Anarcho-primitivism

[yon yonson]

has anyone else read about this. it's pretty neat in my opinion. not sure i agree with total anarchy, but they have some really cool ideas. basically they're saying that we should abolish all of civilization and revert back to a hunter-gatherer way of life. they are extremely anti-technology and anti-agriculture. they feel that the agricultural revolution created all the social ills of today (ie. gender issues, government, etc). i havent seen any mention of a raw-paleo diet, but they definitely promote the paleo diet. anyways, thought some of you might be interested. you can wiki it to learn more. also, here's a website for an anarcho-primitivist magazine:

http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=home

[TylerDurden]

I love anarcho-primitivism! Working in a city I suppose is a little hypocritical. If I were true to my ideals, I guess I would go out to the countryside and live in a log cabin in the woods(I've been in caves, and they're just too damned cold for me).

[Nicola]

(I've been in caves, and they're just too damned cold for me).

What about eating raw meat when you are damned cold?

[TylerDurden]

What about eating raw meat when you are damned cold?

You have to bear in mind that our ancestors were used to lower temperatures, so eating raw meats would have been fine for them. The only reason why I can't live outside is that I've been living for decades in heated housing etc. and am used to that. If I'd lived all my life in a hut made of sticks, open to the air, I'd have been fine.

[goodsamaritan]

I just read Quantovolutions - Solar Binaria, it seems in their theory, paleo times coincided with the golden age... the age of the garden of eden... abundant fruit and animals... no need for clothes... warm times... just right... then Saturn went nova and the great flood worldwide drowned most of humanity... suddenly temperatures dropped.

Paleo times had warm and cold times in the conventional theory.

[TylerDurden]

I'm afraid I'm a hard-science kind of guy. I used to amuse myself with far-out ideas such as those of Immanuel Velikovsky,  but never in a serious way.

[Raw Kyle]

I'm all about anarchy but don't you think since people are always making stuff, technology and what not, that it's a natural part of being human? Sometimes I think primitivists take the idea of bad technology too far to the point of denying human nature, kind of like "femi-nazis" who call all intercourse rape or atheists who somehow believe without a doubt there is no God even though they have as much evidence as God worshippers do, none.

[TylerDurden]

Anarcho-primitivists do generally allow sticks and stones re technology, but I think most, if not all, would frown on fire, as such, just use the sticks and stones for hunting.

But there would be so many advantages if we cast out technology, such as wild, untouched areas free of concrete, we would no longer be able to support billions of people in an overcrowded world etc.

[Raw Kyle]

Why only sticks and stones? It doesn't make sense, if you're born into a world without sticks and stones you might come up with the ideas of using sticks and stones. Born into that world, maybe traps and better sticks and stones or even bows and arrows or a tipped spear. Born into that world...etc. Just as it's natural to "invent" sticks and stones for hunting, it's natural to "invent" all other technology when born into a world with the previous technology already in existence.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble is that all those technologies you mention such as bows and  arrows and traps/nets were only invented  very late in the Palaeolithic era, c.60,000 years ago. Before that,  at the start of the Palaeolithic era(2.5 million years ago)all they had were flints and sticks, and it took millions of years before other technologies were adopted. Sticks and stones are considered natural as wild animals also use them.

[Raw Kyle]

How is that a problem? It is human nature to improve upon existing technologies, this is self-evident in history.

[TylerDurden]

How is that a problem? It is human nature to improve upon existing technologies, this is self-evident in history.

Well, that's not necessarily true. One can easily argue that technology isn't a natural part of human nature, which is why we become more and more unnatural and less "human"  as we delve further into the field of technology. There is a reverse aspect of anarcho-primitivism where people aim for a technological "Singularity" where technology speeds up so fast that humans quickly become no longer human but something else, entirely. You should read Bruce Sterling's SF novel/collection "Schismatrix Plus" which describes this transformation in fiction form:-

http://www.amazon.com/Schismatrix-Plus-Complete-Shapers-Mechanists-Universe/dp/0441003702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231587909&sr=1-1

[Raw Kyle]

How is something that occurred in nature not natural? Humans came from nature and built technology. Anything something does is part of it's nature, it's a simple reflexive law. Whether it's "good" or not is a whole different concept which I think is being confused with it's nature here.

[TylerDurden]

How is something that occurred in nature not natural? Humans came from nature and built technology. Anything something does is part of it's nature, it's a simple reflexive law. Whether it's "good" or not is a whole different concept which I think is being confused with it's nature here.

Not really. The common definition of what is natural is something that is found in Nature, so anything not found in Nature, such as cooking, deliberate fires(accidental wildfires started by lightning  being natural) is unnatural. So, for example, sand is natural, but when it's transformed into concrete, along with other materials, it's no longer natural.

Also, I don't think that what someone does is part of his nature, necessarily. I mean there are people who practise incest, bestiality etc. but that still doesn't make it natural, either for them, or for the species as a whole.

[Raw Kyle]

What is your definition of nature? I believe you're calling nature "the wild" when in reality nature is the entire universe. If chimps starting cooking "in nature" as you would call it, would that be "unnatural?" Anything that happens in the universe is natural. Wild is the term that denotes the undomesticated, non-human part of nature that you're referring to. Nature is all that is, humans came from nature, they had to, everything did. You cannot remove yourself from nature anymore than you can remove yourself from it's laws such as gravity, chemical interaction laws, etc. Nature being used to refer to the wild is one of my pet peeves and the reason why we have isles of junk food labeled "all natural" in supermarkets.

I mean, you say chemical x is not natural, but where did it come from? Mined from the earth maybe, which is nature, mined by a vehicle that itself was mined from the earth and built with tools from the earth or sea or grown like trees for wood. And the lab it's synthesized in is all built from things taken from the wild, nature as you call it, and transformed by other things taken from the wild.

And I would say those who practice beastiality, it IS their nature. How can you NOT follow your nature? That's like not being yourself, no matter what you are, you are yourself. Anything you do IS by reflexive definition your nature, just like whatever you write is your literature and whatever you say is your speech.

[van]

 Ok, time to jump in.  The expression,  'can't see the forest through the trees',  I think applies here well.  Looking to counter Tyler through the mind will only verify it's belief.  And as long as you think about it you're perpetuating planting trees.  A place to begin then might be would be to inquire as to how natural the mind truly is, or to go even deeper, are there different facets or observations of the mind that are more natural or harmonious than others.  You mention you can only be yourself, but is that true, is that really our limitation as it reflects to what we can or have experienced with our minds?  I hate to sound like I know what I am talking about, but the mind in full speed ahead with little awareness of itself has little to do with being one's true self or nature or harmony or whatever we might call it.  And can create and do many things completely unnatural.
  But then,  watch how quick it is to ask 'then can ANYTHING it does or creates be defined as natural then'.  And the answer once again,  has a lot to do with the forest and the trees expression,  and or letting something else besides the mind immediately define what is to be true.   
  It is very rare to watch two philosophizers in debate actually go silent, quiet, for any length of time.

[Raw Kyle]

My stance is that nature is an absolute term, something cannot be more natural or less natural, everything is equally within nature. It's like when people talk about multiple universes, what would you call the thing that encloses them? Obviously that is the universe, the one thing that contains them all. Nature is like that, it's term like universe that refers to all phenomenon, matter, energy etc. in existence. The only thing that could exist outside of nature would be something that doesn't exist at all. Or perhaps an incorrect law, such as saying that light travels at 35 mph. That law is unnatural because light in fact does not, in our universe, travel at that speed. I could probably come up with a better example than that but I'm just popping in for a quick reply.

[William]

What about eating raw meat when you are damned cold?

I live in a (poorly insulated) log cabin in the woods. Last night it was -31°C.
This is part of what I do about it:
http://www.stanfields.com/addtocart.asp?ID=164&height=450&width=650&modal=true
Pemmican also keeps me warm.

The Eskimos did it better.

[Nicola]

I live in a (poorly insulated) log cabin in the woods. Last night it was -31°C.
This is part of what I do about it:
http://www.stanfields.com/addtocart.asp?ID=164&height=450&width=650&modal=true
Pemmican also keeps me warm.

The Eskimos did it better.

Hi William

Could you tell us what your diet is (as you are living out in the nature) and if you have any digestive problems or if all works well for you... I think many members on this forum sort of scare me! Our body is not just a bin that holds any old raw food (eating lots of eggs, fruit, dairy...) and I am sick of this so called "detox" if the body just can not cope with that kind of treatment (and then blaming it on "it was from grain fed animals and not grass fed")!

[TylerDurden]

What is your definition of nature? I believe you're calling nature "the wild" when in reality nature is the entire universe. If chimps starting cooking "in nature" as you would call it, would that be "unnatural?" Anything that happens in the universe is natural. Wild is the term that denotes the undomesticated, non-human part of nature that you're referring to. Nature is all that is, humans came from nature, they had to, everything did. You cannot remove yourself from nature anymore than you can remove yourself from it's laws such as gravity, chemical interaction laws, etc. Nature being used to refer to the wild is one of my pet peeves and the reason why we have isles of junk food labeled "all natural" in supermarkets.

I mean, you say chemical x is not natural, but where did it come from? Mined from the earth maybe, which is nature, mined by a vehicle that itself was mined from the earth and built with tools from the earth or sea or grown like trees for wood. And the lab it's synthesized in is all built from things taken from the wild, nature as you call it, and transformed by other things taken from the wild.

And I would say those who practice beastiality, it IS their nature. How can you NOT follow your nature? That's like not being yourself, no matter what you are, you are yourself. Anything you do IS by reflexive definition your nature, just like whatever you write is your literature and whatever you say is your speech.

The argument that "natural" implies everything in reality is not valid. "natural", according to the usual dictionary definition, is "Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned". So, since cooking isn't part of Nature, if chimpanzees started cooking, they would be doing something unnatural.Similairly, sand is natural but concrete, made partially from sand, isn't. So, given this usual definition, technology can never be natural as it induces artificial changes.

[Raw Kyle]

I see you picked one of the dozen or so definitions if you look up natural as the one you're sticking to. I decided to use the only one that makes any sense, which is the physical definition; as in physics and the natural laws of the universe. The first definition on thefreedictionary.com is 1.  Present in or produced by nature - and there is no argument that can show that anything was not produced in nature. Anything regarded as not nature is really from nature just like everything else.

[TheWayCreatesTheWarrior]

has anyone else read about this. it's pretty neat in my opinion. not sure i agree with total anarchy, but they have some really cool ideas. basically they're saying that we should abolish all of civilization and revert back to a hunter-gatherer way of life. they are extremely anti-technology and anti-agriculture. they feel that the agricultural revolution created all the social ills of today (ie. gender issues, government, etc). i havent seen any mention of a raw-paleo diet, but they definitely promote the paleo diet. anyways, thought some of you might be interested. you can wiki it to learn more. also, here's a website for an anarcho-primitivist magazine:

http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=home

i used to be really into Anarcho-Primitivism, i have the Books, the Zines and even some shirts. but unfortunately now that i know the trajectory or humanity i would say Anarchy is the worst action, seeing "they" want it so bad that its the #1 subliminal they use.
This is why one of Obamas first agendas is to start a Mandatory "Community Service"(Civil Disobedience) for 18to25 year olds to police the riots. what riots? ask Obama why they are gearing up for riots across the country.

[TylerDurden]

I see you picked one of the dozen or so definitions if you look up natural as the one you're sticking to. I decided to use the only one that makes any sense, which is the physical definition; as in physics and the natural laws of the universe. The first definition on thefreedictionary.com is 1.  Present in or produced by nature - and there is no argument that can show that anything was not produced in nature. Anything regarded as not nature is really from nature just like everything else.

Well, we're arguing from unshakeable definitions. The fact is, however, that that definition of "natural" which I used is the most common one. As for the physical definition, then you're clearly talking about a totally different concept, altogether. Something along the likes of "everything exists, so everything is justified". Clearly based on a false premise, as there are multiple conflicting moral views which determine what's right/wrong to eat or whatever(even animals have moral views of some sort).

As regards the freedictionary's term, that makes sense as well. After all, if we produce something that is not found in Nature, then it is unnatural. But, again, there's little point in going on about this as we're using the same word to talk about entirely different concepts.

[Raw Kyle]

I'm trying to say though that you cannot produce something not found in nature. Where did anything you have come from? Trace it back as far as you can and everything comes from "nature." It seems strange to me to label something that came from nature, changed by other things from nature, as unnatural.