Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

6

ziq wrote (edited )

Did you learn everything you know about the world from smug memes or just what you know about green anarchism?

You might not like anprims but no one can claim they're on the level of ancaps. Their entire motivation is to get to the root of hierarchy (tech) and abolish it completely; which is a much more radical (anarchist) position than other brands of anarchy that try to apply bandaids to power hierarchy.

Even the anprims that fall into pointless virtue signaling 'greener than thou' traps are still more anarchistic than your average ancom that doesn't even get that anarchy is a state of mind rather than a form of aspirational urban planning.

-3

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

am I wrong? I was tongue in cheek but did I not say the truth?

I consider anarchism as a "human-centered" ideology. By focusing so much on saving the envrionment and reducing tech at all cost, anprim ideology forgets the violence to people hidden behind the words they use. Even egoist anarchists call for other people to be egoists themselves, not reject their existence.

In a way anprimism is similar to ancaps, they try to form the world around a concept that is romantic when you think about it but isn't applicable in real life. (not the "corporate evil fucks" ancap, but the 2honest shallow-thinking internet libertarians" that believe anarcho-capitalism really is a good thing for everyone). (ancaps: NAP; anprims: return to "nature"). (lol i worded this so badly I hope you get what I mean)

keyword here is "at all cost". I do consider post-civ as anarchist, since they reject the anti-human part of anprimism while keeping the general "flow" of they have. I also consider anprims in the 80s as anarchists because it was "new" and not deeply studied. Now, thought, everyone can access critiques of anpimism. If people still claim themselves as such, they share too few values with actual anarchists to claim themselves as such.

Also I agree anrpim critiques of tech and civilization are interesting and I urge people to read a few if they have not yet. antranshumanist literature is few and far between, so I need to read from other schools to get my fix of theory; and I agree with a lot of anrpim critiques while having a conclusion that is a 180 of theirs.

4

videl wrote

For me, I don't want to kill 90% of the population nor am I hoping that 90% will just die in some tragic event. It's more of a belief that that or something similar is pretty much the inevitable result of civilization.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

It's like that for anyone with eyes and ears. Transhumanists like to pretend they're morally superior for planting their heads firmly in the sand.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

And of course their moral arguments are just masked bigotry towards 'primitive' cultures and they don't give a shit about 'the people' at all; just their own ability to pollute and destroy unencumbered by guilt.

3

Dumai wrote

I consider anarchism as a "human-centered" ideology.

i don't

in fact i consider the arbitrary division between the "human" (rationalistic, domesticated, progressive -- subject) and the "natural" (irrational, wild, static -- object) to be a huge issue

2

Dumai wrote

and in fact one of the reasons i'm not a primitivist is because i think primitivists more often than not reify this division while claiming to critique civilisation! especially zerzan

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Your argument is that one specific ape species is more important than all other lifeforms and our interests and comforts should always be paramount, despite whatever damage it would cause to others (and ultimately to ourselves in the not-so long run).

That is quite at odds with anarchy, which opposes all hieraechies and oppression; not just ones that inconvience you personally.

-1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

yeah you got that argument right, I don't hate people, and that's the issues I have with anprimism... so we've come full circle... There probably isnt much to say here anymore...

I'm not sure that anarchism can be applied to plants and non-sentient animals.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Isn't it possible that post-civ can

a) reject anthropocentrism: the idea human beings are inherently superior, more important than other lifeforms and therefore have the right to dominate and exploit nature

while also

b) Recognizing that we are humans, and as a species have distinct interests when it comes to our survival (as both individuals and as a species) and have to utilize technology, there's a certain level of environmental destruction/disruption that is unnavoidable but we can strive to minimize this.

Is that eco-extremism, or is that not post-civ ?

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

Yo read my comments... I've got no issue with post-civs! I disagree with them but they arent my enemies. (I disagree because i dont believe low tech tribe-like organisation better than high tech global human networks, I also believe that there is still a possibility for other futures than post-apocalyptic wastelands, and that at least some are better).

anprims are enemies thought. I dont know what words to use, but they give off an "anti-antrhropocentrist" vibe: humans are inferior, other lifeforms are more important, and everyone should die in order for nature to thrive.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Well i can respect your point of view. And i would regard some primitivists as enemies particularly cults like Deep Green Resistance, and asorted transphobes and general xenophobes who asosciate in that milieu. But i wouldn't say Prims are enemies by default, i've known lots of anarcho-primtivists who are all around descent anarchists/activists who support trans rights and aren't crypto eugenicists.

With Post-Civ there seems to be a pretty broad spectrum of belief on the question of technology, so it might not be accurate to say all post-civ folks believe in going back to some low tech, tribal organization, though i'm sure there's people who believe that. But i do think you can be critical of anthropocentrism without being a self-hated human and celebrating the deaths of billions of people, but that's just me.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm sorry, but I don't remember saying anything about hating people. Your insistence that rooting for the survival of the whole planet; including people is somehow the same thing as hating people is surreal to me. It's bad enough that you're saying 'fuck the rest of the planet and the future of our children, my immediate pleasure is all that matters', but now you're somehow turning that into a moral argument?

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote (edited )

"I don't remember saying anything about hating people"

except when the only way anprims/postciv can see humanity thrive is when 90% are dead or were never born.

'fuck the rest of the planet and the future of our children, my immediate pleasure is all that matters'

yep except its possible to do that in a sustainable way, like the bright green environmentalism we talked about a few months ago.