Anarchism

[Scomagia]

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

Not to mention, you know, survive possible extinction events.

[MERIZoC]

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

For the long-term survival and preservation of our species, yes they fucking are.

Many species have survived millions of years. That's not long term? You speak about preserving our species, and yet it comes at the cost of so many more.

[The New Sea Territory]

For the long-term survival and preservation of our species, yes they fucking are.

Many species have survived millions of years. That's not long term? You speak about preserving our species, and yet it comes at the cost of so many more.

To be the pessimist, 99% of species are extinct.

[The Scientific States]

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

Not to mention, you know, survive possible extinction events.

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

[Casita]

I have anarchist sympathies and I'll be the first to say that that isn't an especially good argument. The first 100,000 years of human existence had us at the mercy of disease, famine, and ignorance.

I would say that anarchism hasn't been applied very well, as an anarchist.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Would you care to go into this a bit more?

[Scomagia]

For the long-term survival and preservation of our species, yes they fucking are.

Many species have survived millions of years. That's not long term? You speak about preserving our species, and yet it comes at the cost of so many more.

You're joking, right? 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Know why? Because they didn't have space travel and extraterrestrial colonies. Yeah, it's sad that we destroy other species in our wake and it's something we should fight, but it is not an indictment of our species and it is not a reason for us to sit around and play ignorantly in the mud.

[MERIZoC]

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

It's also really nice to have lots of leisure time, not have to worry about war or your financial situation, and have our environment preserved.

[Scomagia]

Not to mention, you know, survive possible extinction events.

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

[The New Sea Territory]

I would say that anarchism hasn't been applied very well, as an anarchist.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Would you care to go into this a bit more?

I think the ways that people have tried to implement it (Leninism, Vanguard Party ideas) aren't effective or successful. I think the main problem is that most anarchist communities that were successful did not last do to the fact that they were in the midst of a civil strife, and lost do to military reasons, not ideological ones. For example, Ukraine, Spanish Republicans and the Paris Commune.

If anarchism was approached peacefully, I think we could get somewhere.

[Jamjai]

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

you make me think of goat heads

[MERIZoC]

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

Everything is doomed to extinction. That's reality. You have delusions of grandeur if you think the human race will survive forever.

[The Scientific States]

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

It's also really nice to have lots of leisure time, not have to worry about war or your financial situation, and have our environment preserved.

Are you implying that people now don't have lots of leisure time? We have more free time than ever before. In primitive societies, all people did was hunt and gather. They couldn't have any leisure time, since they had to spend all day hunting for food and worrying about survival. Primitive societies had a lot more worries than today's society, not to mention lack of education, medicine etc.

And, we can have our environment preserved without setting back the human race 2,000 years. I, for one, think it's a giant middle finger to humanity to set back all of our advancements, progresses etc. And that's exactly what primitivism is.

[The New Sea Territory]

Can you guys discuss primitivism's stupidity elsewhere? I know it's dumb, but this is the Anarchist thread.

[The Scientific States]

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

Everything is doomed to extinction. That's reality. You have delusions of grandeur if you think the human race will survive forever.

No, it's called idealism. We won't survive forever, but if we keep advancing, and eventually explore the vastness of space, we can survive a lot longer.

[Scomagia]

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

It's also really nice to have lots of leisure time, not have to worry about war or your financial situation, and have our environment preserved.

You know what else is nice? Not dying in childbirth, or catching measles, or mumps, or rubella, or diphtheria, or rabies, or polio. Not being sacrificed by superstitious morons is nice too. Above all, though, I'd say the nicest thing in the world would be the continued existence of the only known intelligent race in the universe.

[Casita]

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

I used to be an actual primitivist. And I agree that millions would die if it were forced on the world. However, as I see it, there's no problem with primitivism as a personal choice.

[The Scientific States]

Indeed. Primitivism would be terrible for the human race, and if primitivists lived in a primitive society for a while, they probably would become strongly opposed to primitivism.

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

I think the same thing.

I think it's nothing more than a giant middle finger to all of human progress, advancement, and the future of the human race.

[The New Sea Territory]

Primitivism is, without a doubt, the single most offensive ideology in existence. Above all others it would have us doomed to extinction while we watch our end with stupid, superstitious faces.

I used to be an actual primitivist. And I agree that millions would die if it were forced on the world. However, as I see it, there's no problem with primitivism as a personal choice.

Yeah. It's kinda like religion. I think its stupid, but if you aren't harming anyone else I really don't care.

[MERIZoC]

It's also really nice to have lots of leisure time, not have to worry about war or your financial situation, and have our environment preserved.

Are you implying that people now don't have lots of leisure time? We have more free time than ever before. In primitive societies, all people did was hunt and gather. They couldn't have any leisure time, since they had to spend all day hunting for food and worrying about survival. Primitive societies had a lot more worries than today's society, not to mention lack of education, medicine etc.
.

I suggest you read this, if that's your view on things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Hunter-gatherer

Since the 1960s, the consensus among anthropologists, historians, and sociologists has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than is permitted by capitalist and agrarian societies; For instance, one camp of !Kung Bushmen was estimated to work two-and-a-half days per week, at around 6 hours a day. Aggregated comparisons show that on average the working day was less than five hours

[Lexicor]

Other species seem to have managed just fine without these things. Mathematics and the like aren't necessary for survival.

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

What makes you think you need a state to achieve these things?

[MERIZoC]

It's also really nice to have lots of leisure time, not have to worry about war or your financial situation, and have our environment preserved.

You know what else is nice? Not dying in childbirth, or catching measles, or mumps, or rubella, or diphtheria, or rabies, or polio. Not being sacrificed by superstitious morons is nice too. Above all, though, I'd say the nicest thing in the world would be the continued existence of the only known intelligent race in the universe.

[citation needed]

[The Scientific States]

Are you implying that people now don't have lots of leisure time? We have more free time than ever before. In primitive societies, all people did was hunt and gather. They couldn't have any leisure time, since they had to spend all day hunting for food and worrying about survival. Primitive societies had a lot more worries than today's society, not to mention lack of education, medicine etc.
.

I suggest you read this, if that's your view on things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Hunter-gatherer

Since the 1960s, the consensus among anthropologists, historians, and sociologists has been that early hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than is permitted by capitalist and agrarian societies; For instance, one camp of !Kung Bushmen was estimated to work two-and-a-half days per week, at around 6 hours a day. Aggregated comparisons show that on average the working day was less than five hours

One tribe in Namibia's amount of leisure time=/=The leisure time ancient hunter gatherers had.

[MERIZoC]

Can you guys discuss primitivism's stupidity elsewhere? I know it's dumb, but this is the Anarchist thread.

Anarcho-primitivism. It's a type of anarchy.

[The Scientific States]

But it's really nice for good medicine, higher life expectancy, education, technology and the like to exist. We need mathematics and other stuff you couldn't find in a primitive society to move forward.

What makes you think you need a state to achieve these things?

I never said that. I'm saying that we can't have primitivism if you want those things.

Although, I also think you need a state to achieve those things, but I never said that in my post.

[Seriong]

My contention with anarchy is mostly that it simply results in an entity acting in the same manner as a state, yet being called something else. So the decider of issues might be called an 'elder' or 'chief' or said to be rotating, but it still functions identically to the state.