Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

1

RespectWomen wrote

Domestication creates a totalitarian relationship with plants and animals, and eventually other humans.

How is somebody supposed to eat if they shouldn’t even domesticate plants? Regress to gathering?

You are one of those voluntary extinctionists, aren’t you?

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

"Regress" you sure are an elitist.

People have been eating wild food since the get go and we continue to eat it today. Plant native fruit and nut trees far and wide and let everyone share in the harvest. Humans should be caretakers of the planet, not landowners who plant crops on a fenced in, sterilised piece of land for profit. Moving past individual ownership of food is progress, not regression. You'd figure a 'communist' would see that.

You are one of those voluntary extinctionists, aren’t you?

You're one of those sheltered yuppies that has never done any sort of manual labour, or eaten food that didn't come from a supermarket, aren't you?

Ask a dick question, get a dick reply.

1

RespectWomen wrote

"Regress" you sure are an elitist.

How so?

People have been eating wild food since the get go and we continue to eat it today.

My assumption was that everybody would have to rely on eating wild fruits, a method which I highly doubt could sustain millions of humans, let alone billions.

Plant native fruit and nut trees far and wide and let everyone share in the harvest.

This sounds like an alternative to traditional farming; sounds somewhat similar to crop rotation.

Humans should be caretakers of the planet, not landowners who plant crops on a fenced in, sterilised piece of land for profit.

I know.

Moving past individual ownership of food is progress, not regression. You'd figure a 'communist' would see that.

‘Regression’ is not a pejorative term, contrary to whatever nonsense you may have been told. ‘Progress’ is likewise neither inherently nor unconditionally good. In any case, I agree that food sources should be public.

You're one of those sheltered yuppies that has never done any sort of manual labour, or eaten food that didn't come from a supermarket, aren't you?

I do manual labour when assembling furniture, cleaning, moving things, &c. I just don’t do those things for a (very low) paycheque. Aside from trying a raw tomato, yeah, I do eat market foods quite a bit, which is probably one of the reasons why I hate eating.

Ask a dick question, get a dick reply.

I’ve seen you express misanthropic statements before. I’m actually kind of puzzled why you even post here if your assumption is that (almost) everybody is doomed.

2

Blackcap wrote

Well, the linked post is more than just anti-civ, it's pro-primitivist, and I am not a primitivist, but:

My assumption was that everybody would have to rely on eating wild fruits, a method which I highly doubt could sustain millions of humans, let alone billions.

Maybe you should revisit your assumptions. Nobody was civilized in 8,000 BC, yet most estimates of the human population at that time are around 5 million. That already qualifies as "millions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Could 8 billion be sustained thusly? Almost certainly not, which I would contend is an excellent argument that human population is presently too large. (And keep in mind my opening paragraph. I'm not a primitivist, therefore I'm not advocating everyone going back to being a hunter/gatherer. I'm just pointing out that even if that were the case, it would still literally be possible to sustain millions.)

And before the standard anti-anti-civ strawman is trotted out, no, I don't want to go all Pol Pot and launch a massive global genocide. Humans are mortal. Wait 120 years and everyone alive today will be dead. Mass-murder is unnecessary; all that needs to be done is to drop the birth rate and let mortality do its work over time.

0

RespectWomen wrote

Maybe you should revisit your assumptions. Nobody was civilized in 8,000 BC, yet most estimates of the human population at that time are around 5 million. That already qualifies as "millions."

Point made.

Could 8 billion be sustained thusly? Almost certainly not, which I would contend is an excellent argument that human population is presently too large.

Overpopulation is nonsense, and anticaps have known that for a long time. Here’s just one example.

And before the standard anti-anti-civ strawman is trotted out, no, I don't want to go all Pol Pot and launch a massive global genocide.

We already know that. It’s not genocide in the trust meaning of the word, it’s billions dying from the absence of medicine and insufficient food.

Humans are mortal. Wait 120 years and everyone alive today will be dead.

At first I thought that you were referring to the danger of extinction around 2050, but apparently you were just stating the obvious.

Mass-murder is unnecessary; all that needs to be done is to drop the birth rate and let mortality do its work over time.

I hope that your antinatalist campaign goes well.

2

Blackcap wrote (edited )

Could 8 billion be sustained thusly? Almost certainly not, which I would contend is an excellent argument that human population is presently too large.

Overpopulation is nonsense, and anticaps have known that for a long time. Here’s just one example.

Why is it "nonsense"? It's a value judgement, that the human population is higher than one believes it ought to be.

All you've attempted to show is that it's possible to maximize the human population beyond current numbers and still feed everyone. That's begging several hidden premises, perhaps the most significant one being that the human population ought to be maximized.

The more land and resources that are used to sustain humans, the less there is available for other life forms. The more the Earth is subjugated into supporting humans, the less human freedom there is to head out to the hinterlands and start ones own society. In fact, that latter freedom has almost completely vanished.

How is it compatible with anarchism to assert that other life forms and the planet itself exist solely to be subjugated into supporting the needs of just one species, just because that one species can (possibly; and it's not looking good on that) get away with said effort? That sounds like the very definition of an authoritarian attitude.

And before the standard anti-anti-civ strawman is trotted out, no, I don't want to go all Pol Pot and launch a massive global genocide.

We already know that. It’s not genocide in the trust meaning of the word, it’s billions dying from the absence of medicine and insufficient food.

Did you even read what I went on to say, or were you so busy assuming that I was an evil or ignorant anti-civ anarchist that you went on to trot out that tired strawman?

I hope that your antinatalist campaign goes well.

In many ways, it is. Birth rates are already dropping. It's been shown time and time again that if women are given access to birth control and the right to use it, they typically choose to do so.

1

RespectWomen wrote

Why is it "nonsense"? It's a value judgement, that the human population is higher than one believes it ought to be.

Doesn’t that prove my point?

All you've attempted to show is that it's possible to maximize the human population beyond current numbers and still feed everyone. That's begging several hidden premises, perhaps the most significant one being that the human population ought to be maximized.

I’m uninterested in maximising the human population.

The more land and resources that are used to sustain humans, the less there is available for other life forms. The more the Earth is subjugated into supporting humans, the less human freedom there is to head out to the hinterlands and start ones own society.

Then don’t seize land or resources unless the people agree to it.

In fact, that latter freedom has almost completely vanished.

I’m unsure where you are, but I doubt that we’ve used up that much area. In Britain, quite a bit is still left. (And yes, I know that the mainstream media is trash, but it’s not consistently useless.)

How is it compatible with anarchism to assert that other life forms and the planet itself exist solely to be subjugated into supporting the needs of just one species, just because that one species can (possibly; and it's not looking good on that) get away with said effort?

It’s not. We need to minimise our exploitation of other animals as much as possible.

Did you even read what I went on to say, or were you so busy assuming that I was an evil or ignorant anti-civ anarchist that you went on to trot out that tired strawman?

I did, but does it really matter what I tell you when you can just make up things?

1

Blackcap wrote (edited )

How is it compatible with anarchism to assert that other life forms and the planet itself exist solely to be subjugated into supporting the needs of just one species, just because that one species can (possibly; and it's not looking good on that) get away with said effort?

It’s not. We need to minimise our exploitation of other animals as much as possible.

But, that's the hidden premise in most all arguments that human population isn't a problem. Those arguments inevitably proceed by making claims that it's technologically possible to support not only the current population, but even more people.

It's being argued that population isn't a problem because it's possible to exploit the earth to support that many people (at a given level of affluence). Therefore by those standards population won't be a problem until the earth is maxed out. There's an implicit belief here that the entire earth belongs to one species (us) and it's OK to attempt to completely subjugate it to those ends.

Whether or not it's technologically possible to sustain a given amount of humans is far less relevant to the question of what the human population ideally should be than many people believe it is. (It still has some relevance, of course, but it's hardly the only relevant issue.)

2

RespectWomen wrote

Good news for you: I’m uninterested in increasing the human population. I don’t like being around little kids. You can calm down now.

1

ziq wrote

I doubt that we’ve used up that much area.

Just because there is land that has yet to be developed, doesn't mean we should be developing it. That's the opposite of what we should be doing at this juncture.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

This sounds like an alternative to traditional farming; sounds somewhat similar to crop rotation.

Re-foresting the planet doesn't really have anything to do with crop rotation. Trees are perennials so they don't need human intervention - you can just plant them with companion trees (nitrogen fixers) and let them be. Even by pushing some native fruit/nut seeds into the soil every winter, you an create a food forest. I did that with apple, nectarine and apricot seeds 3 years ago and this year all 3 of them made fruit already. They grew incredibly fast because seeded in place trees develop a tap root, unlike grafted/transplanted trees that only grow shallow roots. This allows the tree to dig deep to find moisture in the heat of the summer.

Trees are much more productive than annual crops, able to produce hundreds of kilos of fruit per tree with no inputs whatsoever other than what nature provides (wild nitrogen fixers like prickly broom and clover).

How so?

Replacing concrete with food isn't regressing, it's progressing. Capitalism has destroyed so much of the planet, partly in order to make it so food is a commodity when it should be growing all around us free for the picking. There's a reason the state only plants non-fruiting trees. They plant acres and acres with nothing but pine monocultures, which turns the land into a desert. Forests need to be diverse but if everyone could go for a walk in the woods and come back with all the food they need for a week, that wouldn't serve the empire's interests.

My assumption was that everybody would have to rely on eating wild fruits, a method which I highly doubt could sustain millions of humans, let alone billions.

What you fail to understand is that the earth as it is now has been torn apart by development and industry. Returning it to its natural state is how it will sustain the lives of billions. But even where I live most of the fruit (we're talking a full 90%) rots on the ground because there's more than enough to go around. People are so programmed to buy their food from a supermarket that they'll walk right past a wild fig tree loaded with fruit to get in the supermarket and buy figs. I've seen it again and again.

‘Regression’ is not a pejorative term

Come on, mate. Ever hear of the 'regressive left'?

I just don’t do those things for a (very low) paycheque.

Do manual labour to make your community a better place for everyone, bruv.

I’m actually kind of puzzled why you even post here if your assumption is that (almost) everybody is doomed.

I mean, I exist don't I? Should I stop existing in this moment because we're killing the planet?

1

RespectWomen wrote

Re-foresting the planet doesn't really have anything to do with crop rotation. Trees are perennials so they don't need human intervention - you can just plant them with companion trees (nitrogen fixers) and let them be.

I think that you are using redefinitions here, because planting anything sounds like human intervention to me.

Even by pushing some native fruit/nut seeds into the soil every winter, you an create a food forest. I did that with apple, nectarine and apricot seeds 3 years ago and this year all 3 of them made fruit already. They grew incredibly fast because seeded in place trees develop a tap root, unlike grafted/transplanted trees that only grow shallow roots. This allows the tree to dig deep to find moisture in the heat of the summer.

That sounds wonderful. Who’s taking the crops?

Replacing concrete with food isn't regressing, it's progressing.

Regressive in the sense that it’s an ancient practice, not in the sense that it’s ‘bad’.

Capitalism has destroyed so much of the planet,

You mean civilisation?

partly in order to make it so food is a commodity when it should be growing all around us free for the picking. There's a reason the state only plants non-fruiting trees. They plant acres and acres with nothing but pine monocultures, which turns the land into a desert. Forests need to be diverse but if everyone could go for a walk in the woods and come back with all the food they need for a week, that wouldn't serve the empire's interests.

No arguing here.

But even where I live most of the fruit (we're talking a full 90%) rots on the ground because there's more than enough to go around.

Who or what planted these excesses?

Come on, mate. Ever hear of the 'regressive left'?

Of course I have. It’s just another buzzword that rightists and moderates use because they comprehend little of history and even less of prehistory. Nonetheless, there’s still an element of truth in it: we are regressive in that we desire to eliminate the political & economic hierarchies that the upper classes have imposed on us.

Do manual labour to make your community a better place for everyone, bruv.

Should I knock on strangers’ doors and ask them if they need help with anything?

Should I stop existing in this moment because we're killing the planet?

No, but that’s partially what voluntary extinctionists advocate: if everybody were gone, pollution would not only come to a halt, it would be literally impossible.

3

Blackcap wrote

No, but that’s partially what voluntary extinctionists advocate: if everybody were gone, pollution would not only come to a halt, it would be literally impossible.

Untrue. Certain types of pollution would become inevitable in the thirty or so centuries first following the sudden disappearance of humans. Widespread radioactive contamination, for example; there would be no humans around to tend radioactive waste storage facilities.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

I'm not a primitivist like the writer so I'm not redefining anything. Most primitivists do support permaculture, however, and they obviously support rewilding. Where did you read they don't believe in lifting a finger to undo the damage civ has done to the planet?

That sounds wonderful. Who’s taking the crops?

The community?

You mean civilisation?

No. Civilisation created the conditions to allow capitalism to destroy life.

Should I knock on strangers’ doors and ask them if they need help with anything?

Is that a joke? Why the hell not? Anarchists do that all the time. Or just plant some seeds in a public place.

Who or what planted these excesses?

First of all, under capitalism, when there's a glut in the marketplace, it doesn't pay to pick the fruit because the prices are so low, so farmers let it rot. The state then compensates them for not putting it on the market.

But when we're talking wild fruit trees, birds planted them, or a human took a dump and a seed sprouted. Ppl don't pick wild fruit because it doesn't come wrapped in plastic like they're used to.

that’s partially what voluntary extinctionists advocate: if everybody were gone, pollution would not only come to a halt, it would be literally impossible.

Vhemt proponents don't literally want humanity to go extinct, bruv. They just want westerners to not breed so much because one western person enslaves hundreds of non-western people and does more damage to the environment than all their slaves combined.

0

RespectWomen wrote

I'm not a primitivist like the writer so I'm not redefining anything.

But you repost their work without even making a disclaimer? Uh, okay.

Where did you read they don't believe in lifting a finger to undo the damage civ has done to the planet?

It seems like their strategy is to destroy all advanced technology, seeing it as inherently pollutant.

No. Civilisation created the conditions to allow capitalism to destroy life.

That doesn’t sound like a critical distinction.

Is that a joke? Why the hell not? Anarchists do that all the time. Or just plant some seeds in a public place.

My family isn’t going to tolerate me running errands for complete strangers. Somebody will interrogate me about it, then they’ll mention how dangerous that is, saying that I could suffer torture or murder, & probably naming a similar incident somewhere and somewhen.

First of all, under capitalism, when there's a glut in the marketplace, it doesn't pay to pick the fruit because the prices are so low, so farmers let it rot. The state then compensates them for not putting it on the market. But when we're talking wild fruit trees, birds planted them, or a human took a dump and a seed sprouted. Ppl don't pick wild fruit because it doesn't come wrapped in plastic like they're used to.

I assumed that all food would be available naturally, which is why you mentioned the excesses, and how we could live without resorting to either (traditional) agriculture or carnism.

Vhemt proponents don't literally want humanity to go extinct, bruv. They just want westerners to not breed so much because one western person enslaves hundreds of non-western people and does more damage to the environment than all their slaves combined.

I had no idea that it was directed specifically at Westerners.