Stefan's Comments On Civilization

[Philosphorous]

When someone slides their premises past you, they've got you. I find Stefan brushing off the "primitive" way of life whenever he brings up examples. In other words, he speaks about it in a negative way but doesn't thoroughly address it.Most people feel that industrial civilization is a given. When they ask something like, "How can we stop polution?", what they're asking is, "How can we stop pollution while keeping civilization--which is largely responsible for pollution--in place?" Does Stefan? I'm not sure, but it seems so.By the way--"primitive" is borderline racist. I hate the term. It implies that "modern" is better. Anyone who believes that has the significant task of explaining why there are 43 known hunter-gatherer tribes still on Earth. Are they incapable of doing what the rest of the planet is doing? I don't think so. I think they feel their way of life is good for them.Here is more information: http://www.huntercourse.com/blog/2011/05/amazing-hunter-gatherer-societies-still-in-existence/Unfortunately, I am having trouble coming up with another term that is as recognizable. Maybe Luddite? Anti-civ?  Here is an instance where Stefan takes modern civilization as better and as a given:http://youtu.be/XG2bKiRu48Y?t=4m20sHere are my comments--and keep in mind this is not exhaustive:1) "We desperately want things to become easier..."Agriculture and domesticating animals is back breaking work. Since humans have pretty much destroyed the Earth's top soil and its ability of the planet to freely provide food (apples can't grow out of shopping malls), we are forced to work much harder."But what about machines?" Those require metal. Have you ever tried mining? Nothing is easy about that. Every step of agriculture requires manual labor and "energy slaves" mostly in the form of fossil fuels.Do you have a job you don't like? Is that easy?Our ancestors may have had an impetus such as a food shortages that caused them to become stationary, but anyone who has done manual labor for a living (I do part-time) knows that none of this is easy. It's brutal.For more on why our forebearers began to attempt to control nature see "The origins of agriculture: a biological perspective and a new hypothesis": http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/origins.html2) "That's one of the reasons we don't live in caves anymore."Not all primitive people lived in caves. Ever heard of a tipi? How about a mud hut?"That's why we don't live in caves" implies that living in houses is better. Living in houses is tremendously destructive to the environment:"8,000 lbs of waste are typically thrown into the landfill during the construction of a 2,000 square foot home."Source: http://constructionwaste.sustainablesources.com/Our ancestors didn't feel that destroying forests to live in stationary houses was the best idea. Doing so is not better.2) "...so we have lighters instead of having to rub two sticks together."Lighters have caused a giant pile of garbage but that's beside the point.Fire is arguably humanity's first attempt at controlling nature. Here, Stefan implies that it is good, and starting fires easier and faster is good.This is complete speculation, but John Livingston, in his book "Rogue Primate", hinted that it all went bad once humans created fire. Is fire really good? Look at the damage humans have done with it. For example, without fire, humans could not smelt, which means they couldn't create bombs, bullets, and prison bars.This theory goes against the general anti-civ belief that agriculture was the beginning of our current unsustainable culture. I am certainly open to the possibility.Thanks for reading. There are other comments Stefan has made that I will get to later on.

[Jer]

Did you make this post from a tipi or mud hut?

[Philosphorous]

Did you make this post from a tipi or mud hut?

 

Same old nonsense. To answer this pointless character attack, I invite you to watch this video:

 

[RyanT]

I don't see how Jer's post was either pointless

or an attack on you.

 

He/she mearly questioned whether you're

following the prescription you advocating

for society.

 

Not exactly unreasonable is it?

So why are you angry?

[Magnus]

Most people feel that industrial civilization is a given. When they ask something like, "How can we stop polution?", what they're asking is, "How can we stop pollution while keeping civilization--which is largely responsible for pollution--in place?" Does Stefan? I'm not sure, but it seems so.By the way--"primitive" is borderline racist. I hate the term. It implies that "modern" is better. Anyone who believes that has the significant task of explaining why there are 43 known hunter-gatherer tribes still on Earth. Are they incapable of doing what the rest of the planet is doing? I don't think so. I think they feel their way of life is good for them.Here is more information: http://www.huntercourse.com/blog/2011/05/amazing-hunter-gatherer-societies-still-in-existence/Unfortunately, I am having trouble coming up with another term that is as recognizable. Maybe Luddite? Anti-civ?  ...This theory goes against the general anti-civ belief that agriculture was the beginning of our current unsustainable culture. I am certainly open to the possibility.Thanks for reading. There are other comments Stefan has made that I will get to later on.

 

 

I'm sympathetic to the thesis and way of life you're describing (call it Luddite/anti-civ/anarcho-primitivism, etc.).  I resent electricity and cars in particular, along with the construction methods and materials for most contemporary housing.  I've lived without electricity or a car, for extended periods of time.  I plan to build a house with my own hands, as a project with my son when he gets a little older.  I've given a lot of thought to the basis for my feelings and attitudes on the subject. 

 

I've come to the conclusion that the most important principle is freedom, not the technology that is used to deprive us of our freedom.  It's normal and certainly understandable to point to the technology that the Statists use as their instrument of oppression, but it's the oppression that matters, not the tool by which it's accomplished.

 

I'm continually amazed by the fact that the USA of 2014 is more of an oppressive surveillance state than 1970s East Germany was under the STASI.  If they had the ability to tap everyone's communications all the time, and put video cameras on every corner as we have today, and satellites in orbit that monitor everyone, and scanners that track license plates of cars, and a database so huge that no one person even knows were all of it is stored, does anyone seriously contend they wouldn't use it?  It would look exactly like our lives do today. 

 

The technology that is used to accomplish these intrusions is a problem, even more so because it was developed specifically to be seamless and unobtrusive.  The reason we don't have black-clad thugs arriving at people's doorsteps and beating confessions out of them with lamp cords isn't because they don't want to.  It's because they don't have to.  The technology allows them to disappear from view, almost all of the time.  

 

The technology is new but the violation of rights is the same.  The technology that facilitates Statist oppression is driven by the Statist mindset of the people running it.  Life was freer before such advanced surveillance technology was invented, but the urge to control and enslave others is the same.  The ethical justifications for it are the same.  The problem is not the technology.  The problem is the people deploying the technology. 

 

I've always wondered where the "live out in the woods" impulse comes from.  I've had it myself, from time to time (but not so much any more).  Thoreau's cabin the the woods (although it was really more of a lake cottage with regular bread delivery service, so it was not exactly a hardship).  Ted Kaczynski living in his hut in Montana.  The interesting fellow on your embedded video. 

 

I believe that all of these people are just looking to be free.  The primitivism is just a means of achieving that freedom. 

 

I think it's unfortunate that people have to resort to dumpster diving and building unfinished huts just to get away from the State.  We should be able to stake out a free life right here, whether it's out on a farm (like the Amish), or in a village, town or city. 

 

I think the impulse behind the urge to flee to the wilderness is the extreme (though often hidden and subtle) mechanisms of control that urban dwellers are constantly subjected to.  The design and construction of our physical space is deeply controlled by government.  Local ordinances, land use plans, development codes, road-building, traffic engineering, eminent domain, utilities -- these are all things that most people go their whole lives without giving a single thought to, but they control the size, type, location and shape of everything we call a "town."  It determines where all of the houses are.  Where the grocery stores are.  Where the offices are.  It's all controlled, and heavily so. 

 

People feel the need to flee to the woods to get away from those (often unseen) control mechanisms.  It's those mechanisms that give us such horrible features of modern life -- artery roads, the minimum lot sizes, the big box retail centers.  These are all artifacts that result from government control over urban development. 

 

I think our time and energy as philosophers and anarchists would be better spent trying to dismantle the restrictions that make even small-town life so horrible and oppressive. 

 

Urban development is not evil.  Government-run urban development is evil. 

 

 

 

----------------

As an aside, I don't think it's particularly helpful to respond to someone who advances a challenge to technology by accusing him of being a hypocrite by using a computer, etc.  It's like every time anyone here has ever tried to argue anarchism, and the cliche Statist response invariably devolving into "You use government roads, don't you?."

 

Leftists rail against capitalism, and yet they use computers and bookstores and mobile telephones that were all manufactured and distributed by companies that don't exemplify the socialist workers' paradise.  Conservatives decry socialism, but they drive cars that are built in unionized factories.  Anarchists complain about the government but use the mail and road system. 

 

These things are unavoidable.  It's certainly valid to expect someone to live the way he proposes others should live, but it's not especially helpful to pounce on someone who criticizes modern life by noting that his thoughts are written on a computer.

[st434u]

Without agriculture, there is no reason to have private property. Instead, tribal property (communal ownership) is the best form of socio-economic organization. This is because when others in your area hunt or gather food that the land naturally produces, they are extracting rather than adding to the overall production. Thus by extracting resources and keeping them for themselves, they are making less resources available for you and your children.

 

Consequently, just about every aspect of production must be carefully controlled by the collective, and a concept such as freedom is completely foreign and it's application counterproductive or even fatal. Groups of people organize not as families, but as small tribes where they all must share everybody's production. Everyone in the tribe must contribute something, and no one should take too much. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

 

Likewise, neighboring tribes must be regarded not as friends, but as mortal enemies. For their activities necessarily tax your tribe's production of food, and mean more of your babies have to starve to feed theirs. Peace is rare and only exists as a temporary standoff or truce. It is also risky, as allowing an opposing tribe to gather forces could mean your own tribe's demise. In this situation the attacker has the advantage of the surprise attack, and any chance at annihilating an enemy tribe should be seen as an opportunity not worth passing.

 

I could go on and on. Rape, torture, even cannibalism, of both adults and children, are all not just common but beneficial in a purely hunter-gatherer world. If that sounds like the type of place you want to live in, go right ahead.