Discuss the only solution to humanity's problems; total annihilation of civilization and post-agricultural technology, abolishment of division of labor and symbolic thought, destruction of culture, abolishment of the concept of time, removal of surrogate activity (including but not limited to: mathemathics, science, everything not related to physical contact with sustainace of an individual's physical needs), and return to hunter-gatherer society. Anarcho-primtivism has many upsides, and absolutely no downsides other than artificial ones. Including but not limited to: removal of human psychological suffering (in the form of depression, mental disorder, purposelessness, emptiness), extreme individualism (you are completely in control of your fate in life; this cannot happen unless you are free of surrogate activity and are in full control of your physical needs. you also are able to create everything you need to survive without external help, also known as specialization and division of labor), for the most part egalitarianism, complete removal of hierarchy and division of labor,
If you have any arguments against (such as "le standards of living", "lol ur gonna die of diesease", "but what about my loli waifu???"), feel free to post, and I am open to all discussion.
Posting images of both Ted and Zerzan indicates that you aren't actually all that familiar with Ted's work.
Adrian Brown
You're totally at the mercy of the weather. Have fun your first winter op.
Owen Butler
Why? Just because they aren't on good terms?
Kevin Walker
Huh, wonder how humans have lived not only through winters, but through ice ages without industrial technology…
Ryan Russell
Because Ted wrote an article attacking Zerzan's views.
Jordan Sanders
Yes, and Zerzan agreed with him completely. Read his afterthoughs of Ted's essay. He agreed that romanticization of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is unnecessary, and the sole reason they are on bad terms is because Zerzan claimed Ted fiddled with the sources, taking shit out of context.
Julian Perry
Surviving as a species doesn't mean they all necessarily survived as individuals. Yours is an interesting perspective for someone who's supposedly such an individualist to take.
Liam Sullivan
What do you mean? All prehistoric humans had the capability to adapt to the cold; clothing making was everywhere, as well as firemaking. I'd rather be on the mercy of the weather, that I can actually adapt myself to, than be at the mercy of the technoindustrial state, which I cannot adapt to, nor can I change.
Christopher Baker
That's great, but having a fire doesn't stop you from starving.
Carter Price
Was that really a problem? Megafauna and sustainably big animals were extremely abundant, ranging in the tens of millions, while humans were in the millions and were apex predators. Plus we had all the capabilities we needed for hunting, including advanced tactics and weapons.
Cameron Harris
Cave art isn't related to physical needs, and there is plenty of it. Has real primitivism never been tried?
James Perez
Industrial Civilization is the Earth's (i.e. the natural world's) greatest dialectical achievement. Primitivism is nothing more than a fucking thought experiment at this point.
Isaac Roberts
Famine was less common in hunter gatherer societies than in early agricultural societies, but much more common than today. When's the last time someone you know died of hunger?
Bentley Watson
Redditors need to leave.
Caleb Kelly
I agree. Please go back.
Jonathan Hill
That's why I said symbolic thought. Cave art is symbolic thought, therefore it signifies the eventual technological downfall of a species. We have lived without it (I think cave art started appearing around ~100kya if you count Neandertal art) for a few million years without problem. It's when people started to capture feeling instead of actually feeling, aka symbolic thought, is when humanity started creating problems that didn't have to exist, then try to fix it.
Achievement in what way? In creating problems then trying to fix them to no avail? Industrial civilization brought nothing but problems, including immense psychological suffering of individuals. Read ISaIF, and kill yourself technophile.
Sources? I see only speculation that famine actually existed to a CONSIDERABLE degree in hunter-gatherer societies, as we were apex predators, as I noted bfore. But I don't get your point, even if famine existed to a considerable degree, having to resort to surrogate activity and having all your physical needs fulfilled without even flinching a finger definitely brought more bad than good. Physical suffering (i.e. hunger or thirst) is inherently superior to psychological suffering induced by the technoindustrial system.
Famine has periodically struck modern hunter gatherers in South Africa. What are they doing wrong?
Anthony Cook
I honestly can't believe I'm saying this, but you sound like someone who has never had a serious problem in their life and you should probably check your privilege.
Nicholas Lewis
You're talking about pre-human species. This is some next level noble savage worship.
Luke Edwards
I haven't studied that topic much, but the first conclusion that comes to mind is ecological changes, including poaching and depletion of game by regular government hunters. Second thing is not adapting to the changing fauna, and using a method known as persistence hunting, instead of more reliable methods like still hunting or stalking or ambushing. But as I've said, it's better to have a famine once in a while than suffer psychologically and live a purposeless life under the technoindustrial system.
Read ISaIF.
It's still homo, an ancestor of the modern man. What does this have to do with the argument, though?
Lincoln Richardson
You may as well advocate that people hibernate all winter. You're coming up with political doctrines for non-human species if you seriously are against thinking about things besides food and sex.
Logan Sanchez
Nice strawman. Kill yourself.
Henry Turner
This but unironically.
Luke Powell
I guess you could lobotomize everyone, but that would require (gasp) tool use.
Ethan Clark
Again, awesome strawman kid. I never advocated against tool use.
The capacity for certain types of thought that you are deeply opposed to is a fundamental aspect of the human species. You maybe could change this at some point in the future through massive genetic engineering, but in the mean time your political doctrines can never be fully applied to human beings. If this is a strawman please explain how.
Josiah Robinson
>>>/out/
Mason Clark
Fundamental aspect of a domesticated human, not of the species. Read books on human behavior and biological adaptation, then hang yourself.
Asher Nelson
Why don't you hang yourself first? In order for your utopia of eternal bliss (unless history repeats itself, which you have no way of preventing) to ever come about virtually everyone will have to die. If you believe so strongly that this is the only way in which freedom and happiness for anyone can ever be achieved, you'd be a coward not to off yourself.
Jace Garcia
mass suicide is the road to utopia
Ian Hall
You clearly don't understand why humans evolved symbolic thought, and the specific circumstances why. If all symbolic thought is abolished, it is extremely doubtful that humanity comes back to it, and the "history repeats itself" meme doesn't work here. Plus another strawman on your part, I see. And yes, a lot of people will have to die in the revolution, once the technoindustrial system collapses. And no, I never claimed that I am to be one of the survivors of it. If the technoindustrial system was dependant on my life, I would gladly kill myself, if it definitely would collapse.
John Reyes
Your ideology flies in the face of the entirety of human history. Humans have always tried to advance technology, "going back" will do nothing to get rid of this trait unless you plan on killing anyone who wants to invent a better wheel.
Primitivists get the airlock.
Ian Powell
It has never tried to advance technology out of sheer need. They advanced technology out of desperation, as seen with the neolithic revolution. Most evidence is against the advancement of technolog you're speaking of. As hunter-gatherers, we never really advanced technology further than microlithic harpoons. But you're right, I'm talking about PREhistory, not history, as history requires language, symbolic thought, and agriculture. Of course, you're grasping at straws as well. Anywho, I'm too tired right now, so I won't discuss this further. Tomorrow I can elaborate.
Oliver Nelson
I don't get how sociopaths like OP are allowed to post here.
Jeremiah Hall
What's the distinction between desperation and sheer need?
James James
Primitivism is unironically in violation of rule 5 tbh, as it's an inherently reactionary proposition and I'm not sure why it's tolerated as a serious political line worthy of discussion anymore than Posadism is. That being said not saying it should be banned or anything, just that I think it's a fruitless endeavour and the problems that it tackles can be considered on their own terms.
