Being anti-civ doesn’t mean your communist/socialist. In fact I plan on leaving civ after I’ve homesteaded some property up north. Property rights happen w/o civ and will probably remain when civ collapses.
Would you rather get your food from here:
Or here:
???
From the first.
So you would rather eat GMO full of chemical pesticides and fluoridated water?
Interesting thread. I will throw something in too:
Division of labour empowers humans to create great works at the risk of people becoming too specialised. People working on the same project or working in the same organisation often do not understand each other. In many cases nobody oversees the complete picture. This undermines the effectiveness of the organisation as a whole. Many organisations rely on advisors and specialists, such as lawyers, IT specialists and market analysts, while managers often do not understand the work they do and the advice they give. Humans have a limit to what they are capable of managing but common sense does not always prevail, especially when complex solutions are chosen where simple solutions suffice.
The biblical story of the Tower of Babel warns us for the division of labour gone too far. After becoming specialised, people are very dependent on each other, while they do not understand each other any more. In this way a society disintegrates and therefore the story of the Tower of Babel is reflecting the situation we live in today. After the collapse of the city civilisation, the people became scattered from there over the surrounding countryside (Gen. 11:8). An important theme in The Bible is Eden versus Babylon or rural living versus city life. The story on the Tower of Babel is part of this theme.
The building of the Tower of Babel may also reflect the effect of usury and credit in the financial system. Usury is the principle cause of the division of labour and the concentration of people in cities. Credit amplifies the booms and busts spurred by usury. Most sky scrapers have been built in the years just before financial crises. Historically, skyscraper construction has been characterised by bursts of sporadic, but intense activity that coincide with easy credit, rising land prices and excessive optimism.
You need to read Richard Manning’s Against the Grain to understand how ag has ruined mankind forever. He makes the point that agriculture destroys the earth and makes us dependent on it for survival, which creates a collectivist society and leads to the formation of states.
Food production grows faster than population growth, and is doing so with fewer and fewer resources. What’s more, population growth declines with economic growth.
Which means that, as time goes on, we’ll have more food for fewer people, and using less land/water/energy/etc. to produce the food.
It seems the trends do not support the idea of “overpopulation → not enough food → collapse”
Further, even if you were right about this, what gain would I have from voluntarily going out and living “life” (I use that term rather loosely) in this gathering way? I’d rather party on down with the rest of the ignoramous civilization-lovers, and then join you when everything collapses. It only takes about a week of camping to learn all the skills required.
Also, life would be much easier after the collapse. After all, I’ll have thousands of other people living in the same conditions, and I could trade them my spear-heads for other things that I want and… oh no, there’s that pesky civilization again.
It seems the trends do not support the idea of “overpopulation → not enough food → collapse”
OK I’ll give u that. But that still doesnt counter my fact that agriculture is not sustainable and is inherently aggressive. The Law of Life I’ve talked so much about is basically the NAP: you may compete to the fullest extent of your capabilities, but you may not destroy your competitors, destroy their food or deny them access to food. Thats just the NAP taken to its logical conclusions. I wouldn’t be anti-civ if I wasn’t pro-NAP.
Further, even if you were right about this, what gain would I have from voluntarily going out and living “life” (I use that term rather loosely) in this gathering way? I’d rather party on down with the rest of the ignoramous civilization-lovers, and then join you when everything collapses. It only takes about a week of camping to learn all the skills required.
There’s TONS of advantages to living off-the-grid, esp. in the least violent state of New Hampshire. First, it drains the state. Your self-sufficient so ur not dependent on the state for anything. Second, it prepares you for a SHTF moment. Third, it’s healthier. H/Gs were way healthier and happier and LESS VIOLENT then agricultural/civilized man.
Here is an example of the evils of civilization:
http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-monsantos-monopoly/
You still haven’t even come close to demonstrating that ag is unsustainable or leads to violence, or even argued for it convincinvly.
When it comes to " deny them access to food.", this rather obviously breaks with the property rights and homesteading principles you espoused earlier. Homesteading land, thus claiming it as your property, is by definition an attempt to deny others access to food.
Also, I’d rather get my food from the grocery store.
| OK I’ll give u that. But that still doesnt counter my fact that agriculture is not sustainable and is inherently aggressive. The Law of Life I’ve talked so much about is basically the NAP: you may compete to the fullest extent of your capabilities, but you may not destroy your competitors, destroy their food or deny them access to food. Thats just the NAP taken to its logical conclusions. I wouldn’t be anti-civ if I wasn’t pro-NAP. |
|---|
(I don’t know how to quote individual parts of a post, yet, so I just stuck it in a table)
Here’s the problem with LoL and your extension of the NAP: They do not apply to human nature. So it’s moot. It’s just as problematic with every other political system which tries adjust human instincts, morals, principles. For the very same, fundamental, reasons that socialism will never work, your system will never work.
Humans are naturally aggressive creatures. From the times of cavemen, humans have been responsible for wiping out entire species of creatures (scientists believe that humans are major contributors behind the extinction of many prehistoric creatrues - giant beaver, giant sloth, mammoth, to name a few). Even Native Americans would burn down forests to clear land, and slaughter animals to the point of extinction.
Also, I disagree with your hypothesis that agriculture is unsustainable. Sure, certain ways about doing it may be unsustainable, as with everything in the modern world. But the underlying concept of agriculture is exceptionally sound, and will be with us until the end of humanity. Even if civilization was to collapse, agriculture would be back within… well, moments.
LOL, I come back for one sec to ask a quick question about Jevons Paradox, and what do I come across? The primacy of the old forums has returned (thank the maker), and a thread about the evil of civilization. Too perfect! I just finished “Endgame” by Derrick Jensen, which is all about this!!!
So, anyways, is anyone here familiar with the paradox?
As it relates to this thread, does this imply that voluntary trade is an inadequate method of indefinite resource aquisition? In other words, will the only way to aquire coal once the voluntary sources dry up be force?
Here is a video by Jensen relating to the books:
God, haven’t even gotten off the first page yet, and the ancap-bots are going nuts!
Why the population is still growing: overshoot
The “hypocrisy” of learning survival skills from the internet/using the internet for propoganda:
If aboriginal populations hadn’t been exterminated, I wouldn’t have to resort to the cruddy replacement of the 'net. A village elder would’ve have been much more preferable.
Also, I’d like to point out that the state was directly responsible for the creation of the internet, the AR-15, and the Colt 1911. Bet there’s a lot more “hypocrites” out there on the forums now, huh?
I throwing my hat in the ring with Freedom4Me on this one.
Good luck, maybe you can form a tribe together. Or wait, that’s too evil for F4M.
Good luck, maybe you can form a tribe together. Or wait, that’s too evil for F4M.
I don’t need a tribe to survive and no one else does either if they know enough to be 100% self-sufficient.
Ag and dependence on ag will undoubtedly lead to civ’s demise. It already is.
Well, maybe you can trade with him for some stuff you don’t need, then.
I’m not gonna watch the video, but the guy does have a beard, I’ll accept that much.
Working on the tribe bit. I would argue that “rugged individuals” don’t get very far in the long run. Of course, I’d also advocate networks of voluntary mutual support (oh wait, that’s just a tribe), but that’s probably a bit too “red” for this forum!
Before it gets buried here, any thoughts on Jevon’s Paradox?
Ryan Faulk gives his own version of civ collapse.
Jevon’s paradox: increased efficiency increases demand. For this reason energy conservation will not help because any increased energy efficiency of a product will increase demand for the product, thus offsetting the effect of the increased energy efficiency
Economic theory is therefore defective because it ignores human nature and the finiteness of the Earth’s resources. All economic activity uses energy and natural resources. More economic growth equals to more poverty as natural resources are assets.