An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by happy in Do cities even make sense as something worth preserving? by BabyCroc
You're right - I think I was thinking more along the lines of how this alienation from what we affect is necessitated by cities and not so much in towns. And how it seems a more totalising alienation in cities than towns, but I might be wrong there.
Where I'm from there's possibly a much sharper divide between urban and rural with relatively not so much by way of small towns. Not sure.
but it is living in civilization and capitalism
I think civilisation is characterised in part by cities, so we're possibly on board there, and I of course agree that capitalism is alienating.
I was not thinking about anarcho-primitivists here, but non-primitivist anti-civilisation critiques. I'm still figuring out what post-civ is.
happy wrote
From what I understand post-civ is non-primitivist while still being anti-civilization. Life after civilization has crumbled.
Post-Civ! is a good primer. Here for a more in-depth look.
I think I would define civilization as the idea of advancement for the sake of advancement. Similar to capitalism being growth for the sake of growth, but civilization will still have a desire to advance itself. Transhumanism and space communism as examples.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Thanks, I'll try to look at these soon.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments