Anti-Civ discussion

[Critical Rupture]

Interesting thread.

First of all, though perhaps DJ may not have every facet of post-civ (whether anti-civ or other) articulated 100%, or for that matter his definition (thanks for posting it) of civilisation (and hence critique of it), I think his role is important. His analysis is obviously an example of his base of knowledge, whereas a writer like Ward Churchill (when in talking on similar issues) articulates the indigenist paradigm.

And this brings me to another point brought up here that I think is fundamental: agriculture. In any analysis of the destruction of the planet, and deconstructing anthropocentrism, talking about something that is all about producing stuff for us, denying the land/soils use for others (nonhuman especially), is ever so central to this discussion.

Anyone read Lierre Kieth's "The Vegetarian Myth"? Indeed an antagonistic title, but I feel this book adds another dimension to the critiques of DJ, JZ, and Ward Churchill. Soil, especially top soil, is fucking central to life. If it ain't healthy, the planet ain't. Suddenly all this permaculture stuff is like... needed. Important. Life saving. Annual monocrops don't really feed the soil. Look this shit up. I'm too lazy to explain how deep this shit is. Hell, I'm far from a permaculturist (though, it's where I wanna go, haha)

Apparently DJ and Lierre Kieth are working on a book together at the moment. Could be interesting.

 

[finn]

Has anyone read "Becoming Native to this Land" by Wes Jackson? It's about agriculture and ecology, it would fit very well with those interested in this thread. I think I have a copy of it online somewhere, but in txt format, not pdf or anything fancy.

 

[JungleBoots]

would anti-civ be considered something like primitivist anarchism? the belief that humans would live better lives if most technology was erradicated and were left with essentially primitive technology to maintain existance.

so as to eliminate class struggle, commodity fetishism, and media mind control.

im a proponent. please bring on the appoc.

 

[Critical Rupture]

I think it's also important to think about the distinctions between the terms primitivism, indigenism (at least in terms of radical ecologism), and anti-civ.

Indigenism relates to the ideas and practices of the relationship to the land and to community held by indigenous peoples. A term used by them to describe themselves in the coloniser language. See Ward Churchill for example.

Primitivism takes inspiration from the previous (but not limited to), but relates more to non-indigenous, especially thinking about possible links to anarchism (being originally from Europe). So it's a term used by the coloniser and/or the colonised describe a group of ideas and practices similar (but not the same) to indigenism.

Anti-civ is similar to primtivism, but in one simple way could be viewed as simply not as extreme. For example, like it's counterpart, believes in the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it, but does not follow it to the extremity of it's post-apocalypse vision. Like the ideological difference between JZ and DJ for example.


Does that make sense? Obviously this is somewhat interpretation. I couldn't find links for such definitions (I didn't look very hard, but maybe I'm actually wrong???).

 

[hassysmacker]

I would say a more accurate comparison of anti-civ Vs. primitivism would be that all anti civ thought is opposed to the existence of civilization, which is necessarily based on the emergence and growth of cities (which is necessarily based on monocropped, grain based, "totalitarian" agriculture), while acknowledging that there is a wide spectrum of sustainable, uncivilized lifestyles that were practiced the world over, ranging from hunter-gatherer bands, to agroforestry, to small scale horticulture, to a little bit of each, etc..

Primitivism on the other hand tends to argue essentially "hunter-gatherer or bust!" claiming that anything larger than band (note: much smaller than any sort of tribal existence) society inherently stratifies, and is opposed to the domestication of any species of plant or animal, regardless of whether or not in benefits the local ecology, and posits that any degree of domestication WILL eventually lead to civilization, no questions.

DJ vs. JZ ideologically, is a very apt description.

Obviously, this is my interpretation.

 

[HIS HERO IS GONE]

I definitely believe that civilization does more harm than good... with the growth of our technology, we've been destroying more and more forests and building more cities and constantly building structures. We've abused the earth way too much and I truly believe if we continue to exploit the environment it will result in our extinction. Capitalism only throws fuel on the fire. When the economy goes, we want to build more to make more jobs. They destroy not only the forests but the animals homes that live there. And for what? Ski resorts, hotels, malls, fast food places all for money. Industrialization is terrible for the earth. What's it like in the cities? It's the most unnatural, disgusting place with terrible air to breath in. The way our civilization works is that it's dependent on destroying the planet. Even if your vegan, if you're a consumer in our civilization your consumption helps pay for the earth's destruction. The plastic rapping around anything you would buy in a store or a water bottle contributes to oil industry and putting gas in your car. The oil industry is terrible and its spills kill wildlife. If we lived in modern-style tribes where we could all talk face-to-face about how we want things to be without so much technology, the earth and us, would be in a lot better shape.

You can have the finest egalitarian society you'd like but if your land base is shit you wont be able to live there.

 

[JungleBoots]

I think it's also important to think about the distinctions between the terms primitivism, indigenism (at least in terms of radical ecologism), and anti-civ.

Indigenism relates to the ideas and practices of the relationship to the land and to community held by indigenous peoples. A term used by them to describe themselves in the coloniser language. See Ward Churchill for example.

Primitivism takes inspiration from the previous (but not limited to), but relates more to non-indigenous, especially thinking about possible links to anarchism (being originally from Europe). So it's a term used by the coloniser and/or the colonised describe a group of ideas and practices similar (but not the same) to indigenism.

Anti-civ is similar to primtivism, but in one simple way could be viewed as simply not as extreme. For example, like it's counterpart, believes in the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it, but does not follow it to the extremity of it's post-apocalypse vision. Like the ideological difference between JZ and DJ for example.


Does that make sense? Obviously this is somewhat interpretation. I couldn't find links for such definitions (I didn't look very hard, but maybe I'm actually wrong???).

so while primitivism is about the utter removal of cluttering commodity and social structure for all time, anti-civ aims to remove it... only to allow it to develope again but from an initial anarchist and pacifist society, rather than from violent and rigid social systems as the current civilization has?

 

[hassysmacker]

based on my response two posts above i'd say the difference is that while primitivism isnt inherently anti-civ, a not necesarily primitivist anti-civ thoughline such as my own would advocate a completely bioregionally based way of life that obviously varies in specific lifestyles per commmonity and/or region, depending on whatever sustainable, uncivilized way of life is more appropriate there (be it hunter gatherer, or agroforesty based, or whatever) hopefully informed by anarchist/egalitarian social structuring, but most importantly hopefully informed of the reasons and trends that caused agricultural civilization to grow, and be ready to defend against it at all costs (not to mention it would be harder for such a thing to develop as civilization up to this point has destroyed soil fertility so much through grain based, monocroped agriculture, and due to that it would be incredibly difficult to grow food in such a way again, for a long, long timw without the input of fossil fuel derived fertilizers in which topsoil would have the time to develop.)

sorry if that was rambly. i think its coherent. i'm not entirely sober.

 

[veggieguy12]

This one is adequate for me:

Deep Green Resistance is a perspective emerging from the current environmental movement that views mainstream environmental activism as being largely ineffective. The Deep Green movement believes that civilization, and especially industrial civilization, is fundamentally unsustainable and must be actively dismantled in order to secure a livable future for all species on the planet.

This perspective argues that the dominant culture will not undergo a voluntary transformation to a sustainable way of living. Deep Green believes that industrial civilization must be forced into collapse in order to maintain as much of the living world as possible, noting that carrying capacity is further diminished as civilization continues. It supports an active movement with the objective of accelerating the collapse of industrial civilization.

Within Deep Green theory, lifestyle or personal changes are not considered effective methods of creating meaningful change. The mainstream environmental movement is seen as being distracted by its emphasis on lifestyle changes and technological solutions instead of confronting systems of power and holding individuals, industries, and institutions accountable.

Deep Green views technological solutions, no matter how well intentioned, as inadequate, and possibly leading to accelerated ecological destruction and pollution (see Jevon's paradox). The Deep Green movement looks to pre-industrial and pre-civilization, land-based cultures as models for sustainable ways of living.

Deep Green theory draws on elements of deep ecology, ecofeminism, the writings of Joseph Tainter, Richard Heinberg, Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, Richard Manning, Daniel Quinn, Aric McBay, Jerry Mander, and others.

from the Wikipedia entry

 

[JungleBoots]

yeah i kind of agree with deep green theory as well. but i just find it hard if not impossible to expect these industrys to be held accountable to the extent that they require untill the shock of their true destructive nature finally seeds into the heads of the people.

which will probably unfortunately be too late.

 

[hassysmacker]

That deep green wiki is succinct, and well put, and I'm very happy that I now have access to that statement of sorts.

 

[tallhorseman]

There is a Jewish author named Zacharia Sitchin. He claims that the human race is the result of two genetic modifications to the aboriginal humans. The first was to make the humans capable of performing manual labor for the alien race who modified them. The second was to create a ruling class among the genetically modified aboriginals so they could carry on the work for the alien race. He bases this on Sumerian cuneiform text that began being excavated in Iraq in the late 19th/early 20th century. He supports it with biblical text. When you read the bible assuming god was an alien and the characters therein are twice genetically modified ruling class elites it makes much more sense.

It makes sense to me because it would mean that we have been thrust hundreds of thousands of years ahead of the hunter-gatherer society that we should still be. The TERRIBLE mess that we are making of our civilization suggests to me that we are in an unnatural evolutionary state. Like taking eighth-graders and thrusting them into college and expecting them to transition smoothly.

I'M NOT FUCKING TRANSITIONING SMOOTHLY, YOU ALIEN DUMB-ASSES!!!!!!!

What do you think about the idea that this civilization was destined for more harm than good from the beginning and the sooner it's over the better?

 

[veggieguy12]

Well, to be neither dismissive of that alien-modified theory or too accepting of any ol' outlandish suggestion, I'd just note that the origin/history really don't matter all too much; what's important is the future, and what we do now toward that end.
If the alien overlords come to preserve their creation against the resistance, we'll have to fight them too.

 

[Gudj]

Well, to be neither dismissive of that alien-modified theory or too accepting of any ol' outlandish suggestion, I'd just note that the origin/history really don't matter all too much; what's important is the future, and what we do now toward that end.
If the alien overlords come to preserve their creation against the resistance, we'll have to fight them too.

It would have been impossible to respond to the previous post without detracting from the conversation, although I was so tempted to respond anyway.

Good point, it's in the past, now we have to worry about our future.

 

[anne]

The only things that really matter are sustainability and quality of life, whether we rebuild a civilized way of life or revert back into hunter-gatherers or both after the crash. I just hope it's not more of the same and that the change comes soon.