Anarcho-Primitivism a la Derrick Jensen

[JonD]

If you are unfamiliar with Anarcho-Primitivism, for a fairly in depth and comprehensive perspective, please watch Derrick Jensen's talk:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(Watch parts one AND two)

I've read a few of Jensen's books, and find his assessment of civilization irrefutable. His lecture doesn't quite do Anarcho-Primitivism justice, but it's a good introduction.

In short, for those of you casually perusing this thread, Anarcho-Primitivists subscribe to the belief that civilization is inherently sustainable, and we should revert back to hunter/gatherer ways to ensure long term survival of our species. Since civilization is a system built not only to advance contemporary interests, but also to maintain the system itself, the only way to de-industrialize is through anarchic means.

At the very least, it's an interesting theory, especially among all the talk these days about the environment and 'sustainability.' I think Derrick does a great job of showing that our current understanding of sustainability is rather tame and poorly thought out.

Once again, please watch the lecture. I'll see ya in the thread.

[Mozzes]

If you are unfamiliar with Anarcho-Primitivism, for a fairly in depth and comprehensive perspective, please watch Derrick Jensen's lecture:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(Watch parts one AND two)

I've read a few of Jensen's books, and find his assessment of civilization irrefutable. His lecture doesn't quite do Anarcho-Primivism justice, but it's a good introduction.

In short, for those of you casually perusing this thread, Anarcho-Primitivists subscribe to the belief that civilization is inherently sustainable, and we should revert back to hunter/gatherer ways to ensure long term survival of our species. Since civilization is a system built not only to advance contemporary interests, but also to maintain the system itself, the only way to de-industrialize is through anarchic means.

At the very least, it's an interesting theory, especially among all the talk these days about the environment and 'sustainability.' I think Derrick does a great job of showing that our current understanding of sustainability is rather tame and poorly thought out.

Once again, please watch the lecture. I'll see ya in the thread.

First thought: Why don't these people ever lead by example? I'm about 7 minutes in now and he's trying hard to be clever but I haven't heard anything intelligent.

I'll probably have more after watching it.

He seems to think that the proper remedy for a nicked finger is to cut off your hand and that there are no renewable resources that can sustain civilization.

[JonD]

Yeah, I'd say wait until you're done, and also, try to keep an open mind.

[Mozzes]

He made some pretty obvious observations. We need to be more efficient in our use of resources. Obviously. We need to pollute our environment less. Obviously. We see eye-to-eye there. But I'd disagree with some of his basic assumptions. I would claim that technology can fix most of our problems. He would disagree. I see him as a man who, walking a dark road, would rather go backwards than face the unforeseeable. He would see me as a cog in the machine he's fighting against.

One big problem I have is his position that civilization and resource trade is based on violence and "hyperexploitation" of resources. Not that he's necessarily wrong but he seems to have this naive idealism that violence wasn't a significant aspect of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Human tribes on every continent have been in conflict over resources since time immemorial. And lest we forget all the evidence points to our ancestors pushing Neanderthals to extinction and I believe there's also evidence that hunter-gatherer humans have hunted other species to extinction as well. Our problems started far before civilization and is the result intrinsic human qualities. Intelligence, ambition, and biological drives.

I think there are reasons to be optimistic regarding world population. The population "boom" of the last century and a half is not due to increased birthrate but due to increased survival by virtue of medicine. Population in Japan and Europe are already falling, America is barely above the replacement rate at the moment, population of many third world countries are already falling and China and India are expected to start following that trend within a hundred years.

As I said, he made some good observations but he's short on ideas (at least from that video). He tries too hard to be clever. Cut out all the asinine joking and that 57 minute video could be distilled to about 5 minutes. If we met in real life I doubt we'd have much to talk about. I'm a technological idealist and he's a primitivist of some sort. We don't even speak the same language.

edit: I'd also like to point out that by our understanding of science strictly speaking there's no such thing as a renewable resource. The underlying concept of any resource, renewable or otherwise, is free energy. The kick in the pants comes from the amount of free energy in the universe being in constant decline. On a long enough timeline no resource is truely renewable. Being efficient only determines how far we go.

edit2: I wonder if there's an inherent paradox in his ideology. One of his assumptions is that humans will never voluntarily adopt a sustainable way of life. Wouldn't this also apply to anarcho-primitivism? Even assuming, of course, that civilization did collapse from under our feet would people adopt some sort of primitivism or would they opt instead to attempt to rebuild civilization? Maybe we're on a one-way track and there's no going back no matter how much anyone wants to.