Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

robosap1ens wrote

how so?

1

RespectWomen wrote

He’ll probably link to this, an article which itself contains dozens of unsupported conclusions.

1

theblackcat wrote (edited )

Considering the non-sourced, wildly inaccurate and grammatically atrocious opinion piece you've posted, that's a little bit cocky don't you think?

4

zod wrote (edited )

So post-civilization isn't actually against civilization by the sounds of it? Just the current exploitative civilization we have?

0

Defasher wrote

When people say something is 'civilised', they're turning their nose up at anything they consider 'uncivilised'. Picture an old-boy English imperialist wanker wearing a safari hat, strolling around Africa, telling everyone they're a bunch of uncivilised savages. Then think about the hardships and horrific injustices perpetrated on Africans for generations as the old-boys try to 'civilise' them... all the while enslaving them for their labour.

Civilisation is a word used by the rich to shame the poor into slavery.

2

G3PF wrote

The first article you linked is rubbish - it gives an abundance of assertions without any attempts at arguing for them, and generally gives plenty of poorly defined and ambiguous wording and phrasing that seems to only actually make sense if you yourself are a post-civ. However, as it is intended to briefly inform about post-civ, it fails miserably.

Humorously, the author actually addresses one of the definitions of civilization given by that first article within their post! The one by Jensen, of course. The author's gripes with Jensen's argument of what civilization is also applies to the Wikipedia (by the way, that's hardly a scholarly source for trying to write a philosophical paper on why post-civ is good) definition given. Of course, in the regard to an anti-civ society, by some aspects of that definition, it would actually mean that post-civ is merely civilization in itself! For instance, the usage of division of labor and agriculture as means to support the idea of civilization, as I'm sure a post-civ society would involve co-operation among people, with certain individuals performing certain roles in whatever groups they're in. One major issue with this definition, however, is the 'social hierarchy' one used, as it implies that it's necessary for a civilized world. Of course, it's likely just pro-capitalist nonsense that's trying to presume any ideology that argues for the abolishment of hierarchy means that they aren't civilized. This, of course, is ridiculous, as I don't think anti-civs would consider communism or anarchism to be outside of civilization.

The second article you linked is much better, and what the first one should have been. The rebuttal to anarcho-primitivism is rather quality I'd say (though I do have a few gripes, such as the author's assertion that stonework and flight are science), however the argument falls flat at the author's critique of civilization. Firstly, the author's assertion of more leisure time in primitive societies is rather silly, as what they describe merely seems to be civilization, albeit a more simplified form of it. Indeed, there's no reason to assume that, under certain reforms, we couldn't achieve a better and safer version of all of this under a more advanced civilization! After all, under the more primitive (for lack of a better word) society the author proposes, there wouldn't be any scientific advancement to be able to prepare for things such as say, disease, ferocious predators, or natural disasters. Also, a lot of the anti-civ arguments are just unsupported by any logical justification, and can all generally be surmised as issues with capitalism and other failed economic systems or the current state of society - both of which we can abolish and reform, respectively. Indeed, the OP's post actually can be said to be an adequate rebuttal of this by pointing out that a civilized world is indeed possible! Of course, it could've been a lot more in depth, but to be fair the OP wasn't responding to this piece in particular, but rather giving a general defense of why civilization is indeed worthwhile.

Of course, there are more issues, such as within the outline of a post-civ world, that are either strawmans, unjustified assertions, the middle of the road fallacy, and also a lack of properly defining a post-civ world, which is in support of what the author's saying. It just gives rather vague examples that can hardly be taken up as evidence for a post-civ societal structure being worthwhile! There's no theory in place here, rather just a brief overview of a hypothetical society that can hardly be said to be an argumentative structure of one, as it's outrageously ambiguous with no attempts at actual justification. It's also based on the assumption that such a thing will even work out as the author says it will, again without actual justification. Adding on to this, one could argue that the proposed society counts as civilization too, albeit a more primitive form of it! Furthermore, the definition of civilization given here seem to be rather vague and arbitrary, while seeming to be more emotionally charged than anything. So, the OP's critiques do indeed still apply, as no adequate system has actually been proposed here, and no legitimate theory has been given.

In regards to the third article you linked, much like the first one, it is based on vague and baseless assertions without theoretical justification. It continues the trend of poorly defined ideas and vague assertions that don't seem to have any basis. Furthermore, it just recycles the previously given definitions by Wikipedia and Jensen. The first definition it gives, too, is outrageously vague and meaningless (which the author agrees with).

To summarize, all the articles you've linked (and yes, I've read through all of them) give vague and meaningless assertions and fail to actually propose a theoretical society, with the best thing given being in the second article, which is little more than a setting for a book, rather than an actual theoretical basis for a society. Thus, all of the OP's arguments still heavily apply, and if anything you've just provided evidence for how they do.

1

RespectWomen wrote (edited )

All right then, I gave you links a closer look, though I did partially skim the second one. (I totally forgot about them the other day.) You may be unsurprised to know that their theory doesn’t appall me. For example:

We post-civilized aim to prove that decentralization of our culture, economies, and politics is both possible and desirable. Every smaller group (some might use the word tribe, but I personally shy from it) would make its own decisions, maintain its autonomy, and solve problems in the ways that suit its constituency. Some might turn to high technology to meet their needs and desires. Others might live more simply. But the borders between the groups will most likely be blurred, with individuals, groups, and families moving between social spheres. Honestly, it would socially be much like today, if you removed the hierarchy between groups and actively avoided the centralizing influence of civilized culture.

This doesn’t sound that different from a world that we want. If civilisation must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to hierarchies, then yes, you can call all of us anticiv. On the other hand, it seems like the essays strongly imply a preference for survivalism and simplistic but not strictly primitive technology: recycling, to put it simply, which are features that many people, including the poor, would be hesitant to adopt or prefer. Even so, it’s a leap of logic to assume that your sceptics are bourgies or yuppies, but that was probably retaliation for my mistaking of you as a primitivist or suggesting that you were extinctionist.