anti-civ.net forum

Full Version: anti-civ ?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Whats anti-civ ?
Whats this forum about ?
(Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:16:41 +0000, 09:16 PM)|0|__|0| Wrote: [ -> ]Whats anti-civ ?
Whats this forum about ?

Anti civ is a philosophical position within mostly anarchist circles that critiques the total progress and sociology of civilization.  It can take many forms.  A lot of anti civ folks are critical of things like technology and its impacts on the earth and on the human condition others take a more egoist esc approach.  Individual autonomy and decentralization are focused upon and a general understanding of nature and human beings relationship to nature and the creatures on this earth.  This forum basically seeks to encourage discussion between the anti-civ crowd and the anti-civ curious.
Thank you very much Lateralus, that was very clarifying.
Anyone else ?
To me it seems anti civilization, like a group of people that want to go back to pre-civilization times.
I don't find that so attractive since we have came this far now, but obviously something went wrong back there i would say not in the begining of the civilization but on the begining of the state instead.
At least i now see its possible sedentary agricultural societies without a state, which might have not been possible back then.
(Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:16:41 +0000, 09:16 PM)|0|__|0| Wrote: [ -> ]Whats anti-civ ?
Whats this forum about ?

Civilisation is understood—and I think virtually every single anthropologist would agree with me here—as a society made up of four things:
  1. The separation from and domination over nature,
  2. communication through symbolic culture,
  3. urban development (cities),
  4. & social stratification (a ruling elite).
I would say that the basis of this forum was—at least initially—to explore what's wrong with either of those four things, and why it's wrong, and what we can do about it.

However, natural communities aren't designed, they evolve. Seeing as there is very little moderation in here (I've only ever removed spambots), and that I'm very accommodating to changing the structures and limitations of the forum itself, I tend view this forum as being about what the people on the forum choose to talk about.
(Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:01:16 +0000, 03:01 PM)alexander Wrote: [ -> ]Civilisation is understood—and I think virtually every single anthropologist would agree with me here—as a society made up of four things:
  1. The separation from and domination over nature,
  2. communication through symbolic culture,
  3. urban development (cities),
  4. & social stratification (a ruling elite).

The question that arises in my mind looking at this definition of civilisation is, did any human society exist prior to the encroachment of civilisation/class society? Is there any evidence for the primitive communism that Engels and other anthropologists postulate.
Are you asking if humans existed ten thousand years ago or so? If so, then yes, they did.
So you date the advent of civilisation to 10,000 years ago; I date it at 12,000 years ago. A mere quibble.

My question was did a human community exist prior to 10-12,000 years ago or were we merely another species of animal indistinguishable from other species? Did we live in settled communities without social stratification and ruling elites prior to these dates?

I believe we did and that evidence of these pre-historic communities can be found in soil formations around the heartlands of these communities in the Amazon and Congo basins as well as in the evidence contained within cultivated plant forms.
Albert Einstein, The Common Language of Science:

Quote:If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state. Even if only a small part of mankind strives for such goals, their superiority will prove itself in the long run.


Quote:Humans, as in our species Homo sapiens, have sort of always had "societies". But these societies were nomadic for around 190,000 years.

Other humans, as in Homo habilis and others, never had "societies" as far as we can tell. Transmission of culture and language was extremely limited or non-existent.

First humans - 3 million years ago
First human societies (and social hunters) - 1.9 million years ago?
First modern humans - 315,000 years ago
First evidence of sedantary communities - 18,000 years ago
First towns (civilization?) - 13-10,000 years ago
First city (Jericho) and civilization - 9,500 BCE

The "scientific", "civilised", interpretation of the history of our species immediately above is predicated on the existence of conventional archaeological evidence, on stone artifacts in the earliest case. In 100 years time, assuming that the primitive tribes of the Amazon basin have been exterminated or assimilated, no such evidence will remain to prove that these primitive civilisations existed at all, besides modern evidence such as film, photographs and written records. 

Thankfully, our truly civilised ancestors in the Congo, the Amazon and the Pearl river basins and further a field left other traces of their existence which science -- assuming it can break its chains with the contemporary ruling elite -- may one day research. These traces were left in the soil that they displaced and the seeds they cultivated.

Of course, according to an anthropological definition of civilisation these primitive communities can not be counted as civilised at all because they do not have "urban development (cities)" or "social stratification (a ruling elite)."

Subnote: The "scientific" expression, modern humans, is properly speaking pseudo-science and akin to the Nazi eugenics. It is utterly meaningless and, we will ensure, redundant in scientific discourse.
Lol. I am glad to hear you agree that all these sub-categories had the same social and thinking capabilities. You stop short of including we "sapiens", "wise", ones. For my mind it was our predecessors that were the wise ones and that we are the fools to allow ourselves to be assimilated to the extent we have been. Still, as the saying goes, "man a fi play fool before 'im get wise."
Pages: 1 2