Capitalism vs. Primitivism

Philosphorous · December 3, 2013

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

MrCapitalism · December 3, 2013

I think Garet Garrett wrote the best response:

He had not yet begun to speak, but was peering about in the grass, stooping here and there to pluck a bit of vegetation. He walked as far as the fence for a bramble leaf. Returning he snapped a twig from the elm above his head and faced them.

"This natural elm," he began, with an admiring look at the tree, "was once a tiny thing. A sheep might have eaten it at one bite. Every living thing around it was hostile and injurious. And it survived. It grew. It took its profit. It became tall and powerful beyond the reach of enemies. What preserved it -- cooperative marketing? What gave it power -- a law from Congress? What gave it fullness -- the Golden Rule? On what was its strength founded -- a fraternal spirit? You know better. Your instincts tell you no. It saved itself. It found its own greatness. How? By fighting. Did you know that plants fight? If only you could see the deadly, ceaseless warfare among plants this lovely landscape would terrify you. It would make you think man's struggles tame. I will show you some glimpses of it.

"I hold up this leaf from the elm. The reason it is flat and thin is that the peaceable work of its life is to gather nourishment for the tree from the air. Therefore it must have as much surface as possible to touch the air with. But it has another work to do. A grisly work. A natural work all the same. It must fight. For that use it is pointed at the end as you see and has teeth around the edge -- these. The first thing the elm plant does is to grow straight up out of the ground with a spear thrust, its leaves rolled tightly together. Its enemies do not notice it. Then suddenly each leaf spreads itself out and with its teeth attacks other plants; it overturns them, holds them out of the sunlight, drowns them. And this is the tree! Do you wonder why the elm plant does not overrun the earth? Because other plants fight back, each in its own way. I show you a blade of grass. It has no teeth. How can it fight? Perhaps it lives by love and sweetness. It does not. It grows very fast by stealth, taking up so little room that nothing else minds, until all at once it is tall and strong enough to throw out blades in every direction and fall upon other plants. It smothers them to death. Then the bramble. I care not for the bramble. Not because it fights. For another reason. Here is its weapon. Besides the spear point and the teeth the bramble leaf you see is in five parts, like one's hand. It is a hand in fact, and one very hard to cast off. When it cannot overthrow and kill an enemy as the elm does, it climbs up his back to light and air, and in fact prefers that opportunity, gaining its profit not in natural combat but in shrewd advantage, like the middleman. Another plant I would like to show you. There is one near by. Unfortunately it would be inconvenient to exhibit him in these circumstances. His familiar name is honeysuckle. He is sleek, suave, brilliantly arrayed, and you would not suspect his nature, which is that of the preying speculator. Once you are in his toils it is hopeless. If you have not drowned or smothered him at first he will get you. The way of this plant is to twist itself round and round another and strangle it.

(page 74)

"This awful strife is universal in plant life. There are no exemptions. Among animals it is not so fierce. They can run from one another. Plants must fight it out where they stand. They must live or die on the spot. Among plants of one kind there is rivalry. The weak fall out and die; the better survive. That is the principle of natural selection. But all plants of one kind fight alike against plants of all other kinds. That is the law of their strength. None is helped but who first helps himself. A race of plants that had wasted its time waiting for Congress to give it light and air, or for a state bureau with hired agents to organize it by "the Golden Rule, or had been persuaded that its interests were in common with those of the consumer, would have disappeared from the earth.

"The farmer is like a plant. He cannot run. He is rooted. He shall live or die on the spot. But there is no plant like a farmer. There are nobles, ruffians, drudges, drones, harlots, speculators, bankers, thieves and scalawags, all these among plants, but no idiots, saying, 'How much will you give?' and 'What will you take?' Until you fight as the elm fights, take as the elm takes, think as the elm thinks, you will never be powerful and cannot be wise."

Philosphorous · December 3, 2013

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.

wdiaz03 · December 4, 2013

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.

Assuming man gives up this "dominion over the earth" and moves back to the caves, what prevents people from developing a civilization with technology like we have today again?

Say we all live in the trees now and I find a baby donkey 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 my donkey and sell the offspring? What would your society have to do to keep this from happening?

ProfessionalTeabagger · December 4, 2013

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.

Actually, it would be better if plants and animals did buy and sell weaker organisms for profit. Profit is generally a sign that you are pleasing your customer and being more efficient. If a bear could trade the fish he hunted for other goods then all local bears would be better off through that division of labor, including the baby bears. Instead there exists a brutal struggle for survival that is the same as it was pre-capitalism, pre-civilization and pre-humanity.

The animals do feel they have dominion over the earth to the extent that they are capable of that. They will spread over the earth if that is advantageous and they would do so without any regard for the welfare of others. They certainly have no hesitation in dominating US and killing us by the millions. They are not capable of conceiving of "the Earth" in the way we are so any implication that they are somehow acting morally or with humility is preposterous.

There is no evidence that anarcho-capitalists feel they have dominion over the earth in the way you are saying. The capitalist knows they must cooperate and trade and domination is not part of it. What's profitable about domination? It is the anarcho-primitivist who seeks to dominate by inducing guilt and shame in humans for their use of natural resources. Even IF you want to characterize what we do as domination then it would STILL be better than the domination that would exist without us. At least OUR dominion would include a concern for the suffering of other animals. There is dominion with or without capitalists because life itself dominates. To single out one species who are particularly good at using resources for their benefit is fallacious, anti-human propaganda.

Philosphorous · December 6, 2013

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:

Assuming man gives up this "dominion over the earth" and moves back to the caves, what prevents people from developing a civilization with technology like we have today again?

Say we all live in the trees now and I find a baby donkey 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 my donkey and sell the offspring? What would your society have to do to keep this from happening?

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?

ProfessionalTeabagger · December 6, 2013

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:

Not a single valid response to any of my arguments. Bears are getting by okay? By what standard? In a state of nature, bears live brutal lives and often die in agony; including their cubs. Bears live exactly the same way they did before coming into contact with humans. If you want to live like a bear then go do it. Tell me how you feel when you get your first tooth ache. I doubt you would even enjoy a weekend's camping.

We STILL live in nature. We adapt to it just like every other being. Calling it "whoring" or "destroying" is just prejudicial. When we "used to live in nature" as you call it we had to hunt, forage and use the resources around us. You are positing a fantasy that never existed. We died very young, were prone to all sorts of severe illnesses. There was disease and constant hardship. Nature fucking killed us off by a bucket load. "Living naturally" is a bullshit meaningless term. YOU are obviously not doing it unless "living naturally" means having an internet connection. No, you preach your idiotic horseshit about living naturally from the comfort of a heated modern home most likely.

When people say "your argument is racist" you know they're desperate just to shut you up. "Racist" is just a bludgeon word in this context. You provide no definition so even if you were right it wouldn't matter. Foraging tribes live lives of subsistence for the most part. These tribes are not the fucking Navi. Tribes, including the Indians (Yes "Indians", I don't give a shit) were and are just as brutal and and often live in rank superstition and hysteria. Why the hell would you want to live that way? To save nature? You would not be saving nature as nature suffers just as much without us. You just believe in some garden of Eden and it's preposterous. I did not say tribes were anti-human or that living without technology in a subsistence existence was anti-human. I said YOU are anti-human. Your arguments specifically single humans when the rest of nature is quite brutal and cares nothing for the well-being of others. I've already explained this but rather than actually rebut my arguments you just insult them AND me.

I don't believe you're going to give a rational response on this board so I suggest you call back in and discuss it with Stef. The first time, Stef asked if you wanted to talk to you about it and you refused and now you're HERE, calling Stef's argument "simplistic" without proving anything (where have we heard that shit before?) and insulting people who give you valid responses. Go back and put your case in the call in show. Thousands will hear it. If you're not willing to do that that then go watch Avatar again or something.

wdiaz03 · December 6, 2013

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?

All I wanted to hear, So you will use force against me, for domesticating a donkey, how a bout for cutting a tree?

Didn't you say that your "primitivism" was voluntary on the call in show?

I encourage comments from all sides, but please stick to the information rather than ad hominem responses or other non-arguments. Thank you.

Wow. The mind lock indoctrination is strong with this one...

Way to follow your own advice....You don't seem honest to me on your responses so far, What do you expect from this interactions? do you want to change others minds? Are you looking for feedback on possible flaws on your believes?

Philosphorous · December 6, 2013

Not a single valid response to any of my arguments. Bears are getting by okay? By what standard? In a state of nature, bears live brutal lives and often die in agony; including their cubs. Bears live exactly the same way they did before coming into contact with humans. If you want to live like a bear then go do it. Tell me how you feel when you get your first tooth ache. I doubt you would even enjoy a weekend's camping.

We STILL live in nature. We adapt to it just like every other being. Calling it "whoring" or "destroying" is just prejudicial. When we "used to live in nature" as you call it we had to hunt, forage and use the resources around us. You are positing a fantasy that never existed. We died very young, were prone to all sorts of severe illnesses. There was disease and constant hardship. Nature fucking killed us off by a bucket load. "Living naturally" is a bullshit meaningless term. YOU are obviously not doing it unless "living naturally" means having an internet connection. No, you preach your idiotic horseshit about living naturally from the comfort of a heated modern home most likely.

When people say "your argument is racist" you know they're desperate just to shut you up. "Racist" is just a bludgeon word in this context. You provide no definition so even if you were right it wouldn't matter. Foraging tribes live lives of subsistence for the most part. These tribes are not the fucking Navi. Tribes, including the Indians (Yes "Indians", I don't give a shit) were and are just as brutal and and often live in rank superstition and hysteria. Why the hell would you want to live that way? To save nature? You would not be saving nature as nature suffers just as much without us. You just believe in some garden of Eden and it's preposterous. I did not say tribes were anti-human or that living without technology in a subsistence existence was anti-human. I said YOU are anti-human. Your arguments specifically single humans when the rest of nature is quite brutal and cares nothing for the well-being of others. I've already explained this but rather than actually rebut my arguments you just insult them AND me.

I don't believe you're going to give a rational response on this board so I suggest you call back in and discuss it with Stef. The first time, Stef asked if you wanted to talk to you about it and you refused and now you're HERE, calling Stef's argument "simplistic" without proving anything (where have we heard that shit before?) and insulting people who give you valid responses. Go back and put your case in the call in show. Thousands will hear it. If you're not willing to do that that then go watch Avatar again or something.

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.

All I wanted to hear, So you will use force against me, for domesticating a donkey, how a bout for cutting a tree?

Didn't you say that your "primitivism" was voluntary on the call in show?

Way to follow your own advice....You don't seem honest to me on your responses so far, What do you expect from this interactions? do you want to change others minds? Are you looking for feedback on possible flaws on your believes?

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

Wesley · December 6, 2013

I would be very interested to hear that conversation between you and Stef about how your history relates to the development of your ideas.

I am aware that this is not an argument and doesn't prove you wrong in any way. I am just expressing that it would be very interesting to me to hear this conversation.

Philosphorous · December 6, 2013

I would be very interested to hear that conversation between you and Stef about how your history relates to the development of your ideas.

I am aware that this is not an argument and doesn't prove you wrong in any way. I am just expressing that it would be very interesting to me to hear this conversation.

Me too.

ProfessionalTeabagger · December 6, 2013

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

No, sorry pal you don't get to make a 16 minute video and then tell people to keep their responses short. My response was only about 3 paragraphs. How short should it be? How can you tell people here to keep their responses short and then immediately respond by linking an article that is about 15 times longer? It's hypocritical. You claim it's all character attacks while claiming you don't have the time to go through it. That cannot logically be true. Therefore you are being dishonest.

If primitivism is the only sustainable way to live then why aren't you doing it? The brutal life stuff is not fictional. I've put forward some of the fallacies you're using but you refuse to respond rationally to them. Anyone can link an article that supports their position. You don't have to look far to find refutations. Just one example - here's a chart comparing the percentage of male deaths through warfare , comparing primitive tribes with 20th century Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg

You also don't get to tell me what I "think I need". If you want to go live a subsistence life then fine. I actually care about nature and will not submit to its cruelty because of some blatantly fallacious notions about primitive living. People like us may get that donkey to help carry stuff but we also feed it and take care of it and shield it from the raw brutality of nature. People like you just let it struggle and die.

And BTW, yes you are correct, I am pro-human but that does not mean anti-animal. Humans ARE animals. Also, and I do not mean this as an insult, but concern for the welfare of a tree is insane. I mean that. It is insane. A tree is devoid of consciousness and has no capacity for suffering. They are not Ents. Why not avoid walking on grass? Why are we allowed to eat vegetation but not use trees?What about the freedom of bacteria and viruses? Why do trees have this privilege? Who are YOU to draw these arbitrary lines based on your own aesthetic preferences?

Philosphorous · December 6, 2013

No, sorry pal you don't get to make a 16 minute video and then tell people to keep their responses short. My response was only about 3 paragraphs. How short should it be? How can you tell people here to keep their responses short and then immediately respond by linking an article that is about 15 times longer? It's hypocritical. You claim it's all character attacks while claiming you don't have the time to go through it. That cannot logically be true. Therefore you are being dishonest.

If primitivism is the only sustainable way to live then why aren't you doing it? The brutal life stuff is not fictional. I've put forward some of the fallacies you're using but you refuse to respond rationally to them. Anyone can link an article that supports their position. You don't have to look far to find refutations. Just one example - here's a chart comparing the percentage of male deaths through warfare , comparing primitive tribes with 20th century Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg

You also don't get to tell me what I "think I need". If you want to go live a subsistence life then fine. I actually care about nature and will not submit to its cruelty because of some blatantly fallacious notions about primitive living. People like us may get that donkey to help carry stuff but we also feed it and take care of it and shield it from the raw brutality of nature. People like you just let it struggle and die.

And BTW, yes you are correct, I am pro-human but that does not mean anti-animal. Humans ARE animals. Also, and I do not mean this as an insult, but concern for the welfare of a tree is insane. I mean that. It is insane. A tree is devoid of consciousness and has no capacity for suffering. They are not Ents. Why not avoid walking on grass? Why are we allowed to eat vegetation but not use trees?What about the freedom of bacteria and viruses? Why do trees have this privilege? Who are YOU to draw these arbitrary lines based on your own aesthetic preferences?

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.

ProfessionalTeabagger · December 6, 2013

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.

This is obviously important to you and you want to spread this idea within the FDR community so call in on the Sunday show and put forward the arguments. To me the kind of irrationality that states trees may be conscious and suffer is insurmountable. It is actually frightening to me that people like you exist and I am certain you will not change your mind. You believe the Earth is something that owns us. I can't even begin to argue with that. It is evil but I know you think it is good. I have looked people in the eye who say things like that and they just seem alien to me. I know that I'm looking at raw trauma and I right now I can't deal with it. I will listen to your debate with Stef but I will not be responding to you again.

Philosphorous · December 6, 2013

This is obviously important to you and you want to spread this idea within the FDR community so call in on the Sunday show and put forward the arguments. To me the kind of irrationality that states trees may be conscious and suffer is insurmountable. It is actually frightening to me that people like you exist and I am certain you will not change your mind. You believe the Earth is something that owns us. I can't even begin to argue with that. It is evil but I know you think it is good. I have looked people in the eye who say things like that and they just seem alien to me. I know that I'm looking at raw trauma and I right now I can't deal with it. I will listen to your debate with Stef but I will not be responding to you again.

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]

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

If a shift to primitivism kills off 90% of earths population, would you still be for it?

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

If a shift to primitivism kills off 90% of earths population, would you still be for it?

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.

Armitage · December 7, 2013

As for OP, you've got a point. Capitalists who are most proud of making things on their own and living off their own work and property... depend on getting all freebie from the nature. When I point that out, they respond, that Earth is not a person, Earth has no ownership.

I think that's a pretty lame argument, it's legalism. America was stolen from the Indians and then Americans made valid laws against stealing American resources. Laws are made and there is nothing wrong about making laws for Earth. If people believe laws exist naturally and only for homo sapiens, then returning America to native Americans is the only logical thing. And Bolivia already defined Earth as a legal person with rights.

OK, taking things from nature may be a hard work. But if something is a hard work, that doesn't mean it's legal or good! If stealing something was difficult, does that mean I can keep it?

What does it matter? It matters, because capitalists who steal property from Earth then claim ownership on this property and sell it to other people as if it was theirs. That's just unfair.

If Earth was a real person, how could we trade with her? We could borrow some million barrels of oil, but how would we pay them back, with a fair interest? We have nowhere else to get barrels of oil and Earth doesn't accept our money. Which are made of Earth's materials again.

And if we are really supposed to live off our own labor, then why don't people reject heritages from rich dying relatives? Why don't children usually pay back the costs of their own upbringing? Why is charity seen as a normal, humane thing? Are we really more social and non-profit species than we thought?

So is there any honorable way to get out of this? Well, first thing we have to realize, is that we are all parasites on Earth and often on each other. Parasitism and freeloading is natural. So if they are inevitable, we may as well get good at it. We may become the best behaved parasites, take as little as possible, live as sustainably as possible. And we should not place any exclusive claim on Earth's resources. All the resources must be declared a common human heritage, we can not place an exclusive ownership on them. They must all serve the whole human race, or we'll end up back in capitalism.

Well, but if you know the history of economy, resources alone are useless, they must be traded and exchanged somehow, globally if possible. The only way to do that is either a monetary system, or a resource-based economy.

Living primitively is perhaps sustainable in some areas like tropical islands, but even there people used to commit suicide out of toothache. Not speaking of plagues. In some areas climate is so harsh, that we need advanced technology to make them livable.

We've become one hell of a big humanity and the only way to increase the carrying capacity on square kilometer is through technology. Technology is not good or bad, it's people who use it. Technology caused a lot of natural devastation, but that's because it was a primitive technology. Brown coal power-plants are just terrible, even worse than nuclear. And the so-called ecological solar panels contain some very poisonous rare earth elements, which wash out and the panels have a rather short lived time.

I believe a better technology and more technology is the key. If you watch the latest developments, there is a lot of development of super-advanced stuff out of the simplest and cleanest materials - like carbon sheets of graphene. This wondrous material is not poisonous, it's common as graphite and it can supply the modern civilization. Computers out of silicene or stannene sheets may get much more ecologic than they are today. And look what graphene can do, that's absolutely amazing:

http://www.ted.com/talks/justin_hall_tipping_freeing_energy_from_the_grid.html

(and the night vision is pretty cool, he he)

You're right about primitivism, in the sense that we need a much simpler civilization and life style. We need a culture that will allow us to live happily without Hollywood, McDonald, U.S. Army, Monsanto and so on. We do not really need these companies and their products. I vehemently disagree with market fundamentalism who say everything we are offered is a free choice and that without them we would not be happy. I believe in Socrates or Aristotle or some guy like that, who believed that happiness is in virtue. And what is better for virtue than internet? I come from a farm house in a village and I assure you, the farmwork and housework are just dull stupid activities, that make us no more intelligent, virtuous and happier. Unless of course you listen to some Stefan Molyneux or Jacque Fresco podcasts while you rake the hay or cut the wood.

And I also believe in super-efficient atom sheet processors that consume so little energy, that they allow to live a modern digital life without huge power plants - so that it looks like we're all natural, while our clothes and houses are swarming with electronics.

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

As for OP, you've got a point. Capitalists who are most proud of making things on their own and living off their own work and property... depend on getting all freebie from the nature. When I point that out, they respond, that Earth is not a person, Earth has no ownership.

I think that's a pretty lame argument, it's legalism. America was stolen from the Indians and then Americans made valid laws against stealing American resources. Laws are made and there is nothing wrong about making laws for Earth. If people believe laws exist naturally and only for homo sapiens, then returning America to native Americans is the only logical thing. And Bolivia already defined Earth as a legal person with rights.

OK, taking things from nature may be a hard work. But if something is a hard work, that doesn't mean it's legal or good! If stealing something was difficult, does that mean I can keep it?

What does it matter? It matters, because capitalists who steal property from Earth then claim ownership on this property and sell it to other people as if it was theirs. That's just unfair.

If Earth was a real person, how could we trade with her? We could borrow some million barrels of oil, but how would we pay them back, with a fair interest? We have nowhere else to get barrels of oil and Earth doesn't accept our money. Which are made of Earth's materials again.

And if we are really supposed to live off our own labor, then why don't people reject heritages from rich dying relatives? Why don't children usually pay back the costs of their own upbringing? Why is charity seen as a normal, humane thing? Are we really more social and non-profit species than we thought?

So is there any honorable way to get out of this? Well, first thing we have to realize, is that we are all parasites on Earth and often on each other. Parasitism and freeloading is natural. So if they are inevitable, we may as well get good at it. We may become the best behaved parasites, take as little as possible, live as sustainably as possible. And we should not place any exclusive claim on Earth's resources. All the resources must be declared a common human heritage, we can not place an exclusive ownership on them. They must all serve the whole human race, or we'll end up back in capitalism.

Well, but if you know the history of economy, resources alone are useless, they must be traded and exchanged somehow, globally if possible. The only way to do that is either a monetary system, or a resource-based economy.

Living primitively is perhaps sustainable in some areas like tropical islands, but even there people used to commit suicide out of toothache. Not speaking of plagues. In some areas climate is so harsh, that we need advanced technology to make them livable.

We've become one hell of a big humanity and the only way to increase the carrying capacity on square kilometer is through technology. Technology is not good or bad, it's people who use it. Technology caused a lot of natural devastation, but that's because it was a primitive technology. Brown coal power-plants are just terrible, even worse than nuclear. And the so-called ecological solar panels contain some very poisonous rare earth elements, which wash out and the panels have a rather short lived time.

I believe a better technology and more technology is the key. If you watch the latest developments, there is a lot of development of super-advanced stuff out of the simplest and cleanest materials - like carbon sheets of graphene. This wondrous material is not poisonous, it's common as graphite and it can supply the modern civilization. Computers out of silicene or stannene sheets may get much more ecologic than they are today. And look what graphene can do, that's absolutely amazing:

http://www.ted.com/talks/justin_hall_tipping_freeing_energy_from_the_grid.html

(and the night vision is pretty cool, he he)

You're right about primitivism, in the sense that we need a much simpler civilization and life style. We need a culture that will allow us to live happily without Hollywood, McDonald, U.S. Army, Monsanto and so on. We do not really need these companies and their products. I vehemently disagree with market fundamentalism who say everything we are offered is a free choice and that without them we would not be happy. I believe in Socrates or Aristotle or some guy like that, who believed that happiness is in virtue. And what is better for virtue than internet? I come from a farm house in a village and I assure you, the farmwork and housework are just dull stupid activities, that make us no more intelligent, virtuous and happier. Unless of course you listen to some Stefan Molyneux or Jacque Fresco podcasts.

And I also believe in super-efficient atom sheet processors that consume so little energy, that they allow to live a modern digital life without huge power plants - so that it looks like we're all natural, while our clothes and houses are swarming with electronics.

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.

Armitage · December 7, 2013

Thanks! I studied Law & Economy with a Libertarian schoolmaster and it seemed to me he skipped this point of view. I just see it as inconsistent, we draw this line between humans and nature, on one side there is a "natural law" and ownership and on the other side there is just nature to take from, no laws until people come along and claim it. Yet we are affected by natural ecosystem dynamics regardless of such arbitrary lines.

We are like passengers on a big spaceship, hacking away at the life support systems. Only this spaceship does not travel in space, it travels in time into the future, 60 minutes per hour.

I'll have to listen to the video too.

This reminds me of Hegel's dialectics. I don't read Hegel, but what he basically said, the history has a way of repeating itself in 3-fold cycles, thesis, antithesis and synthesis. I'd interpret it that thesis is some tendency, let's say it's a simple primitive existence. Then comes antithesis, which is exact opposite, an extremely sophisticated hi-tech civilization with elaborate culture. And then this civilization fails and along comes synthesis. Synthesis is a repeating of the thesis, but on a whole different level, which has also integrated the best of what antithesis achieved. Which would be in my interpretation the technology itself, that allows us to utilize these amazing graphene sheets.

We may have a really simple life style ahead of us, a life where simplicity is as valued as wealth is today, where material possessions are seen as hindrance. In that goal, technology and miniaturization will be our greatest ally. We will again live as a great tribe, but this time micro-electronics and global network will help to be parts of a global village. Our riches will be in "heaven", where nobody may steal them, because they're open-source.

Primitive means "similar to ancestors" but that does not mean we have to be exactly like ancestors

One of things I like about The Venus Project is, that it lets people live inside relatively small and compact cities, connected by high-speed traffic, maglev capsules on stilts, quiet and solar-powered. And all the space between circular cities is a free range wilderness. A park where nature may grow, but which people can also modify and restore the ecology where the old cities once stood.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

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.

You do realize without agriculture, human life would have to shrink by 90%. How many generations to whittle it down to 150 million people. What will that look like?

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

You do realize without agriculture, human life would have to shrink by 90%. How many generations to whittle it down to 150 million people. What will that look like?

I don't know. But, what will it look like if we just let it go and, say, oil runs out, or, as some predict, there are wars over clean water later this century?

People can peacefully choose to live sustainably or the Earth can make them do it. The Earth will throw us all away if we wait too long.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

I don't know. But, what will it look like if we just let it go and, say, oil runs out, or, as some predict, there are wars over clean water later this century?

People can peacefully choose to live sustainably or the Earth can make them do it. The Earth will throw us all away if we wait too long.

Those people will die anyways, so we should be okay with them dying by "natural" means?

By that logic you should be advocating a free market which puts the innovation and creativity of the best of us, at work on the fundamental problems of our world. Capitalism and free markets specifically reward people who expend great effort and work into the hardest problems of mankind, and they reap the gratitude of millions for their efforts if successful via voluntary exchange. Without these rewards of moral, mental, physical and emotional recompense who will do the work, who will care enough? Most certainly not you who cry for the eradication of billions, to give mother earth back her property rights.

ProfessionalTeabagger · December 7, 2013

Those people will die anyways, so we should be okay with them dying by "natural" means?

By that logic you should be advocating a free market which puts the innovation and creativity of the best of us, at work on the fundamental problems of our world. Capitalism and free markets specifically reward people who expend great effort and work into the hardest problems of mankind, and they reap the gratitude of millions for their efforts if successful via voluntary exchange. Without these rewards of moral, mental, physical and emotional recompense who will do the work, who will care enough? Most certainly not you who cry for the eradication of billions, to give mother earth back her property rights.

These guys take it all the way. They accept many of the same gross fallacies. They are mostly anti-capitalist too. It's kind of a new manifestation of Christianity and original sin. We left the garden because we were evil. We must accept sacrifice and bow before some higher power, be it God or Gaia. We are parasites, whore-mongers and destroyers. We must return to the garden where all was in balance.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

These guys take it all the way. They accept many of the same gross fallacies. They are mostly anti-capitalist too. It's kind of a new manifestation of Christianity and original sin. We left the garden because we were evil. We must accept sacrifice and bow before some higher power, be it God or Gaia. We are parasites, whore-mongers and destroyers. We must return to the garden where all was in balance.

That's pretty gnarly. I couldn't read past all the justifications, because it was covered in a layer of slimy self pity.

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

Those people will die anyways, so we should be okay with them dying by "natural" means?

By that logic you should be advocating a free market which puts the innovation and creativity of the best of us, at work on the fundamental problems of our world. Capitalism and free markets specifically reward people who expend great effort and work into the hardest problems of mankind, and they reap the gratitude of millions for their efforts if successful via voluntary exchange. Without these rewards of moral, mental, physical and emotional recompense who will do the work, who will care enough? Most certainly not you who cry for the eradication of billions, to give mother earth back her property rights.

So... business as usual, right? Except, somehow, this fantasy free market will save us.

See, the thing is, when a bath tub overflows, you shut off the tap. You don't filter the water, build acqueducts, etc. You shut off the the source of the problems. The problem with civilization is civilization. It is consuming the planet, and capitalism is right up there with the Venus Project in thinking more of the same will help. Both systems are basically asking the same question: "How can we solve all these problems while not stopping civlization, which is the source of the problem?" The solution is simple: go back to what worked for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Speak to the rest of the Earthlings. Ask them what they think of capitalism. Talk to the victims who would suffer and be for sale to implement that system so that humans don't have to give up their toys. They'll tell you the answer.

These guys take it all the way. They accept many of the same gross fallacies. They are mostly anti-capitalist too. It's kind of a new manifestation of Christianity and original sin. We left the garden because we were evil. We must accept sacrifice and bow before some higher power, be it God or Gaia. We are parasites, whore-mongers and destroyers. We must return to the garden where all was in balance.

Hey; it's "voluntary". It says it right in the title. You capitalists should love that.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

So... business as usual, right? Except, somehow, this fantasy free market will save us.

See, the thing is, when a bath tub overflows, you shut off the tap. You don't filter the water, build acqueducts, etc. You shut off the the source of the problems. The problem with civilization is civilization. It is consuming the planet, and capitalism is right up there with the Venus Project in thinking more of the same will help. Both systems are basically asking the same question: "How can we solve all these problems while not stopping civlization, which is the source of the problem?" The solution is simple: go back to what worked for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Speak to the rest of the Earthlings. Ask them what they think of capitalism. Talk to the victims who would suffer and be for sale to implement that system so that humans don't have to give up their toys. They'll tell you the answer.

So you are advocating genocide.

wdiaz03 · December 7, 2013

, and I'll tell you what--I truly do hope the education I get living off the land works..

I admire your courage in testing your believes. But to get the most out of this lesson you should live of the land with no modern objects. nothing that's the result of modern society should be used. for example it would be misleading to future generations if you survive using things like cotton clothes and artificial fabrics, modern shoes, etc since these will not be available after the current supply of these things is used up and cease to exist. It is important for you to test how friendly the environment is to living things, a good idea would be to look at the Amazon tribes for an idea on what should be permissible. Also it is important to note that these tribes do keep animals for food, and use trees to build shelter, is that necessary? or it a a slippery slope to begin dominating nature and ease their struggle to survive?

In determining "what you truly needed" it is best to just take from the earth what you need at the moment. anything extra could mean life or death to another living thing.

Do ask your trainer how feasible does he think your ideas are as well.

Best of luck!

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

So you are advocating genocide.

Nope; capitalists are on everything except humans.

I seriously think it's laughable that ancaps feel that everybody will play nice once the state goes away. That because somebody says "non-aggression principle" and "property rights" that somehow that will stop people from getting ahead however possible. No way will the richest people get together and try to control people!

Go ahead and make whatever assumptions you want about primitivism, but it was tried and it worked. It was best for the Earth. The "market" started free with agriculture and trade and then ended up the abomination we have today. With agriculture and money comes hierarchies, domination, etc. and of course, people are going to do that to humans too.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

Nope; capitalists are on everything except humans.

I seriously think it's laughable that ancaps feel that everybody will play nice once the state goes away. That because somebody says "non-aggression principle" and "property rights" that somehow that will stop people from getting ahead however possible. No way will the richest people get together and try to control people!

Go ahead and make whatever assumptions you want about primitivism, but it was tried and it worked. It was best for the Earth. The "market" started free with agriculture and trade and then ended up the abomination we have today. With agriculture and money comes hierarchies, domination, etc. and of course, people are going to do that to humans too.

So how do you justify the billions that will die in the grinding progress to primitivism?

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

So how do you justify the billions that will die in the grinding progress to primitivism?

So how do you justify the billions that will die in the grinding progress to anarcho-capitalism? What with that glut of government jobs, subsidies and stimulus drying up?

Didn't I already explain this? Humans can choose to live sustainably or the planet can choose for them. This has nothing to do with primitivism. If we dial it back, it can be a slow(er) transition and nobody has to die in this genocide you keep bringing up. Imagine, for example, if all of a sudden people found out about the Earth's actual carrying capacity. Don't you think more than a few of them, after learning about a future possibly filled with megadeath by their own doing, would choose not to have children? Or, at the very least, they would begin to dial back their consumption? A collapse is avoidable but not until people learn just how dire things are.

How do you justify the billions that ARE dying under this system and will continue to do so in a free market--mostly non-humans? How do you justify the genocide humans are committing on nature under capitalism--a system that sees Earth as theirs to use?

Under ancap, would the war against nature stop?

In Stefan's Sustainability video, he casually talks about cutting down trees as the right of the highest bidder. That is sick--not even considering the living trees, the animals who live there and the ecosystem it would destroy. Talk about genocide!

This is extremely applicable:

"It was strangely like war. They attacked the forest as if it were an enemy to be pushed back from the beachheads, driven into the hills, broken into patches, and wiped out. Many operators thought they were not only making lumber but liberating the land from the trees. . ." from The Last Wilderness, by Murray Morgan, 1976

That's what you capitalists want? That along with the Ayn Rand philosophy of "greed is a virtue" should make for a bright future.

JohnH. · December 7, 2013

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you don't live up to the standard you expect of others.

wdiaz03 · December 7, 2013

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you don't live up to the standard you expect of others.

I agree, here.

You want to spread your message and be as effective as possible. The fact that you are encountering resistance here means that you are not being as effective as you can be. You come across as the fat guy with a diet book. you are using technology and modern methods of communication to speak against technology. Why not get a plantain tree leaf (don't take it from the tree, that would be against the NAP, wait for it to fall off) and write your message with some natural dye. Stand in a corner and practice delivering your message in proper attire. This is important because this is closer to the way you will have to communicate in your future.

I seriously think it's laughable that ancaps feel that everybody will play nice once the state goes away. That because somebody says "non-aggression principle" and "property rights" that somehow that will stop people from getting ahead however possible...

This argument also applies to you, Lets assume you get your wish, How can it be ensured that the thousands of hunter gatherer groups across the planet will stay as hunter gatherers? Someone might decide to follow the same path to modern society just like it was done in the past. Domesticating animals and plats, building towns, agriculture...etc. How wold you deal with people that do not accept your ideas? This is why it is important for you to rethink your approach, you won't have the luxury of mass media and internet in that future.

.., but it was tried and it worked. It was best for the Earth. The "market" started free with agriculture and trade and then ended up the abomination we have today. With agriculture and money comes hierarchies, domination, etc. and of course, people are going to do that to humans too.

This can be applied to primitivism as well, Just swap "The market" for "Primitivism" in your statement: "Primitivism" started ... and then ended up the abomination we have today. With agriculture and money comes hierarchies, domination, etc. and of course, people are going to do that to humans too"

Also try to be as honest as possible when delivering your message. You speak of tree genocide, just make sure you don't paint a rosy picture of your future to your audience because they'll pick up on the deception as most are doing here. Just mention that the genocide instead of trees and animals will just be shifted to humans. That most of them will see babies and mothers die of childbirth, people die of snake bites and simple infections, parasites, animal attacks (Just in India recently a wild tiger has killed several people), the old would have to wonder off to the woods to die when they become a burden to the group etc. but note that this is just natural and how humans lived in the past.

Again just want you to be as effective as possible with your message.

Holo Cene · December 7, 2013

So how do you justify the billions that will die in the grinding progress to anarcho-capitalism? What with that glut of government jobs, subsidies and stimulus drying up?

Didn't I already explain this? Humans can choose to live sustainably or the planet can choose for them. This has nothing to do with primitivism. If we dial it back, it can be a slow(er) transition and nobody has to die in this genocide you keep bringing up. Imagine, for example, if all of a sudden people found out about the Earth's actual carrying capacity. Don't you think more than a few of them, after learning about a future possibly filled with megadeath by their own doing, would choose not to have children? Or, at the very least, they would begin to dial back their consumption? A collapse is avoidable but not until people learn just how dire things are.

How do you justify the billions that ARE dying under this system and will continue to do so in a free market--mostly non-humans? How do you justify the genocide humans are committing on nature under capitalism--a system that sees Earth as theirs to use?

Under ancap, would the war against nature stop?

In Stefan's Sustainability video, he casually talks about cutting down trees as the right of the highest bidder. That is sick--not even considering the living trees, the animals who live there and the ecosystem it would destroy. Talk about genocide!

This is extremely applicable:

"It was strangely like war. They attacked the forest as if it were an enemy to be pushed back from the beachheads, driven into the hills, broken into patches, and wiped out. Many operators thought they were not only making lumber but liberating the land from the trees. . ." from The Last Wilderness, by Murray Morgan, 1976

That's what you capitalists want? That along with the Ayn Rand philosophy of "greed is a virtue" should make for a bright future.

Essentially you are a psychopath. I do not accept that billions will die. If given free reign, man will find a way.

Philosphorous · December 7, 2013

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you don't live up to the standard you expect of others.

Already addressed. Again:

There are two issues here; the first is education. We were all raised within civilization, which has a vested interest in ensuring its children have as little independent survival value as possible. The civilized cultural system has adapted well — it reinforces itself memetically in precisely those areas where individuals are closest to self-sufficiency, creating a feeling of dependence even where little actual dependence exists. Regardless, most primitivists no more possess the skills of survival than your average suburbanite — skills every six year old “primitive” would have. Most primitivists are working to remedy that situation, but in the same way that you wouldn’t tell a !Kung man with dreams of brokering stock to just go to Wall Street already, but to learn a thing or two about the stock market first, so we are learning the skills we will need before hanging our lives on such skills. “Running off into the woods already” is a goal, ultimately, but one we must work towards, not one we can simply pick up and go with. If it were that easy, well, you wouldn’t be reading this, I can tell you that.

Secondly, there is the issue of lands and laws--you know, the blessed property rights! Civilization has precluded “running off into the woods” as an option fairly well. Hunting regulations pose serious encumberments, to say nothing of the fact that some meager income must be maintained to pay for hunting and fishing licenses, as well as taxes on land. Ultimately, such a “micro-collapse” is impossible so long as civilization still exists — the pressing needs of ever-increasing complexity will lead to our re-absorption, by force if necessary. There is the essential problem; if civilization were willing to coexist with us, we would be happy to return the favor. But ultimately, civilization is incapable of letting anything but itself exist. We’re happy to live alongside anyone who’s willing to live alongside us — but civilization is not. “Running off into the woods,” so long as civilization remans, merely ensures our eventual, violent destruction at civilizaton’s hands.

Here's an example for you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-23529555

I agree, here.

You want to spread your message and be as effective as possible. The fact that you are encountering resistance here means that you are not being as effective as you can be. You come across as the fat guy with a diet book. you are using technology and modern methods of communication to speak against technology. Why not get a plantain tree leaf (don't take it from the tree, that would be against the NAP, wait for it to fall off) and write your message with some natural dye. Stand in a corner and practice delivering your message in proper attire. This is important because this is closer to the way you will have to communicate in your future.

This argument also applies to you, Lets assume you get your wish, How can it be ensured that the thousands of hunter gatherer groups across the planet will stay as hunter gatherers? Someone might decide to follow the same path to modern society just like it was done in the past. Domesticating animals and plats, building towns, agriculture...etc. How wold you deal with people that do not accept your ideas? This is why it is important for you to rethink your approach, you won't have the luxury of mass media and internet in that future.

This can be applied to primitivism as well, Just swap "The market" for "Primitivism" in your statement: "Primitivism" started ... and then ended up the abomination we have today. With agriculture and money comes hierarchies, domination, etc. and of course, people are going to do that to humans too"

Also try to be as honest as possible when delivering your message. You speak of tree genocide, just make sure you don't paint a rosy picture of your future to your audience because they'll pick up on the deception as most are doing here. Just mention that the genocide instead of trees and animals will just be shifted to humans. That most of them will see babies and mothers die of childbirth, people die of snake bites and simple infections, parasites, animal attacks (Just in India recently a wild tiger has killed several people), the old would have to wonder off to the woods to die when they become a burden to the group etc. but note that this is just natural and how humans lived in the past.

Again just want you to be as effective as possible with your message.

Credentialism. This is something Stef loves to do in order to sneak in an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the message. Try suddenly releasing a domesticated bird in the wild and see what happens. (Well, don't, but you get my drift.)

Primitivism is without agriculture, hence hunter-gathering.

Most of this has already been addressed, but as for the euthanasia charge, it comes from the Inuit, who were once slandered as leaving their elderly to die on ice floes. In fact, it was a rare custom, but a form of voluntary self-sacrifice that elders sometimes engaged in for the good of their bands, despite the pleading protestations of the rest of the band. The Inuit are full of such exceptions that prove the rule, because even for a forager, the arctic is a harsh and unforgiving place.

The infant mortality has simply been completely misrepresented, though. Yes, infant mortality among foragers is high — but not for the reasons such a statement would seem to imply. It is not because of disease or malnutrition — quite the opposite, as these things are fairly peculiar to civilized societies. Rather, just as we argue whether life begins at conception or at birth, foragers believe that life does not begin until, usually, the age of two. Foragers look at infanticide much the same way we do abortion. Among the !Kung, a pregnant woman goes into labor, and walks off into the bush (I’m told that childbirth is significantly less an ordeal among those who are not malnourished — affluently or otherwise). Maybe she comes back with a child; maybe she doesn’t. Either way, no questions are asked. So, our calculations of forager lifespans are quite unfair — if we’re going to include their infanticide, then we must include our own abortions. To do otherwise would simply be ethnocentric. In fact, when we do that, we see that forager lifespans are as long as, and sometimes longer, than our own.

The charge on medicine is common, but utterly anthropocentric. In the anthropology of medicine, one refers to “ethnomedicine” — whatever a given culture considers to be “medicine.” Given the overlap of food-as-medicine, this can be as arbitrary as how a culture divides up the color spectrum. Western biomedicine is our ethnomedicine. Every culture believes that their ethnomedicine is the only valuable one, and all others are naught but silly superstition. This is simply ethnocentrism. At the root of the claim that primitivism precludes medicine is precisely this ethnocentrism. In fact, when we look at the actual efficacy of the various ethnomedicines in the world, there’s very little variation. Most ethnomedicines are quite effective, just like ours; most have one or more area where they fail utterly (ours tries to ignore placebo rather than use it; shamanism is the opposite, but has no conept of surgery, etc.), and all end up being roughly interchangeable if one is only concerned with efficacy. So, by no means does primitivism require the end of medicine — it merely means a radically different, but equally effective, form of medicine. In fact, if we attempt a syncretic type of medicine that seeks to combine the best of several ethnomedicines, we may actually come up with one of the first medical systems that actually is more effective.

Seriously--how many obesity, cancer, etc. civilization diseases would go away without this domesticating, expoitative system?

Nobody has addressed two things:

1) Why pre-agriculture society worked for millions of years vs. this fantasy about capitalism that has never been in place and is untested (and most concerns about primitivism are based on stereotypes and misinformation), and

2) Why there are still 60+ HG tribes on the Earth today. Do you think they are stupid or something because they don't want to buy and sell life?

I understand the capitalist allure. Keep all your toys and get more AND get the government out of the way! It's not plausible. And it's a pro-human, anti-nature philosophy. It encourages a little less death than today, but you'll still end up with mass graveyards--like that video said. You know, like this:

Sign In

Capitalism vs. Primitivism

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites