Primitivism: how to get there and some definitions

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 7 2004 21:43
Primitivism: how to get there and some definitions
bigdave wrote:
Primitivism seems a very strange idea. I also don't see how you go from "here" to "there", even supposing it was a workable concept.

We join tribes who are surviving in the wilderness without farming nor electricity. We learn how to survive. I feel the more we let go of agriculture, the less we will populate the earth. I feel this because I've read our population started growing only after the agriculture revolution. I'm assuming, or maybe I've read that agriculture increases our population. Everybody on earth can't join tribes and live off the earth, today, 'cause we'd eat up everything there was to eat. Of course, not even half the people want to do this, so I don't see this as a problem. I don't think I'll live to see this world without agriculture if life on this planet will ever get back to such a state.

Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Anarcho-primitivists want things to hcange in the way all anarchists want change -- trhough direct action and people taking over their own lives.

I'm one anarcho-primitivist who doesn't believe in direct action. I mean I think we have a real enemy in the upper class and that they will even kill people like me in order to maintain their luxury, but I'm not going to force anybody to change.

JDMF wrote:
Steven. wrote:

Lazlo - don't most primmies mean a society using agriculture as "civilisation"? And that'll still remain no?

yes, but from what i've been reading now in the past few weeks that distinction is arbitrary, just because historians put start of civilisation there primmies seem to have gone with it. Not for any kind of rational reason, exept the hatred of the concept of "civilisation".

I wonder when primitivist movement will split and the hardliners won't even use fire or language grin

GenerationTerrorist wrote:
and i've never really seen a deffinition of civilisation from primmitivists. i mean, if you use it to mean a society based around large cities, then i'm against civilisation, because having grown up in a small village i think it's a nicer way to live, as long as they're not too far apart and it's easy to get to and communicate with other villages, otherwise we could have some gene pool problems developing... i mean, i'm against present hierarchial civilisation as all anarchists are, but i've never seen the advantage in saying that you're against civilisation rather than just hierarchial society.

Everyone defines civilization the same way. Civilization is that thing that happened with villages and cities and states and armies and nations and empires. Without agriculture, I don't think any of this would have happened. If you compare civilization to tribes that existed before the agriculture revolution, then any anarchist would say it's obviously not smart to go from a life of complete autonomy to work fields for other families. The only reason I think they did this is because of the relaxing, addictive opioids we recently found in wheat. There's no way to know 'cause there's no way to prove these opioids existed back then. Primitivists aren't really against fire, but some are against language. a tribe is something like twenty people or less. a village is fifty to 100, and i wouldn't even be for a village.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 8 2004 12:12
revol68 wrote:
are u suggesting that we go back to a harsh brutal life just cos u have a problem with the size of the global population?

is it brutal and harsh? no, that's not why i made that suggestion, and I don't even have a problem with the size of the global population although overcrowding such as cities does cause problems such as an increased disease spreading. since you didn't pick up on my reasoning, perhaps these quotes from Henry David Thoreau's Walden will help you out:

Thoreau wrote:
Who made [young men] serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?

[M]en labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon ploughed into the soil for compost.

It is very evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live; [. . .] always on the limits, trying to get into business and trying to get out of debt, [. . .] always promising to pay, promising to pay, to-morrow; [. . .] lying. [. . .] (Thoreau 108-110)

revol68 wrote:
and im guessing ur against high populations cos u think they are unsubstainable and cause human suffering?

well, yeah, we can't have civilization and leisure without inequality.

revol68 wrote:
so how does creating a material existance whereby we can't substain even minute populations stop the suffering and death that maintains these figures in the first place.

Well, first of all, we don't have to create anything except our understanding of stuff like what we can and cannot consume. Secondly, this material existence that can't sustain a village, even, stops the suffering by not mandating regular, arduous work "oriented to future payoffs and the demands of superiors." Families wouldn't "cultivated the land [. . .] for strangers and for the future" rather than "for themselves and their immediate needs alone." Of course, there wouldn't be any cultivation in a primitive society. Such practices would lead to hierarchy anyway unless they kept it to permaculture maybe and abandoned it when they had healed the area. We wouldn't work "all day instead of a few hours a day, as hunter-gatherers had done." (Wadley & Martin 96-105)

revol68 wrote:
will there be a tribe exchange programme were u get to stay with another tribe and learn french?

yeah, sure, yo, whatever you want. this is anarchy! if one doesn't enjoy a tribe, then she/he is free to become a hermit, join another tribe, or return to civilization, no questions asked.

Works Cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Other Writings. 3rd ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.

Wadley & Martin, Greg & Angus. "The origins of agriculture – a biological perspective and a new hypothesis." Australian Biologist 6 (June 1993): 96-105.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 8 2004 12:58
Username wrote:
is it brutal and harsh? no, that's not why i made that suggestion

your logic is failing here: on the other hand you admit that agriculture made population growth possible - and then on the other hand you stick to your belief that the "wild" life is not brutal and harsh, meaning that there would be some other kind of magical population control mechanism in place for tribal peoples exept birth deaths, diseases, lack of access to food, medication, sanitation and so on.

If humans should live much like non-human animals then the same population control mechanisms should apply as well.

Quote:

and I don't even have a problem with the size of the global population although overcrowding such as cities does cause problems such as an increased disease spreading.

c'moon man, don't slide on this issue - even i have a problem with the current population levels, i mean who wouldn't have! but the difference here is that i am not suggesting that the sustainable level would be somewhere around couple hundred thousand split in tribes of 20.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 8 2004 13:31
JDMF wrote:
on [one] hand you admit that agriculture made population growth possible - [. . .] on the other hand you stick to your belief that the "wild" life is not brutal and harsh

okay, let me make it clear right here that i've inferred one thing about civilization, and that is we have leisure. we work hard in order to play hard, and that's one reason why many people will not leave civilization, today. personally, i hate the work, so i'm up for working easy and playing easy at the same time.

JDMF wrote:
there would be some other kind of magical population control mechanism in place for tribal peoples exept birth deaths, diseases, lack of access to food, medication, sanitation and so on.

there won't be a control mechanism. i've inferred that agriculture fuels population growth, so without farming, our population might stay at hunter gatherer levels. i don't think there were as many diseases back then. i can provide sources on this if you wish. there's plenty of food. saying there's a lack of access to food is the complete opposite of the way i understand it to have been and will be if any of us live in the wilderness, today. there are wild herbs, but i don't think we need much medication anyway since a lot of our maladies come from the neolithic diet, which we aren't adapted to, and crowding. also, western medicine, surgery and shit, is balls compared to far east holistic medicine, which is much more established, healthy, and effective. you can wash your hands in piss if you want. urine has many uses.

JDMF wrote:
i have a problem with the current population levels, i mean who wouldn't have! but the difference here is that i am not suggesting that the sustainable level would be somewhere around couple hundred thousand split in tribes of 20.

i don't really care about sustainability. we can obviously keep ourselves in existence even with over crowding and mandatory, undesirable labor. ("someone has to do it") once you start planting seeds and developing your tribes into villages, then you have either started or are well on the way towards division of labor and the dichotomy of rich and poor. besides, the cereals and dairy that we farm has exorphin and casomorphine, respectively, that cause schizophrenia. there are plenty of reasons to switch to the paleolithic diet without even leaving civilization, but there are also plenty of reasons to leave civilization. i believe the reasons to rewild greatly outweigh the reasons to stay sedentary. you don't have to agree, but if you and/or anyone else does, then you're the person/people i'm looking for.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 8 2004 14:20
Quote:
there won't be a control mechanism. i've inferred that agriculture fuels population growth, so without farming, our population might stay at hunter gatherer levels.

try and think this through logically. why does agriculture fuel population growth? is it a) because eating lots of the same plant rather than just a bit of lots of different ones you found on your wanderings makes you incredibly horny so you spend all the time fucking with the result of producing far more children; b) because in agriculture as well as food you grow humans too, which pop out of the ground like skeleton warriors from dragons teeth in greek legend; or c) because when you start using agriculture you have a stable diet, you food supply is not quite so dependent on the seasons and weather because you can store food for the winter, bad harvests etc., you don't have to keep moving around following food so you can develop decent medical care as you are no longer restricted to what you can carry, meaning that if you are a woman it is less likely that you'll die in child birth, your less likely to starve, you are able to survive disease better and so more of you live a long time?

Quote:
i don't think there were as many diseases back then.

why? there were! viruses and bacteria did not just appear out of thin air as if they were waiting in another dimension going "i wish these bloody humans would hurry up and invent agriculture, i want to start spreading myself". ok, not many people died from stuff like cancer, mainly because they didn't live long enough for it to develope. and yes, there are plenty of diseases caused by modern living, but that's because we live in a capitalist society, not because we moved to agriculture and beyond.

Quote:
If you compare civilization to tribes that existed before the agriculture revolution, then any anarchist would say it's obviously not smart to go from a life of complete autonomy to work fields for other families.

yes, and any sane anarchist would say the way to change that is to stop doing it for other families and do it for ourselves, thus getting rid of the bad aspects of the move to agriculture (class society, authority, etc.) and keeping the good aspects (regular food supply, decent health care, not having to wipe your arse with brambles).

Quote:
I'm one anarcho-primitivist who doesn't believe in direct action.

then you're not an anarcho primitivist, your just a primitivist without attachments. except possibly "loony".

Quote:
you can wash your hands in piss if you want.

right, the games up, you are revol68 in disguise trying to discredit any decent ideas some anarchoprimitivists may have, and i claim my five pounds!

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 8 2004 14:31

Username

1) You can't sustain a primitive global population of above a couple of million at the most, whioch means 99% + of the population is going to go

2) The average life expectancy taking into account massive infant mortality rates, is about 25 at best.

3) Life in a primitive society has strict division of labour and most tribes would apply a caste system of soem type to differentiate between those who hunt (the strongest men) and those who don't.

4) The sick, the disabled, the weak, you would simply leave them to die you utter piece of shit.

5) in a primitive society life is endless suffering and toil. The amount of hours you spesnd hunting scavenging and simply surviving probably amount to most of the day.

Basically you live according to the tyranny of nature, a slave to the elements and natural resource shortages.

But lets be honest Primitivism is not up for debate, i'm sorry but you are an ignorant fuck who is simply not worth the time or effort.

This is an anarchist board and you have signed up to argue for a useless ideology similar to fascism in its malaise against industrial society and utterly contemptable, unattainable and reactionary.

There are hardly any primmos in the UK, so why the fuck should i give a shit about your pathetic ideology, your just a fucking whacky doomsday cult that has no chance of popular exceptance because all you offer people is death or misery.

You do nothing but harm any political movement, now fuck off.

john

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 8 2004 14:55
GenerationTerrorist wrote:
why does agriculture fuel population growth? is it a) because eating lots of the same plant rather than just a bit of lots of different ones you found on your wanderings makes you incredibly horny so you spend all the time fucking with the result of producing far more children; b) because in agriculture as well as food you grow humans too, which pop out of the ground like skeleton warriors from dragons teeth in greek legend; or c) because when you start using agriculture you have a stable diet, you food supply is not quite so dependent on the seasons and weather because you can store food for the winter, bad harvests etc., you don't have to keep moving around following food so you can develop decent medical care as you are no longer restricted to what you can carry, meaning that if you are a woman it is less likely that you'll die in child birth, your less likely to starve, you are able to survive disease better and so more of you live a long time?

hola, i can be a smartass, too. The Black and Green Network claim, "sedentary agriculture gave way to property and thus power."

I have two sources that say agriculture deteriorated our health.

I don't think we can have the good aspects of the move to agriculture without the bad. Are you willing to get rid of industry? That would be a big improvement, but if not, then you will be a better state than capitalism; and states didn't just appear with the industrial revolution; so either way, your federation will probably just be a more effective state.

cantdocartwheels, that's the worse life expectancy i've ever heard anyone estimate of primitives. usually, i hear about forty or so.

cantdocartwheels wrote:
Life in a primitive society has strict division of labour

false, division of labor didn't exist until agriculture existed according to Wikipedia. there are two UK primitivist websites. thanks for playing, guys. think you can go do something else, now?

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Oct 8 2004 15:05

Oh well, if it says on an online encyclopedia, it must be true (curious argument for a primitivist).

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 8 2004 15:40

A highly relevant quote from

Quote:
Listen Anarchist!

Quote:
Back to the Caves

The preceding quotation illustrates yet another serious problem in the North American anarchist movement - a blind rejection of science, rationality and technology. Those who hold this position rarely bother to differentiate between the three; but technology is their primary whipping boy.

There are several disturbing aspects to this position. Foremost is the fact that those who are most vehement in their opposition to technology can't even provide a coherent definition of what it is. When pressed, they'll generally say something about a "system of global domination," or the like, as if that imparted any real information.

A notable feature of the anti-technology fringe is their refusal to get down to specifics. They'll spend thousands upon thousands of words attacking technology in the abstract, but will rarely discuss specific aspects of it. When they do, they invariably pick the easiest possible targets, things such as nuclear and automotive technologies, technologies which are so obviously and overwhelmingly harmful that they would be drastically reduced if not eliminated outright in any type of sane society.

And yet, while they blanketly condemn technology, the antitech fringe assert that it's unfair to paint them as wanting to go back and live in caves, that they "never" have advocated "destroying all machines." (Fifth Estate, December 31, 1980.) That's fine. But where do they draw the line? Which technologies - machines, if you prefer - do they want to keep? Which do they want to get rid of? And why? Those are tough questions, yet the anti-tech "neo-primitivist" faction, of which the Fifth Estate is the leading voice, refuses to answer them. Tellingly, after denying that they advocate destruction of all machines, the Fifth Estate writers quoted above launched off into generalized denunciations of technology, never once getting down to specifics as to what they wish to retain and what they wish to jettison. The anti-technology fringe will deserve serious consideration when they answer those tough questions. But chances are they never will. If they'd admit that any aspect of technology is beneficial, their blanket critique would fall apart. It'd be extremely difficult, for example, to make a case that we'd be better off without antibiotics and carpentry, and that we'd be better off if smallpox were still rampant. (Smallpox has been eradicated by medical technology.)

Rather than produce a meaningful (specific) critique, we can expect our anti-technology ranters to continue to produce blanket denunciations of technology, science and rationality couched in obscure situationist jargon, to continue to produce obsequious odes to "primitive peoples" which ignore or downplay the defects (patriarchy, for example) in primitive societies, to continue to attack the easiest possible technological targets, and to continue to dishonestly dismiss those who disagree with them as Chamber of Commerce booster types. And all this while they continue to make use of computers and modem printing technology, and continue to live comfortably in heavily industrialized areas.

JoeBlack
Offline
Joined: 28-10-03
Oct 8 2004 15:43
Username wrote:

I have two sources that say agriculture deteriorated our health.

Oh dear.

Look you've already provided all the information you need yourself, all you have to do is put it together and work it our for yourself. Here is the information you have provided

1. You think there was no food shortage in primitive societies

2. You think there was little disease in such societies

3. But you think agriculture meant the population grew

How true any of these claims are is not so important. The point is that you can't claim all 3 (or rather either 1 and/or 2 is false or 3 is false).

If you want to cheat try http://struggle.ws/andrew/primitivism.html

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 8 2004 16:36

alright, y'all've given me plenty of homework. let's start with the first reply. the button, good point. having only one source and a wiki source at that is weak. however, i don't see why you think primitivists shouldn't use a wiki as at least one source. also, i want to go ahead and say somethings may be unknown to us. you may find lots of people who can provide lots of data for one belief and lots of people who can prove the exact opposite. at times like that, i believe no one knows the truth.

october_lost, that was a highly irrelevant quote. i haven't even mentioned technology, have i? that author doesn't want to buy the primitivists' definition anyway. a "system of global domination" isn't too far from how i would define the primitivist version of technology. do you want a definition? is that the problem 'cause i think i've already addressed that on these boards. do you need to know where i "[. . .] draw the line?" Do you need my answers to those other questions? Do you need me to address how there probably wouldn't even have been a smallpox epidemic if it weren't for civilization? Also, I'm not against science/rationality. A lot of scientific interpretations may be biased though. I don't believe there were patriarchies before agriculture. I don't rule it out, but I've also heard there were matriarchies. I've only heard this from opposition, and no one gave sources. Unfortunately, proponents don't provide a rebuttal for this. If I have to quit using my computer to convince you while most of the rest of the world can't even follow suit, then you wouldn't even hear from me unless media visited me and interviewed me. Personally, I can't afford to go camping and learn how to survive out there.

JoeBlack, I don't know why agriculture made the population grow, but I don't think it had anything to do with stopping food shortages and disease. What about food shortages, disease, and/or agriculture and population growth do you want me to see in that article?

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 8 2004 16:57
Username wrote:

JoeBlack, I don't know why agriculture made the population grow, but I don't think it had anything to do with stopping food shortages and disease. What about food shortages, disease, and/or agriculture and population growth do you want me to see in that article?

It's just that something caused the population to grow...

My uneducated common sense take: the reproduction rate didn't go up at all, but the mortality rate went down. This is backed up by a chart of life expectancies throughout history which showed that when the agriculture started the life expectancy went up, only to go down again when the early industrialisation and urbanisation came, and now again gone up after advances in sanitation and medicine.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 8 2004 18:23

Username, why do you assume that 'direct action' must mean forcing change on people? Anarchism involves people taking control over their own lives -- your decision to 'join a tribe' is one form of this, albeit an individualist form.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 9 2004 00:13
Username wrote:

I don't think we can have the good aspects of the move to agriculture without the bad. Are you willing to get rid of industry? That would be a big improvement, but if not, then you will be a better state than capitalism; and states didn't just appear with the industrial revolution; so either way, your federation will probably just be a more effective state.

Read a fucking book

Quote:

cantdocartwheels, that's the worse life expectancy i've ever heard anyone estimate of primitives. usually, i hear about forty or so.

Not that i want to die at 40 either but theres no fucking way the average caveman lived to 40, i've heard as low as 18. If you were taking surviving adults alone then yeah possibly 30-35 but taking into account a high infant mortality rate 40 is complete nonsense.

Say for every ten humans, 1 is born dead, 1 dies in early infancy, 1 dies at 15 of an infection when out gathering through inexperience, 1 dies in childbirth at 16, 3 die at around 25 from disease, famine, accidents, childbirth etc 1 at 40 and 1 veteran lasts till 50

Whats your average

0 + 1 + 15 + 16 + 75 +40 + 50

=197

197/10 = 20 years old

I mean thing about it logically, the primitive population was low and did not rise. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest the death rate was high.

Sorry if this sounds patriarchal but your the one advocating this ridicuoous ideology not me.

Women cannot have children over the age of 40, A 40 year old woman would be able to have a large number of children, perhaps as many as 4-5 giving 5 year gaps in between.

A 25 year old woman can have 2 children or at the most 3.

Now logically either

A-Adults survive to 40 and half the children die very early

or

B-Adults survive to 25 meaning they don't have time to have many children

Either way the average life expectancy is not 40.

cantdocartwheels wrote:
Life in a primitive society has strict division of labour

false, division of labor didn't exist until agriculture existed according to Wikipedia. there are two UK primitivist websites. thanks for playing, guys. think you can go do something else, now?

I could not give less of a shit what bloody ''wikipedia'' says about this that or the other there clearly was division of labour in primitive societies.

A hunter requires muscle and strength, hunters are inevitably more likely to be men and among the stronger members of the tribe, they would be dominant as they have access to weapons and training in their use, and superior physical strength to the rest of the tribe.

In much the same way other tasks would have to be learnt by castes, education by this point having gone right out of the window along with books and written records. Tasks such as the manufacture of clothing (unless thats considered too civilised roll eyes ) will be designated to castes.

Thus strict division of labour and in this case what amounts to a caste or class system is not simply created by society as in feudal and capitalist societies, but is biologically enforced and preconditioned, this is just one example of the tyranny of nature, in which the struggle for survival creates a darwinian natural selection process.

The scarcity of resources available in a primitivist society forces humanity into a survival of the fittest situation. With stone age technology there were no means of overcoming resource shortages.

john

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 9 2004 00:24

if you say so. what are your sources? what kind of arithmetic is this, "0 + 1 + 15 + 16 + 75 +40 + 50=197, 197/10 = 20 years old"? first of all, where did that zero come from? secondly, why did you divide by ten if there are only seven numbers? why isn't wikipedia a valid source?

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 9 2004 07:39
Username wrote:
if you say so. what are your sources? what kind of arithmetic is this, "0 + 1 + 15 + 16 + 75 +40 + 50=197, 197/10 = 20 years old"? first of all, where did that zero come from?

"Say for every ten humans, 1 is born dead"

Quote:

secondly, why did you divide by ten if there are only seven numbers?

count again. the 75 is for "3 die at around 25 from disease, famine, accidents, childbirth etc". (3 x 25 = 75)

Quote:

why isn't wikipedia a valid source?

because any muppet can put stuff up there. If you have some good peer reviewed scientific sources, please post links. Don't just believe your gurus mate, you are being seriously fooled here. If you want your tribe stuff, at least do it well informed, and not just repeating like a parrot on what some other jehovas witness has done.

And don't think there are not loads of anarchists here who believe in reduction of technology or defending tribal peoples rights, or opposing advancement of capitalism to areas where it has not yet reached and so on.

(edit: spelling)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 9 2004 10:27
Username wrote:
there are two UK primitivist websites.

Ooooh wow!

Farkin ell I really don't think it's worth wasting time on this guy - it's like talking to my stubborn 8-year old nephew (well he's 16 now but when he was 8...)

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 9 2004 10:52

Steven, wanting to join a tribe is quite normal behaviour for an 8-year-old ain't it? At least before they stopped selling toy bows and arrows/cap-guns everywhere.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 9 2004 11:44

I don't know why you're wasting your time on me either. I'm not a roach. You don't have to rid your house of me. I'm not jumping on all of your threads and shooting down everything y'all say. i have an opinion, and maybe y'all should respect that. you don't have to police the anarchist movement, and why do y'all keep on calling us jehovah's witnesses?? yeah, i already agreed that a wiki isn't the best source, so what? i have one lame source. who cares? maybe i'll come across some more facts and figures. i've already provided links to all of my other serious studies.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Oct 10 2004 22:34

Why god, why? Why are primitivists so death-defyingly stupid? If only they could argue as well as Username.

ditchfield
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Oct 11 2004 11:18

Fuck you lot. None of you can base every part of your ideology on many reliable sources. Give the guy a break. This is what he believes, why can't he dream.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 11 2004 21:31

I'm forcing your hand, right now. I've sent someone a private message, asking for an explaination of how my politics are right wing, so come out with it, now. Tell me and everyone else how my politics are right wing.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 11 2004 22:47
Username wrote:
I'm forcing your hand, right now. I've sent someone a private message, asking for an explaination of how my politics are right wing, so come out with it, now. Tell me and everyone else how my politics are right wing.

Because you're clearly a malthusian, you beleive in the survvial of the fittest and you're an asshole.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 11 2004 23:00

those things don't make a person right wing, and two of 'em don't even apply to me. i don't believe our population tends to out grow food supply. i think the food supply grows the population, and i don't believe in survival of the fittest obviously 'cause those conditions are not in tribes. one could even say there's a form of shared economy in a tribe.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 12 2004 08:28

Username, you have been avoiding this very simple question all along:

If availability of food or high mortality rate are not a factor, in the absense of contraception what is keeping the population from growing?

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 12 2004 21:08

i think something about agriculture fuels our population.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 12 2004 22:07
Quote:
i think something about agriculture fuels our population.

and is that something an aphrodisiac or a regular, comparatively safe supply of food, improved healthcare etc.? try, just try, using logic. it's not hard you know.

oh, and i forgot to respond to this earlier:

Username wrote:
also, western medicine, surgery and shit, is balls compared to far east holistic medicine, which is much more established, healthy, and effective.

regardless of whether or not it is more effective or not, eastern medecine is as much a product of civilisation as western medecine, in fact it's the product of a much older and more established, and for a long time arguably more advanced civilisation than those in the west. or doesn't it count as civilisation when the people involved are not caucasian?

fuck, i mean if our boring 26 letter alphabet is evil symbolic thought, what the hell does john zerzan think of asian languages? i mean japanese alone has three alphabets, 1 for names and stuff, one for phonetic spelling of less common and foreign words, and 8000+ beautiful pictograms for the most common words and concepts, approximately 3000 of which you need to know to read the newspaper.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 12 2004 22:30
GenerationTerrorist wrote:
Quote:
i think something about agriculture fuels our population.

and is that something an aphrodisiac or a regular, comparatively safe supply of food, improved healthcare etc.?

agriculture certainly wasn't any kind of improvement in terms of supply or health care. it was actually detrimental to our health until recently when we finally caught up with health levels before civilization. (http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/GW_paper.htm), so the population fuel can't be these things; but i don't know what it is. i just know the population went up with agriculture. maybe just the fact that it can support larger numbers per square mile mean it did.

maybe people just started making more babies because of this. since they were settled down, children wouldn't hamper them as they would if they were nomadic. that's just my hypothesis. i don't know.

GenerationTerrorist wrote:
Username wrote:
also, western medicine, surgery and shit, is balls compared to far east holistic medicine, which is much more established, healthy, and effective.

regardless of whether or not it is more effective or not, eastern medecine is as much a product of civilisation as western medecine. [. . .]

oops, good point. anyway, i was saying, there are natural alternatives. i confused that eastern medicine with those natural alternatives.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 12 2004 22:42
Username wrote:
maybe people just started making more babies because of this. since they were settled down, children wouldn't hamper them as they would if they were nomadic. that's just my hypothesis

Um, I don't think agriculture would make people have sex more, which is basically what you're implying. I'm sure family planning didn't really exist (except perhaps starving tribes that may have deliberately killed new born children, but that's hardly a good thing). Realistically, the only thing that can increase a population in a primitive society is, wait for it... people not dying. In other words, more successful births, more children surviving to adulthood and life spans increasing. So, to spell out the painfully obvious, people must have been living healthier, safer lives...

Get it now? Technology GOOD, rewilding BAD.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 12 2004 22:58

I wasn't implying farming makes us have more sex. I could say what I meant, but I already spelled it out. You're the one who's guessing why this system must be better than what came before. I'm not guessing. I've read there was no improvement. That's one reason why switching to agriculture is such a mystery. Why did they do it? Certainly not for the health benefits y'all are shooting at like a primitivist who talks of "Spirits of the Land". They certainly didn't do it for the life-saving technology that y'all scream you must have 'cause those inventions didn't come until thousands of years later. They probably just did it 'cause they were addicted to exorphin, but there's no way to prove this. There's no way to know why they did it. All we know is that the population went up and health and way of life deteriorated. Is life safe? I don't think life has ever been safer, not that it was safer back then. I think the only gains were relaxing food drugs and leisure. L-E-I-S-U-R-E. Leisure is the only thing you get from civilization, and that comes at an equal amount of labor; so I say, "Fuck it." Live free, or you're the living dead.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 12 2004 23:54
Username wrote:
I wasn't implying farming makes us have more sex.
Username wrote:
i just know the population went up with agriculture. maybe just the fact that it can support larger numbers per square mile mean it did.

maybe people just started making more babies because of this.

Ah Username, time for that talk about the birds and the bees...