Primitivism Discussion

[Virus]

There won't be peer-reviewed papers under primitivism. There won't even be paper.

 

[bikerdruid]

There won't be peer-reviewed papers under primitivism. There won't even be paper.

making paper is not rocket science.
communities could certainly make paper for their own use.
do you believe than mankind will forget all skills overnight.
that which is good and useful can certainly be continued.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

making paper is not rocket science.
communities could certainly make paper for their own use.
do you believe than mankind will forget all skills overnight.
that which is good and useful can certainly be continued.

Oh there will be paper, and people who can write and things to write, but no science.

The death of science will be the death of humanity.

 

[bikerdruid]

Oh there will be paper, and people who can write and things to write, but no science.

The death of science will be the death of humanity.

why would science die?
do you think that no one will want to watch the skies, learn of life cycles.
mankind will not forget thousands of years of learning overnight.
we have books, and more will be written.
you have a rather bleak view of primitivism.
there are many areas of disagreement between primitivists.
none that i have known, and few of those i've read, insist that the baby need be thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Belz...]

making paper is not rocket science.

Without infrastructure, it might as well be.

why would science die?
do you think that no one will want to watch the skies, learn of life cycles.

Unfortunately, this is what led to the current state of things that primitivists hate so much.

 

[Skeptic]

why would science die?
do you think that no one will want to watch the skies, learn of life cycles.
mankind will not forget thousands of years of learning overnight.

You're right. It might take three or four generations once primitivism really gets going to forget most of modern science. It won't happen overnight.

Primitivism is like communism or anarchism. A great solution for all the ills of our society in theory, possibly practicable on a small scale (one town or so at most) so long as the rest of society continues in its evil capitalistic, law-abiding, modern ways... but a catastrophic failure, leading to the death and impoverishment of millions when tried on a larger scale.

Still, primitivism and anarchism have one advantage over communism. They are so unrealistic nobody ever managed to try them on a large scale, while communism was tried, with well-known results.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

why would science die?
do you think that no one will want to watch the skies, learn of life cycles.
mankind will not forget thousands of years of learning overnight.
we have books, and more will be written.
you have a rather bleak view of primitivism.
there are many areas of disagreement between primitivists.
none that i have known, and few of those i've read, insist that the baby need be thrown out with the bathwater.

Science would die because you wouldn't have labs, chemicals, proper testing cntrols, the industry to produce scientific equipment, proper power....

I mean, exactly how do you think science is conducted Biker? Most science would need at least some form of industry, and you can say goodbye to any and all nuclear or molecular level sciences because there wouldn't be the industry to support them. You couldn't perform much marine biology, because there would be no one to build the complex machinery needed to plumb the depths of the sea. There wouldn't be any genetic research or stem cell research because the equipment is highly specialised, very expensive and takes a lot of power to run.

You can rule out any kind of space exploration, any form of satellite technology and all research on lasers, forensics or anything else that's relatively new. All fringe science would be gone.

Sure, science could carry on on SOME level, but we've already passed that level a long time ago. We've moved on great leaps and bounds since the level of science that doesn't need substantial power and industry in most if not all branches of science. Even as you say, with people remembering and having written records, no one would be able to continue any high tech science, and no one could even check the recent results because none of the stuff would work without substantial power.

I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a really sad thing.