Capitalism vs. Primitivism

[Philosphorous]

This whole saving the wolves thing seems like a terrible idea. I know nature and all that, but I really don't care to have wolves running around where people live. We used to be very afraid of them as a species and there was damn good reason for it. Particularly since these wolves they are bringing back are NOT the wolves that used to live there. Some idiot decided we needed to replace the basically extinct population of gray wolves that were native with the Canadian Timber Wolf (a subspecies of the gray wolf  that is a MUCH larger animal).

 

This whole saving capitalism thing seems like a terrible idea. I know "freedom" and all that, but I really don't care to have businessmen running around where people live. We should be very afraid of them as a species and there are damn good reasons for it. Particularly since those businessmen are finding new ways to destroy the planet every day. Some idiot decided to invent something called the "free market" to justify humans shitting in their own mouths for profit, which is only encouraging new businesses that consider the world for sale. They see everything as dollar signs, which is a much LARGER problem than any wolve could possibly be.

[LanceD]

Sir I don't think anyone cares what you have to say anymore. Throughout all of your threads on this board you have refused honest debate and proven yourself to be a hypocrite. After all if you can't even begin to live the things you preach in your daily life then why should I?

[PatrickC]

DeepLeftistResistance

 

Ah, that makes more sense now.

[Philosphorous]

Sir I don't think anyone cares what you have to say anymore. Throughout all of your threads on this board you have refused honest debate and proven yourself to be a hypocrite. After all if you can't even begin to live the things you preach in your daily life then why should I?

 

I just love this argument--especially from somebody who keeps paying taxes that fund all that violence you preach against and then makes a lot of excuses why he shouldn't.

 

Also, according to Stefan, the free market as he's existed has never existed, and I don't see any big ancap movement to make that happen rather than bitching on the Internet. So, not only do you keep paying your taxes, but you keep participating in the civilization bloodbath and blaming the state for doing so.

 

Believe it or not, you not moving out to the woods to live off the grid is exactly as hypocritical as you're accusing me of being, since out there, you would have to trade freely and you wouldn't have to pay taxes. Get cracking!

DeepLeftistResistance

 

Ah, that makes more sense now.

 

I know. All leftists are anti-civilization.

 

Nobody on this board has any valid arguments except character attacks. "Why should I if you aren't?" That's really all you've got? Besides the fact that the capitalists own every inch of the Earth so I'd be arrested (as people are now as I posted above), this is a great way for you to dodge any and all criticism of the civilizatin bloodbath you support.

 

I guess if it helps you snooze at night it helps.

 

People do care as I've gotten a few dozen new subscribers of people who want the information I'm putting forward. That is the only reason I am using a computer.

[PatrickC]

I know. All leftists are anti-civilization.

 

Nobody on this board has any valid arguments except character attacks. "Why should I if you aren't?" That's really all you've got? Besides the fact that the capitalists own every inch of the Earth so I'd be arrested (as people are now as I posted above), this is a great way for you to dodge any and all criticism of the civilizatin bloodbath you support..

 

There is certainly some good evidence for that. The 'welfare state', has all but ruined family life for the once working classes. Partly spurred on by leftist economic policies that destroyed jobs with nationalisation, regulation and minimum wages.

 

I admit to tiring of the pompous faux nobility that the left try to pass off, as they suggest even more destruction. Especially those that come to this board without having read or listened to any of the arguments that are made here and then claim arguments have not been made. So yes, it certainly helps me snooze through these types of posts.

[Philosphorous]

There is certainly some good evidence for that. The 'welfare state', has all but ruined family life for the once working classes. Partly spurred on by leftist economic policies that destroyed jobs with nationalisation, regulation and minimum wages.

 

I admit to tiring of the pompous nobilty that the left try to pass off, as they suggest even more destruction. Especially those that come to this board without having read or listened to any of the arguments that are made here and then claim arguments have not been made. So yes, it certainly helps me snooze through these types of posts.

 

I've heard enough of ancap theory--including Stefan's takes. There really is no argument. Civilization is destroying the planet. Stefan doesn't acknowledge the third party in "voluntary" trade--the environment. He take jabs on "primitive" living, which I addressed in another thread. He made a laughable sustainability video, which I also addressed.

 

Until humans get over this dominion power trip that the Earth is here for them to do with what they please, there will be no peace. First will come dominating nature, then animals, and then vulnerable humans. The State is just an extension of "vulnerable humans."

 

Stefan also barely mentioned that NAP does not apply to animals. Domesticating plants and animals is not ethical. Well, I suppose it is if you just make shit up that supports your point of view, which is exactly what Stefan does. The "free market" supports industrial capitalism, which is unsustainable.

 

Anarchy is anti-authority. True anarchy realizes that the Earth does not need to be managed and that humans do not have the right to view the entire damn planet as dollar bills. The ancap definition of anarchy is basically "humans can't rule other humans but they can certainly rule everything else." Ownership, which is fictional, is the opposite of anarchy. Ownership is just something humans made up to justify dominating the Earth. It's the old "might is right" I've been talking about for a while.

 

I mean--if you can cut down a tree, which is destroying a mini habitat, why can't you spank children? The tree is "weak" and vulnerable as is the kid. But the kid gets preferential treatment because it's a human? Do you see the disgusting speciesism in this? THIS is the type of world you want--where humans trample the weak because there's profit to be made?

 

It's pretty ironic that Stefan is an atheist becuase this is the kind of drivel religions like Christianity put forward: that the Earth is here for humans to use. Just make up stuff like NAP, property rights (for humans--never the animals that were here first) and ownership so humans can do what they want and everything will be alright!

 

[rawtheory]

Thanks for the useless thread deepgreenidiot.

[Nerburg]

Deepgreen, I'm curious: how do we determine what the base need is for someone, as exploitation is to some degree necessary for survival?

 

Do plants and animals occupy the same moral grouping, or do we need to exhaust gathering options before hunting?

 

If I build an earthship and plant a garden, living off-grid but with my own renewable resources (a riverwheel which generates electricity, or solar panels, or rainwater collection drainage around and below the house), am I wrong for creating excess with the garden in order to have a more diverse diet? An earthship garden can sustain human life, some degree of 'civilization' and some degree of excess, after all, without the consequences to the planet that 'totalitarian agriculture' does (to borrow a Daniel Quinn phrase, as he falls in line with a lot of what DGR is about).

 

If I and several hundred neighbors are all doing this, living sustainably off our own labor and creating excess without a constant need for expansion, are we waging war against the earth still, so to speak?

 

Thanks in advance for the answers.

[Guest - Josh -]

This probably doesn't add anything useful to the debate, but it is kind of funny.

 

[BradP55]

DeepGreenResistance,

 

I feel your passion.

 

I think you have chosen the wrong topic to argue and/or the wrong website. I'm new here, but if it exists, you might be an AnarchoEnvironmentalist. 

 

Cheers....

[Philosphorous]

Deepgreen, I'm curious: how do we determine what the base need is for someone, as exploitation is to some degree necessary for survival?

 

Do plants and animals occupy the same moral grouping, or do we need to exhaust gathering options before hunting?

 

If I build an earthship and plant a garden, living off-grid but with my own renewable resources (a riverwheel which generates electricity, or solar panels, or rainwater collection drainage around and below the house), am I wrong for creating excess with the garden in order to have a more diverse diet? An earthship garden can sustain human life, some degree of 'civilization' and some degree of excess, after all, without the consequences to the planet that 'totalitarian agriculture' does (to borrow a Daniel Quinn phrase, as he falls in line with a lot of what DGR is about).

 

If I and several hundred neighbors are all doing this, living sustainably off our own labor and creating excess without a constant need for expansion, are we waging war against the earth still, so to speak?

 

Thanks in advance for the answers.

 

Stefan always talks about reason and evidence, right? Well, let's examine how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

They lived in small communities with no leaders. They had chiefs, but those were usually the oldest/most experienced or best hunters. The chiefs were not kings; they worked just like everyone else.

 

These groups generally were nomadic. They knew the land on which they lived, so they would travel to an area for a certain period of time (say, near a river during salmon season). They would move when the seasons began to change to get, say, berries during the season. They moved several times throughout the year. There may be have been limitied agriculture, but nothing like the draw-down monocropping that goes on today.

 

We must kill to live. That is a fact of life. If you are living sustainably, you are killing to live, but you are not harming the general landbase and population where you are living.

 

Think about it. If you planned on living somewhere for 500 or 5,000 years, would you get a new cell phone every year? Would you build a house that requires constant maintenance against the elements? Would you force everything off of your land (animals and plants alike) and force the land, via agriculture, to grow what you wanted? (You wouldn't because the top soil would be destroyed.)

 

Here's a video I did regarding our plastic lifestyle. I enjoy the anarchy talk from FDR, but a true sustainable society would not be compatible with anything that is happening today. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJmC8Ue3Ixk&list=UUFfywJ42MkQG4GXxAobf4qg

This probably doesn't add anything useful to the debate, but it is kind of funny.

 

 

I'm not a vegetarian, so....?

[Openeye]

Stefan always talks about reason and evidence, right? Well, let's examine how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

They lived in small communities with no leaders. They had chiefs, but those were usually the oldest/most experienced or best hunters. The chiefs were not kings; they worked just like everyone else.

 

These groups generally were nomadic. They knew the land on which they lived, so they would travel to an area for a certain period of time (say, near a river during salmon season). They would move when the seasons began to change to get, say, berries during the season. They moved several times throughout the year. There may be have been limitied agriculture, but nothing like the draw-down monocropping that goes on today.

 

We must kill to live. That is a fact of life. If you are living sustainably, you are killing to live, but you are not harming the general landbase and population where you are living.

 

Think about it. If you planned on living somewhere for 500 or 5,000 years, would you get a new cell phone every year? Would you build a house that requires constant maintenance against the elements? Would you force everything off of your land (animals and plants alike) and force the land, via agriculture, to grow what you wanted? (You wouldn't because the top soil would be destroyed.)

 

Here's a video I did regarding our plastic lifestyle. I enjoy the anarchy talk from FDR, but a true sustainable society would not be compatible with anything that is happening today.

 

While I can respect the primitivst point of view, I still think that technological advancement holds the key towards true freedom.

 

In the video you posted around 4:00 he starts talking about how no alternative energy source can make up for fossil fuels. I would tend to agree that is the case at least at the moment. To say that there is no way we can find an alternative is being dishonest. There are theoretical models of energy solutions that while not be practical today may very well be practical a hundred years from now.

 

Until then yes we have to keep burning fossil fuels to sustain our growing population.

 

One may ask why we have the right to manipulate the environment in a way that benefits us and not the other species on this planet. To that I say because we are the only species that really matters on this planet in the end. if it came down to us strip mining the planet ad killing off every animal in order to survive, than that is what we have to do.

 

Now I do not think we have gotten to that point yet, and we should do are best to preserve the original state of the world and the animals that live on it. But if we have to turn vast amounts of land into farmland to feed humans and turn cause a vast reduction in a certain species well I'm sorry thats the way the cookie crumbles. If that species came up to us and literally said "yo don't go destroying our home" and then hands us a document which displays their knowledge of language and mathematics than I would reconsider, but so far we are the only intelligent species capable of understanding and manipulating not only our own planet and environment but potentially the whole solar system, galaxy, and universe.

 

Hopefully technological advancement will reach a point where we can leave this planet, and in that case we will have just solved nearly ever problem humans have experienced.

[Philosphorous]

While I can respect the primitivst point of view, I still think that technological advancement holds the key towards true freedom.

 

In the video you posted around 4:00 he starts talking about how no alternative energy source can make up for fossil fuels. I would tend to agree that is the case at least at the moment. To say that there is no way we can find an alternative is being dishonest. There are theoretical models of energy solutions that while not be practical today may very well be practical a hundred years from now.

 

Until then yes we have to keep burning fossil fuels to sustain our growing population.

 

One may ask why we have the right to manipulate the environment in a way that benefits us and not the other species on this planet. To that I say because we are the only species that really matters on this planet in the end. if it came down to us strip mining the planet ad killing off every animal in order to survive, than that is what we have to do.

 

Now I do not think we have gotten to that point yet, and we should do are best to preserve the original state of the world and the animals that live on it. But if we have to turn vast amounts of land into farmland to feed humans and turn cause a vast reduction in a certain species well I'm sorry thats the way the cookie crumbles. If that species came up to us and literally said "yo don't go destroying our home" and then hands us a document which displays their knowledge of language and mathematics than I would reconsider, but so far we are the only intelligent species capable of understanding and manipulating not only our own planet and environment but potentially the whole solar system, galaxy, and universe.

 

Hopefully technological advancement will reach a point where we can leave this planet, and in that case we will have just solved nearly ever problem humans have experienced.

 

Freedom? Do you know that when settlers came to the US, they said there were so many birds in the sky that it would black it out for hours at a time? So many fish in the ocean that they couldn't sleep because of their tails slapping? So many berries in the woods that their horses would end up with stained underbellies?

 

TONS of food. Minimal work to get it. THAT is freedom. More technology that divides us is not.

 

Leave the planet? Seriously? That is your solution instead of undoing the damage (i.e. getting out of the way) we have done here?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

While I can respect the primitivst point of view, I still think that technological advancement holds the key towards true freedom.

 

In the video you posted around 4:00 he starts talking about how no alternative energy source can make up for fossil fuels. I would tend to agree that is the case at least at the moment. To say that there is no way we can find an alternative is being dishonest. There are theoretical models of energy solutions that while not be practical today may very well be practical a hundred years from now.

 

Until then yes we have to keep burning fossil fuels to sustain our growing population.

 

One may ask why we have the right to manipulate the environment in a way that benefits us and not the other species on this planet. To that I say because we are the only species that really matters on this planet in the end. if it came down to us strip mining the planet ad killing off every animal in order to survive, than that is what we have to do.

 

Now I do not think we have gotten to that point yet, and we should do are best to preserve the original state of the world and the animals that live on it. But if we have to turn vast amounts of land into farmland to feed humans and turn cause a vast reduction in a certain species well I'm sorry thats the way the cookie crumbles. If that species came up to us and literally said "yo don't go destroying our home" and then hands us a document which displays their knowledge of language and mathematics than I would reconsider, but so far we are the only intelligent species capable of understanding and manipulating not only our own planet and environment but potentially the whole solar system, galaxy, and universe.

 

Hopefully technological advancement will reach a point where we can leave this planet, and in that case we will have just solved nearly ever problem humans have experienced.

Don't humor this jackass. This is a bad person selling you shame and absolutely nothing you say will even give him pause. He won't even consider that his position is debatable. The best you can do with religious fruitcakes like this is hope they don't get hold of explosives.

 

 

[Philosphorous]

Don't humor this jackass. This is a bad person selling you shame and absolutely nothing you say will even give him pause. He won't even consider that his position is debatable. The best you can do with religious fruitcakes like this is hope they don't get hold of explosives.

 

 

 

Funny; that's what they're saying about you folks.

http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/

 

Primitivism is the only true, just and sustainable philosphy. Humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Give capitalism a few thousand years and look at the state of the planet.

 

Case closed.

[Josh F]

 

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!

I actually know a guy who lives entirely off the land and avoids all technology, his facebook page has a bunch of great pictures.  =)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Thank capitalism for saving us from the rank superstition and evil of primitivism. 

 

[Openeye]

Funny; that's what they're saying about you folks.

http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/

 

Primitivism is the only true, just and sustainable philosphy. Humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Give capitalism a few thousand years and look at the state of the planet.

 

Case closed.

 

I have been to that site and I actually agree with some of their findings

 

Primitivism is not the "one true" sustainable philosophy. Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years yes, but in misery and fear. Fear of what lurked in the darkness and fear of the earth that shook beneath their feet. By abondoning modern technology we would be ever more suseptable to destruction.

 

All it would take to end primitivist society is a germ. I say that with confidence because in a primitivst society there will be no major medical research, so the moment a disease surfaces that aggressively targets our species we are dead.

 

 

Leave the planet? Seriously? That is your solution instead of undoing the damage (i.e. getting out of the way) we have done here?

 

Sure, once we can leave the planet we will drastically reduce the population of the planet by terraforming/colonizing other ones. This will allow for the majority of the planet to return to its "natural" state and the only human presence on the planet will be in the major city centers. This is all of course dependeent on if we actually have the ability to travel to other star systems, terraform, or bulid large space stations that simulate earth like conditions.

[Phuein]

This thread has quickly deteriorated into skull-bashing, so I would like to clarify a few of the questions I've noticed around, as I'm very familiar with the Stef' cult  and with anarcho-environmentalism (as mentioned before), together with some good ol' anthropology.

 

In Defense of the Tribal Human

 

In order to understand what it is that lacks in modern society, we must first understand how it is different to any other society we have documented.

 

Most notably, modern society does not work in official tribes, but in rather manufactured tribes. Manufactured in the sense that people group and rank each other according to needs, instead of according to kin. This major change happens, wherever is documented a growing industry.

 

The industry functions outside of the tribe. It is a result of government, of a select few who use force to control and manipulate others. Those who govern are able to force farming folk out of their villages, through taxation and legislation, and then direct them into the cities, where industry is the best option, for a high standard of living.

 

The industry, not regulated almost at all by the common folk, is then inconsiderate of the public needs. It is meant for the benefit of those who govern, and so its' ideal and design are flawed, in the first place. We then see unwanted natural disasters, together with a wanting lifestyle of industrial enslavement.

 

The Two Methods of Solution (as exhibited in this thread and clarified.)

 

On the one hand, any sensible person would have the knee-jerk reaction of seeing wrong, and wanting to remove the wrong at its' most apparent source: the industrial society. This means a return to "primitivism", which is a very unpopular word (in the researching community) to describe the vast variety of tribal nations.

 

Such societal regression is actually a natural phenomenon, well observed by anthropologists, and it is ever partial. Meaning that the regression works as a step backwards, two steps forwards, and thus society forever advances. Modern tribal humans are more advanced than historical tribes, as modern influences ever perpetrate their traditions.

 

However, on the other hand, those who wish to take matters into their hands, see that the problem does not lie in the method, but in those who made it popular. The fascists (government) who used force to utilize the industrial ideal. It is not surprising that those in the edge of society, such as the rare mentally scarred fascist, would be among the first to adopt new ideas.

 

Like with many other well documented modern advancements, we see how evil people use them to harm, while good people use them to make life better. It is not by chance that many of humanity's greatest achievements are both notorious for war, and for the kitchen.

 

 

The obvious question is "which." Which ideals reflect a sensible future?

 

The answer is all sorts, and a mix of them. The popular science-fiction idea of a future society that is split between those many who regressed, and those few who advanced, is actually from the history of humanity.

 

History tells us that only those societies that will be lucky enough to find the correct solutions to their problems will progress, while the rest will actually regress, instead of remaining the same. They will regress back into the tribal state, as it is our default.

 

P.S.

 

Oh, and any notions about idealised tribal societies is utter nonsense, and the opposite is extremely well documented. The only reason tribes don't destroy their environment is because they literally can't (cutting a tree takes forever, and they have no means of over hunting or fishing.) Tribes are not "a thing", and there is a tribe for each idea or ideal! Natural human evolution at its' best!

 

REFERENCES (the lazy version.)

 

- Look at the history of civilised places, such as where I am, in Israel. Those who progressed (secular Jews that returned after WW2) clash with those who regressed into tribalism (remnants of previous empires still living on this arid rock).

 

Also, this is very evident wherever researchers discovered great city ruins in the Americas. It is also evident in certain locations in central Asia, such as the Babylonian civilization, which not only regressed, but currently suffers the worst, from doing so.

 

- The entire transition into industrialism is heavily documented, with many hypotheses about it. Naturally, it is accepted as a "good" transition, and as such, any word about the human manipulation that took place to achieve it is unpopular.

 

It doesn't take too much thinking to realize that extremely superstitious villagers were not happy to change their lives, and so had to be encouraged. The legislation for this purpose is well documented. I read about how it happened in England, so you can find that rather easily.

 

- The idea of the "modern tribe", how it is different from historical tribes, and its' pros and cons is not my invention. You can find it.

 

- Tribal humans are well documented for transitioning into industrial societies, without the least bit understanding nor care for the natural disasters that ensue, which we are all aware of. Only a dying minority (some assessed millions) have not done so, and are being systematically killed. Tribal humans are just common people, who are more naked. They do not behave differently to modern humans!

[RyanT]

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

But you realize you'd actually have a shred of credibility if you did it the other way around?

[Philosphorous]

But you realize you'd actually have a shred of credibility if you did it the other way around?

 

But you realize personal actions do not bring about social change? If I were in the woods, please explain to me what I'd do if I

 

a) Died

b) Got arrested for doing so

c) Succeeded and then didn't tell anybody

d) Was removed in one way or another because somebody claimed to own the land.

 

I hate that Stefan Molyneux has made character attacks popular.

 

If I was in hospice telling you this, or in a wheelchair, or whatever--would you still attack me instead of the message? It's just data. I didn't make any of it up.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Gaia is your ruler and deepgreenresistance is her spokesman.

Obey.

[RyanT]

But you realize personal actions do not bring about social change? If I were in the woods, please explain to me what I'd do if I a) Diedb) Got arrested for doing soc) Succeeded and then didn't tell anybodyd) Was removed in one way or another because somebody claimed to own the land. I hate that Stefan Molyneux has made character attacks popular. If I was in hospice telling you this, or in a wheelchair, or whatever--would you still attack me instead of the message? It's just data. I didn't make any of it up.

But mate you're not being attacked....No one is saying your stupid or an idiot,It's mearly pointing out that the solution your peddling to all the world's problems,Is something you yourself have very little experience of, shit from the sounds of it Your average cub-scout has spent longer in the woods....Not saying go live there but at least take a camping trip before you tell the world to.And if you were disabled or in an hospice I'd be pointing out that in an hunter gatherer society you'd be dead,