“Logic” says nothing about anything. It is a tool. And it seems you have very little, if any, understanding of this particular tool. If you truly believe that you did not commit the fallacy of composition, then you need to explain why. But you do not do this. I wonder why…not!
It seems F4Me’s vegetarian lifestyle has atrophied parts of his thinking processes. Meat and its fat are the fuel that turned us from ape to man. No longer having to expend so much energy digesting huge amounts of raw food, our systems then turned to expending energy on intelligence. We learned how to make tools, and build fire to pre-digest (if you will) and cook our food, which further enhanced this transfer of energy distribution. A couple million years later, here we are. With Internet, smart phones, etc. And yes, cancer, AIDS, etc. But those things aren’t inherent in civilization. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but pretty much all negatives in society stem from government. Farm subsidies → GMOs → ? (no long term studies). Farm subsidies → Corn Syrup → Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. You could probably take all problems in society and trace them back to some kind of government intervention in society. It’s not society itself that is the problem. I do think it is smart though to be able to provide for yourself, come SHTF. With soaring prices, it’d be nice to have your own supply. Though government rationing will be easier to enforce with GPS, satellites, etc than during say the Great Depression or WWII. When our monetary system does collapse though, what exactly do you guys see happening?
Do you watch the vids I post? Maybe then you’d realize where I’m coming from.
“Logic” says nothing about anything. It is a tool. And it seems you have very little, if any, understanding of this particular tool. If you truly believe that you did not commit the fallacy of composition, then you need to explain why. But you do not do this. I wonder why…not!
And using logic is what lead me to my conclusions. I don’t believe “the whole” can’t be reduced to its parts. People behave violently, therefore civ is inherently violent.
If people behave violently (thus being inherently violent, with the further implication that human existence in any form, civ or otherwise, is inherently violent), you are then suggesting to replace an ‘evil’ system with an equally ‘evil’ system?
The only differences in the systems you suggest is that one has more starvation than the other, which I think we can assume will lead to more violence, which by my understanding of your definition is evil, and so the system you want to replace it with will be more evil. (More violence=more evil)
Clearly you aren’t using logic because that is the fallacy of composition, unless you are saying that each and every person behaves violently. But that would be false and easily disproven. So, you are not using logic.
If people behave violently (thus being inherently violent, with the further implication that human existence in any form, civ or otherwise, is inherently violent), you are then suggesting to replace an ‘evil’ system with an equally ‘evil’ system?
The only differences in the systems you suggest is that one has more starvation than the other, which I think we can assume will lead to more violence, which by my understanding of your definition is evil, and so the system you want to replace it with will be more evil. (More violence=more evil)
Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other.
You can’t adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain.
"Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other.
You can’t adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain."
So humans don’t actually behave violently? They are just made violent by civ?
Which part of ag is it that makes them violent. Planting, harvesting or eating?
I don’t see any way to come to this conclusion logically.
So humans don’t actually behave violently? They are just made violent by civ?
Which part of ag is it that makes them violent. Planting, harvesting or eating?I don’t see any way to come to this conclusion logically.
Ag and civ are the roots of violence in civilized man. Land can only be farmed so much before it stops. So, civs need to take over more land to keep feeding their population. Now all the farmland has been farmed out to the point where farmers are relying on fossil fuels to keep it fertile. But now fossil fuels are running out. So you know a collapse is coming.
My primitive survival skill set is coming along nicely. Now all I need to do is homestead a few acres of forest in NH to live/rewild and gather in.
@F4M: The problem isn’t “violence” - the problem is the State. Lew Rockwell has a podcast today with Joel Salatin talking about this issue from a sensible and serious perspective. I think you’d enjoy it.
Clayton -
@F4M: The problem isn’t “violence” - the problem is the State. Lew Rockwell has a podcast today with Joel Salatin talking about this issue from a sensible and serious perspective. I think you’d enjoy it.
The state oringinated BECAUSE of civilization and agriculture. The only way I could see a 100% non-violent society lasting is if it rejected civ and moved to a post-civ way of living.
Did you listen to the podcast?
No but I saw him at Liberty Forum. I don’t buy it. Civ is a cage and ag are the bars.
So the violence comes from when you must expand your territory.
But in the same way as you can only farm land for so long, apparently, foraging and hunting can only work for so long before that stops, since it all grows from the same soil. And then you must expand into the hunting/foraging grounds of others through violence, which again would logically make such a social organization as evil as civ. Even more, since foraging and hunting is far more scarce than resources gained from ag, then obviously violence and expansion must come more quickly and more often, which would make such a social organization ‘more’ evil than civ.
Excel, I think the rebuttal to your argument would be something like this: “You are wrong! If everyone became a hunter-gatherer, then there would be mass starvation. So there would actually not be any violence when expanding to other areas because people would already be dead!”
Because that’s the world we all want to live in.
Hunting and gathering (I don’t hunt I only gather) accumulates food in rhythm with nature. H/Gs never have scarcity because they don’t gather more then they need for food.
Well, folks, it looks like F4M has just solved economics. There’s just simply no such thing as scarcity in a hunter-gatherer society.