Fascinating article: I'm eager to read the doomer rebuttal.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.p ... 2715260752

He once again argues technology as the savior.

I certainly don't want to go back to a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle. At the same time, I realize that this existence is easily made better by a few things. First and foremost is the killing off of about 4 billion people, as they are living on borrowed time anyways. If I'm one of them, meh that's how the cards lay eh?

The conensus among people who study the earth's ecosystems and carrying capacity is that about 2 billion would be sustainable indefinately living at a European standard of living.

Here's the argument that I see as provocative: the mass death of several billion (by your argument, say 4 billion, 0mar) is a catastrophe unprecedented in all human existence. To not work to prevent it is unconscionable.

This is the conundrum we face. Our current way of life is unsustainable. We do not have a solution to the resource pressures we will face in the near future. It would be easier to solve this problem if fewer people lived on Earth. However, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you live with the humanity you have.

I believe that we must seek a solution (technological, bureaucratic, whatever) to resource depletion even if we think we will probably fail. To not do so would be morally wrong.

I did not read past the first few sentences. Obviously this author is out of touch with reality. Can't even present an idea clearly and directly. Whatever he has to say is obviously bullshit, a reflection of his fucked up mind.

If you did not read the article, you are not qualified to offer a rebuttal.

BTW, I find this article compelling not as an argument for anarchism (I am not myself an anarchist) but as a description of the implications of the mass death that many believe to be the inevitable result of resource depletion.

While I wouldn’t label myself as a “doomerâ€

Excellent points, EntropyFails, and I agree with you that the article is seriously flawed. It may be true that the primitivism the author portrays is a straw man. However, I don't feel you have addressed the points in the article that are most relevant to this forum. These are that civilization could not be destroyed without mass death and that such a death would be a horror. It follows from this assertion that the only moral course of action when civilization's existence is threatened would be to attempt to preserve it and to prevent this mass death.

A similar argument could be made against the idea (expressed here by 0mar) that billions must die for human life to become sustainable.

People often interperate primitivists as people who want to destroy all of civilization, kill several billion people, and make the whole world primitivist. However, the typical attitude of a primitivist is simply, "We'll live as primitivists, you can live however you want. We'll each be free to live as we please, so far as neither of us hurts the other." Most primitivists don't want to destroy civilization all out; most would prefer to simply live as primitivists outside of civilization, and let civilization maintain, willingly simplify, or destroy itself. Most primitivists simply just don't want to depend on and support industrial civilization like most other people do; they would rather live peacefully in the wilderness (or whatever's left of it). In most cases, then, the primitivist's plan for helping humanity is essentially to let those who choose to live in civilized society take care of the problems they caused for themselves.

The way I view things personally, most people don't want to change anyways. People've had decades to become less greedy, less destructive, more caring, etc.; and most chose not to. Such people don't care about other people, the planet, or themselves. It will be the people who still refuse to change (and sadly their children along with them) that will be doing the vast majority of the dying--precisely the unchanging, uncaring people I couldn't care less about.

It's quite interesting.

I think basically Mr Flood (the author) makes a fairly salient point. That `primitivists` are not really `anarchists`.

I basically agree. `Primitivism` as defined by people like Zerzan is basically `lifestyling`. Its actually rather Thatcherite/Reganite and individualistic. It loses its positive side (ecological sustainability) under a welter of precious and pious values that alienate many people.

`Anarchism` is not hooded skater kids chucking bricks (much though hooded kids chucking bricks would disagree) it is a set of general ideals about a system with a lack of hierarchy and more self determination for all.
You can take those general ideals and place them upon what we have today both as `reforms` and as `revolutionary` action. Whether that be locally, globally, in one industry or another etc etc. You can apply it to anything really. In fact people do it all the time already.

If you are interested in Peak Oil and the subject I recommend reading the works of the American urban-anarchist Murray Bookchin who was basically writing about these sorts of problems (ecological, energy) from many years ago.

He's a really intersting cat, daddy-o.

all the best
adam p