Anti-Civilization

Transhumanists such as myself are disgusted and dismayed by the anarcho-primitivists. The problem is not civilization, the problem is not progress, the problem is not economic growth. the problem is that we have become so technologically powerful that we have become a force of nature and thus we need to learn to use that power wisely, using it as a force for creation instead of destruction.

It is true that initially technology led to centralization and class stratification. But, as time went one it started going in the opposite direction. Technology, especially communications technology in recent years (the Internet, blogs especially), has led in the opposite direction, towards less centralization and hierarchy.

It is true that technology got us into the environmental mess we are in, but it will take even more technology to get us and the biosphere out of this mess. We need to creat an infrastructure of power plants, rail, airplane, ship, and automobiles that is almost totally free of fossil fuels via the use of nuclear energy, renewables, and electric vehicles. We need to use biotechnology in order to reduce the need for oil-based fertilizers. I have read of ideas to build gigantic floating "islands" to grow crops on. We could mine asteroids for their metals. There are currently experiments working on growing meat in the lab, such experiments may make raising livestock unnecessary.

Soon it will be time for the Children of Gaia to set sail on the cosmic ocean and go on our way to the stars.

Originally posted by gcle2003 ...  Possibly not. However, who gets to pick the 5.9 billion people who have to die?   I guess a good start would be to kill off everyone under 35 or possibly 40. That would help especially because it would lead naturally to a reduction in fertility, and also make humanity less able to dominate other species. More and more species are becoming extinct or being driven close to the edge. The world becomes more and more polluted, and people become more and more dislocated from the world, more isolated in the hell-holes known as cities, dependent on the system for survival.

Originally posted by pekau Originally posted by Adalwolf ... Your right about the planet not being able to sustain us without agriculture. There isn't enough food for 6 billion people without it, but is how we are living now sustainable? Is it in the best interests of the planet to keep going as we are now? More and more species are becoming extinct or being driven close to the edge. The world becomes more and more polluted, and people become more and more dislocated from the world, more isolated in the hell-holes known as cities, dependent on the system for survival.   As a human being, I have to stress out the importance of survival. Civilization helped human beings to maintain and increase chance of survival on Earth. Everything else becomes considered afterwards.   Civilization is not harmful to Mother Earth. Civilization is merely a system that human beings use to ensure our survival and increase the effectiveness of economy and enrich our society. What harms the Mother Nature is that this benefit permits population explosion because it is efficient. We can have civilization with controlled population and secure our chance of survival and keep the environment healthy. But that doesn't occur because people are greedy. We want more and more. Government encourage population boom to have more labors and tax income. People encourage baby boom to stay majority in certain area. Colonization, war and unreasonable hunting for money are few reasons why people seem to be the threat to environment.

Originally posted by pinguin There is a more simply argument in favor of civilization these days. Without mechanization, chemistry and modern medicine, this planet couldn't stand the 6 billion people it has right now. If civilization stops. If all the trains, trucks and ships that transport food from the farms to the cities stop suddenly, and if mechanization in the farms stops, the world simply wouldn't have enough food to feed its people. Mass starvation would follow.   With the hunter gathering methods, the planet could hardly support more than one hundred million of human beings, more or less. There are 60 times more on the planet already.

Your right about the planet not being able to sustain us without agriculture. There isn't enough food for 6 billion people without it, but is how we are living now sustainable? Is it in the best interests of the planet to keep going as we are now?

More and more species are becoming extinct or being driven close to the edge. The world becomes more and more polluted, and people become more and more dislocated from the world, more isolated in the hell-holes known as cities, dependent on the system for survival.

I am a bit shocked really to learn that people could be anti-civilizational in all seriousness and want us all to revert to a life to hunter gatherers. Although i can write a whole book on the absurdity of such a notion i will just request the anti-civlizational people to just use their common sense and look around themselves. See the vast disparity between in the quality of life of nations high up on the civilizational ladder and those not so high even in the most basic aspects of human life (such as average age or child mortality). The civilizational centres throughout history like mesopotamia and egypt have been the envy of hunter gatherers rather than the other way round. I may seems like an intolerant fool criticizing some one for not sharing my point but if these people actually take what they say seriously (like Pol Pot did) then it is indeed something that which i should react to strongly.

I am a bit shocked really to learn that people could be anti-civilizational in all seriousness and want us all to revert to a life to hunter gatherers. Although i can write a whole book on the absurdity of such a notion i will just request the anti-civlizational people to just use their common sense and look around themselves. See the vast disparity between in the quality of life of nations high up on the civilizational ladder and those not so high even in the most basic aspects of human life (such as average age or child mortality). The civilizational centres throughout history like mesopotamia and egypt have been the envy of hunter gatherers rather than the other way round. I may seems like an intolerant fool criticizing some one for not sharing my point but if these people actually take what they say seriously (like Pol Pot did) then it is indeed something that which i should react to strongly.

First off let me apologise for the late reply, it is as late as it is partially due to exams but I would be lying if I said my own lazyness was not a contributing factor.

Originally posted by Adalwolf By dubius circumstances I mean people were forced. Natural disasters allowed leaders to concentrate more power in the name of security and survival. These leaders came to control the food supply and thus have power to control people, instead of advising them.

Do you have any evidence of a giant conspiracy taking advantage of Natural disasters to start civilisation? can you provide any evidence of this? Futheremore the earliest civilisations were typicaly based around individual farmers or families that controlled thier own farming land and often supported themselves, the difference bieng they would often have a surplus which they would exchange for items of value or services. If your refering to things like state granaries like in Ancient Egypt then yes the government had much control on food distribution and that saved lives in bad times.

Originally posted by Adalwolf True, we are slaves to the need to eat and drink, but that is all we should be slaves to, money, governments, everything else are unnecessary and harmful to individuals, and the environment, as the greed for more leads to decisions being made on what generates the most money.

Hunter gatherer societies have governments what do you think those Tribal elders or Chieftens are part of? Human biengs will always want more, whether its the most wives and best parts of the kill made by the tribe to eat, or a penthouse on the most desirable spot on a beach. We shouldn't be slaves to technological and occupational restrictions placed on us so that we maintain the "purity" of a hunter gatherer society either.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Other species do wipe out others, that is the way of the world. They do so, however, because they out-compete them. Humans, on the other hand are wiping out countless species through habitat destruction, perceived threat, and pollution. There is a huge difference.

Habitat destruction to the benefit of our species, as for Percieved threats well threats and competition should be eliminated to increase our species prosperity, as for pollution well thats the waste products left over as a result of increasing prosperity and numbers. Species do what they do to survive prosper and multiply without a thought given to others or even the long term impact of thier prosperity. The things you accuse humans of doing are to humanity's at least short term benefit or a by-product of that increase in numbers or prosperity. Thier is no difference between what you have mentioned and what animals do to each other, the reason we are doing more damage is largely because we are better at it then any other species.

Originally posted by Adalwolf The 'chiefs' in many societies did not become over-arching figures. In most they were considered wise, and people followed what the chief thought if they agreed with it, and if not, the ignored it or left the group. (amazon tribes, native americans, aborigines, to name a few)

Depends largely on what hunter gatherer society you belonged to in regards to the power of Chiefs. Furtheremore people could just leave the state or village in agricultural societies, those people often starved to death. Leaving the tribe would often have a similar result.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Agriculture led to leisure time for a few, the elite. Today, we enjoy much leisure time, but we also have to work 8+ hours a day to actually enjoy it. Also, hunter-gatherers were content, and the surviving groups are among the happiest people in the world, with no need for change. (why change when what you have works, and everyone is happy?) Hunter-gatherers used their leisure time relaxing with their tribe/band/group or whatever you want to call it. They spent their time increases bonds between the group. Their wealth was in relationships, not things.

If all hunter gatherers were content why do you think civilisation began? Hunter gatherers typicaly survived in areas not suitable for early agriculture such as Australia and much of (not all of) Sub-Saharan Africa.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Cull the population? No. It is going to fall, hard. The earth is way past carrying capacity, and our agricultural practices cannot last. The energy required is enourmous, they are using too much water. My state of Kansas has some of the best soil in the world, but much of it is being lost every year, and water drawn from aquafers is being used faster than it is replaced. It cannot last. Plus, much of the worlds arable land will be lost within 50 years do to climate change. You may not believe it is happening, but it is, whether human caused or accelerated. Once this giant mistake called civilization collapses, the population will be at a sustainable level.

You make a lot of claims, could you provide evidence for any of them? Where did you here that much of the worlds arable land will be lost within fifty years? what is meant by much? Furtheremore IF our agricultural practices can not last they will likely change, further technological progress and advancement in techniques, organisation and infrastructure will likely increase yields to compensate for declining soil. do you think technology and practices in ancient Sumeria were advanced enough to make my country's (Australia) land productive?

Originally posted by Adalwolf About hunter-gatherers killing of large game. I believe you are referring to the Pleistocene overkill theory. It is just that, a theory, and one that has fallen out of favor. Here is a quote from Eugene S. Hunn, President of the Society of Ethnobiology on the subject:     "Pleistocene Overkill. This beast, like Dracula, will not die, despite a broad consensus of archaeologists knowledgeable with respect to the evidence, or lack of evidence, to support the hypotheses, that it is a just-so story with no empirical support. The apparent coincidence of the arrival of the first proficient hunters on the New World scene and the demise of some 35 general of charismatic megafauna is not sufficient grounds to convict Clovis Man of their atrocity. The temporal priority of Clovis is now widely dismissed, on the strength of finds in southern Chile that date to teh late Pleistocene at least 14,000+ BP. Furthermore, the association of Paleo-Indian kill sites with the extinct megafauna is scant. More telling, in my opinion, are the theoretical and empirical reasons to reject the clever computer simulation devised to show how it could have happened.     Martin's 1972 simulation reported in Science is not the only such attempt at a virtual reenactment of the crime nor the most sophisticated, but is clear from the simulation that i requires assumptions about human behavior thar are improbable. For example, Martin's model assumed that: 1) the Paleo-Indian population would double every 20 years; 2) ...a relatively innocent prey was suddenly exposed to a new and thoroughly superior predater, a hunter who preferred killing and persisted in killing animals as long as they were available...;3) Not until the prey populations were extinct would the hunters be forced, by necessity, to learn more botany;4) on the front one person in four destroy one animal unit (450 kilograms) per week, or 26 percent of the biomass of an average section in 1 year in any one region. Extinction woudl occur within a decade...Are these reasonable assumptions?     Demographic studies of Kalahari San hunters demonstrate that average birth interval for this group of nomadic hunters is four years, which with expected child mortality results in stable or very gradual ly increasing populations over millennia. Population growth is limited not by the availability of food but by the difficulty of carrying infants.     Hunters who prefer killing and persist in killing until the last animal is gone exist only in the tortured imaginations of misanthropic scholars. While it is questionable to what extent Native American hunters harvested their prey in accord with contemporary principles of maximum sustained yield, the ethnographic evidence affirms that subsistence hunting is an activeity demanding not bloodlust but sophisticated knowledge of animal behavior and local landscape, subtle logic to decipher signs, great patience, and typically an attidtude of humility and reverance toward the prey animal as an animate being and moral person. Martin would have us believe that it could be adaptive for every adult male in a community to kill one 450kg animal unit per week, which comes to 16kg per person per day, or perhaps half that dressed meat, which comes to some 30,000 calories per person per day, 15 times daily requirements. If even 1- percent were consumed, and nothing else, the Paleo-Indians would ahve been too fat to have waddled to Tierra del Fuego in the time allowed. So we are to believe instead they wasted over 90 percent of this meat. This requires that we assume that it is extraordinarily easy to dispatch a 450kg animal unit, so much so that one disdains to preserve the meat.     Such profligacy is perhaps characteristic of economies of scale associated with recent industrial production, but bears no resemblance to the practical realities of a hunter-gatherer way of life. Rather, we should expect the economies associated with the domestic mode of production to operate in subsistence hunting-gathering communities. One works only as hard as is needed to feed one's family and contribute in addition to the reproduction of one's community. Furthermore, the ethnographic evidence is overwhelming that hunter-gatherer communities are based on a division of labor between men and women, and that in all but the arctic and sub-arctic extremes, women contribute very substantially to the diet by collection edible plant foods. Learning botany is not a measure of last resort for the starving hunter, as Martin would have it, but in every case is an integral element of a hunting-gathering subsistence strategy.     Finally, just how stupid were the American Pleistocene megafauna that they would fail to recognize a new superpredator and learn to avoid him before it was too late? Continental megafauna evolved in the presence of fierce predators, such as saber-toothed cats and short-faced bears, and thus are hardly to be compared with the naive predator-innocent animals of isolated islands such as the Galapagos.     Thus, not only is the there no credible archaeological evidence to support the Pleistocene Overkill scenario--at least as a major factor in the extinction of more than a few of the species lost, but also it flies in the face of all that anthropologists have learned about teh actual practice of hunting-gathering by contemporary and historic hunting-gathering societies. " So, as you can see the Pleistocene Overkill theory has been debunked and discredited. Hunter-gatherers were careful of their environments, and moved as to not overuse their land base, thus their is food security because the land-base is taken care of!

believe it or not I had no particular theory in mind when I made my claim, but admittedly thats probably because I do not know of that many theories. I would advise you not to underestimate the early human hunter he was still far more dangerous then a sabertooth, he utilised technology (only primitive by comparison with later humans, vastly superior to any object used as a tool by any other animal) and used group tactics and cunning more developed then that of any other predater, whats more he learnt fast....very fast. as a species the Sabertooth tigers are inferior predaters to humans as are all the remaining big cats. Humans can take on prey far larger then them with relative ease, the best defense is speed and providing little reward in terms of meat for the effort. the size of the megafauna would be a disadvantage making them easier to catch and providing more meat. Hunter gatherers as effective as early humans are bound to wipe out many species whether directly or indirectly (Tasmanian tigers originally lived on mainland Australia but are believed to have been wiped out by the Dingo an animal introduced by Aborigenes). However you seem to overestimate hunter gatherers as if they all have degrees in biology and understand the delicate balance, they moved because food ran out because they killed or/and gathered too much and so went on to a new area to return when the area had recovered somewhat. admittedly this shows some knowledge but is a similar concept to the rotation of crops in agricultural societies.

Regards, Praetor.

without civilization we could be like this:

http://www.geico.com/video/airport_l.htm

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Civilization will always be destined to happen so long as there is enough people to congregate to areas. We are a tribal species, we look to one another. What makes us different from other tribal species is we are far more intelligent and always better ourselves through technology and knowledge. If you don't want civilization, then you have to lobotomize the world, because even if current civilizations fall, others will just arise again so long as we remain intelligent.   You have to remember, humans like simple.  And farming, the base of civlization allowed community and was much easier then being hunter gathers, which was a very stressful life when our species was at that stage. We barely lived beyond 30 in those days. I'll take civlization, because without it, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I think he is questioning more why civilization arises and whether its an abnormality for the original state of man. But since man is still part of nature no matter what, then civilization itself is a natural progression, even if it enslaves nature for its builder's needs.

Today we have the maturity and knowledge to lead our civilization in a different way from that of the recent past. We are just a couple of generations away from the stars and total annihilation. It will be interesting to watch which way it goes.

Originally posted by Adalwolf    Hunter-Gathering peoples lived long and healthy lives, the only negative being high infant mortality rates.