Anti-Civ discussion

[Gudj]

Those animals express symbolism? Do you have some information I haven't see?

Well, my information has come from Discovery Channel, which is a weak source, but I will find the actual studies and get back to you. But, even without studies, it's obvious to me that many animals have problem solving abilities and can use symbolic thought.
The specific cases I am thinking of involve an orangutan doing simple math, learning how to solve a 'trick question', and associating meaningless, man made symbols with real life objects for a reward. The orangutan also recognized a friend orangutan on tv that he hadn't seen for years. Similar things have been done with dolphins. To me, that type of thought also probably distracts from the "here and now".

Thanks for calling me out, I swear I will find documentation of all that when I have the time.

 

[veggieguy12]

Jensen ... exposed himself as a dumb ass as of late apparently (supporting intellectual property, distancing himself from Anarchism, saying cops in post-civ scenario isn't a bad thing).

Oh, who gives a fuck about "anarchism".

I wouldn't mind to see quotes regarding these things you mention, but I really don't care what he wants beyond the end of Civilization.
"Cops" in a post-Civ world will not possibly be cops as we know them now. There's gonna have to be some kind of community patrols/pretection service to keep marauders and raiding parties from preying on the vulnerable. (Uh, rapists?)
And there won't be jails, so what do you think will happen if someone gets sent out of the group and decides to come back or tries to steal from a village? And why shouldn't they be killed?

I'll just go ahead and say that if I could vote in someone who would secretly be wanting to stop the destruction, or if I could get elected and make any substantial impact, I would take office or vote for such a person. Fuck being pure and ideal.
There you have it. I'm a bad anarchist and I don't even care.
Tell the Anarcho-politburo, they can revoke my party card.

Also, User Name: please consolidate your posts, don't do a row of three separate ones. Thanks.

 

[Gudj]

Also, STP user Magpie did an interview with DJ in which he said:

“An anarchist is one who, given the choice, chooses responsibility.”

DJ: That’s great, under that definition, yeah, I’ll call myself an anarchist. One of the problems I’ve had with a lot of anarchists, is that frankly, I’ve known a lot of “anarchists” for whom it was basically an excuse to be irresponsible, and to be fuckups. I got into this little argument with these kids several years ago. They were saying that anarchism is about doing whatever you want whenever you want to do it. I said, you know, let’s say we’re all going to do an action. And you decide at the last minute that you don’t feel like doing it tonight, you’re going to watch a movie, you’re going to stay at home and smoke pot. And because you don’t show up, the action fails and my brother dies. I’m gonna kill you. Because my brother is dead because of you, because you chose to stay home and smoke pot. There has to accountability if we’re going to have any sort of real movement, there has to be discipline. The truth is I would want to vet him out before hand, so I wouldn’t get in the position where I was relying on him in the first place.


Not that it has anything at all to do with anti-civ.

 

[User Name]

In my opinion, agriculture is a necessary function of civilization, but, unlike Zerzan et al, I do not believe that semi-agricultural domestication of plants and animals (sustainable horticulture, agroforestry, permaculture) will necessarily lead to civilization. As in, I'm not "Hunter/Gatherer or bust!".

I think horticulture isn't a terrible idea. Anything more is depending too much on domesticated plants which are less nutritious than their wild counter parts and have higher rates of infection due to lower immunity. Gathering and hunting supplemented with a light horticulture garden largely indistinguishable from it's surroundings might be a good transition. It did lead to our transition to agriculture however.

 

[finn]

Well, it's said that there was a total of 3 agricultural "revolutions" that occurred for civilization to have gone where it is today. The first one was the domestication of plants, which allowed permanent settlements to form. The second one was the mechanization of agriculture which started with the seed drill, invented by Jethro Tull, which allowed more people to enter in the cities with a surplus of labor. The third one, also known as the "green revolution" was the industrialization of agriculture in which it became a fossil-fuel powered enterprise. In essence, it turned oil into food.

The third development can definitely not last, but to say that the domestication of plants would lead to that is not understandable to me. Furthermore, how would you prevent technological change?

 

[User Name]

Oh, who gives a fuck about "anarchism".

I wouldn't mind to see quotes regarding these things you mention, but I really don't care what he wants beyond the end of Civilization.

"Cops" in a post-Civ world will not possibly be cops as we know them now. There's gonna have to be some kind of community patrols/pretection service to keep marauders and raiding parties from preying on the vulnerable. (Uh, rapists?)

And there won't be jails, so what do you think will happen if someone gets sent out of the group and decides to come back or tries to steal from a village? And why shouldn't they be killed?

I'll just go ahead and say that if I could vote in someone who would secretly be wanting to stop the destruction, or if I could get elected and make any substantial impact, I would take office or vote for such a person. Fuck being pure and ideal.

There you have it. I'm a bad anarchist and I don't even care.

Tell the Anarcho-politburo, they can revoke my party card.

Also, User Name: please consolidate your posts, don't do a row of three separate ones. Thanks.

I do. If you want to get into why I'll explain.

If you don't care, I'll forgo the quoting for my convenience.

Cops are cops. Cops can not exist without some form of a centralized state. Patrolling your community isn't the same as a police force.

They should be killed immediately, where have I argued otherwise?

I don't think many people serious about Civilization critique disagree with that sort of sentiment. I would do many things that I find worthless to end Civilization, but to bring that up is pointless. Might as well starting praying Civilization away.

I don't know how, other than supporting a potential police force, that makes you a "bad anarchist" but alright.

I'll bring it up at the next consensus meeting (joking, consensus is lame).

I'll think about it, but I probably won't do that because I reply as I read. Can you not rant on in a knee-jerk reactionary manner as if I hurt your feelings next time?

 

[User Name]

changed my mind about this post.

 

[User Name]

Well, it's said that there was a total of 3 agricultural "revolutions" that occurred for civilization to have gone where it is today. The first one was the domestication of plants, which allowed permanent settlements to form. The second one was the mechanization of agriculture which started with the seed drill, invented by Jethro Tull, which allowed more people to enter in the cities with a surplus of labor. The third one, also known as the "green revolution" was the industrialization of agriculture in which it became a fossil-fuel powered enterprise. In essence, it turned oil into food.

The third development can definitely not last, but to say that the domestication of plants would lead to that is not understandable to me. Furthermore, how would you prevent technological change?

It doesn't necessarily have to lead to industrial agriculture, but it's still harmful. It destroys topsoil and saps the land of nutrients. Mesopotamia is now a desert. As are other sites where intensive non-industrial agriculture was practiced.

 

[oldmanLee]

Well,we do still run into those two sticky little issues with the dropping of civilization:
When you pull the plug,how far from current civilization do you want to go?
As the earth's current population level is pretty much dependant on the structure now in place,how and who makes the decision as to them that lives and them that don't?

 

[veggieguy12]

When you pull the plug,how far from current civilization do you want to go?

As far as it takes to return to being part of the eco-cycle.

As the earth's current population level is pretty much dependant on the structure now in place,how and who makes the decision as to them that lives and them that don't?

Those who live will be those who are able, those who are cooperative with others and defensive of themselves and their community. Those who know how to integrate back into the regional ecosystem of habitation. In short, those who are able to survive without all the trappings and conveniences of Civilization.

Cops are cops. Cops can not exist without some form of a centralized state. Patrolling your community isn't the same as a police force.

Yes, well let's please not confuse community policing and cops. You wrote that Jensen supports "cops", then you write that I too support having them, though you have here acknowledged the distinction for which I made support. I don't think the terms are terribly important, because as I mentioned, there will be no centralized state, and I suspect that Derrick Jensen doesn't think that post-Civilization there will be any such thing as a State power or courts or Sheriff's department with a budget and shiny badges. And I don't thin that you think he expects that - this is the reason I take issue with you penalizing him for the point. If he literally said "I want cops around after the collapse", please let's have the quote. I could point you to another article pretty critical of police at all, so I think that at most we could say he's conflicted or contradictory, but not at all supportive of cops.

They [troublemakers to post-Civ societies] should be killed immediately, where have I argued otherwise?

You haven't argued otherwise; my point was to illustrate that the task of police/courts/government - the ideal, the principle fpr which government is supposedly established - will remain with or without courthouses and parliaments. Whether we call them the village patrol or cops, we are going to need people in the role of cops. Much will be different about the people and the society they/we inhabit, and I assume that everyone here understands this, as I assume that Derrick Jensen (of all people) knows, and is considering/envisioning when he makes the point that [protective forces] will need to be present post-Civ, whether he actually said "cops" or not. I don't have much more to say on this; I'd like to think we agree and can work together just fine, but if you really believe that Derrick Jensen wants Joe Arpaio or Kevin Beary or John Timoney or Stacey Coon roaming around (or even kept alive) after Civilization topples, then we just disagree on that.

 

[Beegod Santana]

Not that I'm eager to join in on another one of these, but I can't help commenting on the agriculture issue. I agree that it is definitly one of the main aspects that you need for a civilization to form, but the one point I haven't seen anyone make is that native americans practiced agriculture extensively. Some did it permanately in one spot, but many moved around the country, would grow some crops in one spot during the spring /summer then move on after the harvest. Here in New England we have tons of town names ending with "field" and its because when the europeans got here most of the new england country side was native farm land. MA now actually has way more trees than it did 200 yrs ago because the majority of the farms moved south or west and the forests were able to grow back (and of course now people want to cut em' down again to build casinos).

and I swear that's the only post I'm making in here.

 

[hassysmacker]

Well Beegod, I believe the difference is for those natives that had agricultural practices, their food production tended to be very consciously worked into the native ecology in the way that was healthy for it. For example often times, natives would use land management practices such as burning, as controlled burns are known to generally exponentially regenerate life in an area.

I would certainly refer to the food production methods of many natives more as horticulture or agroforestry than agriculture, and a very fact filled book that I can recommend on this subject that is more or less a case study of western native americans and their land management practices is "Tending the Wild" by M. Kat Anderson.

From the online synopsis:
"John Muir was an early proponent of a view we still hold today—that much of California was pristine, untouched wilderness before the arrival of Europeans. But as this groundbreaking book demonstrates, what Muir was really seeing when he admired the grand vistas of Yosemite and the gold and purple flowers carpeting the Central Valley were the fertile gardens of the Sierra Miwok and Valley Yokuts Indians, modified and made productive by centuries of harvesting, tilling, sowing, pruning, and burning. Marvelously detailed and beautifully written, Tending the Wild is an unparalleled examination of Native American knowledge and uses of California's natural resources that reshapes our understanding of native cultures and shows how we might begin to use their knowledge in our own conservation efforts.

M. Kat Anderson presents a wealth of information on native land management practices gleaned in part from interviews and correspondence with Native Americans who recall what their grandparents told them about how and when areas were burned, which plants were eaten and which were used for basketry, and how plants were tended. The complex picture that emerges from this and other historical source material dispels the hunter-gatherer stereotype long perpetuated in anthropological and historical literature. We come to see California's indigenous people as active agents of environmental change and stewardship. Tending the Wild persuasively argues that this traditional ecological knowledge is essential if we are to successfully meet the challenge of living sustainably."

 

[xmaggotx]

brrgood, i realize you dont want to post on here, but please do at least post where you found information that says MA has more trees than it did 200 years ago. and im not talking about saplings i want evidence of more actual forest, since that is what you claimed. i dont know about that state inparticular, but i know that logging companies and others who stand to make profit like to claim that there are "more trees now than before [the industrial revolution/logging/european settlement/etc], based upon the fact that in the place of living ecosystems and old growth forests, our culture (or at least companies within the culture) has planted mass amounts of saplings. and a row of a thousand saplings does not constitute having "more trees" than say, 500 old growth redwods. not if we're being reasonable.

 

[finn]

I don't know about MA, but in some areas, the natives would burn down forests so that the land would support a different ecology. This isn't the slash and burn agriculture practiced in South America, although some parallels can be drawn. They weren't all technically agriculturalists (though some were) but instead were something termed as "ecosystem engineers." A nonhuman example of this is a beaver- forming lakes via dams which create an ecology which supports their niche.

Now the logging companies will always talk about trees because they are in the business of farming trees, but tree farms are not forests. That is the important distinction. There are less forested areas now than there have ever been, even if there are more trees.

 

[connerR]

What do you guys think of the theory that society as it stands now is the natural evolution of mankind? That living like early humans did in the preciviization world would, in fact, be the unnatural one for this modern day and time?

If so, would the eradication of plants and animals be a part of some natural process (regardless of what it is that causes them to be destroyed?) It's kind of like saying that elephants with small tusks have favorable traits in the modern world because they aren't hunted as much as those that have larger tusks.

Or would you say that that's just nonsense?

 

[hassysmacker]

I think it's pretty ludicrous to say that one method of living by humans (versus the previous 99.9 percent of Homo existence that did not resemble it in anyway) that has inherent expansion at the sake of everything in its way (more accurately, dependent on the gobbling up of everything in its way) is the natural evolution of mankind. Considering this is a way of life/culture, not a physical evolution (besides us getting physically weaker due to our heavily grain based diet and disconnect from natural ecosystems), how could it be called the natural evolution? It just happens to be the way of life that is currently dominant. I think that proposing that this is the natural evolution of mankind is just falling into the "One right way to live" cultural myth.

The eradication of some species occurs everytime a new introduction is made to any given ecosystem is ecologically natural. It happens. However, one species being the cause of a global mass extinction (200 species a fucking day!), is not.

 

[Gudj]

What do you guys think of the theory that society as it stands now is the natural evolution of mankind? That living like early humans did in the preciviization world would, in fact, be the unnatural one for this modern day and time?

If so, would the eradication of plants and animals be a part of some natural process (regardless of what it is that causes them to be destroyed?) It's kind of like saying that elephants with small tusks have favorable traits in the modern world because they aren't hunted as much as those that have larger tusks.

Or would you say that that's just nonsense?

I think it was DJ who answered that with some smartass comment like:
"So millions of years of evolution was meant to facilitate you sitting on your couch watching tv?"


I don't know why civilization started (so relatively suddenly), maybe this is our natural evolution or maybe something weird happened that fucked everything up.
Unlike the theory that the world will be better after civ, whether or not we got here by fucking up bad or by doing what we are supposed to can't really be tested.

 

[xmaggotx]

well, evolution (even cultural evolution, as in apes using certain tools, etc.) does not take place over such a brief time period as 10,000 years, especcially at the rate this culture has been changing. i would say this culture is trying to cheat evolution. it could be argued that in its early stages civilization was an evolutionary branch, but it failed in every respect: it failed to keep balance in the ecosystem (name any other animal that "evolved this way) it failed to help humans in a practical way (sure you can argue that we have more things now, but we spend far more time working for food than we ever did, and in general far more time working for all of the necessities of life, which were previously available to us in abundance.

also, 99% of human existance- about a million years (and many millions of homo-species before that) was spent living in harmony with nature. and that worked for us as a species. there would be no evolutionary reason for humans to develop civilization. i mean what, just out of the blue, BAM, a million years (again, more if you count previous species who are now thought to be as smart as us in nearly every way) of living one way, complete 180 degree turn in 10,000 years...its ludicrous scientifically, and logically. but i guess if you want to reach around (not accusing you of this) for some reason to hold on to the notion that this culture is doing good, its no more ridiculous than a lot of other arguments i've heard.

 

[tagvolatile]

I think the sooner man is gone from the earth, the better, but is it sustainable, even then? Perhaps, for a while longer. But that does seem the best thing that can be done, in my opinion. Some believe in Malthus's views, that destruction is inevitable, population growth is far more exponential than that of which the earth's resources shall consist.. but even if man had reduced in numbers, unless man would be wiped completely, eventually, as people grow, it seems everything that can be, will be. someone may yet again seek to advance technologically, to make life "easier". There'll be those that oppose.. ahem. but I don't know. This civilization seems bound to fail.
It's too bad people couldn't be content with just walking the earth, lowering our standards. impatience may have cost the planet, i.e. guns: to kill faster, cars: to move faster, money: to trade? faster..I could go on. Always looking for the easy way, despite repercussions. And fuck, there are repercussions.

 

[macks]

well, evolution (even cultural evolution, as in apes using certain tools, etc.) does not take place over such a brief time period as 10,000 years, especcially at the rate this culture has been changing. i would say this culture is trying to cheat evolution. it could be argued that in its early stages civilization was an evolutionary branch, but it failed in every respect: it failed to keep balance in the ecosystem (name any other animal that "evolved this way) it failed to help humans in a practical way (sure you can argue that we have more things now, but we spend far more time working for food than we ever did, and in general far more time working for all of the necessities of life, which were previously available to us in abundance.

also, 99% of human existance- about a million years (and many millions of homo-species before that) was spent living in harmony with nature. and that worked for us as a species. there would be no evolutionary reason for humans to develop civilization. i mean what, just out of the blue, BAM, a million years (again, more if you count previous species who are now thought to be as smart as us in nearly every way) of living one way, complete 180 degree turn in 10,000 years...its ludicrous scientifically, and logically. but i guess if you want to reach around (not accusing you of this) for some reason to hold on to the notion that this culture is doing good, its no more ridiculous than a lot of other arguments i've heard.

So, evolution is a pretty loaded term when used like this. If you are talking about evolution like Darwin's theory of evolution then the statements you made don't really make sense. The only thing that drives that kind of evolution are individual organisms trying to maximize their reproductive output against enviornmental factors. There is no "group" evolution theory that holds water, there is also no higher goal such as living in harmony with an ecosystem.