bikerdruid
Philosopher
off on a tangent, are you?
the chinese have addressed the issue.
why do you hate blacks and chinese?
in your mind, you seem to have primitivists confused with zionists.
Primitivism Discussion
- Thread starter Varanid
- Start date
off on a tangent, are you?
the chinese have addressed the issue.
why do you hate blacks and chinese?
in your mind, you seem to have primitivists confused with zionists.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
What is this I don't even.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
that's okay....at wasn't addressed to you.
You know the meme right?
Belz...
Fiend God
I did. But why did you keep the first paragraph if you understood ?
Well, first of all, certainly the Chinese government is not known for much concern for its people. Sometimes they make policies that are reasonable, or at least arguably necessary, in their situation, like one child per family. Sometimes they make bad decisions, like the "great leap forward" which resulted in tens of millions starving. In neither case was there the least concern to ask the people; only in what the leadership thought the people need.
But in any case, I'm not talking about the policy. I am talking about how the way he describes humanity. I doubt the Chinese leadership described their own people as breeing "like a virus". On the other hand, numerous bigots describe the rise in population of people they dislike as them breeding "like a virus".
I fail to see why the dehumanization shown by that phrase is any better when it applies to all people rather than only to some.
The analogy fails because it is clear here bikerdruid is implicitly putting himself as part of the "superior" group -- those who love the Earth enough to not "contaminate" it with children.
Belz...
Fiend God
All people except the one making the statement, that is.
As far as I know, the gay bomb hasn't been invented yet. And even if it existed, they'd still want to have children.
Genes have a mind of their own (and I'm not talking about people named Gene).
Last edited:
A close relative of mine today had an operation, which, with modern medical technology, was quick and easy. If it had to be done with more primitive technology it would have been far more dangerous, painful, and long.
I deeply apologize in her name, for using the kind of technology that people here seems to agree should be verboten in the new, ideal, primitive world. Perhaps I should meet with her and, without a warning, beat her up a little bit, so she will get some of the pain and suffering she should have experienced, for the good of humanity of course.
I deeply apologize in her name, for using the kind of technology that people here seems to agree should be verboten in the new, ideal, primitive world. Perhaps I should meet with her and, without a warning, beat her up a little bit, so she will get some of the pain and suffering she should have experienced, for the good of humanity of course.
Sorry Skeptic, thought this thread had died. I still owe a rough outline of my position as well.
Bumping for any additional thoughts, etc. I just typed a book for another thread and am sick of me and my thoughts for a few hours. Also, I have to go catch a rabbit with my bare hands and break his punk neck so I can eat dinner. As such, I will add my response later tonight or tomorrow.
Wish me luck I don't get eaten by a crocodile or something.
Nightowl2548
Student
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29
You mean live like Dr. Severin and the "Space Hippies" in the Star Trek episode Way to Eden? He gives a speech how "Only the primitives can save me, only amongst them can I be cleansed." Of course the hippies find only an acid planet and Kirk gets the final moralizing word.
I am having trouble composing an outline of the paradigm I am exploring.
One thing that I have held since the beginning of the thread was that this is impossible with the current population. Without knowing what hypothetical scenario would lead to this, I am having trouble getting specific.
The way we get to the small population will greatly affect life after it. If it is a nuclear apocalypse, eating fruits and seeds isn't going to work. An asteroid would wipe out much of the biosphere as well, and would cause problems. If it is a zombie issue, we will have to take into account that.
That being said, the Utopian ideal I am experimenting with goes something like this:
1) Small population
2) More or less hunter/gatherer existence
3) Basic Hygiene Knowledge and supplies are readily available
4) Basic Medical Care is readily available
5) Population growth would occur within understood ecological ratios
6) Education is still practiced
7) A small capacity for electricity will be necessary for #4.
8) A small capacity for producing goods (#4 primarily) will be necessary.
I am probably leaving out a bunch of stuff, I am not pretending to have thought about all of the facets of this (rather, I have barely scratched the surface).
To me, the sticking point is providing for #4. Which is also related to most of the objections raised in the thread. We won't be able to perform heart transplants, but we should be able to snip an appendix. Mom's shouldn't die in labor very often, but I am not so concerned about a 50 year old male having angioplasty (very well could be me one day, so there). I don't know exactly where the line is, and one will have to be decided. I am instead trying to give a vague idea of my concept.
Many posters, including Skeptic most recently have challenged this notion because it is seemingly rationing care. My argument has been, and remains, that we already do ration care. If we so chose (at any level- county, state, country, planet) we could provide health care for everyone tomorrow. We choose not to.
Apologies if this is kind of scattered, I am sort of bored with the topic until we get closer to figuring out how the population would be reduced. It will happen one day eventually, my question would be: "Do we build it back like it is now?".
No, I am definitely not advocating killing everyone as has been either suggested or strawmaned earlier (I am not going back to cipher through the bickering).
One thing that I have held since the beginning of the thread was that this is impossible with the current population. Without knowing what hypothetical scenario would lead to this, I am having trouble getting specific.
The way we get to the small population will greatly affect life after it. If it is a nuclear apocalypse, eating fruits and seeds isn't going to work. An asteroid would wipe out much of the biosphere as well, and would cause problems. If it is a zombie issue, we will have to take into account that.
That being said, the Utopian ideal I am experimenting with goes something like this:
1) Small population
2) More or less hunter/gatherer existence
3) Basic Hygiene Knowledge and supplies are readily available
4) Basic Medical Care is readily available
5) Population growth would occur within understood ecological ratios
6) Education is still practiced
7) A small capacity for electricity will be necessary for #4.
8) A small capacity for producing goods (#4 primarily) will be necessary.
I am probably leaving out a bunch of stuff, I am not pretending to have thought about all of the facets of this (rather, I have barely scratched the surface).
To me, the sticking point is providing for #4. Which is also related to most of the objections raised in the thread. We won't be able to perform heart transplants, but we should be able to snip an appendix. Mom's shouldn't die in labor very often, but I am not so concerned about a 50 year old male having angioplasty (very well could be me one day, so there). I don't know exactly where the line is, and one will have to be decided. I am instead trying to give a vague idea of my concept.
Many posters, including Skeptic most recently have challenged this notion because it is seemingly rationing care. My argument has been, and remains, that we already do ration care. If we so chose (at any level- county, state, country, planet) we could provide health care for everyone tomorrow. We choose not to.
Apologies if this is kind of scattered, I am sort of bored with the topic until we get closer to figuring out how the population would be reduced. It will happen one day eventually, my question would be: "Do we build it back like it is now?".
No, I am definitely not advocating killing everyone as has been either suggested or strawmaned earlier (I am not going back to cipher through the bickering).
Belz...
Fiend God
Acid world ? I thought that's what they were after ! Maybe they just wanted a weed planet, instead.
So, Mr. Purple, you want an electricity producing hunter/gatherer society, with modern hospitals.
Gotcha.
--"Oog, it is time to wander with the herds."
--"Look, Bodo, if you want that new electrical power plant, you got to give me some time for designing it."
--"Hura, why are you not gathering herbs?"
--"You know doctors in the second year of their residency in radiotherapy don't have to do that..."
That's like saying that it's silly to object to someone suggesting mass starvation as a solution to the population explosion, because, after all, some people are already hungry.
Gotcha.
--"Oog, it is time to wander with the herds."
--"Look, Bodo, if you want that new electrical power plant, you got to give me some time for designing it."
--"Hura, why are you not gathering herbs?"
--"You know doctors in the second year of their residency in radiotherapy don't have to do that..."
That's like saying that it's silly to object to someone suggesting mass starvation as a solution to the population explosion, because, after all, some people are already hungry.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Then why are we even discussing this ? These goals are mutually-exclusive, and even IF you were able to implement them they wouldn't stick for long.
I'll take reality over that, thanks.
Not necessarily. Think more mash type field hospitals. But no Alan Alda.
I
No. You (and others) suggested we would have to choose who received medical care and who didn't. I am pointing out that we already make these choices.
I am discussing it because I think it is interesting. Best I can tell, you are just interesting in poking me with a stick.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, I just find it odd that we're discussing something that is impossible and undesirable, untenable and internally inconsistent, and illogical, as though it was something that we'd rather have than what we have now, which is not only possible and desirable but tenable, internally consistent and logical.
Look, we're pointing out the obvious: there could no more be a hunter-gatherer society with electricity or hospitals than there is a square circle. If you want to go back to hunting-gathering, or even to agrarian society in general, you must give up on your electricity and hospitals and many, many other things (like adequate food supply, only available through modern agriculture). If, on the other hand, you want hospitals, anasthetics, antibiotics, adequate food supply, and so on, you must give up on primitivism.