Political Crossfire Forums

[Geronimo]

Anarcho Primitivism is the belief that the sudden change from hunter-gatherer survival to pure agriculture caused a separation of economy, and created differences (and strife) among the common man. Such things as technology, that endorse such strife, should be abandoned. Other forms of technology too, like industry, should be destroyed. To save mankind, the idea is to return to the primitive way of life, to balance the human population, and to prolong human life span by not using harmful resources like gas, and nuclear weapons.

Good or bad?

Let the debate begin.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Geronimo wrote: Anarcho Primitivism is the belief that the sudden change from hunter-gatherer survival to pure agriculture caused a separation of economy, and created differences (and strife) among the common man. Such things as technology, that endorse such strife, should be abandoned. Other forms of technology too, like industry, should be destroyed. To save mankind, the idea is to return to the primitive way of life, to balance the human population, and to prolong human life span by not using harmful resources like gas, and nuclear weapons.

Good or bad?

Let the debate begin.

Although Anarcho-Primitvism sounds great, and the idea of some anarcho-primitivist bands of nomads existig is certainly nice. It is not really a feasible system for widespread adoptionwhen faced with the willingness of authoritarians to use technology to keep the people oppressed. I think the book "player piano" by Kurt Vonnegut addressed humanities obsession with technology well. Even when it opresses us, we are innately fascinated by it. I can't imagine you will find many proponents of primitivism of any sort on the internet however.

[Fido]

Geronimo wrote: Anarcho Primitivism is the belief that the sudden change from hunter-gatherer survival to pure agriculture caused a separation of economy, and created differences (and strife) among the common man. Such things as technology, that endorse such strife, should be abandoned. Other forms of technology too, like industry, should be destroyed. To save mankind, the idea is to return to the primitive way of life, to balance the human population, and to prolong human life span by not using harmful resources like gas, and nuclear weapons.

Good or bad?

Let the debate begin.

Hunter gatherer societies are already divided. Women, with a lower center of gravity are better gatherers and so have higher status, because they can more regularly put food on the table, and because the level of understanding of procreation is such that men do not understand their genetic contribution to children. They think women can make babies. Cool. And when they understand their part in the process they can begin to understand selective breeding, and animal husbandry. The class division exists before agriculture, but the beginning of agriculture means the beginning of exploitation based upon class. Women become less free agents, and marriage becomes more of a property exchange. A wife becomes a license to pass on ones genes, and later to pass on ones property through ones genetic line. This simply would not be possible when genetic rights passed through mothers. Agriculture is not the beginning of class, but of class struggle, and so is the beginning of both civilization and history.

[LostSoul3412]

Geronimo wrote: Anarcho Primitivism is the belief that the sudden change from hunter-gatherer survival to pure agriculture caused a separation of economy, and created differences (and strife) among the common man. Such things as technology, that endorse such strife, should be abandoned. Other forms of technology too, like industry, should be destroyed. To save mankind, the idea is to return to the primitive way of life, to balance the human population, and to prolong human life span by not using harmful resources like gas, and nuclear weapons.

Good or bad?

Let the debate begin.

Sorry, I'm not Amish, and I like television too much.

[sully111]

chagning from industrilastion back to pre industrilasation is inconcivable, because how could you make this change multilatrally? I ask this question because imagine if one country kept with industry and others went back to a post industrilasation era, the industrial country must most likely become a leading world power. Just for the sake of reason Anarcho Primitivism is a bad idea, but fourth sight one of which we can draw out some positive aspects which could be used in modern society.

[Nathyn]

While I could write an entire book on why this is nonsense, here are several immediately apparent objections to Anarcho-Primitivism:

#1. As Sociology has pointed out, we are sociocentric, that is, we have an inherent regard for our own cultures and our views are inherently bound within the framework of our own culture. Being so, we cannot truly conceive of what it means to be a "feral human being," and make completely accurate evaluations anymore than we could say that one culture is "better," than another.

#2. But rather, Anarcho-Primitivism seems to be a sub-culture within western culture. In the same manner that there are Japanophiles and Anglophiles, Anarcho-Primitivists have an obsessive love of nature. Rather than recognizing it as their desires, however, they think that their passions are representative of an objective reality. So, in the same manner that animal lovers fight for animal rights, Anarcho-Primitivists, in a similar sense, fight for the right of nature as a whole.

#3. Because Anarcho-Primitivists are bound by their own culture, their argument is a great irony: they argue for Primitivism on the basis of knowledge that was gained through technology and modern society. Had it not been for technology and modernity, they could not argue for Anarcho-Primitivism at all. And so, arguing for Anarcho-Primitivism "scientifically," arguing for it "logically," especially over the internet, makes as much sense as saying, "Nihilism is true."

#4. Their beliefs are not supported by the sciences of mainstreain Ecology, Economics, Political Science, Civics, and History, and in the absence of any scientific-backing, despite their objections to "scientism," their beliefs are thus just as valid as intelligent design or a belief in the flying spaghetti monster.

#5. There has never been a single case, historically, where there has been "deindustrialization," of any kind. If such were possible, quite obviously somebody would have at least "uninvented," the atomic bomb and the gatling gun by now. But knowledge cannot eliminated until you eliminate the desire for knowledge (which is inherent in humanity) and every trace that said knowledge ever existed. To deindustrialize, one would need virtually omnipotence. You'd need to erase every memory of our technology, cover up all evidence for its original existence, and you'd need to establish some sort of mechanism to ensure that future technology is not invented. Sorry, but sending mail-bombs to politicians and journalist isn't good enough.

#6. Though I made the points above regarding Ecology and Economics, to be more specific: Human beings continually compete for scarce resources under our current economy. Even under Anarcho-Primitivism, there would be inter-tribal competition. Well, in the absence of technological growth, Malthusean theories of overpopulation would apply and humanity would starve to death.

#7. On the contrary, I argue that technology has improved the world. I fail to understand how "gaining knowledge and applying that knowledge," can somehow be an intrinsic evil. Anarcho-Primitivism seems to defend ignorance and apathy towards suffering, all out of a bizarre, possibly psychotic reverence for nature. They want to establish chaos because we don't live in a utopia. And really, I think that our future is bright and that technological singularity will be the best thing to ever happen to our world.

[MplsBison]

Geronimo wrote: Anarcho Primitivism is the belief that the sudden change from hunter-gatherer survival to pure agriculture caused a separation of economy, and created differences (and strife) among the common man. Such things as technology, that endorse such strife, should be abandoned. Other forms of technology too, like industry, should be destroyed. To save mankind, the idea is to return to the primitive way of life, to balance the human population, and to prolong human life span by not using harmful resources like gas, and nuclear weapons.

Good or bad?

Let the debate begin.

The only idea that I've heard that is worse than this idea is that idea that we should kill every human on the planet and let the animals take over.

[bob.appleyard]

Here's a fun little site:

www.primitivism.com

Obviously the creators don't see the irony.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

bob.appleyard wrote: Here's a fun little site:

www.primitivism.com

Obviously the creators don't see the irony.

:lol:

[LostSoul3412]

bob.appleyard wrote: Here's a fun little site:

www.primitivism.com

Obviously the creators don't see the irony.

:rofl:

"Refuse technology! See our website for details!"

:rofl:

[Green]

Going back to the hunter gather groups would help the environment, but I don't give a fu*k about the environment. We are better and we should use that for the betterment of humanity.

If we were to go back to caveman era, then we would lose what has given us longer lives, had given us a better lifestyle, and rights would not be preserved.

First we need to consider how to erase 20,000 years of human history.

[jawsome]

There is a reason why the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers rarely passed 25 and why nowadays it is above 70.