Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
QuoteReplyTopic: Anti-Civilization Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 18:14
A few months ago I was introduced to anarcho-primitivism.
Anarcho-primitivism is basically a critique on civilization. For some reason I
was drawn to this philosophy, something inside me clicked, so to speak. I began
to research the beliefs more deeply, and the reasoning behind this distrust,
and even hatred for civilization.
While I am by no means and expert on this subject, I would
like to introduce for discussion, its validity, your responses, etc. I also
would like to hear all of your views on civilization itself.
To start off, I would like to use some quotes that
demonstrate my newfound beliefs on civilization:
Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression
at home. Jared Diamond
Industrial technology is by nature exploitative and destructive
of the materials that are necessary to maintain it. Richard T. LaPiere
A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized
nations. They have the best implements for war. Herbert V. Prochnow
Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is
especially true for industrial civilization. Derrick Jensen
As you can tell, I have become very critical of
civilization, and for could reason. Civilization is based upon slavery. Now,
before you point out that slavery, actual owning of other people, has been
abolished in civilized nations for over 100 years, we must look closer at
society. People are slaves to money and to those in power for everything
necessary for survival. People have to pay to even exist on planet Earth, for
water, for food, for everything that comes freely in nature.
People pay for these because they are told it is natural and
right, by governments, bosses, by society itself. Why do those in control tell
people this? to improve their own economic standing; to become wealthy. This
wealth comes at the expense of the environment, of the plants and animals, and
of other people around the world.
People are dependent on food imported (ie: stolen) from
around the world, for clothing, for water from those in power, as local food
has been exterminated, water has been polluted.
Civilization is not sustainable. It is based on fossil
fuels, which unreplinishable. Fossil fuels also pollute, and are destroying the
environment around the world, from melting the ice caps to acid rain. Dams are
built which kill rivers, and everything in them. Civilization give people the
impression that they are not part of the natural, that people are somehow above
the rest of life on earth, which is absurd. What gives people the right to kill
of entire species? What gives people the right to kill the earth for monetary
gain? Nothing. It is shameful and should be stopped, the sooner the better,
before more harm is done.
Civilization has made great medical advances, true, but
civilization caused many of the illnesses it treats by the horribly absurd
amounts of pollution it has, and continues to produce. Hunter-Gathering peoples
lived long and healthy lives, the only negative being high infant mortality
rates. However, hunter-gather societies did not destroy the planet, as
civilization. Now, many civilized feel that hunter gatherers had hard lives,
and modern life is much preferable. However, if you measure some standards,
such as the number automobiles, yes; if you measure others, such as leisure
time, sustainability, social equality, and food securitymeaning no one goes
hungryhunter-gatherers win hands down (Jensen, Endgame Volume I pg 52).
So, if you value things and wealth above equality,
sustainability, environmental health, then yes, civilization is better. (If you
do value things and wealth above life, then there is no help for you)
One reason why hunter-gatherers had food security and
sustainability is because a) the limited their population so they would not
outstrip what their land-base could sustain and b) they did not over hunt,
over-gather (lol, is that a word?) so their land base wouldnt be harmed.
Civilization does not respect life. It uses life to gain
wealth and power into the hands of a few elites, be the kings, dictators, or
politicians. Civilization does not respect the natural world. It uses, abuses,
and destroys it. Anyone who values life should oppose civilization.
A year ago I wouldnt be writing this. A year ago I was
enamored with civilization, or rather the perceived benifets of civilization:
wealth and things. My eyes are open now, and hopefully all of yours will open
to.
*This isnt worded, phrased as eloquently as I would like it
to, but I want to share this with you all as soon as possible*
Info on anarcho-primitivism and where I got lots of my info:
The critical analysis of society is pretty correct. Then again this analysis isn't unique to Anarcho-Primitivist and wasn't invented by them either.
then again criticising society is a very easy thing to do, providing alternatives not so.
It's when Anarcho-Primitivists starts talking about a solution there analysis becomes uniquely their own and also starts to get terribly wrong. Almost everthing they say about hunter-gatheres isn't true. Hunter gathers overhunted and regularly died out as a result. Largely by making animal populations extinct. They also destroyed the environment turning forests into desert with slash and burn techniques.
The critical analysis of society is pretty correct. Then again this analysis isn't unique to Anarcho-Primitivist and wasn't invented by them either.
then again criticising society is a very easy thing to do, providing alternatives not so.
It's when Anarcho-Primitivists starts talking about a solution there analysis becomes uniquely their own and also starts to get terribly wrong. Almost everthing they say about hunter-gatheres isn't true. Hunter gathers overhunted and regularly died out as a result. Largely by making animal populations extinct. They also destroyed the environment turning forests into desert with slash and burn techniques.
As far as I know, hunter-gathers only overhunted the Pleistocine megafauna, learned their mistake, so to speak, and managed to do well until civilization came, killed or enslaved the, and proceeded to destroy the planet.
For example the Australian aboriginies. They maintained a stable population without destroying their environment for over 50,000 years. Also the Native Americans, after the megafauna went extinct, maintained a stable balance with their environment. Native Americans were not the ones to almost exterminate wolves, bears, and bison. That was 'civilized man'.
If i recall correctly, slash and burn techniques are unique to growing crops. I remember when studying people living in the amazon that while are mainly hunter gatherers, some tribes use(used) some agriculture and slashed and burned small parts of the forest and only returned once their old patch was completely regrown. That is sustainable, as their population was low, and did not destroy more of the forest than grew back.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
You're right slash and burn is crop growing. I was talking about the Australian Rainforest, which is now a desert. The aboriginals burns it down to create flat plains that are easy to hunt on.
Well civilisation is based on stability through the owning of property hence one is enslaved. On a philosophical level I believe in anarchism-primitavism but I'd say I'm a philosophical anarchist- I don't think I'd always stick to anarchist-primatavist principles (I am after all a product of my society and no matter how enlightened I try to become I still have all that stuff wired away) and I dont think the majority of people could keep it up at all.
I think someone should define what is meant by "civilization" in this thread. Aborigines and Native Americans were used as examples of non-civilizations... why? I would have considered them civilizations. They maintained small communities -- i.e., cities, which in the Latin is civis... hence civilization. I believe their civilization was "primitive" in comparison with Western Europe, but it was still civilization.
Any thoughts?
Edited by Eusebius - 22-Aug-2007 at 22:17
"The historians, therefore, are the most useful people and the best teachers, so that one can never honor, praise, and thank them enough." -- Martin Luther
Great thread Adalwolf! I like the underlying idea but much of the philosophy above I believe has been corrupted by inaccuracies and ignorance. Allow me to pick at things a bit first.
Originally posted by Paul
I was talking about the Australian Rainforest, which is now a desert. The aboriginals burns it down to create flat plains that are easy to hunt on.
Which particular Rainforests do you have in mind? I have never before heard of this, and given that most Australian natives do not suffer terribly from fire, sometimes even needing it to survive, I think it would be very hard to destroy an Australian forest with fire alone. Pretty well all the land that has been deliberately cleared was done since settlement. Because the white man never saw forest as productive as wheat fields and sheep paddocks
Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home. Jared Diamond
Generalisation makes this loose the little meaning it had.
Industrial technology is by nature exploitative and destructive of the materials that are necessary to maintain it. Richard T. LaPiere
This is false, and even if it were true, who cares what Iron thinks? (ie, how can you exploit iron?)
A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements for war. Herbert V. Prochnow
Uncivilised nations are far better prepared for war.
Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization. Derrick Jensen
True, although not for the reasons he thinks. Civilisation cannot be sustainable due to the nature of man, not our consumption.
if you measure some standards, such as the number automobiles, yes; if you measure others, such as leisure time, sustainability, social equality, and food securitymeaning no one goes hungryhunter-gatherers win hands down
If you consider leisure time to be spending 16 hours everyday hunting for food, then that statement is still wrong. Hunter-Gatherers - by definition - do not have food security.
'Civilisation' is a word that is loosely defined and far too liberally used. I've been using civilisation akin to 'powerful empires' ie, the civilised world, in its literal meaning most of the above statements are meaningless. Actually come to think about it, thinking that the opposite of the civilised world are hunter gatherers in very 19th century, and thinking that living in cities is not sustainable is just wrong. It appears that our scholars have put too little thought into it. Personally, I am not a fan of the 'civilised world', basically because I figure that the barbarians are more like me. I am not a fan of big cities, having not grown up in one, prefer grass to pavers, and always like knowing where I can go to be assured that no other human would go there. Basically civilisation is up itself and owes everything to the uncivilised farmers and frontier men who provide its food and soliders. That generalisation is true for most empires in at least in one point of its existance.
(besides, we all know Civilization was invented by Sid Meir)
I think someone should define what is meant by
"civilization" in this thread. Aborigines and Native Americans
were used as examples of non-civilizations... why? I would have
considered them civilizations. They maintained small communities
-- i.e., cities, which in the Latin is civis... hence
civilization. I believe their civilization was "primitive" in
comparison with Western Europe, but it was still civilization.
Any thoughts?
Aborigines never built cities.
In our history course we were taught that "civilisation" encompassed
societies which had a number of characteristics. This included
substantial trade, sedentary settlements including buildings and
agriculture. Some communities prior to modern times did not include
these features as part of their way of life.
Omar: How can you think civilization is unsustainable? Civilization is based on expansion. Industrial civilization is based on oil. There is only so much oil, and many scientists believe we have reached the peak production of oil. Everything is based on oil: transportation, electricity (well, lots of coal too), and especially agriculture. Once oil is gone this oil based civilization will crash.
About liesure time: Each day hunter-gatherer communities would search for food, the entire community. The women would gather fruit, nuts, roots, etc, which provided most of the calories for the community. The men would hunt and provide the protein. Everything would be shared among the community. Through communal effort people would have more leisure time.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
I think someone should define what is meant by "civilization" in this thread. Aborigines and Native Americans were used as examples of non-civilizations... why? I would have considered them civilizations. They maintained small communities -- i.e., cities, which in the Latin is civis... hence civilization. I believe their civilization was "primitive" in comparison with Western Europe, but it was still civilization.
Any thoughts?
Yes, the example of Native Americas is not clear. The Aztecs and the Incas were states in place with large cities (larger than the Europeans) and the Spaniards knew they were a civilized people. Different is the situation of the nomadic peoples of the Amazonian jungles for instance.
Now, you should realize that Aztecs themselves downplayed and look like barbarians the natives of nomadic lifestyle BEFORE Europeans arrived!
So, the matter of civilization is just a comparison of lifestyles between the citizen (the fellow of the city), the countrymen and the nomadic hunter. Civilization is just the point of view of the citizen.
Come on, even today people of the cities look down on farmers all over the world. Don't they?
Omar: How can you think civilization is unsustainable? Civilization is
based on expansion. Industrial civilization is based on oil. There is
only so much oil, and many scientists believe we have reached the peak
production of oil. Everything is based on oil: transportation,
electricity (well, lots of coal too), and especially agriculture. Once
oil is gone this oil based civilization will crash.
Civilisation isn't based on expansion at all, I would say it was based on trade & agriculture personally. Take the example of the Ming, who were a great civilisation, but not expansionistic, or the Mongols, who were expansionistic, but not a civilisation*
As for industrial civilisation, that is only a modern incarnation and shouldn't be used to apply to all civilisation. Saying industrial civilisation is based on oil is only really true for the last 60 years. Before that it was based on coal. Actually industrial civilisation isn't based on either of those in reality. Its based upon the steam turbine. Oil and coal (and nuclear fission) are just methods to heat water. I don't understand how agriculture is based on oil.
Civilisation has proven to be unsustainable (Empires always fall), but not because of resource usage, which is only a modern problem.
About liesure time: Each day hunter-gatherer communities would search
for food, the entire community. The women would gather fruit, nuts,
roots, etc, which provided most of the calories for the community. The
men would hunt and provide the protein. Everything would be shared
among the community. Through communal effort people would have more
leisure time.
The whole community works because the whole community has to work to keep everyone alive and fed. Its not a matter of more leisure time. The development of agriculture was what led to people having more leisure time, giving some of them the ability not to work all day getting food, and do other things such as experiment with funny rocks
Agriculture is based on oil because of the methods used to sustain it. A few hundred years ago agriculture was based on horses and plows, well, and oxen too.
Today it based on machines that run on oil. It is based on fertilizer that is made by using oil. It is based on pesticides, which are made using energy from oil. Modern farming practices require more energy than the result gives back. It also gives more food, allowing for more people. It is also based on cheap energy (ie: cheap oil).
Once oil becomes scarce and runs out, what is going to happen? With no oil to provide fertilizer, pesticides, and run combines, less food will be able to grown, as older methods will have to be used. Also, there will be no way to transport the food, as modern transportation is also based on oil. Millions, if not billions will starve, or die in wars over remain resources.
That is why agriculture is based on oil, and why it is not sustainable.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
You're right slash and burn is crop growing. I was talking about the Australian Rainforest, which is now a desert. The aboriginals burns it down to create flat plains that are easy to hunt on.
I recall that Sahara desert was once a forest as well. Is it because of slash and burn practices from African aboriginals?
You're right slash and burn is crop growing. I was talking about the Australian Rainforest, which is now a desert. The aboriginals burns it down to create flat plains that are easy to hunt on.
I recall that Sahara desert was once a forest as well. Is it because of slash and burn practices from African aboriginals?
Haha, no. It is a desert because of climate change.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
In that case I'd say agriculture is based on water, not oil. Agriculture can did and does exist without the intervention of oil. Modern Farming practices have picked up many oil based products to improve production, but it doesn't replace the general principle.
Lets take your example of oil running out. Fertilisers & pesticides having to change is not really a problem, there are plenty of non-oil based fertilisers available. Maybe there will be a decrease in gross production but it won't be significant. Transportation is easily solved, rail transportation doesn't need to run diesel engines. Steam or preferably electric locomotives can be run without the intervention of any oil.
It is easy to engineer around a lack of oil, provided people want you to. Unless there is a sudden shock to the system the agriculture network will not be affected by running out of oil.
Without oil providing the energy that goes into modern agriculture not enough food will be grown to support 6 billion+ people. Even if there are alternatives to oil, there is no will to switch. There will be no will until it is too late. Those in power make decisions based on monetary gain, so don't expect help form the top until it is too late.
Edit: Also many countries are dependent on food imports, and you can't build a railroad across oceans.
Edited by Adalwolf - 23-Aug-2007 at 23:34
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
Edward Abbey
Lets take your example of oil running out. Fertilisers & pesticides having to change is not really a problem, there are plenty of non-oil based fertilisers available. Maybe there will be a decrease in gross production but it won't be significant. Transportation is easily solved, rail transportation doesn't need to run diesel engines. Steam or preferably electric locomotives can be run without the intervention of any oil.
That decrese in gross production would be significant. Using steam power will be less efficient, and much of the electric power source comes from burning oil, I think. Farmers need oil-based power to farm huge areas. This is the reason why so many people moved to city in Industrial Revolution. More manpower will be needed to deal with the farming business, to transport goods to the markets. Supply is low, but demand is as high as ever. That "insignificant" decrease may mean death of millions.
Without oil providing the energy that goes into modern agriculture not enough food will be grown to support 6 billion+ people. Even if there are alternatives to oil, there is no will to switch. There will be no will until it is too late. Those in power make decisions based on monetary gain, so don't expect help form the top until it is too late.
Well the 'will' is what I meant by 'the nature of man'. Regardless of how it manifests itself the 'lack of will' will always destroy a civlisation, but it won't prevent another one from taking its place.
Edit: Also many countries are dependent on food imports, and you can't build a railroad across oceans.
No but you can build ships that don't burn oil. Most of the US Navy for example.
Originally posted by Pekau
Using steam power will be less efficient, and much of the electric power source comes from burning oil, I think.
What on earth do you need electricity for on a farm? Besides, in your country Pekau electricity comes from nuclear run turbines, and in mine it is from coal run turbines.
Farmers need oil-based power to farm huge areas.
The only oil based power you need on a big farm is transportation. Its little farms that use the most oil products.
This is the reason why so many people moved to city in Industrial Revolution. More manpower will be needed to deal with the farming business, to transport goods to the markets. Supply is low, but demand is as high as ever. That "insignificant" decrease may mean death of millions.
Loosing oil doesn't mean going backwards in time. We can build transportation systems without the use of oil. We can make fertilisers without the use of oil (usually better ones). If oil magically disappeared tomorrow, yes, alot of people in the first world and in big cities will have problems getting food, but that does not mean that agriculture or civilisation are based upon oil. Oil is only a factor in civilisation right now. When it goes it might bring the current group of western civilisations with it, but it won't affect other civlisations, or the emergence of new ones.
Omar: How can you think civilization is unsustainable? Civilization is based on expansion. Industrial civilization is based on oil. There is only so much oil, and many scientists believe we have reached the peak production of oil. Everything is based on oil: transportation, electricity (well, lots of coal too), and especially agriculture. Once oil is gone this oil based civilization will crash.
About liesure time: Each day hunter-gatherer communities would search for food, the entire community. The women would gather fruit, nuts, roots, etc, which provided most of the calories for the community. The men would hunt and provide the protein. Everything would be shared among the community. Through communal effort people would have more leisure time.
Hi there,
Although I agree with you on the majority of the points that you make about the evils of civilization, especially in these seemingly end stages it has developed, I must draw some observations from this discussion.
First I don't really suggest you should get so much into this Anarcho-primitivism ideology that thinks once they demolish civilization (again maybe desirable) all problems are solved because people will feel closer to nature, the spirit will be unshackled from the chains of modernity etc... Personally I used to visit some of these websites and it seems that the people who parrot this ideology are exactly that - idealists. They seem to recognize only our immediate problems but negate others we might bring as a result of solving this one. Some of it may also be from a misunderstanding of competitive human nature among other things. Also they look at the problems of civilization but they don't realize the problems of incivility such as severe environmental pressures that forced those people to always look for food, the lack of technology and scientific understanding we have today which still has much potential if we were to use it, or the many other inventions that lead us to discuss them here. The point is that there are pros and cons for each respective stage of human society but today we have the resources to mold the future in a completely different way, if that is, we will be able to. Civilization, however an anomaly it may seem, required great effort, cooperation and empathic capability between its builders in order to be build and sustained. Maybe it is not so wise to just completely discard it now that we have gotten so far but we should definitely try to revise it with the tools of today.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum