Primitivism Discussion

[MarkCorrigan]

i think you just described capitalism....am i in the wrong thread?

In what way is capitalism genocidal and fascist?

Remember, you're talking to a Socialist here, so attempting to claim I "love" capitalism or see no problems with it while handwaving away the question isn't going to work.

 

[phantomb]

Advocating a utopian future based on a "pure" moment in history, that requires the killing of over 5 billion people is genocidal and fascist.

1) Advocating a system that requires a smaller population != advocating killing billions of people in order to implement that system. Maybe I'm wrong, but no one in this thread has seriously suggested that it would be okay to kill people in order to get the right numbers.

2) Nobody is suggesting we start killing people, nobody is suggesting we should go out and force primitivism on everybody else, and the system itself probably wouldn't be authoritarian, so in what way is it fascist?

It's a good thing the concept is just moralistic masturbation to ease the guilt of well-off Westerners.

Can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that the question is at least worth asking. What are the chances that every cultural and technological advancement made over the last ten thousand years has been an improvement? Is it possible that with modern knowledge and technology, we could implement something similar to past societies that would enjoy benefits from both lifestyles? We want to know these things, so we discuss.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Maybe I'm wrong, but no one in this thread has seriously suggested that it would be okay to kill people in order to get the right numbers.

So far as I've seen nobody has suggested any possible way that one could get to the required number.

Or is primitivism one of those "this is is obviously totally impossible and never in a million years going to happen but let's talk about what it would be like for fun" ideas?

 

[Belz...]

[...] people will still hate it. Why? Because they know that they could have so much more.

This. Primitivism advocates simply don't consider reality: people want more, expect more, and deserve better. If primitivism was so great we wouldn't have left it behind.

 

[Belz...]

Again, no. There would be no lack of literacy unless everyone in the world suddenly forgot how to read. Literacy is one of the things that could absolutely survive because it's knowledge that virtually everyone possesses and can easily be passed on. Primitivism has enough problems without you inventing one.

I disagree with this, however. Thing is, after a few generations without running water and proper equipment, the realities of primitive life might mean that you skip a few things that aren't useful in everyday life, and that could very well mean teaching kids to read and write because it doesn't help them cultivate your lands.

 

[Belz...]

1) Advocating a system that requires a smaller population != advocating killing billions of people in order to implement that system. Maybe I'm wrong, but no one in this thread has seriously suggested that it would be okay to kill people in order to get the right numbers.

But they advocating letting them die.

We want to know these things, so we discuss.

Musing about a theoretical, impossible situation is not gaining knowledge. That's why it was called "moralistic masturbation".

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Not yet. Whodat?

joke fail
but good musician

John Fahey (February 28, 1939 – February 22, 2001) was an American fingerstyle guitarist and composer who pioneered the steel-string acoustic guitar as a solo instrument. His style has been greatly influential and has been described as the foundation of American Primitivism, a term borrowed from painting and referring mainly to the self-taught nature of the music and its minimalist style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fahey_(musician)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A3B80hZi8U

 

[Virus]

1) Advocating a system that requires a smaller population != advocating killing billions of people in order to implement that system. Maybe I'm wrong, but no one in this thread has seriously suggested that it would be okay to kill people in order to get the right numbers.

It follows from the premise. If humanity was insane enough to actually implement this system, they would discover that there isn't enough food for everyone and the five billion people that cannot be sustained through hunter-gather methods would starve. Or they'd be killed fighting over territory.

2) Nobody is suggesting we start killing people, nobody is suggesting we should go out and force primitivism on everybody else,

They don't have to suggest it. If they get rid of industrialized agriculture then billions die from food shortages. Not to mention the territorial wars, diseases ect.

and the system itself probably wouldn't be authoritarian,

Primitive society was authoritarian. Tribes were not democracies. Preventing people from reverting to modernity would require totalitarian methods of control.

so in what way is it fascist?

I told you. Creating a glorious utopia based on a pure, mythical past smacks of fascism.

Can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that the question is at least worth asking. What are the chances that every cultural and technological advancement made over the last ten thousand years has been an improvement? Is it possible that with modern knowledge and technology, we could implement something similar to past societies that would enjoy benefits from both lifestyles? We want to know these things, so we discuss.

A technological stone-age? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Seismosaurus]

The trouble with this idea, it seems to me, is that the Primitivists want to pick and choose what technologies we have and how we use them. But that's just not possible. Technology is an interdependent whole, you can't have bits of it without having all of it.

Want books? Basic medicine? A bit of electricity? Okay, that's a chemical industry, refined metals production and a mining industry right there. Then people are going to want to improve them. Better machines to mine with, better ways to refine the metals, medicine that is a bit more sophisticated. They'll have the desire, and they'll have the tools to produce those advances, so what will stop them really? Primitivists talk as if all these things are central decisions, that "we" can decide that we will invent electricity, but not move on and have electronics, or that we will have simple electronics but decide as a society not to develop computers.

But these things are historically done by individuals or groups. If you have "a bit" of electricity, how do you propose to stop people from using it for lighting, heating, cooking? And when they do, what's to stop them from inventing the telegraph, and then simple electronics, and then the transistor, and so on. Is there going to be a dictatorial government to enforce these edicts?

Or is it just part of the fantasy that everybody in the whole world will agree to all the rules and limits, rather like the idea that 80%+ of the population will just quietly vanish someday?

 

[Skeptic]

Again, no. There would be no lack of literacy unless everyone in the world suddenly forgot how to read.

Not immediately. But with fewer and fewer books and a smaller and smaller society relying more or less solely on verbal communications, literacy will be forgotten over time -- much like it was forgotten after Rome fell or during any other civilization collapse.

Again, if your group is small enough you might be able to survive without hunger and nutrition for a while at least, but if you have two or three poor harvests or extreme winters, you might well run out of food in your effective area.

Ah, but random mass starvation of yourself, your family, and your tribe is surely worth it so you not stress the environment and live in harmony with nature, right?

I think that he might well enjoy it. Why he assumes everyone else will is beyond me.

Perhaps. But he should give it a try.

 

[Skeptic]

1) Advocating a system that requires a smaller population != advocating killing billions of people in order to implement that system.

It does, because if that system is ever implemented, five billion people will not have enough to eat and thus will have to starve.

and the system itself probably wouldn't be authoritarian,

It will have to be massively authoritorian (although how a primitivist will enforce one's authority is a mystery) since otherwise people will start re-inventing electronics, modern medicine, engineering, and all that other bad stuff.

Is it possible that with modern knowledge and technology, we could implement something similar to past societies that would enjoy benefits from both lifestyles? We want to know these things, so we discuss.

Certainly; the problem is, the specific solution suggested here -- hunting/gathering society, but with electricity and modern medicine -- is simply a contradiction in terms.

 

[bikerdruid]

It does, because if that system is ever implemented, five billion people will not have enough to eat and thus will have to starve.



It will have to be massively authoritorian (although how a primitivist will enforce one's authority is a mystery) since otherwise people will start re-inventing electronics, modern medicine, engineering, and all that other bad stuff.



Certainly; the problem is, the specific solution suggested here -- hunting/gathering society, but with electricity and modern medicine -- is simply a contradiction in terms.

most primitivists don't think that we will choose this lifestyle, but will have have it forced upon mankind when the system collapses.

the fact that mankind insists on living in an unsustainable manner, seems intent upon destruction of the earth, continues to engage in wars for oil, and cares little or nothing for future generations seems to make the collapse inevitable.

 

[Seismosaurus]

People have been saying that society will collapse since society was invented.

Somehow it not only keeps on going, it keeps on getting better and better, overall.

 

[Belz...]

most primitivists don't think that we will choose this lifestyle, but will have have it forced upon mankind when the system collapses.

the fact that mankind insists on living in an unsustainable manner, seems intent upon destruction of the earth, continues to engage in wars for oil, and cares little or nothing for future generations seems to make the collapse inevitable.

Your cynical view does not make anything inevitable. Though I agree we might not be able to sustain our current population level for long.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Your cynical view does not make anything inevitable. Though I agree we might not be able to sustain our current population level for long.

I see no reason to think so. But then as I understand it, we won't need to. The estimates I've seen are that the world population will peak at about 9 billion in 2080 or so, then start declining.

 

[phantomb]

So far as I've seen nobody has suggested any possible way that one could get to the required number.

Mr. Purple suggested a large war or natural disaster, and I think there were a few other ideas earlier on in the thread, but I can suggest one right now if you want:

Use argumentation to convince a large number of people to voluntarily have less children and decrease the population for the purpose of implementing primitivism down the line.

If I wanted to implement primitivism, which I don't, that's how I'd go about it, not genocide.

Or is primitivism one of those "this is is obviously totally impossible and never in a million years going to happen but let's talk about what it would be like for fun" ideas?

Definitely true of primitivism proper IMO. I'd still say the questions are worth asking though. Maybe we learn something useful or find some idea that can be salvaged.

 

[phantomb]

But they advocating letting them die.

And letting people die != genocide. Every society lets people die in one way or another.

Musing about a theoretical, impossible situation is not gaining knowledge. That's why it was called "moralistic masturbation".

In this thread many misconceptions have been addressed regarding modern life and primitive life. That's gained knowledge. If, by this musing about theoretical scenarios, we come up with a good idea that we hadn't thought of before, that's gained knowledge. And really, if you discuss something that turns out to be an all around bad and impractical idea you've at least gained the knowledge that that one road doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[bikerdruid]

Musing about a theoretical, impossible situation is not gaining knowledge. That's why it was called "moralistic masturbation".

what kind of masturbation is it to take the time to argue in threads where you believe the premise is a waste of time?

 

[phantomb]

It follows from the premise. If humanity was insane enough to actually implement this system, they would discover that there isn't enough food for everyone and the five billion people that cannot be sustained through hunter-gather methods would starve. Or they'd be killed fighting over territory.

Nonsense. Modern societies today would have been impossible to implement with the people and technology of yesterday. No primitivist that I have seen in this thread has suggested implementing primitivism overnight. They have all acknowledged this.

They don't have to suggest it. If they get rid of industrialized agriculture then billions die from food shortages. Not to mention the territorial wars, diseases ect.

What are you talking about? If one group of people, or even an entire country to be extreme, decided to transition to primitivism, it need not have that drastic of an affect others. You're characterizing primitivists as some sort of crazy genociders who want to force the entire world to follow their philosophy by undoing worldwide industrialization overnight (um how, by blowing up every factory and farm in the world at once?) when absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested anything like that.

Primitive society was authoritarian. Tribes were not democracies. Preventing people from reverting to modernity would require totalitarian methods of control.

Anthropologists say that for a long time humans existed in small non-sedentary band societies in which there were no professionals or craft specialists and all any individual owned would be what they could physically carry around themselves. They say the power structures were egalitarian or informal at best. But hey, what do anthropologists know, right?

I told you. Creating a glorious utopia based on a pure, mythical past smacks of fascism.

No, creating a glorious utopia based on a pure, mythical past which was destroyed by the filthy members of scapegoat group X smacks of fascism.

A technological stone-age? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Primitive lifestyle optimized here and there with modern knowledge and what modern technology can be produced in such a state. Or I think Mr. Purple is suggesting a mostly primitive lifestyle but with some amount of time per week spent working a more modern job so that you can have certain medicines and technologies that you want. Does sound pretty complex though.

 

[Belz...]

And letting people die != genocide. Every society lets people die in one way or another.

Somehow I knew you were going to say that as I typed that post. Allowing FIVE BILLION deaths is not analogous to anything we have today. You are trying to conflate the two together but the fact remains that it is population cleansing of the most evil order.

In this thread many misconceptions have been addressed regarding modern life and primitive life. That's gained knowledge. If, by this musing about theoretical scenarios, we come up with a good idea that we hadn't thought of before, that's gained knowledge. And really, if you discuss something that turns out to be an all around bad and impractical idea you've at least gained the knowledge that that one road doesn't lead anywhere.

Agreed.