Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Majrelende OP wrote

Did you actually read what I wrote? I'm not wishing sickness on people. There is much more nuance here than "sickness is good because it makes people sick which is bad for civilisation".

If I'm allowed to want lasting freedom, there are two general ways of attempting it: the revolutionary way, and the (literal) evolutionary way. Revolution means trying to force a set of circumstances, but it has failed every single time, because authority is simply too strong. The circumstances for the last ten thousand years have been perfect for the expansion and proliferation of authority, and so any revolution would be transitory. This is what the Leninists always wave in our faces when we talk about anarchism, and I think they have good reason. It is also what many nihilists believe, who prefer to try to live anarchy in the present as opposed to trying to work towards a revolution that will probably never happen.

Then there is the evolutionary approach, which is about gleaning hope from outside ourselves, observing trends in the world, and... the much-hated... patience. But what have we aside from patience?

This is what I see in the world. Increasingly erratic weather patterns, mass pandemics. From the start, Leviathan has been founded on at least two things: legible production, meaning grain monoculture, and concentration of populations into cities.

Monoculture is inefficient on its own, for reasons I won't give, but it can easily be appropriated (thus taxed or commodified) because of its single, large-scale harvest (these days mechanised) and predictable harvests. Wild and permacultural systems can provide food, and of better quality and reliability, but they look chaotic and wild, and harvests occur throughout the entire year. Leviathan can't appropriate that, and so it can't base cities (centers of violent or commercial power) around them.

Most importantly is the concentration of people so that the hierarchical systems of society can be used to control them violently. This is basic anticiv, though; I don't feel like explaining. Concentrations are perfect environments for the proliferation of disease: food deprived of their nutrients, plus contact with a great number of people who are also in contact with a great number of other people. If (i.e. when) the disease pressure gets too high, it will be more advantageous for people to run to the unfamiliarity hills than to stay within the populated valleys.

This danger of disease may change the world, making it unsafe to congregate into social arrangements larger than (say) a small town, which is also the biggest a place can be where there can still be a semblance of egalitarian decision-making.

Anyway, hopefully most of humanity will survive collapse. I think we can, but only if we leave civilised social structures behind for good.