The case for primitivism

[Xsyne]

Stockpile? Migrate south? Continue scavenging, hunting, stealing etc? In this scenario I the ideal outcome would find a group of people and work together to survive. eat them So that would be one of my top goals.

Fixed.

Seriously, there are 7.1 billion people on this planet. The carrying capacity of the Earth if all humans were hunter-gatherers is approximately 100 million. That's a lot of protein. Especially if you make sure to get them before they starve to death. In the grim, dark future of anarcho-primitivism, only the CHUDs will survive.

[Ifreann]

Assuming you had the little know-how to survive the spring and summer, then what? Winter's coming, there's no power, everyone is scavenging for wood and you're probably going to be in a super densely populated area, which means that food scarcity will be chaotic. Sure there's non-perishables in the city, but do you really think you're the only one who would find that? Good luck surviving starving humans.

Stockpile? Migrate south? Continue scavenging, hunting, stealing etc? In this scenario I the ideal outcome would find a group of people and work together to survive. So that would be one of my top goals.

Maybe I'm misremembering what I learned in school, but I don't think hunter-gatherers ever scavenged from the remains of a collapsed civilisation.

[Sociobiology]

Well, while I wouldnt count on us continuing this rate of advancement for a very extended period of time (it will probably come and go in cycles, much the way it works now actually), it may take less then a million years.

Or we reach technological singularity, and our advance as society, especially in terms of technology explodes and we see FTL being invented by 2050.

we are nowhere near a technological singularity.
also the cyclic nature of technology and discovery puts a speed limit on advancement, although a quite high one.

[The Holy Empires Embassy]

Stockpile? Migrate south? Continue scavenging, hunting, stealing etc? In this scenario I the ideal outcome would find a group of people and work together to survive. So that would be one of my top goals.

Maybe I'm misremembering what I learned in school, but I don't think hunter-gatherers ever scavenged from the remains of a collapsed civilisation.

Phase 1: Burn everything that has to do with civilisation, industry and agriculture.
Phase 2: Free Ice-Age for all survivors to survive even more.

[Indira]

Am I the only one thats thinking about how ridicilous an anarcho-primitivist is speaking on the internet?

No.

OP, technology and industrialisation allows for longer lifespans, healthier lifes, greater population sizes and better lifestyles. Scientific advancement allows us to understand our world better and in turn respond to it better. Not only is abandoning it undesireable, going backwards is unobtainable. Seriously, is there a single reason anyone would WANT to go back to those times? Because all I'm seeing in your OP is a mixture of romanticism and nonsensical claims.

I'd also like to see some sources for your economic bubble claim, preferrably from someone reliable.

[Indira]

Translation: I really hate when people challenge unsupported allegations.

Here is a translation of your post: I have made 60,000 plus posts of pure shite

How very edgy. Try harder. Might I also suggest learning some basic debate concepts

[Nimzonia]

Fuck that shit. If we go back to primitivism, we will be extinct within a million years. If we continue on our current course, we may be extinct in 50 years, or we may be a galaxy-spanning civilisation in 50 million years. I'll take my chances with technology.

We might be galaxy-spanning in a million years, actually. I mean, civilization only really took off about 5 thousand years ago, and our society has made massive advances in just the past 50.

I didn't actually say it would take 50 million years to span the galaxy.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wow, this thread really exploded while I was away.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wow, this thread really exploded while I was away.

We are very defensive of our internets.

[Sun Wukong]

Wow, this thread really exploded while I was away.

We are very defensive of our internets.

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

We are very defensive of our internets.

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

I just use my imagination.

[Sun Wukong]

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

I just use my imagination.

Exactly. The world must be protected from my imagination.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I just use my imagination.

Exactly. The world must be protected from my imagination.

You make no sense. That turns me on.

[Basking Turtles]

We are very defensive of our internets.

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

Fun fact: primitive people had more time for sex, because hunting/gathering is much less labor intensive than farming.

[United Marxist Nations]

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

Fun fact: primitive people had more time for sex, because hunting/gathering is much less labor intensive than farming.

Fun Fact 2: They also probably had terrible hygiene, which probably made the sex considerably less enjoyable.

[Basking Turtles]

Fun fact: primitive people had more time for sex, because hunting/gathering is much less labor intensive than farming.

Fun Fact 2: They also probably had terrible hygiene, which probably made the sex considerably less enjoyable.

Source?

[United Marxist Nations]

Fun Fact 2: They also probably had terrible hygiene, which probably made the sex considerably less enjoyable.

Source?

Just guessing by the fact that they wouldn't have had running water, which would make hygiene much more difficult.

[Basking Turtles]

Source?

Just guessing by the fact that they wouldn't have had running water, which would make hygiene much more difficult.

Yeah, this thread has been full of guesswork (by proponents of both sides).

[United Marxist Nations]

Just guessing by the fact that they wouldn't have had running water, which would make hygiene much more difficult.

Yeah, this thread has been full of guesswork (by proponents of both sides).

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been serious debating on this thread. The debate was over before it began.

[Sun Wukong]

Fun Fact 2: They also probably had terrible hygiene, which probably made the sex considerably less enjoyable.

Source?

Ever tried making soap or tooth paste from scratch?

[European Socialist Republic]

Indeed.

You do not want to see Sun Wukong when he's forced to go 72 hours without internet porn.

Fun fact: primitive people had more time for sex, because hunting/gathering is much less labor intensive than farming.

Farming also produces more food than hunting/gathering.

[Drawkland]

Many have said this, but what is the actual point? There's no point in literally restraining ourselves for the sake of the Earth that was meant to support us.

[Sun Wukong]

Fun fact: primitive people had more time for sex, because hunting/gathering is much less labor intensive than farming.

Farming also produces more food than hunting/gathering.

For the sake of being as fair as possible, Hunter-gatherers do have a better quality diet then all but the most recent agricultural societies. There are also indications that their quality of life is quite high (there's no definitive standard for measuring this, but numerous anthropologists have remarked on how happy the people they are studying seem.) So it's not that being primitive is this terrible thing to be avoided at all costs.

It's that it's not feasible for modern societies to return to that, and going back wouldn't really solve many of our modern problems anyway.

[Draakonite]

Farming also produces more food than hunting/gathering.

For the sake of being as fair as possible, 1. Hunter-gatherers do have a better quality diet then all but the most recent agricultural societies. 2. There are also indications that their quality of life is quite high (there's no definitive standard for measuring this, but numerous anthropologists have remarked on how happy the people they are studying seem.) 3. So it's not that being primitive is this terrible thing to be avoided at all costs.

It's that it's not feasible for modern societies to return to that, and going back wouldn't really solve many of our modern problems anyway.

1. The international Diet Quality Index, states that major factors of diet quality are variety, adequacy, moderation and overall balance. Hunter-Gatherers had no variety, they could only eat food from a 30 km radius, and the diet was largely dependent on seasons (In winter eating mostly meat, for example.
Hunter-Gatherers did not have adequacy. In very strong winters, there could be no food at all.
Hunter-Gatherers had no moderation. After surviving a week without food, they would eat large amounts of meat to survive the next week.
Hunter-Gatherers did not have overall balance. They couldn't "plan" to eat every day potatoes with salad and a small piece of meat. It was meat in winter, some meat and forest fruits in summer.
2. Quality of life can be measured by the ( replaced) Physical Quality of Life Index or the Human Development Index. The indicators for the first one are basic literacy rate, infant mortality, and life expectancy at age one. The Hunter-Gatherers have no chance here.
The second one measures life expectancy, education, and income indices. Again, Hunter-Gatherers lose.
3. In 1984 you don't see people fighting to the death over a week old deer carcass, at least.

[Central Slavia]

I think I became stupider reading the OP - the power of primitivism must be working.

We are riding a massive ten-thousand-year economic bubble which is soon going to pop if we continue on the course of industrial civilization.

The fact that it is ten-thousand years old by itself should point otherwise. Ever heard of Gott's rule?
Assuming we are not in a particularly salient time in a phenomenon's lifetime ,we can predict its expected further duration.
In the case of civillization, the 95% confidence interval for continued existence of civillization comes out as 256 to 390 000 further years

Technology is worshiped with an almost cultlike passion in today's modern world, but almost everyone overlooks the horrors that technology brings.

For any horror that technology brings, there's a thousand "natural" ones just as bad if not worse. Think of the bubonic plague epidemics.

Also, instead of going out, seeing the world, and proactively making changes in your lifestyle for the better, people simply pop pills as a "solution" to every minor problem that they face, and this removes them from the true holistic experience of a fulfilling life that is in touch with nature.

I had a very holistic experience with persistent 40.5 Celsius/ 105 Fahrenheit degree fever due to sinusitis, which stopped within hours of me "popping pills" containing bacteriostatic agents. My overall verdict is that I'd gladly pass.

Also, I wonder if the OP author has ever considered that not only he's writing this on a computer, but the very fact he has time to do so rather than labouring out in the field is due to the advances of civillization.


All in all, my views on primitivist ideology can't be reproduced in remotely polite company.