relationships because tou're only talking in your room/office through text on a screen

Thats the problem with people, we don't care if things nagatively affect us big picture, we only care about what feels good.

Putting a needle in your arm with drugs also makes people feel good.

Civilizationalists literally have no argument.

There would be no sneaky Jews without civilization…

Extra points for Kantianism
Sentenced to reeducation for refusing to acknowledge the autonomy of muh metallic snowflakes

can't tell if that a retarded comment or just a really sad reflection on modern society

None of these problems would exist at all if not for humanity, human genocide now you weak-willed faggots.

…have you ever heard of carrying capacity?

But in that case wouldn't anarchist communes then also be crushed by neighbouring statist regimes?


what's skyrim got to do with this?

Protip: that's not an anarchist flag.

Yes we would, we'd have huge population booms and crashes, and probably resource wars because of lousy hygene and overfarming.
Bullshit, it would make culture clashes more extreme when agrarian populations inevitably expanded and came into competition over resources.
take your meds
You've never been to a town hall meeting or a meeting of a protest group, have you? Politicking in small groups is some of the most bitter, petty bullshit ever, and with nothing better to do (IE, books, vidya, sex that doesn't produce another mouth to feed if you're heterosexual, unattractive, undextrous or have a lousy imagination, television, radio, tabletop RPGs, drugs in reliable and cheap enough supply to pacify them, etc.), people gossip like hens.
Fresh off the boat from Holla Forums?
Where do you draw the line tho? Evolutionarily-speaking, humans are designed to be tool-users (and otters, chimps, corvids and other clever animals are tool users too, so you can't argue that in and of itself is unnatural) so going without anything is probably out. And how would you propose to keep people permanently regressed to whatever level you propose, when you don't have any centralized authority to do it, and when technological advances are often in individuals' or tribes' self-interest? (IE 'hey guys, you know how the other tribe is good at throwing rocks? the one we pay tribute to? If you put a rock in this thing and twirl it, with practice you can throw rocks farther, harder and with less effort than they do'; 'this spinning machine will save us untold hours of tedious, repetitive, boring, strenuous labor, and make cloth common enough that everybody can afford more than one good pair of underpants'; 'if you put red curtains up you can kill smallpox instead of the other way around')
4/10 I responded

Not an argument.

wow you sure told me

sure did

no. you're the one who made the thread. convice them buddy. we ain't gonna do shit, we already know primmies are cavemen.

fuck yeah I care about what feels good. I'm a hedonist.

and if you sucked my dick I wouldn't complain.

This is like yelling at a coke addict when he knows it's bad for him.

primmies are wierd af man
stupidass beliefs good think they're not authoritarian like the ancaps. just stupid wierdos.

What a cute anime girl

So, since you obviously know your shit, what's the best stuff to read to convince me that an prim isn't just total nonsense?

ikr!? fucking beautifully loving eyes and adorable :3c smile.

cute anime pictures

are monster girls fine too?

defending your arguments with anything other than smug anime girls is too civilized, eh Conan?

trips confirm monstergirls a best

Good god we are reaching mass levels of retardation. Don't breed op.

hell yeah dude

So, another thing I don't quite get… If we're going to somehow stop using modern technology, how are we supposed to prevent future generations from making our mistake?

Also I wish I could find more ascii anime grills.

To answer how, I would think making a religion that forbids chemistry or inventing would do the trick.

Is inventiveness something you can really stop? Seems pretty innate to humanity. You're showing just how innovative humanity can be by spouting this inane bullshit.

idk man primmies should just be eco-anarchists. way better. fuck the uk uks stupid cavemen.

Any good sources on eco-anarchism to share?

bookchin is great, his books get posted a lot but the dude is a little spooked with humanism & other little ideologies here and there (not bad tbh could be way worse). Just ignore when he gets ideological. Pay attention to the reality he writes about.
Start here: beautiful book overall imo.

Thank you so much! Looking forward to reading this.

np fam were anarchists we help each other

Not to mention avoid the impossibility of large scale civilization which will always end in failure in which the only question is how long will the leaky boat float and who all will be taken down with it.
However, the anprim dream is a false one and their society would be extremely hierarchical, patriarchal, racist, xenophobic and not to mention the fact that it will most certainly have some kind of governing body just small scale local chieftain despots. Though I don't think any of that is necessarily a bad thing.

All advanced societies are inherently unstable and become reliant on so much complexity that small events can trigger its downfall. For example if the major highways in the Us somehow broke down in an instant the entire system would begin to collapse. Anprims should seek to destroy the entire technological system and reduce technology to a purely local scale. All societies will get more advanced with time and these sort of destabilization actions would be required every hundred or so years when people advance too far beyond the local level.

I wouldn't be reading this thread OP. Now fuck off you useless fag making these dumb threads after you ate a nice meal your mom bought nicely packaged at the supermarket.
Or…you can always go to live in the wilderness, build your home, grow your food and sew your clothes.

Wow it's almost like the technological system forces its people to become reliant. It's almost like this is an argument in favor of anprim.

Literally ">complaining about capitalism while drinking starbucks" tier retarded.


primmies are wierd af man, this thread should just have been ignored.

have some more French revolution anime art

Oh and by the way OP, technology isn't just your expensive smartphone. It's a chair, a glass, a pencil, paper, a bed etc.

No, when anprims refer to technology what they are talking about is large scaled organized technology. In other words anprims oppose technology which cannot be created or function beyond an individual or small society.
Regardless what anprims really want is the elimination of agriculture and a return to tribalism. The technology which this would necessarily eliminate is more of a side effect as opposed to a first principal goal.

Yeah, but we'd have hunting technology instead, which would turn us into Predators/Hirogen style civilizations.
Which would be kinda cool.

It is nowhere near the same. I want computers to be made, just under a different economic system. Anprims want humanity to stop making computers altogether. Thus, I'm not contradicting myself when I acknowledge that computers are useful, while they are.

This doesn't change the fact that you are still using a computer which was created by wage labor in the capitalist system. You would prefer a "communist computer" but because of the totality of the Capitalist system you are still reliant on the wage labor of others. You could swear off all capitalist material but you do not because of necessity. Just as you are unable to separate yourself from the capitalist system I was born into the technological system and I am unable to reasonably separate myself from it. I could list all the reasons for this but suffice to say the technological system has made it ecologically and socially impossible to become independently anprim at this time. So for the present being I will engage with the technological society just as you engage with the capitalist one.

To those saying that we are destroying planet with our progress and technology: The planet will be destroyed in less than bilion years by our sun as it ages. We either progress technologically enough to save our species (and possibly our planet and life on it) or all life will go extinct by that time. The choice is obvious.


we would have nothing left to enjoy, that would be really nice.