Primitivism Discussion

[Belz...]

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

It's important to shoot down nonsense. If you were a skeptic you'd know this.

 

[phantomb]

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

As I said to Virus, I don't think the suggestion is that primitivism be implemented overnight.

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.

Or maybe primitivism will be so awesome, or the people so gung-ho about it, or the culture they create so strong at promoting it, that they are able to avoid this happening. Or maybe people who prefer those things would just leave and go somewhere else (to a non-primitivist country?).

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

I can believe that. But personally, I don't know anything about how many people or man-hours it takes to run the industries that produce those things. Or, for that matter, exactly what resources they require and where they come from.

 

[bikerdruid]

It's important to shoot down nonsense. If you were a skeptic you'd know this.

ah...that would be mental masturbation, then.

 

[phantomb]

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.

I misunderstood you. There are two issues that have been brought up in this thread:

1) primitivism cannot support the current population, so if we implemented primitivism tomorrow, billions of people would die

2) primitivism intentionally abandons modern medicines and technologies, so if we implemented primitivism, people would typically die from causes that a modern society might have been able to treat

I thought you were referring to (2) rather than (1). I've written about (1) twice now: nobody seems to be suggesting that we implement primitivism overnight, but rather if and only if the population has already been massively decreased by war, or disaster, or people intentionally decreasing the population over time for the purpose of implementing primitivism eventually.

 

[bikerdruid]

I misunderstood you. There are two issues that have been brought up in this thread:

1) primitivism cannot support the current population, so if we implemented primitivism tomorrow, billions of people would die

2) primitivism intentionally abandons modern medicines and technologies, so if we implemented primitivism, people would typically die from causes that a modern society might have been able to treat

I thought you were referring to (2) rather than (1). I've written about (1) twice now: nobody seems to be suggesting that we implement primitivism overnight, but rather if and only if the population has already been massively decreased by war, or disaster, or people intentionally decreasing the population over time for the purpose of implementing primitivism eventually.

the phrase "bombed back to the stone age," comes to mind.

 

[Virus]

As I said to Virus, I don't think the suggestion is that primitivism be implemented overnight.

So they prefer the slow, gradual introduction of mass-famine.

 

[bikerdruid]

So they prefer the slow, gradual introduction of mass-famine.

try and keep up, man.
it is expected that some great disaster, man-made or otherwise, would occur to necessitate it.

 

[phantomb]

So they prefer the slow, gradual introduction of mass-famine.

For that you'll have to ask an actual primitivist. I know some of them argue that the increased risk of famine (though really, if we're talking about small band or tribal societies, it would never be mass-famine) is worth the benefits just as all societies have costs and hopefully worthwhile benefits. I have no position myself as I don't know that much about famine.

 

[Skeptic]

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

Perhaps; but if so why are they hell-bent on hurrying the process? Why do they want to live now the way they themselves will occur after civilization collapses? You might as well say that, since we're all mortal, we should randomly start killing people.

 

[Skeptic]

For that you'll have to ask an actual primitivist. I know some of them argue that the increased risk of famine
(though really, if we're talking about small band or tribal societies, it would never be mass-famine)

Well, there is the little issue of the famine necessary to reach that small population in the start.

is worth the benefits

So long as it is someone else who starves, not themselves or anyone they know.

 

[bikerdruid]

Perhaps; but if so why are they hell-bent on hurrying the process? Why do they want to live now the way they themselves will occur after civilization collapses? You might as well say that, since we're all mortal, we should randomly start killing people.

what an asinine suggestion.

 

[Skeptic]

what an asinine suggestion.

Indeed it is. That's just the point: I am giving an analogy to what the primitivists really suggest. Now, what does that tell you about the primitivists?

 

[bikerdruid]

Indeed it is. That's just the point: I am giving an analogy to what the primitivists really suggest. Now, what does that tell you about the primitivists?

i know of no primitivists that advocate any such thing.

 

[Seismosaurus]

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:

Wars tend to kill far fewer people than most commonly suppose. World War II, for instance, the worst war in all history, killed less than 3% of the whole population. Even an all out nuclear war probably wouldn't kill more than half.

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.

Good luck with that. I think you'd have a better chance if you decided to wait for magic space bats to come and take away most of the people.

 

[phantomb]

Well, there is the little issue of the famine necessary to reach that small population in the start.

Because the only possible way to decrease the population is to allow famine to kill people, right?

So long as it is someone else who starves, not themselves or anyone they know.

Please explain how this could possibly be the case in an egalitarian band society. That was the example I gave to Virus earlier and in my experience that is what many primitivists are aiming for.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Because the only possible way to decrease the population is to allow famine to kill people, right?

Famine may or may not be needed to get to primitivism in the first place, but once people are living a primitive lifestyle, famine will be a constant companion.

 

[phantomb]

Wars tend to kill far fewer people than most commonly suppose. World War II, for instance, the worst war in all history, killed less than 3% of the whole population. Even an all out nuclear war probably wouldn't kill more than half.

Agreed, but the suggestion was indeed a large scale nuclear war. According to the united nations, urban areas already represent the majority of the world's population. I believe agriculture is packed into a number of key centres as well.

And then there's the possibility of nuclear winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#2007_study_on_global_nuclear_war

I can easily imagine a nuclear war killing far more than half the population.

Good luck with that. I think you'd have a better chance if you decided to wait for magic space bats to come and take away most of the people.

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

 

[Seismosaurus]

Agreed, but the suggestion was indeed a large scale nuclear war. According to the united nations, urban areas already represent the majority of the world's population. I believe agriculture is packed into a number of key centres as well.

And then there's the possibility of nuclear winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#2007_study_on_global_nuclear_war

I can easily imagine a nuclear war killing far more than half the population.

Well one can imagine whatever one likes.

 

[phantomb]

Famine may or may not be needed to get to primitivism in the first place, but once people are living a primitive lifestyle, famine will be a constant companion.

My understanding is that the hunter-gatherer band societies mentioned were far less affected by famine than the agriculturalists that replaced them, and I posted peer-reviewed articles in post #129 that argued to that effect. Now obviously first world countries today are almost famine-proof, but many other contemporary countries are not, and I think you're greatly overestimating famine as an issue for these primitive societies.

 

[phantomb]

Well one can imagine whatever one likes.

Yes, well ideally we should try and imagine what is actually indicated by the facts. It may only be wikipedia, but is this not lucid enough for you?

In the 150 Tg case they found that:

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.
In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%.

As for the 50 Tg case involving one third of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude," but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that "this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."