Recent comments in /f/anarcho_primitivism

Dumai OP wrote (edited )

But that's the reality.

it literally isn't

Well, the extinctions of hundreds of species every day sounds more like a genocide.

and, taking that point further, so does environmental racism

I don't think that education and proper access to birth control measures are genocidal. In any case, sooner or later the population will reduce because the non-renewaval energy sources will not be able to sustain the current growing population, and I'm not even counting on the effects of global warming on crops.

in that case you might be happy to know global fertility rates are in massive decline and the total population is likely to start shrinking somewhere in the latter half of this century! but it's not the case that this has as much to with "education" (because the "uneducated" just bread like rabbits under all circumstances in a way that is inherently unsustainable in all social systems, right??? not actually right) as evolving regimes of social reproduction, with variable international effects (it is, of course, happening more rapidly in the global north than the south). this actually has its own issues under capitalism! meaning the issue with regards to population growth or decline isn't just a matter of numbers, it's actually inseperable from the contradictions of contemporary capitalist system. i kinda thought everybody should know this but here we are talking about population growth in the abstract as an inherent ecological threat!

and yes... there is indeed the ever-present threat of a looming climate catastrophe, and people will die, populations will decline, this will happen! how about we not offload the responsibility for managing it on the people who will most deeply affected? which is what treating ecological crisis as a matter of an undifferientated global "overpopulation" will do.

I don't see why this matters, but I'm not white.

the reasons are mostly imperialism, whiteness as an engagement in global systems of exploitation, how this is a primary determinant in ecological crisis... you know that kind of thing

3

disfalo wrote

The moment you make an overpopulation argument you empower the genocide lobby (the state) or rich shitlords like Bill Gates who want to 'depopulate Africa' even though it's Western lifestyles that are causing ecocide.

I don't agree on that. I can be against policies that literally give money to parents for every born child, like the cheque bebé in Spain.

2

ziq wrote

I think it's pointless to even mention overpopulation because you have no power to do anything about it, and if people who actually have the power listened to you and took it upon themselves to do something, they'd just sterilize the poor / indigenous the way they always do.

The moment you make an overpopulation argument you empower the genocide lobby (the state) or rich shitlords like Bill Gates who want to 'depopulate Africa' even though it's Western lifestyles that are causing ecocide.

4

disfalo wrote

i'm super uncomfortable with the popular view that a mass decline in population should be a necessary ecological demand

But that's the reality.

but i can't see how you can apply this to the global environment situation without genocidal implications!

Well, the extinctions of hundreds of species every day sounds more like a genocide. I don't think that education and proper access to birth control measures are genocidal. In any case, sooner or later the population will reduce because the non-renewaval energy sources will not be able to sustain the current growing population, and I'm not even counting on the effects of global warming on crops.

if you can't see how that's a bullshit position to hold as a white person living in the global north

I don't see why this matters, but I'm not white.

1

bloodrose wrote

I identify with primitivism, but I do not espouse nor ascribe to a need for population reduction. However, I believe in order to achieve a primitivist reality without population reduction, concerted human effort would be required to create massive, massive food forests. De-desertification would be required. I currently do not have faith that we can get a large enough effort to do so at this point. I can hope either that we will get people to understand the problems with civilization and get future generations to be interested enough to perform such a large task. Or, this is guidance for how we will live after small amounts of us survive the apocalypse (god, please not this one).

2

Silverfish wrote

This is a fairly decent definition. It should be emphasized that primitivism doesn't necessarily mean a rejection of technology, just technology that's aimed towards the goals and mentality of civilization. In current praxis, that often means trying to disconnect from what most people think of as tech.

The entry does a decent job already at making that point. Anarcho-primitivism also isn't merely a reversion to the pre-civilized world since that's both impractical and arguably immoral since technology can do good things with the right ethics applied. Hunter-gatherer life wasn't Utopian, even if we can study it to gain insight.

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

with many pillars and load-bearing facades already nearly defunct

What do you mean - in particular, what kind of arguments do you have for civilisation as a house of cards?

actions. Enough of the right kind and it all blows over.

how much is enough?

Do you think of civilisation as just physical infrastructure? What about the ways in which we are civilised? If we aren't changing that, won't we just rebuild civilisations?

I'm genuinely interested in how you answer all these questions. Right now a lot of what you're saying doesn't have much content, so far as I can tell.

2

incendialhumano OP wrote

FC is not advocating rewilding here. That should be blatantly obvious. Rewilding is the idea that human agency will restore nature to a more pristine state. FC is not suggesting this. Nowhere in the text does he talk about what ziq and others constantly talk about, that is: "the conscious undoing of human domestication and returning to the lifeways of some indigenous human cultures...regenerative land management techniques employed by hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists...Rewilding intends to create permanently wild human cultures beyond domestication." No. He is simply saying destroying enough shit will end human supremacy, restoring agency of wild nature, taking ourselves out of the drivers seat.

And ITS is not fascist. This is a flagrant mischaracterization. Have you read anything about them in detail? Have you ever read any of the writing or statements they release? They have carried out attacks in solidarity with anarchists. There's nothing fascist about it. Again, it's a flagrant mischaracterization of what rhe group philosophy is actually.

−5

ziq wrote (edited )

You associate rewilding with fascism..? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding_%28anarchism%29

Rewilding means to return to a more wild or natural state; it is the process of undoing domestication.[1][2] The term emerged from green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism.[3] The central argument is that the majority of humans have been "civilized" or "domesticated" by agrarianism and sedentary social stratification. Such a process is compared to how dogs have been domesticated from what was a common ancestor with wolves, resulting in a loss in health and vibrancy. Supporters of rewilding argue that through the process of domestication, human wildness has been altered by force.[4]

Rewilding encourages the conscious undoing of human domestication and returning to the lifeways of some indigenous human cultures. Though often associated with primitive skills and learning knowledge of wild plants and animals, it emphasizes regenerative land management techniques employed by hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists, as well as development of the senses and fostering deepening personal relationships with members of other species and the natural world.[5][6] Rewilding intends to create permanently wild human cultures beyond domestication.[3]

And wikipedia's definition of eco-fascism:

Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which a totalitarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the "organic whole of nature" and which would rely on "militarism, expansionism, and possibly racism to defend the land".

Doesn't seem like they're related.

4

incendialhumano wrote

Forget about "turn[ing] wildness on" (and your unappetizing verbiage). Human agency radically corrupts everything. What would benefit the planet is turning civilization off. Four generations or whatever is four generations longer than necessary for your agenda to be co-opted, diverted by people with more ability/agency than all of us combined.

−1

bloodrose wrote

Everything I have been reading in the an-prim space is incredibly short on future plans. Or even explanations of why they are short on future plans. Because of this, I must surmise that their aims are educational/propogandic in nature. There are many myths taught to us about ourselves, our past, and our planet. The An-prim literature seems to be teaching against said myths. I think to educate people that we do not require as much technology as we are using and developing to be happy and healthy. I believe this is good quality praxis. I try to spread what I have learned in this space to those who will listen. I am frequently surprised by how deep the indoctrination goes - people fear leaving their desks for the forest so much.

I am wary of the rewilding movement and those interested in it because it seems full of people who wish to use up resources in some sort of survivalist fantasy.

However, I think in planning for a future eventuality in which humans could live as natural beings free from technology, land projects are a great idea. I personally am trying to get together the funds and resources to turn a few acres into a food forest. I also have a keen interest in re-greening some desert space. But I'm just one person. We need a lot more than just one person doing this work if we are going to be ready to either throw off the yoke of technology or be prepared for a mass population reduction.

In general, I think the an-prim space is missing a long-term goal but perhaps this is due to the anarchist nature of the philosophy. It wouldn't really be very anarchist to force everyone into your ideology, now would it?

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Well presumably you can't just turn wildness on. I suspect it's at the least a multi-generational process that needs to be practiced and learned. Meaning we would have to undertake it on the way to ending civilisation. Everything does have to go, but if we are not unmaking it in ourselves, then it is not going, so far as I can tell.

Please elaborate on what you mean if you disagree.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

If I had to guess, I would assume

  • Practices towards 'rewilding'. Land projects with forest gardens etc, maybe. Both in order to live in the way you think is best but also in order to build the infrastructure required by your ideology.

  • Propaganda projects to get the word out.

  • Industrial Sabotage? Along with that comes a whole host of things, like prisoner support programs.

I'm interested to hear what other people come up with. u/bloodrose?

6

bloodrose OP wrote

There was some tumblr post a while back talking about a "well-known" study of a specific tribe of primates. I, of course, could not find it with a google search so this may be apocryphal. I chose to share just in case someone says "oh yeah, I know it -here's the source, bloodrose". Basically, the gist was for some reason all of the adult male primates were killed or removed from this band of primates and the male children were raised by female primates. The aggressive male behavior seen in primates was not seen in the male children. And when other aggressive males tried to join the group, they were ousted. So, it took one generation of killing off the aggressive males to come up with a kinder group.

2