Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

supernice wrote

The primitivist rejection of technology in general is just ridiculous, they will tell you point blank that no technology can ever be used for liberatory purposes whatsoever while they set up websites, make documentaries, podcasts etc. to spread their apocalyptic message.

While they might make good points sometimes they don't have a coherent critique of technology, they don't even recognize that hunter gatherers require for their very survival highly complex set of technics for the manufacture of weapons, clothes and shelter, harvesting of forest produce and the hunting of prey. I guess they assume humans were able to take down fucking Mastodons purely by virtue of their instincts.

This is what surprises me the most. I am not against anprims, they have a right to believe what they want, but I do not see their ideas to be fully thought out. I identify as green and postciv personally, and I admit that it was anprim thought that brought me to where I am now. Anprim was attractive, but even before I came to green and postciv, I could tell that it wasn't fully thought out. I never identified as anprim, because I just could never get past it's shortcomings. Postciv is far more realistic, and to be frank, positive.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Yeah i personally prefer to use the term green anarchist without other adjectives. There's a diverse tradition of ecologically minded anarchists and while there is a lot of great stuff i also don't want lock myself into some obscure sect with its historical baggage or muddled thinking.

I went through a primitivist phase myself, not that i ever identified as that, was just attracted to alot of the ideas--the critique of technology, of humanism, the idea of "biocentrism" and the idea that human beings are animals-- but clearly there are some severe limits to that kind of thinking, There's also alot of reactionary stuff in that scene, like the concern over 'overpopulation', anti-vaxxer shit, transphobia, the racist fetishism of indigenous peoples' etc. etc.

But i also see alot of problems with, for example, Bookchin's ideas, like the idea of managing nature rationality. Not to mention the extremes of Transhumanism, or the techno-utopian thinking still advocated by most ancoms.

I think as green anarchists we should critique anthropocentrism and the human domination of other animals and the biosphere, while also adopting a scientific epistemology, taking into account the lessons of evolutionary biology, anthropology and other disciplines. In terms of technology i think we should adopt a kind of minimalist program -- how to we produce more with less ? how can we live more free and fulfilling lives while consuming less energy and natural resources? how do we produce enough food for everyone to eat while also respecting wilderness ?

3

supernice wrote (edited )

Indeed, green anarchist is simply what I say if ever asked. I find that postciv thinking is very helpful to me, in a sort of preparatory way, as unfortunately I do believe humanity has pushed the planet to the limits of what it can take and some sort of collapse is inevitable. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but my gut feeling is that I am not.

As for transhumanism, I find it to be not well thought out in similar ways to primitivism. It doesn't seem to be very realistic to me. I don't like to come off as invalidating anyones beliefs, to each their own, but for me personally I cannot see technology as any kind of saviour. It is a set of tools in the end, and used in a destructive fashion far more than not. I don't see that changing.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

Transhumanism is just as apocalyptic and utopian as Primitivism. The idea of the singularity and quest for immortality are basically mystical and misguided, even dangerous in some case. Many transhumanists are some kind of anarcho-capitalist or authoritarian socialist, i have had transhumanists tell me that issues like pollution and climate change don't matter because eventually they will just invent some technology that will undo all these problems. Of course, they don't think that non-humans, or ecosystems have any value outside of human exploitation.

I would make an exception for those who may be fascinated by trans-humanism as a means of liberation from purely biological constraints. For example, many trans folks, likewise i know many people with disabilities, say people with acute autism, are able to communicate or develop other skills only thanks to computers and related technologies. But fascination is not dogmatic adherence. We can recognize that technology can be liberatory without worshiping technology as a messianic force.

Regardless of how you view tehnology in general, Medical Technology (perhaps liberated from a certain institutional or ) is something humans literally can't live without. The medical profession and the institutional context of medicine ( the history of racism, sexism, violence against the mentally ill etc.) should be critiqued or or some ways abolished, but medical science is something we must hold on to as a species and make available to everyone.

3

supernice wrote

Of course, they don't think that non-humans, or ecosystems have any value outside of human exploitation.

This point is what makes it extremely dangerous. The complete disregard for anything but our own species is….I don’t even know how to phrase it…a kind of extremism? We matter and nothing else. I can’t fathom how this is acceptable. It shows a complete disdain for life. Your point about those for whom it would actually make life better is a far cry from those who want to fly around like Ironman just because they can. I agree with that entirely, as well as your take on medical tech.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

On the collapse thing, i just don't think that Ecological Crises will lead necessarily to the collapse of Capitalism and the State, let alone Civilization itself. Even if Billions of people die, and large areas of of inhabited land go underwater, the rulers of countries across the world are well prepared for this to happen: they have built massive bunkers in the mounters and military plans drawn up for every possible scenario.

The problem is many people view collapse as this sudden, apocalyptic event, rather than a very protracted process of ecological destruction. Technology -- digital networks, computers and cellphones etc. would not be destroyed by this process, but remain as means of continued coordination among surviving humans,. I think certain areas would become ungovernable but the idea that civilization would collapse is wishful thinking.

3

supernice wrote

I am with you on this. Collapse is very gradual and is happening as we speak. I don’t believe it will lead to the end of Capitalism or the State, but I think it will reduce the size and sphere of influence of both. Particularly when it starts happening on a larger scale. State forces will choose to focus on controlling smaller, more desirable stretches of land instead of all of it. There will be many areas outside of their control. Perhaps because they can no longer maintain dominance over larger areas, or perhaps because they simply view them as undesirable. It doesn’t matter really. Large parts of the planet will become nearly uninhabitable.

Example: southwest Asia (Middle East). It is already experiencing desertification at a very extreme pace, war is rampant, and the water is becoming less and less accessible. This is why the Israelis hold the Golan Heights. It has nothing to do with “the promised land”. It’s because it provides 30% of Israels water supply. It is also why during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon they retreated to the Litani river and wouldn’t leave until Hezbollah kicked them out by force. The Litani is a huge resource for the area and feeds much of the area. Besides water shortages, the majority of southwest Asia has been polluted in the extreme by the munitions exploding all over the place for the last century (depleted uranium, chemical and biological agents, etc.), not to mention intentional ecological destruction such as Saddam Hussein attempting to dry out the marshes of southern Iraq, and currently the Turks stopping the flow of water to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. What I’m trying to say is that if the more stable countries are complaining about mass migration now, wait until they see what’s coming in the next 20-30 years! This kind of thing is going to cause the State to shrink and become even more authoritarian and borders will be closed. Every country is going to become Israel, shooting children at its borders indiscriminately.

The State and Capitalism will still be there, they will just control less of the planet and revert back to trying to keep out the “barbarians”. Apologies for the wall of text, try as I might, I’m too long winded for my own good!

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

^^ Some good analysis there, no need to apologize

yeah i think we're totally in agreement, so i think the weakness of primitivism (and maybe some post-civ thought) is the idea civilization will just collapse on it's own. It's like how certain Marxists used to think Capitalism would just collapse under the weight of it's internal contradictions, so you don't need to actively work towards overthrowing capital and building what will replace it. It is basically like christian fundamentalists who don't care about social injustice because the rapture gonna come and fix everything anyway.