In the meantime, H/G society peaked more than 10.000 years ago.
I’m really not sure what you don’t understand about the fact that people do not watch these videos and will not respond to them. Articulate your points using your own words. I would like to be able to tell you that by doing so everyone will take you more seriously, but we’re far beyond that point.
Ag lead to:
- Poor human health
- Overpopulation (women had more babies)
- The state
- Wars of conquest
- The mess the world is in now
The only way to have a 100% non-aggressive world is to get rid of ag and revert to hunting and gathering (preferably gathering.) The root of statism and cultures of aggression is ag
-Elaborate please. I don’t see how having an abundance of food, which prevents starvation, scurvy, weak immune response, etc. . ., can be considered a terrible thing for health; this is particularly true when you consider the advancements that medicine has been allowed to make as a result of civilization. I need you to take me through each step in your reasoning while explaining this connection. Act like you’re explaining it to a child and be precise as possible. Take special care to refute the points I’ve made.
-Wrong, advancements in medicine allowed more people to live into older ages. If anything, advanced, industrial civilization leads people to have fewer children. This also isn’t such a frightening prosepect when you consider the fact that world population will peak at around 9 billion and then begin to decline.
-Agriculture also lead to all the people I know today as well as all the entertainment I enjoy as well. Far more good than bad. As several people have pointed out, it has also lead to the computer that you’re using right now. We can work towards a stateless future without destroying all the good that has happened to develop in spite of the state.
-Some people are inherently violent, I don’t know why you think that’s going to go away. I also don’t know why you believe that people living a couple of days away from starvation won’t fight.
-As compared to when? When has the world ever been completely tranquil?
You’re changing your position and allowing hunting now? How does this fit into your 100% non-aggresive world (which will never exist)?
You’re doing the video thing again. . . Articulate, articulate, articulate.
In the meantime, H/G society peaked more than 10.000 years ago.
100% wrong. Most H/Gs only became ag societies after societies w/ ag (states) conquered them and forced them out of their sustainable lifestyles. There are millions of H/Gs today who are happy and healthy all while people trapped in civ suffer massive aggression.
When I tell people I’m an anarcho-capitalist and they ask me about the roads I ask them why do we NEED roads in the first place? In a society where everyone is self-sufficient we don’t need to be traveling long distances to get what we need. We’d provide everything we need right here. Thats why civ has lead to statism: dependence on ag for food makes us unable to be self-sufficient. I also blame government education but I mainly blame the growth of cities for this.
So in your ideal world there are billions of people just living out in the wild hunting and gathering all day?
That’s what I’ve been trying to get at: Is division of labor allowed in F4M’s gatherer society?
How does self-sufficiency equate to ending the DoL?
I think what he’s saying, at least partially, is that the state actually causes people and families to spread further and further apart. Look at the national highway system as an example.
Only a few millions? (First off, of those millions of H/Gs you mention, the vast majority are pastoralists, in that they travel with their flocks of animals from one ‘pasture’ to the next. Sure sounds like animal husbandry to me. When it comes to subsistence foraging and hunting you’re pretty much left with the arctic and deep jungles, which is at most a few thousand people.) There are BILLIONS of AGs today who are happy, healthy and living above subsistence while the people trapped in the bushes are suffering constant tribal warfare or killing anyone who moves onto their land, while dealing with subsistence living. And somehow, CIV has peaked but HG hasn’t?
If you’re truly going to claim that H/G is superior because of the numbers, then you’ve conceded the argument to the superior numbers of AG.
If you’re going to claim that CIV is peaking because a ‘mere’ 99% of human beings practice it, then you’ve conceded the argument since a mere <0.1% of human beings practice subsistence H/G.
You mean except for one of the H/G tribal lifestyle most defining features is the total lack of a DoL aside from specific gender roles? (Ie, everyone hunts and everyone forages.)
No. F4M is against the concept of a family, since it implies tribe → which implies civ → which is evil.
Game over for H/G.
Game over for H/G.
Wrong.
Wrong.
How can anyone enjoy living inside civ over living freely out of civ?
You guys seriously broke the Internet with this thread.
There are BILLIONS of AGs today who are happy, healthy and living above subsistence while the people trapped in the bushes are suffering constant tribal warfare or killing anyone who moves onto their land, while dealing with subsistence living. And somehow, CIV has peaked but HG hasn’t?
K first of all your forgetting that ag is NOT sustainable. Agriculture destroys the soil after years and years. This means ag societies need to keep expanding their territory to find fresh soil to keep growing food. Soon enough all the soil will no longer be able grow our food, so we’ll HAVE to default to an H/G way of living.
Your using ONE H/G group and applying it to every H/G. Fail.
Civ will peak. It’s crashing now b/c of tragedy of the commons, state monopolization and a ton of other factors.
