Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RespectWomen wrote

Reply to comment by Defasher in Why Anti-Civ? by Defasher

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.

1

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.

3

Defasher OP 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.

2

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.

1