Philosphorous

Your angle about the Earth as a person is fantastic. I never considered that before. Capitalism privatizes the profits but socializes the losses, and usually the Earth is the loser. The transaction isn't just person A trading with person B; that stuff all has to come somewhere. What about the land from which all the stuff comes? That throws the absurd NAP right out the window. Like I said earlier: in capitalism, if you're not human, get the hell out of the way.

Are you really asking me if I'm interested in genocide? I'm not. An instant shift to primitivism is implausible and impossible. At this moment, a billion people are starving. Many thousands die daily from preventable causes. People are really having a hard time RIGHT NOW. Humans could, right now, decide they wanted a soft landing rather than the inevitable train wreck this death culture is offering them. Society now is failing. It is killing many people through war, famine and greed. A shift to primitivism would save people. Stop all wars, live sustainably, stop raping the Earth? Yes please. If word got out that Earth had a carrying capacity, it would reduce population over time as people like me simply would not want children to have to suffer through a transition. (The transition to any system is going to be very painful.) People could learn to live with the Earth. A lot of pain, suffering and death could be avoided--especially non-human. Non-humans are suffering the most now and would also under anarcho-capitalism. Ask them if they would like a shift to primitivism. Seriously. Go talk to a tree--especially one about to be cut down. I think you'll be surprised at the results. Doing nothing right now will kill off 90% of the population. I do not favor this, which is why I'm spreading the message.

More non-arguments. Still, I think it's evil that capitalists think it's okay to cut down trees and kill animals for pieces of paper--profit--and think it's outrageous that in the next sentence they suggest violence against humans is wrong. What befuddling nonsense. Claiming to own nature is immoral, harmful, and it's proven in part with, for example, Stef's foray into the free market. Software engineering? So they took oil by force for the plastics, made poor people mine for precious metals, etc. for the computers, plus spewed toxins into the air to get those computers to Stef to program. And I'm evil for not wanting to do that? For daring to suggest we care more about the land than profit? Even cleaning that process up by excluding the government somehow means harming nature for no good reason. Really--is the world better off today with computers than it was a million years ago? Think: the military could not exist without them. They are tools of control. In contrast, humans lived for millions of years without doing that. Somehow, it worked out for them. It was not until 10,000 years ago that some began a futile attempt to control nature, which overall has been an absolute failure. By the way--I called into the show a few weeks ago and can't again until they've exhausted first time callers. I set up a debate but he cancelled (see above). If you would like to hear a debate, please email Michael and tell him: [email protected]

I skimmed your response, saw name calling and dismissed it. Regarding what you just wrote:I'm not living primitively because I was raised in civilization. It would be like asking a primitive person to go trade stocks on Wall Street with no training. The premise is ridiculous. This society has robbed myself and the rest of us of the knowledge of living off the land. We are domesticated and pathetic. Literally, a primitive child is more capable outdoors than we are. We are dependent on the system that is exploiting us.However, I do live minimally. In addition, I am saving for a week long retreat at a survival school. If that works out, I'll do a month. If that works out, six months... You get the idea. First though, I need to introduce people to this idea since Stefan's capitalism seems so appealing to people--mostly because it tells people they can keep all their toys without the government in the way. It still violates the NAP in regard to everything but humans.In asking why I'm not doing it, what you're talking about isa) Credentialism & ad hominemb) Withdrawal. It's about as effective as vegans are on stopping meat production.Both are non-arguments. I know Stefan likes to use this line of questioning as if it proves something. He loves capitalism because it worked well for him. Promoting what will sustain his life is a little biased, dont' you think? It makes me laugh that Stef came from a wealthy background, had the chance to go to college, was born with the intelligence to be a software engineer, etc. and that poor people who have none of that buy into it. It's fascinating. I guess as long as people can buy ice cream 24 hours a day and think mostly about themselves they'll believe that capitalism will save them.Regarding your chart, what date range is this? It says "20th century". Let's discuss deaths by civilization--you know, including democide and religion, diseases like cancer and all those introduced from communing with domesticated animals, etc. Still, why is there war? Because people are introduced to hierarchies from birth--submit to labor for money, use nature as a filling station. Why? Because they're taught, via capitalism, that they have the right to rule those they consider weak. Ruling nature easily translates to ruling weaker humans. People with more money should have the RIGHT to, right? Conversely, "primitives" lived largely egalitarian lives--ESPECIALLY concerning nature. They didn't invent back hoes and chainsaws, for example, not because they were stupid, but because they had a relationship with the land on which they lived. Selling life for profit and dealing with other via money should be the definition of inequality. Conflict is inevitable.Ask the 60+ hunter-gatherer tribes why they don't want captialism or modern life. Do you really think it's because they just haven't been convinced yet that it's the best course of action?You are pro-human and anti-everything else. You prove this by your attack on my concern for trees. Why should you care about a tree? Becausea) It has a life in and of itself. What if somebody stronger regarded you as expendable and chopped you down? Or you kids or young relatives? What if you had a child in a coma? Not conscious, right? So okay to put a saw in it? "Non-aggression" doesn't apply to nature.b) A tree is an ecosystem on which many MANY animals rely. In some rainforests there are birds, lizards, etc. that live in the same tree(s) and never touch the ground.c) Tree roots are similar to nerve endings. Civilization education has taught you that trees are not conscious--basically objects. How do you know this? You've decided to be the judge, jury and executioner, so cut them down. If a stronger species emerged and decided that of you, would it be okay to destroy you to make room for a golf course?d) Destroying trees degrades the land--especially top soil, which runs into rivers and pollutes them. Killing off the land needed to live is insane, not leaving it alone.The bacteria argument actually is in my favor. Since bacteria are capable of destroying humans, they should be able to, right? They can "use" us as food and shelter so we should praise them as the ultimate capitalists. They claim us as property so that should be respected. Oh wait; no it shouldn't, because they aren't human, and humans make the rules according to you. You know--like that non-aggression principle that conveniently favors humans over everything else. Just don't hurt humans or "torture" (whatever that means) animals and you can clear cut the forests for profit.Tell me--are blue whales better off because of technology? Are garter snakes better off because of capitalism? Does upholding your lifestyle help great apes? Once you begin to think in terms other than "me me me" and "nature is mine to use", the mindset changes. You think in these terms because that's how you were raised. Your food comes from the store and your water from the tap, so your life actually depends on capitalist domination--either crony or free market.Primitivism encourages taking only what one needs. Capitalism encourages maybe a little respect for the environment (unless you can make money destroying it!), but mostly it is a pro-human nature hating philosophy. As proof, if you loved nature, would you be so strongly in favor of cutting down trees and therefore destroying them and all the flora and fauna that depend on them?We don't kill things we love. We protect them. That's what primitivists did. They planned to live on the planet forever, rather than carving it up, exploiting it and claiming ownership. That's why their way of life is one I advocate, and I'll tell you what--I truly do hope the education I get living off the land works. That is, of course, unless I violate somebody's property rights and receive justice, since, under capitalism, property rights are sacred and the Earth is for sale. I mean, isn't it cute that humans have decided they own the Earth they came from and that other people/animals/plants lived on long before they were born? It's more human domination fiction to justify enslaving plants and animals for profit.As the old saying goes, "ashes to ashes; dust to dust." From it we came; to it we shall return. The Earth owns us, not the other way around.

Me too.

Again, this is all pro-human BS. Please try to keep your responses short. I don't have the attention span to sift through this nonsense to find the 1-2 lines worth reading. It's all character attacks. See you later. Use force? So forcing a donkey to carry things for you and kiling a tree by cutting into it isn't forceful? Primitivism is the only sustainable and just way to live. It encourages taking only what is absolutely necessary, and if you look through history, all of the modern conveniences humans think they need were invented in the last 200 years. Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years without them. All of the "brutal life" stuff is fictional. If you want some detail, see here: http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

Wow. The mind lock indoctrination is strong with this one. It kills you to think that at one time humans lived in nature rather than destroying and whoring it out for money, huh? I doubt bears would trade. They're getting by okay. I can't believe you actually typed that. Your argument is also racist since, you know, there are 60+ foraging tribes on the Earth today. They're not anti-human as you put it; they just haven't swallowed the for-profit BS and believe that the nature can and will provide for them instead of them taking it by force. Your entire post would be comical if it was so... cold. Since you're pro-capitalist and Stef talks a lot about Ayn Rand, here are a few juicy tidbits she said: "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974" Here's where capitalism leads with its obsession with profit and "modern" life over living naturally: Say we all live in the trees now and I find your baby whose mother was killed. Can I not use him as a beast of burden? to carry my bags and spin my stone mill, Can I not breed your baby and sell the offspring? What more scenarios can you make up that prove that I am dominating nature and "me first" and "more" are the capitalist cornerstones?

I'm not entirely sure what the point of that was, but it seems like you're telling me nature fiercely adapts to its surroundings. Somehow that happens without plants buying and selling weaker plants for profit and feeling like they have dominion over the EArth.

I was supposed to debate Stefan this past weekend but he pulled out due to unforseen circumstances. These are my positions. In sum, NAP and property rights apply to humans only. The dark side of capitalism is if you're not a human, get the hell out of the way. How can a person who makes anti-bullying and peaceful parenting videos possibly justify dominating land and animals? The inconsitency is enormous. I encourage comments from all sides, but please stick to the information rather than ad hominem responses or other non-arguments. Thank you. http://youtu.be/tToRa73-4j8

It's a cop out. I was on the other side of that conversation. It seems that it okay to kill and displace animals so long as one does not torture them--whatever torture means. This shows the true underlying face of capitalism: it favors humans only. Nature is one big filling station that humans are free to exploit so long as they don't "torture" it.

I am technologically retarded, plus usually in bed by 10. Does this happen at any other time?

This is great. We DEFINITELY should talk. Please PM if you have a Facebook or something.

I'll see what I can do. I prefer one on one--mostly so I don't get shouted down. (Loud does not = right.)

Do you have any contact info for this person? I would really prefer a Skype debate.

Watching Obamapologists twist logic and knock out strawmen makes me sick. Bill Maher is the king of statist ass kissing and denial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T3QA99zL0Y

This entire post is ad hominem attacks and a display that you know nothing about anthropology. There are still hunter-gatherer tribes today and they aren't dying of toothaches at 20. Trust me--if I was sighted I would not be here. My circumstances also have nothing to do with the arguments. I am the messenger. Attack the message. TVP has existed since the 70s as sociocyberengineering or something. Where is the model? They raised 100k for a motion picture that never materialized. Where's that money? Pay somebody to make a simulation. It is not anarchy by any means. If the super computer denies you you're out of luck. It's a technocracy.

So, we're not allowed to discuss things that we haven't fully tried. There goes Stefan's argument for free-market capitalism, since it's not possible to really live that way in a statist society. Where exactly are you getting that I haven't tried what I'm proposing? I know edible plants (and teach them to others) and grow most of my food. I use very little technology and live an extremely minimalist lifestyle. Almost 100% of what I buy is local. Keep in mind that I am blind. I actually tried TWICE to go to survivalist schools but failed miserably. If I could see properly I can tell you that I wouldn't be spending time on the Internet. Nevertheless, what I'm proposing has been tried. It was in place until about 12,000 years ago and was sustainable. After that began the fairly rapid degradation of the species and the planet. What you've said is just a character attack. If I'm wrong, tell me how.

Wow. That's how that works? Let me try: Capitalism isn't a great philosophy because I said so. Phew! Glad that debate is over.

Or... you can present an argument.

Oh, I see. So because a big fish eats a small fish and there is conflict, that justifies utopian donut cities that will further destroy nature? His answer is domination, so I guess if I want to live in his house and since I'm bigger and stronger than him, I'll just take it since that's what he advocates. Colonize the oceans!

How many people have died as a result of civilization diseases like cancer? Humans have created poisons for which they have no antidote and it has every life system in decline. Approxiamately 200 species per day go extinct: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html Let's have an experiment, shall we? Let's invite strong space aliens who want to put an intergalactic mall where your neighborhood is to destroy your homes and murder you if you get in the way--kind of like is done now to forests and their inhabitants. Since they're stronger than you and can exploit you, it's moral, right? Learn a little about biology and then let's talk.

You addressed nothing I said in the video. What Fresco is proposing would be horribly destructive to the natural world. There's no denying this. It's another human-favoring domination techno-fix at the expense of the rest of Earth's inhabitants. "It also seems to me, that you idealize nature. Natural processes are slow and probabilistic. Animals do not lead happy and stress-free lives in the wild, they usually lead short, difficult lives, in the end eaten by something, usually alive. Nature equals suffering." You obviously know little about anthropology. Most "native" or hunter-gatherer tribes work(ed) 2-3 hours per day and spent the rest with leisure time. Hunting and gathering was humanity's first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history. Until 12,000 years ago, all humans lived this way. Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers That is the essence of primitivism. It's proved itself. Humans didn't grow food; food grew. They didn't try to enslave and control nature as Jacque Fresco is proposing. "But a rooftop gardener would be very valued in TVP, someone who would voluntarily look after gardens or hydroponics or do a personal research, can be a gardener for a whole city, along with other volunteers." Agriculture began the rapid downfall of human health and well-being and led up the wonderful society we have today. It was the worst thing that could have happened to people. Agriculture and its negative health effects: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12494313 More (expanded): http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html Birds living in cities proves birds are adaptable. Believe it or not, those birds all lived in nature long before cities existed. Are you implying humans did them some sort of favor by building through their habitats? TZM is becoming like a religion with its god-head Peter Joseph.

I've tried multiple times through mutliple venues to get in touch with TZM and VP people to discuss/debate their absurd concepts. So, I made this video. They can debate capitalists all they want, but they won't engage with a primitivist. They simply can't win. http://youtu.be/gr90vBwnx-Y

Because my life isn't worth the untold millions who are dying and will die as a result of the current system. The longer the current system lasts, the more humans and non-humans will die when it comes down. We could have a soft landing if everyone chose to, but that is unlikely.

Hello all: I don't see any threads (via the search function) seriously discussing Anarcho-Primitivism (AP), so I am creating this. Anarcho-primitivism critiques the totality of civilization from an anarchist perspective and seeks to initiate a comprehensive transformation of human life. In other words, if we don't change, we're going to suffer--even under free market capitalism. The belief that the world is ours to "use" and dominate is barbaric and short-sighted. I truly believe AP is the only hope that humans have for long-term survival. Here is a brief video of what AP is and why anyone would believe it: http://youtu.be/-oMobU_CbuU I made a video in response to Stefan's video concerning sustainability; please view it here: http://youtu.be/iO9spP939xk Please comment only on arguments, not the incredibly hypocritical fact that I don't sleep in the woods. I'm legally blind and discussed survivalism schools/rewilding with some experts and was told that I wouldn't make it. I'll be on the FDR call in show on 11/13 to discuss these topics with Stefan. Thanks for reading.