Anti-Civilization
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21332
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 01:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Anti-Civilization
Posted By: Adalwolf
Subject: Anti-Civilization
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 18:14
|
A few months ago I was introduced to anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism is basically a critique on civilization. For some reason I was drawn to this philosophy, something inside me clicked, so to speak. I began to research the beliefs more deeply, and the reasoning behind this distrust, and even hatred for civilization. While I am by no means and expert on this subject, I would like to introduce for discussion, its validity, your responses, etc. I also would like to hear all of your views on civilization itself. To start off, I would like to use some quotes that demonstrate my newfound beliefs on civilization: Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home. Jared Diamond Industrial technology is by nature exploitative and destructive of the materials that are necessary to maintain it. Richard T. LaPiere A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements for war. Herbert V. Prochnow Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization. Derrick Jensen As you can tell, I have become very critical of civilization, and for could reason. Civilization is based upon slavery. Now, before you point out that slavery, actual owning of other people, has been abolished in civilized nations for over 100 years, we must look closer at society. People are slaves to money and to those in power for everything necessary for survival. People have to pay to even exist on planet Earth, for water, for food, for everything that comes freely in nature. People pay for these because they are told it is natural and right, by governments, bosses, by society itself. Why do those in control tell people this? to improve their own economic standing; to become wealthy. This wealth comes at the expense of the environment, of the plants and animals, and of other people around the world. People are dependent on food imported (ie: stolen) from around the world, for clothing, for water from those in power, as local food has been exterminated, water has been polluted. Civilization is not sustainable. It is based on fossil fuels, which unreplinishable. Fossil fuels also pollute, and are destroying the environment around the world, from melting the ice caps to acid rain. Dams are built which kill rivers, and everything in them. Civilization give people the impression that they are not part of the natural, that people are somehow above the rest of life on earth, which is absurd. What gives people the right to kill of entire species? What gives people the right to kill the earth for monetary gain? Nothing. It is shameful and should be stopped, the sooner the better, before more harm is done. Civilization has made great medical advances, true, but civilization caused many of the illnesses it treats by the horribly absurd amounts of pollution it has, and continues to produce. Hunter-Gathering peoples lived long and healthy lives, the only negative being high infant mortality rates. However, hunter-gather societies did not destroy the planet, as civilization. Now, many civilized feel that hunter gatherers had hard lives, and modern life is much preferable. However, if you measure some standards, such as the number automobiles, yes; if you measure others, such as leisure time, sustainability, social equality, and food securitymeaning no one goes hungryhunter-gatherers win hands down (Jensen, Endgame Volume I pg 52). So, if you value things and wealth above equality, sustainability, environmental health, then yes, civilization is better. (If you do value things and wealth above life, then there is no help for you) One reason why hunter-gatherers had food security and sustainability is because a) the limited their population so they would not outstrip what their land-base could sustain and b) they did not over hunt, over-gather (lol, is that a word?) so their land base wouldnt be harmed. Civilization does not respect life. It uses life to gain wealth and power into the hands of a few elites, be the kings, dictators, or politicians. Civilization does not respect the natural world. It uses, abuses, and destroys it. Anyone who values life should oppose civilization. A year ago I wouldnt be writing this. A year ago I was enamored with civilization, or rather the perceived benifets of civilization: wealth and things. My eyes are open now, and hopefully all of yours will open to. *This isnt worded, phrased as eloquently as I would like it to, but I want to share this with you all as soon as possible* Info on anarcho-primitivism and where I got lots of my info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/index.htm - http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/index.htm (this has lots of great articles and essays) Endgame Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen Endgame Volume 2: Resistance by Derrick Jensen The movie Surplus: terrorized into being consumers (it is in 10 parts, the link is the first part, and you can find the others through this link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AEiwOM4fAY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AEiwOM4fAY The movie dead society: http://deadsociety.org/view.html - http://deadsociety.org/view.html Also from lectures, discussions, arguments, my personal observations. edit: I want to add one more source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 18:38
|
The critical analysis of society is pretty correct. Then again this analysis isn't unique to Anarcho-Primitivist and wasn't invented by them either.
then again criticising society is a very easy thing to do, providing alternatives not so.
It's when Anarcho-Primitivists starts talking about a solution there analysis becomes uniquely their own and also starts to get terribly wrong. Almost everthing they say about hunter-gatheres isn't true. Hunter gathers overhunted and regularly died out as a result. Largely by making animal populations extinct. They also destroyed the environment turning forests into desert with slash and burn techniques.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 18:57
Ah... the effects of capitalism, screw that go communism! 
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 19:04
As far as I know, hunter-gathers only overhunted the Pleistocine megafauna, learned their mistake, so to speak, and managed to do well until civilization came, killed or enslaved the, and proceeded to destroy the planet. For example the Australian aboriginies. They maintained a stable population without destroying their environment for over 50,000 years. Also the Native Americans, after the megafauna went extinct, maintained a stable balance with their environment. Native Americans were not the ones to almost exterminate wolves, bears, and bison. That was 'civilized man'. If i recall correctly, slash and burn techniques are unique to growing crops. I remember when studying people living in the amazon that while are mainly hunter gatherers, some tribes use(used) some agriculture and slashed and burned small parts of the forest and only returned once their old patch was completely regrown. That is sustainable, as their population was low, and did not destroy more of the forest than grew back. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 19:30
|
You're right slash and burn is crop growing. I was talking about the Australian Rainforest, which is now a desert. The aboriginals burns it down to create flat plains that are easy to hunt on. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 20:17
| Well civilisation is based on stability through the owning of property hence one is enslaved. On a philosophical level I believe in anarchism-primitavism but I'd say I'm a philosophical anarchist- I don't think I'd always stick to anarchist-primatavist principles (I am after all a product of my society and no matter how enlightened I try to become I still have all that stuff wired away) and I dont think the majority of people could keep it up at all. |
Posted By: Eusebius
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 22:11
|
I think someone should define what is meant by "civilization" in this thread. Aborigines and Native Americans were used as examples of non-civilizations... why? I would have considered them civilizations. They maintained small communities -- i.e., cities, which in the Latin is civis... hence civilization. I believe their civilization was "primitive" in comparison with Western Europe, but it was still civilization.
Any thoughts? ------------- "The historians, therefore, are the most useful people and the best teachers, so that one can never honor, praise, and thank them enough." -- Martin Luther |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 06:27
|
Great thread Adalwolf! I like the underlying idea but much of the philosophy above I believe has been corrupted by inaccuracies and ignorance. Allow me to pick at things a bit first.
Which particular Rainforests do you have in mind? I have never before heard of this, and given that most Australian natives do not suffer terribly from fire, sometimes even needing it to survive, I think it would be very hard to destroy an Australian forest with fire alone. Pretty well all the land that has been deliberately cleared was done since settlement. Because the white man never saw forest as productive as wheat fields and sheep paddocks
Generalisation makes this loose the little meaning it had.
This is false, and even if it were true, who cares what Iron thinks? (ie, how can you exploit iron?)
Uncivilised nations are far better prepared for war.
True, although not for the reasons he thinks. Civilisation cannot be sustainable due to the nature of man, not our consumption.
If you consider leisure time to be spending 16 hours everyday hunting for food, then that statement is still wrong. Hunter-Gatherers - by definition - do not have food security. 'Civilisation' is a word that is loosely defined and far too liberally used. I've been using civilisation akin to 'powerful empires' ie, the civilised world, in its literal meaning most of the above statements are meaningless. Actually come to think about it, thinking that the opposite of the civilised world are hunter gatherers in very 19th century, and thinking that living in cities is not sustainable is just wrong. It appears that our scholars have put too little thought into it. Personally, I am not a fan of the 'civilised world', basically because I figure that the barbarians are more like me. I am not a fan of big cities, having not grown up in one, prefer grass to pavers, and always like knowing where I can go to be assured that no other human would go there. Basically civilisation is up itself and owes everything to the uncivilised farmers and frontier men who provide its food and soliders. That generalisation is true for most empires in at least in one point of its existance. (besides, we all know Civilization was invented by Sid Meir) ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 08:20
Aborigines never built cities. In our history course we were taught that "civilisation" encompassed societies which had a number of characteristics. This included substantial trade, sedentary settlements including buildings and agriculture. Some communities prior to modern times did not include these features as part of their way of life. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 20:28
|
Omar: How can you think civilization is unsustainable? Civilization is based on expansion. Industrial civilization is based on oil. There is only so much oil, and many scientists believe we have reached the peak production of oil. Everything is based on oil: transportation, electricity (well, lots of coal too), and especially agriculture. Once oil is gone this oil based civilization will crash. About liesure time: Each day hunter-gatherer communities would search for food, the entire community. The women would gather fruit, nuts, roots, etc, which provided most of the calories for the community. The men would hunt and provide the protein. Everything would be shared among the community. Through communal effort people would have more leisure time. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:25
Yes, the example of Native Americas is not clear. The Aztecs and the Incas were states in place with large cities (larger than the Europeans) and the Spaniards knew they were a civilized people. Different is the situation of the nomadic peoples of the Amazonian jungles for instance.
Now, you should realize that Aztecs themselves downplayed and look like barbarians the natives of nomadic lifestyle BEFORE Europeans arrived!
So, the matter of civilization is just a comparison of lifestyles between the citizen (the fellow of the city), the countrymen and the nomadic hunter. Civilization is just the point of view of the citizen.
Come on, even today people of the cities look down on farmers all over the world. Don't they?
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:25
Civilisation isn't based on expansion at all, I would say it was based on trade & agriculture personally. Take the example of the Ming, who were a great civilisation, but not expansionistic, or the Mongols, who were expansionistic, but not a civilisation* As for industrial civilisation, that is only a modern incarnation and shouldn't be used to apply to all civilisation. Saying industrial civilisation is based on oil is only really true for the last 60 years. Before that it was based on coal. Actually industrial civilisation isn't based on either of those in reality. Its based upon the steam turbine. Oil and coal (and nuclear fission) are just methods to heat water. I don't understand how agriculture is based on oil. Civilisation has proven to be unsustainable (Empires always fall), but not because of resource usage, which is only a modern problem.
The whole community works because the whole community has to work to keep everyone alive and fed. Its not a matter of more leisure time. The development of agriculture was what led to people having more leisure time, giving some of them the ability not to work all day getting food, and do other things such as experiment with funny rocks  *Initially anyway ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:35
|
Agriculture is based on oil because of the methods used to sustain it. A few hundred years ago agriculture was based on horses and plows, well, and oxen too. Today it based on machines that run on oil. It is based on fertilizer that is made by using oil. It is based on pesticides, which are made using energy from oil. Modern farming practices require more energy than the result gives back. It also gives more food, allowing for more people. It is also based on cheap energy (ie: cheap oil). Once oil becomes scarce and runs out, what is going to happen? With no oil to provide fertilizer, pesticides, and run combines, less food will be able to grown, as older methods will have to be used. Also, there will be no way to transport the food, as modern transportation is also based on oil. Millions, if not billions will starve, or die in wars over remain resources. That is why agriculture is based on oil, and why it is not sustainable. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:55
I recall that Sahara desert was once a forest as well. Is it because of slash and burn practices from African aboriginals? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 23:02
Haha, no. It is a desert because of climate change. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 23:23
|
In that case I'd say agriculture is based on water, not oil. Agriculture can did and does exist without the intervention of oil. Modern Farming practices have picked up many oil based products to improve production, but it doesn't replace the general principle. Lets take your example of oil running out. Fertilisers & pesticides having to change is not really a problem, there are plenty of non-oil based fertilisers available. Maybe there will be a decrease in gross production but it won't be significant. Transportation is easily solved, rail transportation doesn't need to run diesel engines. Steam or preferably electric locomotives can be run without the intervention of any oil. It is easy to engineer around a lack of oil, provided people want you to. Unless there is a sudden shock to the system the agriculture network will not be affected by running out of oil. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 23:32
|
Without oil providing the energy that goes into modern agriculture not enough food will be grown to support 6 billion+ people. Even if there are alternatives to oil, there is no will to switch. There will be no will until it is too late. Those in power make decisions based on monetary gain, so don't expect help form the top until it is too late. Edit: Also many countries are dependent on food imports, and you can't build a railroad across oceans. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 00:45
That decrese in gross production would be significant. Using steam power will be less efficient, and much of the electric power source comes from burning oil, I think. Farmers need oil-based power to farm huge areas. This is the reason why so many people moved to city in Industrial Revolution. More manpower will be needed to deal with the farming business, to transport goods to the markets. Supply is low, but demand is as high as ever. That "insignificant" decrease may mean death of millions. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 02:05
Well the 'will' is what I meant by 'the nature of man'. Regardless of how it manifests itself the 'lack of will' will always destroy a civlisation, but it won't prevent another one from taking its place.
No but you can build ships that don't burn oil. Most of the US Navy for example.
What on earth do you need electricity for on a farm? Besides, in your country Pekau electricity comes from nuclear run turbines, and in mine it is from coal run turbines.
The only oil based power you need on a big farm is transportation. Its little farms that use the most oil products.
Loosing oil doesn't mean going backwards in time. We can build transportation systems without the use of oil. We can make fertilisers without the use of oil (usually better ones). If oil magically disappeared tomorrow, yes, alot of people in the first world and in big cities will have problems getting food, but that does not mean that agriculture or civilisation are based upon oil. Oil is only a factor in civilisation right now. When it goes it might bring the current group of western civilisations with it, but it won't affect other civlisations, or the emergence of new ones. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 20:01
Hi there, Although I agree with you on the majority of the points that you make about the evils of civilization, especially in these seemingly end stages it has developed, I must draw some observations from this discussion. First I don't really suggest you should get so much into this Anarcho-primitivism ideology that thinks once they demolish civilization (again maybe desirable) all problems are solved because people will feel closer to nature, the spirit will be unshackled from the chains of modernity etc... Personally I used to visit some of these websites and it seems that the people who parrot this ideology are exactly that - idealists. They seem to recognize only our immediate problems but negate others we might bring as a result of solving this one. Some of it may also be from a misunderstanding of competitive human nature among other things. Also they look at the problems of civilization but they don't realize the problems of incivility such as severe environmental pressures that forced those people to always look for food, the lack of technology and scientific understanding we have today which still has much potential if we were to use it, or the many other inventions that lead us to discuss them here. The point is that there are pros and cons for each respective stage of human society but today we have the resources to mold the future in a completely different way, if that is, we will be able to. Civilization, however an anomaly it may seem, required great effort, cooperation and empathic capability between its builders in order to be build and sustained. Maybe it is not so wise to just completely discard it now that we have gotten so far but we should definitely try to revise it with the tools of today. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 03:48
| The irony is that the civilizations emerged (evolved, developed) gradually, and in a metaphor over time, they once were hunters/gatherers societies. So unless there's some Satanic conspiracy which showed these "innocent" societies the evil apple of civilization, such views seem to miss that civilization (with all its good and bad sides) is a natural evolution of what they preach. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 12:49
|
I do not agree that civilization is a logical step after hunter-gatherer societies. Civilization arose in only a few isolated places, under dubious circumstances and spread like a cancer across the globe devouring all life in its path. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 08:19
And don't forget Adalwolf Civilisation is also linked to Al Qaeda  Furtheremore what do you mean by dubius circumstances?
Food, water etc do not come freely in nature, the hunter
gatherers had to work to get them (well in regards to water it depends
where they came from). People are indeed slaves to money and others are
slaves to the limitations imposed on them by a closed mind,by the
limitations imposed on them by theier envronment and the lack of
oppurtunity to truly achieve rather then just try and survive day by
day. The hunter gatherers in many regions decided they wanted more and
no longer wanted to be slaves to these things. PS. people have always
been slaves to something like money, its called materialism but I do
agree that this is a far more serius problem with modern western
societies then in Hunter Gatherer ones typicaly.
You know about the Fossil fuels I have always been in favour of
Nuclear power myeself. secondly the whole man made global warming idea
is imho greatly exagerated at the least. Finaly I agree unless the
species is causing too much harm to humanity and cannot be controlled
we should not kill off other species. However you are disgusted with us
for doing this whilist insisting we are no better then animals yet
animals are not held accountable in your post for the ruthless ways in
which many species wipe out other species. So are the animals just as
evil as us but generally more incompetant or are humans held to a
higher moral standard then all other organisms? (which may suggest that
we are indeed "above" the rest of the life on earth).
As some people have already said a lot of that is sheer nonsense,
social equality? in Nomad societies there is often a chieften with
great powers who is far from elected, "state" religion and certainly
little equality or forced roles between men and women. Please note that
hunter gatherer societies can differ from each other and not all of
these apply to all such societies. Leisure time? the development of agriculture led to greater amounts
of leisure time at least initially as no longer did pretty much every
member of said society old enough to physicaly do it have to spend the
great majority of thier time looking for and/or gathering food and
moving about. Greater productivity per man led to the option of
occupying oneself with a trade and live in one place permenantly. If
the hunter gatherers had more time to spare then thier agricultural
counterparts they would have also developed other industries. On a
final note what exactly would they do with thier liesure time? not that
many options compared to today.
Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 10:55
I think that is the case for people living in isolated areas where food and raw materials are not plentiful, and hence... they are still busy trying to survive. People can't emerge or advance to more complex culture (Civilization) unless they secure their food, clothing and shelter needs.
As such, I wouldn't really call these hunter-gatherers innocent. I mean, some may believe seriously about living with nature with harmony... but even these societies have some kind of class difference. They may fight over a food or marriage issues, and they may lie occaisionally for their own advantages. Civilization don't necessary make people evil. Evil is our nature that should be overcome by the wisdom and knowledge from elders, or by faith. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 13:04
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. 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. 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. 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) 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. 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. 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! ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 13:08
Pekau, it seems you that you assume that civilization is natural. It is not. It arose in a few areas, such as the Middle East, China, India, and Egypt, and spread. Of course hunter-gatherers were not perfect, they were people. They had conflicts and setbacks, but their methods of survival were sustainable! ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 14:23
|
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. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Crystall
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 16:46
Where did you get this from? Hunter gatherers had a much lower lifespan, more comparable to third world african nations today.
Your telling me the average hunter gatherer could live 80+ years like many do in industrialized nations?
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 18:13
In ideal natural condition, this is rare. Discoveries of drugs and advance medicine as well as increased social security are the reasons for increase of longivity. If so, civilization increase people's life span... in a short term at worst. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 18:27
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. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 14:03
I don't think it enslaves us, we like simplicity as a species and we obviously enjoy the comforts it offers. Humans also continuely strive to further it, and the idea of civilization, or the word civilized seems to go hand in hand with humanity and is seen as something needed, and above all else.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 14:40
|
without civilization we could be like this:
http://www.geico.com/video/airport_l.htm - http://www.geico.com/video/airport_l.htm ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 23:47
Really? How could you be so sure? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 07:53
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:02
|
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 11:21
| 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. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 12:55
| 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. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 12:57
| 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 17:17
|
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.
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 14:25
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. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 18:35
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.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 21:47
I agree with Adalwolf in this point and I dissagree with Pekau. Civilization is harmful to Mother Earth, even more, human beings are harmful to Mother Earth... It is well known that the first human beings that entered to Australia and the Americas caused the extinction of lot of species. Every time polinesians conquered a new island a massive extinction followed. Europeans did the same.
The problem is not that I guess. Our planet is doom to have less and less variety of natural species so we are converting our house in a quite poor place... However, there is a bigger problem which is if we are going to survive in the LONG TERM...
With the population explosion in Africa, the development of Asia (and the polution that follows) and the global increase of standard of living, besides the endless destruction of the environment worldwide, there is a chance we alter our planet so much that we are wiped out of earth surface, literarily.
We have a hole in the ozone layer already. It hasn't closed and we got it right on top of us, down under.
Global warming is going on, and there is no reason to believe it will stop anytime soon. Do you imagine the chaos of immigration of hundred of million people changing the continent they live because everything is destroyed already?
Actually, I don't believe things will going to get easier in the future at all.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 08:29
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. [/QUOTE] ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 14:42
Jesus! You are calling for a new hollocaust in global scale! I know that you are kidding though...
In my opinion a good measure is to work hard in stopping the population explosion in Africa, and put more strenght in places like India and the Middle East. That has to be done quickly, otherwise we could end up easily with 12 billion people instead of 6.
For the rest of the countries, it is quite obvious the population boom already passed and that population decline in the horizon. However, those developing countries that have contain population growth are usually in better economical shape... which mean people will start to consume at the scale of Americans quite soon and polution will skyrocket!
There is not an easy way out of this mess. It will take centuries to constrain population growth and encourage population decline, and also to clean the large environmental mess that is just starting now. There is a chance that people survive that but there is no certainty. What is clear is that the world of the long term future will be quite different than today's, with people having few children, lot of senior citizens and the continuos menace of extinction because lack of reproduction. Besides, our "natural" environment won't be more than poor and chear artificial parks.
A good point is that cheap labour won't exist anymore, and employees will have to pay what people deserves.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2008 at 19:05
civilization is based on people living in cities with populations dense enough to require the importation of food stuffs and other nessesities. the aborigini and native americans lived in communities that were small enough to be sustained by the land that they lived on. so no, they wernt civilized.... which is a good thing |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 17:05
|
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. ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 01:57
The problem is that "progress" is not created by will but economics. If something don't produce money is not manufactured.
Our planet is in a mess because we use "the cheapest technology possible". That's why we keep burning oil for transportation and hydrogen is not used widespread. We preffer to build cheap nuclear power plants rather than adventure with solar power sattelites.
Even more, the Children of Gaia are stuck at the ground. With such a junky technology like today's space shuttle we won't get to the stars, Mars and not even the Moon! Fourty years have passed since the last Moon landing and we are still waiting for the next trip. Fourty years ago rich people could fly at supersonic speed in a Concords, but that's not possible anymore!
Of what progress you are talking about? i-pods?
I am afraid the problems of today won't be solved by just injected a little more tech. There is a change of mentality going on and ecology is our only chance to survive.... while the scientists figure it out new techs. You know, they have been studying nuclear fusion and atomic rocket during 60 years... perhaps in 600 years more they'll find the solution and we will escape to the stars. Hopefully is not too late.
------------- |