If you're not an anarcho-primitivist after watching this, you belong in a gulag

Live in the woods if you want, that is a right I will argue for, but this idea is yet another non-starter.

how would gulag exist in a anarchy-primitive?
no society to put you in one
no language to sentence someone
no building to put them in

Mobs of large angry men will beat you with clubs and then throw you over a cliff. If it's Holla Forums it's mobs of large angry black men. The cliff is the Gulag.

translation: I would die.

It actually isn't if we still care about maximizing the well-being of the population.

The human population?

Yes, as they are what I base my personal ethics and motivations around…and I can already tell this will be the unresolvable difference between us.

I think there's a Nazi general on Holla Forums that you'd like.

...

You have to kill millions to keep your ideas going, poor old Teddy K didn't have enough money for that many stamps.

False dichotomy, we don't need to choose either all civilization or all wilderness. The accusation of Nazism and Bigotry feels straight out of tumblr too.

That, and if you expect an abstract morality that values animals above all else to be universally adopted AND for a full stop to be applied to society by all nations…you have no idea about humanity, do you?

WEW
banter detector broken?
WEW
adopted by who?
TOP WEW

I don't like the human nature arguments, but does any probable theory of human interaction predict a mass shift back into the wild out of a sense of morality or a love of 'nature'?

Is a perfectly reasonable explanation to why someone would not want to do something. If your political ideology requires a large part of the population to die, then it's unlikely to garner much popularity amongst the I would die demographics. Now you could force them to conform, but that becomes challenging if your political believes also include no central government and no modern technology as part of its core tenets.
Enlighten me if I'm missing something here.

This ain't a human nature argument m8er, it's a human one.

we need to go deeper

The entire human population?

As well as some of the more cunning monkeys.

What, is this that old line about humans being a cancer which means they must die to save the ecosystem?

There's an argument against that?

Kek

For one, it is really only the industrial-capitalistic era in which we pose a significant threat of damage to the environment, although we have solutions within the fields of sustainability and post-capitalist economics…

Even ignoring the question of why we should hold ourselves as having negative value (indeed what value even IS), and why we should almost completely self-destruct for the abstract benefit of an uncaring system.

Not an argument in there.

How can other species even compete?

THEY CAN'T, IT'S NOT FAIR, REEEE HUMANS.
Night lads, see you tomorrow for funposting and pretending to be left wing nutters.

"If I could believe it, I would have seen it."

I could simplify things by saying that it is really only capitalism that makes us mass consumers and not an intrinsic property of humanity, and that as ethics and morality lay only in conscious minds that it would be mad to seek our own annihilation as if we have a ethical commandment outside ourselves to do so.

Ah well, good night.

good luck keeping me there when I'm not giving up modern tech, faggot.

There is no need for all primitive when technology can be advanced to be less intrusive and more eco friendly.