ziq wrote on July 4, 2018 at 10:09 AM (edited on July 4, 2018 at 10:45 AM)

Reply to comment by retiredshared5 in What's the Difference between Anarcho-Primitivism and Post-Civ ? by autonomous_hippopotamus

Idk about you, but I decide what I'm ok with.

Nothing is sustainable

That's a cop out to justify not thinking about these things and continuing the same lifestyle. Planting native trees and eating their fruit for instance is fully sustainable. Building ponds to create thriving ecosystems where a strip mall used to stand is too. Building with bamboo that grows right back in a year. Or weaving it into baskets. Planting shrubs on slopes to control erosion. Using old tires to insulate structures. Piling up rocks to make habitats for reptiles and arachnids.

retiredshared5 wrote on July 4, 2018 at 10:44 AM

That's a cop out to justify not thinking about these things and continuing the same lifestyle

I'm not wanting to justify the lifestyle of westerners. Poly cultures do require labour to be productive, simply planting trees to return the earth to what it was and should be, before civilizations utilized agriculture, is not the same as using poly cultures in agriculture to feed a society.

ziq wrote on July 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM (edited on July 4, 2018 at 10:56 AM)

Polyculture just means diverse plantings rather than a single species. I planted a polyculture and I'm the only labor. Anything that depends on capital; like 'organic farming' is rejected by postciv anarchism.

We can no longer depend on polycultures to grow spontaniously after we've so decimated the environment. Forests need to be re-established by us directly. Once you destroy a forest, erosion and flooding move in and the topsoil washes away. We have to fix what we've broken by rebuilding the soil and then replanting the vegetation.