Primitivism Discussion

[Skeptic]

Bikerdruid obviously would be part of the elite scribe caste, Skeptic.

Well, of course he would. So would everybody else -- as Asimov said, they would all be architects designing cathedrals, never the serfs bringing up the stones for it or the farmers supplying the builders with food. Ever noticed everybody was always Cleopatra and/or Ceaser in the past?

 

[Skeptic]

would you forget how to read and write overnight?

No. But your (or other people's) children... well... there will be no time for things like schools or universities or formal education, there being so much fewer books, newspapers, and literature generally, to say nothing of the end of engineering, research science, etc. Literacy will soon become a luxury, sort of like yacht racing or private-plane flying: nice to know, something that the few who are rich or idle can acquire, but really something most people can (and must) get along without in the new, primitive world.

 

[Skeptic]

Knowledge was passed down in a variety of ways for ages before the invention of the printing press. Was it as effective? Of course not, but it is incorrect in my view to assume that the principles of education would cease to exist just because we didn't have a fancy machine to print the books with.

Of course they won't. But like most of the things you take for granted, in a primitivist culture they will exist as they existed before the "fancy machines": as something available only to a tiny minority of rulers or rich folks, while everybody else gets none of it.

I won't speak for any others, but in my version of primitivism I don't expect everyone to just jettison knowledge that has already been accumulated, as has been alluded to several times.

No, you just want no new knowledge to be acquired, and no effective means to distribute the already-acquired knowledge to a new generation. Which is in effect saying that if you personally do not jettison all your knowledge, within a generation or two society will.

I would like a (somewhat) primitive culture, not an ignorant one. The two are not necessarily linked.

They are very much linked. With a primitive economy and technology, a primitive society will necessarily have no time nor opportunity for education for anybody except a tiny elite.

 

[Skeptic]

OK, quick question. I am not a rich many by any means. And yet, on the walls of my house, I have about 5000 books (I am a bit of a bibliophile). They were all printed by those evil, nasty machines, so I know they are contaminated with the whiff of modernity; but still, one upside is that I could buy them used very cheaply, perhaps paying (on average) a buck or two per book, at most.

In this new, glorious, primitive society, how much will a book cost? How many books will I be able to afford for myself or my children? Without "fancy machines" the answers are, it seems, about the yearly salary of an average worker, and the answer for how many books I would be able to afford for myself or my children would be, of course, "none".

"Primitive doesn't mean ignorant"? Let us ask the 99% of the folks would would never in their lives be able to afford a single book in a primitive society about that.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

and your point?
i am well aware that these plants are nothing new.
just thought you might take an opportunity to 'talk down ' to me?

Uh huh, all I want to do ever is talk down to some random primitivist on the internet, it's all that gives me joy.

I was merely stating that the existence of these plants in actual medicine, usually improved upon in some way, means that, given all the other stuff modern medicine has, I think I'll leave primitivism alone.

Frankly, the way you framed your original statement read, to me, like you were expounding on the wonders of these natural cures, which does tend to rather go hand in hand with the idea that pharma companies don't like using these natural remedies.

To go further, I would state that as far as I'm concerned, I want total modern medical care. If it works and I might need it, I want it available. That means I can't live in a world without medical research labs, I can't live in a world without lots of heavy industry, and can't live in a world without and extremely extensive power supply.

Given all these things, I'd rather live in the modern world, with all the crap that comes with it, and simply take time to go into nature and enjoy it, rather than living a spartan existence for absolutely zero net benefit to me.

In fact, it would be a net loss to me to live outside the world with the most up-to-date medical care, as I've likely been in and out of hospital more times in my 23 years than you have in your life, and I would bet money on that fact. I need medical care, not for some unspecified thing that might strike me down in the future (although heaven knows that's a nice thing to have) but because I as I am now need up to date medical care on a regular basis. My life absolutely 100% is dependent on modern hospitals, and while I fully agree than a good number of herbal remedies are beneficial (and have probably pretty much all been snapped up by pharma companies anyway) they are not and will never be adequate medical coverage. I know that you agree with this assessment too, but for me, that's an absolutely crucial factor in determining how I want to live my life.

 

[Belz...]

would you forget how to read and write overnight?
maybe i just have better knowledge retention that you do.

Oh, you mean you didn't take into consideration future generations ?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Well, of course he would. So would everybody else -- as Asimov said, they would all be architects designing cathedrals, never the serfs bringing up the stones for it or the farmers supplying the builders with food. Ever noticed everybody was always Cleopatra and/or Ceaser in the past?

I'd been intending to take issue with your constant strawmanning of what most or all primitivists think or want or believe or say. Like Central Scrutiniser, it seemed your opinion was one of 'in my experience', though at least he was 'honest' (if that's the right word for his evasiveness) to admit his experience was deiberately limited (by the opinions he formed in the lack of experience, yet).

But I see now you've appealed to authority. And not just any authority, but Asimov, peace be with him.

Personally, my view of primitivism doesn't include cathedrals - I'm not sure how you or Asimov got to 'primitive cathedrals', really, but hey, it's Asimov, he must be right. At the commune I mentioned earlier we built a strawbale house - maybe if there were more of us, and we worshipped anything, and we had a quarry, we might have built a cathedral. But we'd have built it the way we built the strawbale house - all hands to the labour. Asimov might have called our strawbale house a cathedral, I suppose, in which case it clearly would have been, so I'll stop arguing with him (or you).

 

[Skeptic]

I'd been intending to take issue with your constant strawmanning of what most or all primitivists think or want or believe or say.

The problem is that primitivists want a lifestyle -- in a primitive society -- that only those who were in the top 1% or so of the population could have. Take "Mr. Purple" for example -- he thinks there would no problem with literacy because we could still copy books without "fancy machines". True -- but only 1% of the population or so could afford such books before printing.

So when he says there will still be literacy after the end of printing, that he and his progency will be literate, he is ipso facto declaring that he and his progency will be part of the 1% that rules the place.

 

[bikerdruid]

So when he says there will still be literacy after the end of printing, that he and his progency will be literate, he is ipso facto declaring that he and his progency will be part of the 1% that rules the place.

primitivists are almost all green anarchists.
there would be no 'rulers'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

 

[BenBurch]

Anarchy is an unstable equilibrium. The moment you have a true anarchy, the first thug who comes along with some charisma builds a cadre and becomes a warlord. Then people band together to counter him, and to do that you need a command structure. Then anarchy devolves into warring states.

 

[Skeptic]

No rulers would be even worse, since it would be, as Hobbes noted long ago, a war of all against all -- in the short period until someone with charisma or more power gets followers and forces others to do as he pleases, I mean.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The problem is that primitivists want a lifestyle

because I'd said

I'd been intending to take issue with your constant strawmanning of what most or all primitivists think or want or believe or say.

because you'd said

The problem is that primitivists want

Do you not see the problem? Will your next response include another self-serving, unsupported generalisation of what primitivists want?

Would it not be more honest to approach this from the point of view that you don't want to be a primitivist? At least we could both be sure that you were right, if you were speaking for yourself. I'll promise not to invent things that it would suit me to attach to you, if you'll...no, hang on, I just promise not to do it anyway, as part of being here and having reasonable, rational discussions in a friendly, lively way.

 

[Belz...]

primitivists are almost all green anarchists.
there would be no 'rulers'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

So small hunter-gathered tribes, then.

 

[BenBurch]

No rulers would be even worse, since it would be, as Hobbes noted long ago, a war of all against all -- in the short period until someone with charisma or more power gets followers and forces others to do as he pleases, I mean.

I think I just said that.

 

[Skeptic]

So small hunter-gathered tribes, then.

Massively violent, life expectancy in the 40s, 50% child mortality... ah well, at least we aren't "raping the Earth" or "destroying limited resources" or something.

 

[Skeptic]

But you're missing the point, jiggeryqua. Primitivists want such a society because they want a society where:

(1). Want a primitive society technologically, agriculturally, etc.

(2) declare that in such a society they will still enjoy certain amneties (such as books, education, etc.).

Primitivists constantly DO say (1) and (2).

I am simply pointing out that logically follows that they must see themselves as those in a primitive society who are of of the upper crust, since in the kind of society they envisage in (1), only the tiny percentage of a few at the top can ever get (2).

Otherwise, they are inconsistent.

 

[BenBurch]

You can get a primitive (relatively) society with books and something that passes for medical care (at least you can have surgery and disinfectant if not drugs) only of you drop populations back to 18th century levels.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But you're missing the point, jiggeryqua. Primitivists want such a society because they want a society where:

(1). Want a primitive society technologically, agriculturally, etc.

(2) declare that in such a society they will still enjoy certain amneties (such as books, education, etc.).

Primitivists constantly DO say (1) and (2).

I am simply pointing out that logically follows that they must see themselves as those in a primitive society who are of of the upper crust, since in the kind of society they envisage in (1), only the tiny percentage of a few at the top can ever get (2).

Otherwise, they are inconsistent.

That's not strictly speaking true.

Given that we're starting from a 21st Century background, we have in the modern westernised world literacy rates of 95%+ we could, if we allowed for a slight drop due to loss of technology making it easier to make copies of books, easily keep that up.


What we would not be able to do is produce massive numbers of books, or apply any advanced technical knowledge.

 

[jiggeryqua]

But you're missing the point, jiggeryqua. Primitivists want such a society because they want a society where:

(1). Want a primitive society technologically, agriculturally, etc.

(2) declare that in such a society they will still enjoy certain amneties (such as books, education, etc.).

Primitivists constantly DO say (1) and (2).

I am simply pointing out that logically follows that they must see themselves as those in a primitive society who are of of the upper crust, since in the kind of society they envisage in (1), only the tiny percentage of a few at the top can ever get (2).

Otherwise, they are inconsistent.

Your sample size of 'primitivists' that fit your criteria was one, and even he's said he's not a primitivist. So no, it's you that persists in missing the point by making blanket statements about something you know nothing about except that it sounds suspiciously like you'd lose some toys if 'they' made you one of them. Are you as dismissive of, say, 'great-grandparents', who lived a considerably simpler life than your own and yet somehow survived, and loved, and led to you?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

(I realise you're making fun, but I feel someone should explain to Biker)

I am absolutely 100% certain all of those plants are either sold as, or were used to make drugs. In fact, I know for a fact St John's Wort is regulated and sold here in the UK (there was a big fuss about it a few years back because it's potentially harmful) and willow bark is where asprin came from originally. Now it's more effective than just taking willow bark, but they also sell that too, so you're spoiled for choice, frankly.

Good point.