Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why am i not anti-civ, yet ??
#1
Even though mostly everything in anti-civ sounds very nice, and solid, there is still one main reason why i can't be anti-civ,
and that is Evolution.
There is much to talk about evolution but basically once we manage into a primitivist existence, are we just permanently
perpetuate that ? History in all aspects even time space shows everything evolves or dies along the way, but without going
of topic, mankind will always be evolving, biologically speaking for example, our species developed the brain while others some other caracteristic, having said that our natural predisposition like any living entitity is to self preservate itself, and having larger brains we can always have some advantage over other animals, therefore in a primitivist society we would sooner or later overpopulate as well.
On the other hand i believe we need to reboot civilization therefore we need to go back to a primitivist society in the first
place.
We can then build a better society in the ruins of the current civilization, without cities.
Perhaps if i ever really have to chose a label ill call myself a rebootist.
Of course i might be missing something which would make me go totally anti-civ, please enlighten me.
Reply
#2
(Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:13:29 +0000, 09:13 PM)|0|__|0| Wrote: Even though mostly everything in anti-civ sounds very nice, and solid, there is still one main reason why i can't be anti-civ,
and that is Evolution.
There is much to talk about evolution but basically once we manage into a primitivist existence, are we just permanently
perpetuate that ? History in all aspects even time space shows everything evolves or dies along the way, but without going
of topic, mankind will always be evolving, biologically speaking for example, our species developed the brain while others some other caracteristic, having said that our natural predisposition like any living entitity is to self preservate itself, and having larger brains we can always have some advantage over other animals, therefore in a primitivist society we would sooner or later overpopulate as well.
On the other hand i believe we need to reboot civilization therefore we need to go back to a primitivist society in the first
place.
We can then build a better society in the ruins of the current civilization, without cities.
Perhaps if i ever really have to chose a label ill call myself a rebootist.
Of course i might be missing something which would make me go totally anti-civ, please enlighten me.

I think we need to first define civilization better. The current meanings used within anti-civ discourse are not particularly satisfying to me.
Reply
#3
(Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:55:37 +0000, 09:55 PM)Odin Wrote: I think we need to first define civilization better. The current meanings used within anti-civ discourse are not particularly satisfying to me.

Well, from what i have now understood, anything since agriculture basically, agriculture including, that's where it seems the line is drawn.
Reply
#4
(Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:57:16 +0000, 07:57 PM)|0|__|0| Wrote:
(Wed, 11 Apr 2018 21:55:37 +0000, 09:55 PM)Odin Wrote: I think we need to first define civilization better. The current meanings used within anti-civ discourse are not particularly satisfying to me.

Well, from what i have now understood, anything since agriculture basically, agriculture including, that's where it seems the line is drawn.

I know, that's the current meaning. But we need to ask, why is agriculture the starting point of civilization? And what do we mean by agriculture exactly?
Reply
#5
Agriculture is suppose to be the start because that's when you first start to store food surplus, being the magic word here "surplus" which equates to profit, from there came division of labor, all sorts of inequality and a all roller coaster of events afterward until the creation of cities and later industrial revolution.
I can understand how this unfolding of events since agriculture is less then ideal and leviathan but i cannot foresee a place post-collapse where we just be H+G for ever, because of evolution at all levels from intellectual to biological.
Also because current civilization as become so corrupted and destructive there is no other solution other then go back to a pre-agricultural phase and go from there without forgetting the errors from the past, a second chance if you will.
I also believe strongly that cities are an absolute no-no.
Reply
#6
Well i think civilization was doomed from very early, but now defenently it wont last much longer, the ecosystem is irreversible damaged and technology is just completely out of control.
I think im only anti-civ up to the point we actually reach it, or rather i am anti this civilizations and all the others before.
I want us to redesign the model of civilization, away from cities, and technology is always a very dangerous path but i believe it can be achieved.
Reply
#7
"Evolution", in the manner in which you address it, is dangerous. People talk about "technology" in the same way. Evolution and technology are both activities for us. And just like blindly walking into the street is dangerous, blind evolution is dangerous too. Physics without metaphysics means we are resigned to fatalism—JZ would probably call it "surrenderism".
Reply
#8
(Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:59:21 +0000, 11:59 AM)alexander Wrote: "Evolution", in the manner in which you address it, is dangerous. People talk about "technology" in the same way. Evolution and technology are both activities for us. And just like blindly walking into the street is dangerous, blind evolution is dangerous too. Physics without metaphysics means we are resigned to fatalism—JZ would probably call it "surrenderism".

I might have mixed ideas here.
I am primarily concerned with natural evolution, lets forget about technology for a moment, the biological kind and even social.
This kind of evolution will make us grow in numbers inevitably, i would think, you can argue nature and its wrath, still we are pretty resilient creatures, we were already growing by the numbers pre-civ.
Reply
#9
Biological and social evolution is action not data. By this, and the above, I meant that we can—and need to—be conscious and conscientious. Right now we are meaninglessly and aimlessly reproducing technology. That is our role as a species. But that role was chosen by us. It's not something that just happened. And we're not powerless to stop it. All we have to do is, in fact, to just stop.

What do we do next? I don't know. But unless it is conscious and conscientious, it will just be another disaster.
Reply
#10
Well, i most definitely agree this entire social system must be dismantled, and we need to redesign everything again, maybe by social system i mean civilization, maybe i am anti-civ without knowing.
There are a few points where i reached a "conclusion", for example we need to stay away from cities and technology will have to be minimal, relations need to be egalitarian, and im not scared of villages with subsistence horticulture, or agriculture? im not sure on this one, but i don't eat animal corpses so i would like some kind of reliable source of food.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)