I think that a lot of environmentalists are missing the point. Technology, like computers and the internet, and phones, aren't really exploitative. Mass industrialized, centralized manufacturing technology is exploitative. It's the centralization of people, production, and governance that's the real culprit. I support green anarchism/social ecology without the abolition of computers and the internet. They bring information and entertainment to everyone. Certain technologies and luxuries are
@DesecrateConformity We don't have to lose technology at all. We just need to demand and create ecologically responsible, green or free technologies. Most of these things exist already but capitalism is a barrier to their use on a large scale.
@Dystopian420 I agree wholeheartedly, it's just that some green anarchists say that technology is "exploitative". This is simply not true. Technology has been the only thing that actually increases the quality of life.
@DesecrateConformity I lean more toward non-racist, National or Tribal Anarchy and within my own Tribal community a lot of our focus is on sustainable living and ecological responsibility. I don't believe in going back in time or forcing others to my belief, but I know we already posses the knowledge and ability to keep technology without capitalism, consumerism or destroying the planet. I believe many Green Anarchists also feel this way.
@Dystopian420 I've been interested in joining an eco-village/tribe/commune for a while. What is your occupation? I care for the biosphere, but I've seen a lot of eco-village videos, and mast have a kind of off putting, latent authoritarianism to them, and every pretty much grows food. I want to join a commune, but I don't want to farm. I'm more interested in my intellectual pursuits. Are there any communes/eco-villages that you know of that permits job specialization and allow
@DesecrateConformity There are communities like this. I suggest researching the different communities listed in the Intentional Communities website. I personally live off grid for the most part with just a few friends. I have seen the kind of authoritarian communities you mention and I'm against that as well. We enjoy the farming here but I know there are different communities that are not as primitive as me. Best wishes.
@Dystopian420 Thanks for the information. I want to live off grid, somewhere in the mountains, like in Colorado, Washington State, or Oregon. I'm really interested in very loosely affiliated commune that doesn't require all of its members to farm. I don't mind part-time farming and permaculture, but I simply couldn't do that full-time. Thanks.
Mass production and industrilization are causes of such enviromental problems.... We dont nescesarily have go back to the stone age to live a wealthy life for humans and moher earth.
why is there some green activist websites up... "GAIA" for example who demand the govment do something to stop global warming? there is no global warming, the U.N. rigged those documents. the site says the U.N. (a fascist criminal syndicatee) must be involved. i mean this is insanity. it's like... oh shi##, do any of you understand what i am trying to point out here? they (GAIA) pose as "green" and yet follow the New World Order! could this bea "front" infiltration here, do you think?)
@pamaspamas I think the "NWO" uses the idea and tells a few lies, but the glaciers are melting, Islands are disappearing and the weather is just nuts. Is it a natural phenomena? That's debatable at this point. I don't think global warming is a reason to start taxing and controlling, but definitely pollution and filth are not helping our environment. So to demand for more responsibility and clean ways is not a bad thing by any means.
Why are all these green anarchists so feminine? The only one I know of that actually have some manliness is John Zerzan, but so many just come off as naive and whiny, like Thomas Nail in this video for example. I would almost call myself a green anarchist and even I see this. They all seem to be pseudo-intellectuals that have no real experience in natural living.
@WanderingMidget ????? Why would you critique someone for being "feminine"? As if displaying one gender or another makes someone a better anarchist? That's absolutely ridiculous.
I don't make tech the most important thing in life. In fact I agree with a more simple life. Tech. should be viewed more as does it add significant quality to our lives or just sell more product. I think its totally unrealistic and unnecessary to adopt primativism to appreciate a simple life and hold tech in balance. The world isn't going back, its only going forward. Eventually we will leave this planet to explore our universe.
"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
They use the tech. to help keep up with this day and age. If they didnt they wouln't be able to argue with people, and bring down the companies being used to conform the nation. They have to use the tech to bring it down.
I come more from the Proudhon mutualist school. I support caring for our environment, but I don't get primativism. Who the hell wants to live in a mud hut, go to the bathroom in a hole, and give up every modern technology under the sun such as phone, tv, internet, etc. Why do primativists use technology if they oppose it so vehemently? Its like being against voting but turning around to vote. Why are you on the internet prmiativists?
The toilet was invented under fuedalism. They probably do it for the same reason you don't want to be rule by a king but you also don't shit outdoors.
You're missing the point. If you base happiness and comfort on material objects like television and phones, then you need to reconsider what life is truly about. Also, the whole argument against primitivists for using technology isn't really sensible. It's the same as saying that an anarchist isn't an anarchist because they live in a country with a government. It's nearly impossible to live a primitive life, what with all the land on earth being owned by somebody.
@drukqsi Nothing, especially land, is 'owned'. The gangsters called 'the State' just threaten to shoot you if you disobey them within their territory.
To all of you who understand and believe in this cause, I highly suggest you find a digital or used copy of the book Ishmael (by Daniel Quinn) if you have not done so yet. It is quite profound and deals heavily with man's destruction of the world through our (or their) desire to dominate it. Disillusion yourself.
i like it alot. it a dilemma to me though. primitvism seems fantastic and truly anarchistic, but i do enjoy alot of the fruits of the industrial world, and i fuckin love the city
Primitivism is not required for this sense of 'true' anarchism. We can still have our large cities, we just need to change our lives within them. Yes, this does call for abandonment of the factories; but it is necessary for the world's survival as a whole. Put simply, we can still live in cities, but if we are to be truly free, we must compromise our iPhones, Corvettes, and laptops.
well then i whole heartedly agree with that. I hav enone of that technology mentioned besides a desktop computer and i dont even like this much. it makes you too dependent on it. the only plus is ease of communication and media viewing. plus urban decay would be welcome! plants growing in open air buildings with minimal utilities would be sweet.
That's good, but for the more materialistic majority of the population, this would be a devastating change. As you said, people can easily become dependent on their computers for a multitude of reasons (it's sad really). Hitler actually had an interest in urban decay; it was almost a lighter side of him. He had artists who would develope paintings of the Third Reich's great monuments after decades of urban decay. At least he could see the beauty in that.
We are evolved from nature, in a material physical universe. There is no god or spirituality. Everything humans do is natural. Technology is the natural progression of technology. Look, these green anarchists have electronic commercial appliances and computers in the background. Capitalism and Technology and human elevation is the natural progression of the universe. Green anarchists and luddites are idiots
hmm... well, there are numerous cases you make here that I'd like to argue against, but the most obvious is your case for the "natural progression of the universe." Progress, as society typically idealizes it, is a myth. There is only change - and change, though an integral part of existence, must be analyzed and examined for its potential benefits and risks. I suggest you read "Five Facets of a Myth" by Kirkpatrick Sale. He makes a much more convincing argument than I.
"Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past while we silence the rebels of the present."- Henry Steele Commager
It really doesn't matter what someone says, it is what they DO THAT MATTERS. You obviously don't understand this and this is why you do not believe in direct action, you believe in saying words instead. That sort of ideology leads to atomic bombs, (i.e. Albert Einstein).
Yeah. I really love the idea of green anarchism actually. I love nature and stuff, but I agree. No one is gonna do this. If green anarchy comes about, it'll be from capitalisms fallout.
You definitely have seen him in Breaking the Spell. Check the clip I have from my upcoming Green Scare documentary and you will see the director of both Pickaxe and Breaking the Spell being interviewed.
Not at all. We would each live in the manner we decide best suits us and our interests. The one restraint on this freedom over our own lives is this: each man must have complete freedom to do as he pleases, but he may only make actions that do not infringe upon the well-being or freedom of others. Meaning that you can do what ever the fuck you please, as long as you don't fuck anyone else over.
I agree, but a libertarian model would better achieve that, because one has an incentive to preserve and improve what one owns. Otherwise we have a tragedy of the commons, which is what is going on in public lands and wilderness today. Anyways, I am not much of an environmentalist, I believe that our decisions, biological life, this planet, the universe, is all matter interacting and reacting since the big bang. What we should do is pursue technology, not emotion or constructed morals.
It will happen, if only because it will have to. Otherwise, we're all dead. This techno nightmare is unsustainable, and alt energy is not going to change that fact, though it may help slow down the collapse. I'm not against it; it's just not a solution. But ultimately I'm not worried. When the final collapse comes, you'll be destroyed along with everything else and I'll be happily shitting in the woods all over your grave, as a testament to what a fucking waste of DNA you truly are.
I'd love to get back in touch with the earth! I'm just dying to get back in touch with malaria, dyssentary, cholera, bubonic plague, polio, smallpox, wooping cough, and TB. Also, I can look foward to getting in touch with the jaws of wolves, lions, poisonous snakes, etc. I can't wait for my life expectancy to get back to 23 years! I can't wait to watch the people I love die slow agonizing deaths from easily treatible illnesses in the prime of their life! SIGN ME UP.
All caused by the crowding and sedentary conditions of civilization. You obviously don't know anything about wolves, lions and snakes. Life expectancy is a trick of statistics by averaging ages from all live births. You could get an even lower life expectancy by counting all the sperm that died too.
That's funny, we sure find enough artifacts in them. And though most humans didn't live in caves... It's called an expression, so stop trying to be a smart ass.
Now see, this is exactly what I'm talking about, expressions don't need to be literal. You wouldn't set your tires on fire if someone told you to burn rubber, would you? Try not to acknowledge a point you completely missed.
I don't want to learn how to build a hut in the woods. I want our society to learn how to lower our impact on the environment. We can power our homes and protect the environment at the same time. We just have to shift the way we do things. Don't listen to the people who tell you alternative energy isn't feasible or the people who tell you we have to live in the woods.
It's called investing a lot of time and money into alternative energy, and becoming more energy efficient. Let me guess though you're one of the people who wants to go shit in the woods aren't you?
Cute. But you're just giving the same old song and dance (i.e. "just give us more money to invest in green scam technologies and we'll create paradise on earth!". Not sure if wanting to shit in the woods is some sort of insult? Let me guess though, you're one of those people who thinks nature is dirty. I'll bet you're also one of those people who thinks switching to CFL lightbulbs is 'saving the environment'.
An environmentally friendly society is a long way from 'paradiseon earth.' There's still war, disease, poverty, famine; none of which are solved with clean energy. I don't think nature is dirty, I think it's worth saving though. As for you I bet you're one of the people who thinks everyone is going to stop using oil or plastic products. You're also probably one of the guys who burns down new housing developments and doesn't realize they'll just build another one in it's place.
An 'environmentally friendly society' is a marketing slogan. Tell me how the use, distribution, production and disposal of oil and plastic is environmentally friendly. And while you're at it, tell me how the utilization of oil and plastic is going to go on forever within said "environmentally friendly society". And sorry to disappoint you, I don't burn down new housing developments, I help stop them before they become developments.
Simply replace oil products(plastics and such, not fuels) with bio-polymers grown from alga and other genetically modified organisms. Replace fossil fuels with new battery techs, like the Stanford battery which will in cars in about 4 years. We'll of course get our energy from renewable sources since the trends show they're getting cheaper while fossil fuels aren't. And this is just a tidbit, there's nothing that technology isn't in the process of solving. Well besides states.
All kinds of power is needed to set up, test, equip and maintain bio-polymers. Yours is a vision filled with cars, batteries, roads, factories, waste products, work, production, division of labour, experts, hierarchy and authority. In other words not much different from the present order. Except it will be green of course! Technology is in the business of creating more problems to solve for itself.
I see no problem with a world filled with "vision filled with cars, batteries, roads, factories, waste products, work, production, division of labour, experts, hierarchy and authority" just as long as all of this is based on voluntary relationships and is lacking the use of force, which of course is only the realm of states. Waste and pollution is fairly simple problem to solve under a free market system, the only way we have in-effective systems is under state "solutions."
Except you can't have all that without force, that's the rub. No one is going to go down into the mines without being manipulated by carrot and stick. It's utter nonsense to think so. Waste and pollution isn't even a consideration within free market ideologies. There's no money in externalized problems like that.
I never said we were an environmentaly friendly society. I said we SHOULD be. We may never be 100% environmentally friendly but eventually, if we take the right steps, we can get close. You seem to think solar and wind are "green scam" alternatives. So what's your alternative? Stop using oil and coal altogether? If you think the government, much less the majority of people are going to go for that you are delusional.
I never said you said we were an environmentally friendly society. I said an environmentally friendly society was a marketing slogan. Try to follow along. Solar and wind power will never account for more than a fraction of all the energy required to keep this techno-nightmare going. The alternative to stopping it is crashing. Tinkering with switching to more efficient technologies will not be enough. To think so is the ultimate in delusion.
I agree that higher efficiency technology is not the solution, but wind and solar are. You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the state of such technologies though. Wind constituted 30% of new energy capacity installed in the US last year, solar installation double from the previous year, as they have for nearly a decade running. Wind is near matching with the cost of fossil fuels and is coming down 4% a year. Solar will catch up by 2012.
Both wind and solar are on exponential growth curves(the same way computer double in computing power every 1-2 years) and since it's only a matter of time until they're cheaper than fossil fuels they'll soon start replacing such energy sources(~2015 based on current trends). Why is this all happening, because science and the free market solves everything. Go black and yellow!
You obviously have no clue how much energy is required to run the U.S. Alternative energy sources are a drop in the bucket. Extrapolate future trends all you want, solar/wind is zip. I've been paying attention to all these promises made by technotopians for the past 300 years. "Just wait!" they tell us, "the new technology that will save us is just around the corner". We're now in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction event. Technotopians have had their chance.
3.5TW, that's how much, and we installed 6GW of renewable energy in 2007, and that's within 10^2. As I stated both wind and solar are doubling installations every 1-2 years, now how long does it to installations 10^2 if we continue to double only every 2 years. 2^7, which means 14 years. We promised to give you warmth after you burned all the trees for fuel and we did. We promised to feed you after you used all the guano for fertilizer and we did.
All the mass starvation your kind predicted never occurred(yes I've kept up with 300 years of your kind, 1845, 1930 etc.). We delivered on every promise we've made besides the hype of science fiction. And look at how quickly we are advancing now. Hell I'm 26 and I'm older than the PC and in that time PCs have grown 131072 times more powerful. With that power science has model the workings of over 50,000 proteins. And this is but a drop in the bucket of what science has achieved in my lifetime.
Mass starvation never happened? Africa, Russia, China, India, North Korea come to mind. All civilized countries last time I checked. But primitivists never predicted those famines, so I don't know who you mean by 'your kind'. Promises of 'better living through chemistry''moving sidewalks''jet pack travel''meals in a pill''living forever''nuclear energy too cheap to meter' were all made decades ago by real scientists. They've promised to fix the ozone hole too. It's worse now.
Look, you mention all the places that have experienced famines because they weren't/aren't using modern agriculture techniques and weren't/aren't open to the free market. Of course China is a perfect example, they were starving, open up to the free market, purchased modern agriculture tech, and now they're not starving. Then you mention all the sci-fi hype which I've already said wasn't promised by science, only media. And nuclear power is the cheapest source of power out there.
You said the prediction of mass starvation was false. A famine is mass starvation. Famines occurred in the countries I mentioned. Those are facts. Ergo, the predictions were true. I didn't say anything about modern agriculture. The so-called "sci-fi hype" were actual predictions made by real scientists. Nuclear is one of the most expensive sources of power i.e. total costs! You are so full of shit I can smell you over the internet (but hey, that's just an expression, don't take it literally).
The North Korean example is pretty poor. Seeing as how they have been almost competely isolated and depend on other countries for a lot of their food. Just look at South Korea. They aren't isolated politically and they have a healthy, thriving society that has very good access to food supplies.
So what? North Korea is an example of a famine. That's all I said. We can argue about the causes: e.g. a callous corrupt government, poor planning, breakdown of distribution, or communism, capitalism, fascism, etc. People starve because of these ideologies and/or practices of mass production, and these ideologies and practices are rooted in the inner logic of civilization.
Look at other countries that have limited domestic food resorces. Japan and South Korea are perfect examples. Yet both have strong economies based predominantly on the free market. And they don't have millions starving do they? People in North Korea starve because they have a shitty government. It's as simple as that.
Not so simple. Famine has occurred in predominantly free market countries like India, Bengal, Ireland etc. Read some history. Most famines are a result of a combination of factors. North Korea is mostly due to their government. But I wasn't making any point connecting famine with particular types of governments in my reply to subach.
And 0.11% of that energy is from geothermal, wind, solar, etc. There's a long way to go before solar, wind, etc even crack 50%. I don't understand the burning trees and guano remark. Who's 'we' and 'you'?
As I've already said 14 years, it's simple math. Anyway You being the primitives/Luddites.
You see by the 19th century new England and most of Europe was almost stripped of trees. People such as yourself raised alarms about how everyone was going to freeze to death, but then we found coal. Guano was the primary fertilizer used in the 19th century. People such as yourself said most of the world's population would starve when it was depleted. But then the Haber process was discovered.
Well whoop-dee-doo...I don't get your point. I haven't raised alarms about running out of anything (except maybe biodiversity). Yeah, coal was such an "advancement". You're too young, but I remember the London smog disaster of 1952 that killed 12,000 people from coal pollution. The joys of progress!
Well there's another good example, since that 1952 disaster in which thick toxic smog we haven't started using less coal. We invented ways to remove most of the toxic chemicals from it so incidents like that wouldn't happen. But that's not the point, the point is whenever we're near running out of a resource or no longer willing to keep using it(in the case of coal) the economy shifts in favor of finding a replacement. This is why renewable energy installation is doubling every 1-2 years.
You simply didn't like some of the progress because of it's side effects, so you now assume no progress can be good. Yet you think nothing of eating the food progress has brought you, or communicating with me using the computer progress endowed you with. I could go on, but you simply focus on the negatives of progress, and then assume there are no solutions to these negatives. Of course add some statism to your position and you might as well call civilization a loss.
Yes, I don't like the side-effects of progress. And like the inmate in jail I eat the food because there is no choice, not because I endorse the prison. I focus on the negatives because there are so many of them. The solutions to the negatives almost always create more problems than they solve. Civilization is a net loss, though there are good parts to it obviously, otherwise no one would bother continuing with it. But all civilizations end... because they are unsustainable.
We'll solve our problems (and I don't mean to imply solving 'all' possible human problems)by moving away from this high tech, authoritarian system that divides us all into specialized cogs. We do that by refusing to add our energy to it whenever we can. Powering down, simplifying, self-reliance, creative low tech handicrafts will help move towards a gradual reversal of this current death march we're on. I'm not saying alt energy won't help, only that it's oversold as a panacea.
lol "low tech handicrafts" Yep, you really got a solution to all our environmental problems there. Alt energy oversold huh? In Europe 40 million people get their energy from wind power alone. In Denmark wind supplies enough energy to meet 20% of the population's electricity needs. Wind, Solar and others won't solve every problem (especially energy for our cars) but it can go a long way to getting us off coal and maybe even nuclear.
Oh, so now you admit I offered a solution, only you don't like it. You keep flip-flopping. You do know that a single wire from a windmill took more energy and burned more fossil fuels to mine, process, transport and manufacture than a windmill will save in a month, right? Add up all the components in a windmill and do the math. Do the same with a solar panel. Then go change your light bulbs pretending you are saving the environment with the new mercury filled CFLs.
"lol'low tech handicrafts' yep,you really got a solution to all our problems" You were obviously being sarcastic, yet you labelled my so-called 'bullshit ideas' a solution regardless. If you can't argue coherently that's not my problem. You are a troll who came on here to badger anyone with sympathies to the video, something you proved by your first post. Now, go change your lightbulbs.
Like you said it's called 'sarcasm' I used the word 'solution' sarcastically because 'dumb fucking idea' takes up too much space. I'll go change my lightbulbs, and you can keep shitting in the woods. What's powering you're computer anyway asshole?
Like I said, if you can't argue a point coherently, that's not my problem. At least my shit is contributing to the nutrient cycle of the environment, unlike your industrial windmills and toxic solar panels. Your dumb fucking idea is to destroy the world more slowly, that's all.
Hey retard. Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it so. What exaclty are you using to power your computer? As far as any environmental damage solar and wind may cause themselves, it's not impossible to find a solution to those problems as well. See that's what you lack, any fucking imagination. You have no solutions. All you have is nitpicking of any other possible solution.
Hey ass-wipe, what difference does it make what is powering my computer? What the fuck is your point? You keep saying we'll find solutions (to the problems created by the present 'solutions', ironically) but that doesn't make it so. That's an act of faith. You have no solutions, just more of the same. i.e. more technology. Very imaginative! Fucking hilarious. I'm not against alt. energy, I'm saying it isn't ultimately a solution. Think deeper for fucksakes.
lol You laigh at my solutions? You're the one who said we should all use "low tech handicrafts" like that's ever going to fucking happen. How fucking stupid are you?
Obviously not nearly as stupid as you. Low tech handicrafts is a solution in a way solar and wind energy isn't. It solves the problem by getting rid of the problem. Saying it will never happen is just another way of saying you don't want it to happen. Fine, go change your lightbulbs then and leave the real problems to us. You seem utterly incapable of dealing with the on-going collapse happening around us anyway. You have no answer except substituting technologies as a stop gap measure.
Allright I'm done arguing with your dumbass. Take your low tech handicrafts and shove them up your ass. You seem utterly incapable of realizing that no one is going to adopt any of your dumbass ideas on a large scale. Here's where we differ. Yes solar and wind have drawbacks but instead of just foresaking them I think we should look for ways to reduce or eliminate those drawbacks. You just want to say "fuck it" and promote some bullshit idea that will never happen.
A good example? Nope. Coal scrubbers were first used in the 1980s (30 years after) and then only a few coal plants had them. Today, they're still not mandatory and not in widespread use. However, even the "advanced" techology of scrubbers has managed to kill people. In 2005 an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in Norway was proven to emanate from a scrubber, causing ten deaths and more than fifty cases of infection as it spread the bacteria through the air during a period of only two weeks.
olivemike81 has reading comprehension issues. So I'll repeat my solution: Begining in 2010 a world wide movement to establish a Fourth Reich that will eliminate all non-aryan and non-primitive people from the earth through mass starvation and population die-off.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
Re: criticism. Your first post was a criticism of primitive ideas and how you didn't want to live in the woods. What a fucking hypocrite.
Wow I hope you were joking on that 2010 idea. If not that makes you one of the biggest pieces of shit around today. You don't have a plan for solving our environmental and energy problems. You have a plan for killing billions of people. Go fuck yourself. But do it after you shit in the woods.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear John Zerzan & sympathizers; I love your agenda of self-reliant tricks and tips of living frugally in respect and harmony with nature, but I can never forgive the element of your followers who use black block tactics vandalizing and inciting cops on peaceful protestors, especially when you resort to violence. You people are provocoteurs who incite martial law more than anyone I've ever met in my entire fucking life.
I think that a lot of environmentalists are missing the point. Technology, like computers and the internet, and phones, aren't really exploitative. Mass industrialized, centralized manufacturing technology is exploitative. It's the centralization of people, production, and governance that's the real culprit. I support green anarchism/social ecology without the abolition of computers and the internet. They bring information and entertainment to everyone. Certain technologies and luxuries are
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity benevolent and should be sustained.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity We don't have to lose technology at all. We just need to demand and create ecologically responsible, green or free technologies. Most of these things exist already but capitalism is a barrier to their use on a large scale.
Dystopian420 1 month ago
@Dystopian420 I agree wholeheartedly, it's just that some green anarchists say that technology is "exploitative". This is simply not true. Technology has been the only thing that actually increases the quality of life.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity I lean more toward non-racist, National or Tribal Anarchy and within my own Tribal community a lot of our focus is on sustainable living and ecological responsibility. I don't believe in going back in time or forcing others to my belief, but I know we already posses the knowledge and ability to keep technology without capitalism, consumerism or destroying the planet. I believe many Green Anarchists also feel this way.
Dystopian420 1 month ago
@Dystopian420 I've been interested in joining an eco-village/tribe/commune for a while. What is your occupation? I care for the biosphere, but I've seen a lot of eco-village videos, and mast have a kind of off putting, latent authoritarianism to them, and every pretty much grows food. I want to join a commune, but I don't want to farm. I'm more interested in my intellectual pursuits. Are there any communes/eco-villages that you know of that permits job specialization and allow
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@Dystopian420 their members to contribute income to the commune?
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity There are communities like this. I suggest researching the different communities listed in the Intentional Communities website. I personally live off grid for the most part with just a few friends. I have seen the kind of authoritarian communities you mention and I'm against that as well. We enjoy the farming here but I know there are different communities that are not as primitive as me. Best wishes.
Dystopian420 1 month ago
@Dystopian420 Thanks for the information. I want to live off grid, somewhere in the mountains, like in Colorado, Washington State, or Oregon. I'm really interested in very loosely affiliated commune that doesn't require all of its members to farm. I don't mind part-time farming and permaculture, but I simply couldn't do that full-time. Thanks.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
We can use technology and science to enhance our freedom and to help to abolish all working.
23lFrench 6 months ago
Mass production and industrilization are causes of such enviromental problems.... We dont nescesarily have go back to the stone age to live a wealthy life for humans and moher earth.
naboria5 6 months ago
I can think of something more evil.
The earth being killed by your type.
greenrage247 6 months ago 2
I can think of nothing more evil than being draged back into the stone age by these types.
1simo93521 8 months ago
primitivists are gigantic faggots
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@SecularNumanist Fuck homophobia.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid
faggot means a small piece of wood.
Primitivists love them
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@SecularNumanist Lol.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
why is there some green activist websites up... "GAIA" for example who demand the govment do something to stop global warming? there is no global warming, the U.N. rigged those documents. the site says the U.N. (a fascist criminal syndicatee) must be involved. i mean this is insanity. it's like... oh shi##, do any of you understand what i am trying to point out here? they (GAIA) pose as "green" and yet follow the New World Order! could this bea "front" infiltration here, do you think?)
pamaspamas 1 year ago
@pamaspamas I think the "NWO" uses the idea and tells a few lies, but the glaciers are melting, Islands are disappearing and the weather is just nuts. Is it a natural phenomena? That's debatable at this point. I don't think global warming is a reason to start taxing and controlling, but definitely pollution and filth are not helping our environment. So to demand for more responsibility and clean ways is not a bad thing by any means.
7The7Green7 1 year ago
Why are all these green anarchists so feminine? The only one I know of that actually have some manliness is John Zerzan, but so many just come off as naive and whiny, like Thomas Nail in this video for example. I would almost call myself a green anarchist and even I see this. They all seem to be pseudo-intellectuals that have no real experience in natural living.
WanderingMidget 2 years ago
@WanderingMidget i agree with the last part of your comment, but why does manliness take priority?
SLAPnPOP726 1 year ago
@WanderingMidget ????? Why would you critique someone for being "feminine"? As if displaying one gender or another makes someone a better anarchist? That's absolutely ridiculous.
CirqueFREAK333 1 year ago
@WanderingMidget In other words, "I love patriarchy".
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
I don't make tech the most important thing in life. In fact I agree with a more simple life. Tech. should be viewed more as does it add significant quality to our lives or just sell more product. I think its totally unrealistic and unnecessary to adopt primativism to appreciate a simple life and hold tech in balance. The world isn't going back, its only going forward. Eventually we will leave this planet to explore our universe.
Spillers72 2 years ago
"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
Earthlazarus 2 years ago 7
They use the tech. to help keep up with this day and age. If they didnt they wouln't be able to argue with people, and bring down the companies being used to conform the nation. They have to use the tech to bring it down.
SlimyShark 2 years ago 4
simplicity is elegance
stett99 2 years ago
I come more from the Proudhon mutualist school. I support caring for our environment, but I don't get primativism. Who the hell wants to live in a mud hut, go to the bathroom in a hole, and give up every modern technology under the sun such as phone, tv, internet, etc. Why do primativists use technology if they oppose it so vehemently? Its like being against voting but turning around to vote. Why are you on the internet prmiativists?
Spillers72 2 years ago
Because they're hypocrites. Its like communists buying things from corporations.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
The toilet was invented under fuedalism. They probably do it for the same reason you don't want to be rule by a king but you also don't shit outdoors.
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
You're missing the point. If you base happiness and comfort on material objects like television and phones, then you need to reconsider what life is truly about. Also, the whole argument against primitivists for using technology isn't really sensible. It's the same as saying that an anarchist isn't an anarchist because they live in a country with a government. It's nearly impossible to live a primitive life, what with all the land on earth being owned by somebody.
drukqsi 2 years ago 16
@drukqsi Nothing, especially land, is 'owned'. The gangsters called 'the State' just threaten to shoot you if you disobey them within their territory.
SAOS451316 9 months ago in playlist Anarchists in Action
To all of you who understand and believe in this cause, I highly suggest you find a digital or used copy of the book Ishmael (by Daniel Quinn) if you have not done so yet. It is quite profound and deals heavily with man's destruction of the world through our (or their) desire to dominate it. Disillusion yourself.
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
i like it alot. it a dilemma to me though. primitvism seems fantastic and truly anarchistic, but i do enjoy alot of the fruits of the industrial world, and i fuckin love the city
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago
Primitivism is not required for this sense of 'true' anarchism. We can still have our large cities, we just need to change our lives within them. Yes, this does call for abandonment of the factories; but it is necessary for the world's survival as a whole. Put simply, we can still live in cities, but if we are to be truly free, we must compromise our iPhones, Corvettes, and laptops.
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
well then i whole heartedly agree with that. I hav enone of that technology mentioned besides a desktop computer and i dont even like this much. it makes you too dependent on it. the only plus is ease of communication and media viewing. plus urban decay would be welcome! plants growing in open air buildings with minimal utilities would be sweet.
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago
That's good, but for the more materialistic majority of the population, this would be a devastating change. As you said, people can easily become dependent on their computers for a multitude of reasons (it's sad really). Hitler actually had an interest in urban decay; it was almost a lighter side of him. He had artists who would develope paintings of the Third Reich's great monuments after decades of urban decay. At least he could see the beauty in that.
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
yeah for sure. hopefully this nation/world will wake up someday soon, before it takes burning cities and even more starving children.
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago
NaturalLogorithm you're so smart dude...
reedis1337 2 years ago
These people obviously don't understand the free market.
NaturalLogorithm 3 years ago
anarchism is something i believe in,one of only a few things,i the next gen ppl:)
magictrickz 3 years ago
Technology is nature.
ArcadianGenesis 3 years ago
We are evolved from nature, in a material physical universe. There is no god or spirituality. Everything humans do is natural. Technology is the natural progression of technology. Look, these green anarchists have electronic commercial appliances and computers in the background. Capitalism and Technology and human elevation is the natural progression of the universe. Green anarchists and luddites are idiots
MadPutz 3 years ago
Study your facts again there m8.
The biggest problem, that the eco people are pointing against is that, capitalism etc....is destroying the earth.
(That it is.)
And where is the techonology to prevent that? And where is the intelligence to live in balance?
paindoll 2 years ago
hmm... well, there are numerous cases you make here that I'd like to argue against, but the most obvious is your case for the "natural progression of the universe." Progress, as society typically idealizes it, is a myth. There is only change - and change, though an integral part of existence, must be analyzed and examined for its potential benefits and risks. I suggest you read "Five Facets of a Myth" by Kirkpatrick Sale. He makes a much more convincing argument than I.
mrhoplon 2 years ago 2
Direct action is not the answer.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
The answer is not to fight, but to relax, and let civilization fall. We can starve it by not contributing to it.
AnpetuWi 3 years ago
"Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past while we silence the rebels of the present."- Henry Steele Commager
Lash222 3 years ago
Albert Einstein more or less created the atomic bomb you idiot.
Fredooper 3 years ago 2
Have you read what he said ABOUT the atomic bomb?
AnpetuWi 3 years ago
It really doesn't matter what someone says, it is what they DO THAT MATTERS. You obviously don't understand this and this is why you do not believe in direct action, you believe in saying words instead. That sort of ideology leads to atomic bombs, (i.e. Albert Einstein).
Fredooper 3 years ago 4
Gotta love the NEFAC banner at the end!
electricrnb 3 years ago
Yeah. I really love the idea of green anarchism actually. I love nature and stuff, but I agree. No one is gonna do this. If green anarchy comes about, it'll be from capitalisms fallout.
JesuitWhorez 3 years ago
Wait, its not Pickaxe, its the breakingthe spell. The gray haired dude.
Rad1ka1 3 years ago
You definitely have seen him in Breaking the Spell. Check the clip I have from my upcoming Green Scare documentary and you will see the director of both Pickaxe and Breaking the Spell being interviewed.
pvh2110 3 years ago
Im sure ive seen this guy in Pickaxe...
Rad1ka1 3 years ago
If we concentrate on production for need, it will be "Green". In anarchism you will be free to live the way you want anyway. Free association.
kittiest34 3 years ago
Except green anarchism will force you to live by subjective view conjured up in some human brain of what's "best" for the earth.
MadPutz 3 years ago
Not at all. We would each live in the manner we decide best suits us and our interests. The one restraint on this freedom over our own lives is this: each man must have complete freedom to do as he pleases, but he may only make actions that do not infringe upon the well-being or freedom of others. Meaning that you can do what ever the fuck you please, as long as you don't fuck anyone else over.
DeusEbrius 2 years ago
I agree, but a libertarian model would better achieve that, because one has an incentive to preserve and improve what one owns. Otherwise we have a tragedy of the commons, which is what is going on in public lands and wilderness today. Anyways, I am not much of an environmentalist, I believe that our decisions, biological life, this planet, the universe, is all matter interacting and reacting since the big bang. What we should do is pursue technology, not emotion or constructed morals.
MadPutz 2 years ago
Though I like comments on my video, you guys arguing might be better done by email or over the phone
pvh2110 3 years ago
????? shut up! you really think that's gonna happen?
Gnarzeler 3 years ago
It will happen, if only because it will have to. Otherwise, we're all dead. This techno nightmare is unsustainable, and alt energy is not going to change that fact, though it may help slow down the collapse. I'm not against it; it's just not a solution. But ultimately I'm not worried. When the final collapse comes, you'll be destroyed along with everything else and I'll be happily shitting in the woods all over your grave, as a testament to what a fucking waste of DNA you truly are.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
I'd love to get back in touch with the earth! I'm just dying to get back in touch with malaria, dyssentary, cholera, bubonic plague, polio, smallpox, wooping cough, and TB. Also, I can look foward to getting in touch with the jaws of wolves, lions, poisonous snakes, etc. I can't wait for my life expectancy to get back to 23 years! I can't wait to watch the people I love die slow agonizing deaths from easily treatible illnesses in the prime of their life! SIGN ME UP.
NATESOR 3 years ago
All caused by the crowding and sedentary conditions of civilization. You obviously don't know anything about wolves, lions and snakes. Life expectancy is a trick of statistics by averaging ages from all live births. You could get an even lower life expectancy by counting all the sperm that died too.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Go back to the caves primitives.
subach 3 years ago
We never lived in caves. Nice try.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
That's funny, we sure find enough artifacts in them. And though most humans didn't live in caves... It's called an expression, so stop trying to be a smart ass.
subach 3 years ago
Yes, an expression, and by your own admittance, a false or stereotypical one. Talk about being a smart ass.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Now see, this is exactly what I'm talking about, expressions don't need to be literal. You wouldn't set your tires on fire if someone told you to burn rubber, would you? Try not to acknowledge a point you completely missed.
subach 3 years ago
I don't want to learn how to build a hut in the woods. I want our society to learn how to lower our impact on the environment. We can power our homes and protect the environment at the same time. We just have to shift the way we do things. Don't listen to the people who tell you alternative energy isn't feasible or the people who tell you we have to live in the woods.
olivemike81 3 years ago
And especially don't listen to the people who say we can have our cake and eat it too, because they never tell you how.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
It's called investing a lot of time and money into alternative energy, and becoming more energy efficient. Let me guess though you're one of the people who wants to go shit in the woods aren't you?
olivemike81 3 years ago
Cute. But you're just giving the same old song and dance (i.e. "just give us more money to invest in green scam technologies and we'll create paradise on earth!". Not sure if wanting to shit in the woods is some sort of insult? Let me guess though, you're one of those people who thinks nature is dirty. I'll bet you're also one of those people who thinks switching to CFL lightbulbs is 'saving the environment'.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
An environmentally friendly society is a long way from 'paradiseon earth.' There's still war, disease, poverty, famine; none of which are solved with clean energy. I don't think nature is dirty, I think it's worth saving though. As for you I bet you're one of the people who thinks everyone is going to stop using oil or plastic products. You're also probably one of the guys who burns down new housing developments and doesn't realize they'll just build another one in it's place.
olivemike81 3 years ago
An 'environmentally friendly society' is a marketing slogan. Tell me how the use, distribution, production and disposal of oil and plastic is environmentally friendly. And while you're at it, tell me how the utilization of oil and plastic is going to go on forever within said "environmentally friendly society". And sorry to disappoint you, I don't burn down new housing developments, I help stop them before they become developments.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Simply replace oil products(plastics and such, not fuels) with bio-polymers grown from alga and other genetically modified organisms. Replace fossil fuels with new battery techs, like the Stanford battery which will in cars in about 4 years. We'll of course get our energy from renewable sources since the trends show they're getting cheaper while fossil fuels aren't. And this is just a tidbit, there's nothing that technology isn't in the process of solving. Well besides states.
subach 3 years ago
All kinds of power is needed to set up, test, equip and maintain bio-polymers. Yours is a vision filled with cars, batteries, roads, factories, waste products, work, production, division of labour, experts, hierarchy and authority. In other words not much different from the present order. Except it will be green of course! Technology is in the business of creating more problems to solve for itself.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
I see no problem with a world filled with "vision filled with cars, batteries, roads, factories, waste products, work, production, division of labour, experts, hierarchy and authority" just as long as all of this is based on voluntary relationships and is lacking the use of force, which of course is only the realm of states. Waste and pollution is fairly simple problem to solve under a free market system, the only way we have in-effective systems is under state "solutions."
subach 3 years ago
Except you can't have all that without force, that's the rub. No one is going to go down into the mines without being manipulated by carrot and stick. It's utter nonsense to think so. Waste and pollution isn't even a consideration within free market ideologies. There's no money in externalized problems like that.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
I never said we were an environmentaly friendly society. I said we SHOULD be. We may never be 100% environmentally friendly but eventually, if we take the right steps, we can get close. You seem to think solar and wind are "green scam" alternatives. So what's your alternative? Stop using oil and coal altogether? If you think the government, much less the majority of people are going to go for that you are delusional.
Try being realistic for once in your life.
olivemike81 3 years ago
I never said you said we were an environmentally friendly society. I said an environmentally friendly society was a marketing slogan. Try to follow along. Solar and wind power will never account for more than a fraction of all the energy required to keep this techno-nightmare going. The alternative to stopping it is crashing. Tinkering with switching to more efficient technologies will not be enough. To think so is the ultimate in delusion.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
I agree that higher efficiency technology is not the solution, but wind and solar are. You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the state of such technologies though. Wind constituted 30% of new energy capacity installed in the US last year, solar installation double from the previous year, as they have for nearly a decade running. Wind is near matching with the cost of fossil fuels and is coming down 4% a year. Solar will catch up by 2012.
subach 3 years ago
Both wind and solar are on exponential growth curves(the same way computer double in computing power every 1-2 years) and since it's only a matter of time until they're cheaper than fossil fuels they'll soon start replacing such energy sources(~2015 based on current trends). Why is this all happening, because science and the free market solves everything. Go black and yellow!
subach 3 years ago
You obviously have no clue how much energy is required to run the U.S. Alternative energy sources are a drop in the bucket. Extrapolate future trends all you want, solar/wind is zip. I've been paying attention to all these promises made by technotopians for the past 300 years. "Just wait!" they tell us, "the new technology that will save us is just around the corner". We're now in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction event. Technotopians have had their chance.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
3.5TW, that's how much, and we installed 6GW of renewable energy in 2007, and that's within 10^2. As I stated both wind and solar are doubling installations every 1-2 years, now how long does it to installations 10^2 if we continue to double only every 2 years. 2^7, which means 14 years. We promised to give you warmth after you burned all the trees for fuel and we did. We promised to feed you after you used all the guano for fertilizer and we did.
subach 3 years ago
All the mass starvation your kind predicted never occurred(yes I've kept up with 300 years of your kind, 1845, 1930 etc.). We delivered on every promise we've made besides the hype of science fiction. And look at how quickly we are advancing now. Hell I'm 26 and I'm older than the PC and in that time PCs have grown 131072 times more powerful. With that power science has model the workings of over 50,000 proteins. And this is but a drop in the bucket of what science has achieved in my lifetime.
subach 3 years ago
Mass starvation never happened? Africa, Russia, China, India, North Korea come to mind. All civilized countries last time I checked. But primitivists never predicted those famines, so I don't know who you mean by 'your kind'. Promises of 'better living through chemistry''moving sidewalks''jet pack travel''meals in a pill''living forever''nuclear energy too cheap to meter' were all made decades ago by real scientists. They've promised to fix the ozone hole too. It's worse now.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Look, you mention all the places that have experienced famines because they weren't/aren't using modern agriculture techniques and weren't/aren't open to the free market. Of course China is a perfect example, they were starving, open up to the free market, purchased modern agriculture tech, and now they're not starving. Then you mention all the sci-fi hype which I've already said wasn't promised by science, only media. And nuclear power is the cheapest source of power out there.
subach 3 years ago
You said the prediction of mass starvation was false. A famine is mass starvation. Famines occurred in the countries I mentioned. Those are facts. Ergo, the predictions were true. I didn't say anything about modern agriculture. The so-called "sci-fi hype" were actual predictions made by real scientists. Nuclear is one of the most expensive sources of power i.e. total costs! You are so full of shit I can smell you over the internet (but hey, that's just an expression, don't take it literally).
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
The North Korean example is pretty poor. Seeing as how they have been almost competely isolated and depend on other countries for a lot of their food. Just look at South Korea. They aren't isolated politically and they have a healthy, thriving society that has very good access to food supplies.
olivemike81 3 years ago
So what? North Korea is an example of a famine. That's all I said. We can argue about the causes: e.g. a callous corrupt government, poor planning, breakdown of distribution, or communism, capitalism, fascism, etc. People starve because of these ideologies and/or practices of mass production, and these ideologies and practices are rooted in the inner logic of civilization.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Look at other countries that have limited domestic food resorces. Japan and South Korea are perfect examples. Yet both have strong economies based predominantly on the free market. And they don't have millions starving do they? People in North Korea starve because they have a shitty government. It's as simple as that.
olivemike81 3 years ago
Not so simple. Famine has occurred in predominantly free market countries like India, Bengal, Ireland etc. Read some history. Most famines are a result of a combination of factors. North Korea is mostly due to their government. But I wasn't making any point connecting famine with particular types of governments in my reply to subach.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
And 0.11% of that energy is from geothermal, wind, solar, etc. There's a long way to go before solar, wind, etc even crack 50%. I don't understand the burning trees and guano remark. Who's 'we' and 'you'?
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
As I've already said 14 years, it's simple math. Anyway You being the primitives/Luddites.
You see by the 19th century new England and most of Europe was almost stripped of trees. People such as yourself raised alarms about how everyone was going to freeze to death, but then we found coal. Guano was the primary fertilizer used in the 19th century. People such as yourself said most of the world's population would starve when it was depleted. But then the Haber process was discovered.
subach 3 years ago
Well whoop-dee-doo...I don't get your point. I haven't raised alarms about running out of anything (except maybe biodiversity). Yeah, coal was such an "advancement". You're too young, but I remember the London smog disaster of 1952 that killed 12,000 people from coal pollution. The joys of progress!
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Well there's another good example, since that 1952 disaster in which thick toxic smog we haven't started using less coal. We invented ways to remove most of the toxic chemicals from it so incidents like that wouldn't happen. But that's not the point, the point is whenever we're near running out of a resource or no longer willing to keep using it(in the case of coal) the economy shifts in favor of finding a replacement. This is why renewable energy installation is doubling every 1-2 years.
subach 3 years ago
You simply didn't like some of the progress because of it's side effects, so you now assume no progress can be good. Yet you think nothing of eating the food progress has brought you, or communicating with me using the computer progress endowed you with. I could go on, but you simply focus on the negatives of progress, and then assume there are no solutions to these negatives. Of course add some statism to your position and you might as well call civilization a loss.
subach 3 years ago
Yes, I don't like the side-effects of progress. And like the inmate in jail I eat the food because there is no choice, not because I endorse the prison. I focus on the negatives because there are so many of them. The solutions to the negatives almost always create more problems than they solve. Civilization is a net loss, though there are good parts to it obviously, otherwise no one would bother continuing with it. But all civilizations end... because they are unsustainable.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
So if investing in alternative energy won't solve our problems what will? What is your solution?
olivemike81 3 years ago
We'll solve our problems (and I don't mean to imply solving 'all' possible human problems)by moving away from this high tech, authoritarian system that divides us all into specialized cogs. We do that by refusing to add our energy to it whenever we can. Powering down, simplifying, self-reliance, creative low tech handicrafts will help move towards a gradual reversal of this current death march we're on. I'm not saying alt energy won't help, only that it's oversold as a panacea.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
lol "low tech handicrafts" Yep, you really got a solution to all our environmental problems there. Alt energy oversold huh? In Europe 40 million people get their energy from wind power alone. In Denmark wind supplies enough energy to meet 20% of the population's electricity needs. Wind, Solar and others won't solve every problem (especially energy for our cars) but it can go a long way to getting us off coal and maybe even nuclear.
olivemike81 3 years ago
Oh, so now you admit I offered a solution, only you don't like it. You keep flip-flopping. You do know that a single wire from a windmill took more energy and burned more fossil fuels to mine, process, transport and manufacture than a windmill will save in a month, right? Add up all the components in a windmill and do the math. Do the same with a solar panel. Then go change your light bulbs pretending you are saving the environment with the new mercury filled CFLs.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
You never offered a solution. You offered bullshit ideas that no country will ever utilize.
olivemike81 3 years ago
Dear flip-flopper:
"lol'low tech handicrafts' yep,you really got a solution to all our problems" You were obviously being sarcastic, yet you labelled my so-called 'bullshit ideas' a solution regardless. If you can't argue coherently that's not my problem. You are a troll who came on here to badger anyone with sympathies to the video, something you proved by your first post. Now, go change your lightbulbs.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Like you said it's called 'sarcasm' I used the word 'solution' sarcastically because 'dumb fucking idea' takes up too much space. I'll go change my lightbulbs, and you can keep shitting in the woods. What's powering you're computer anyway asshole?
olivemike81 3 years ago
Like I said, if you can't argue a point coherently, that's not my problem. At least my shit is contributing to the nutrient cycle of the environment, unlike your industrial windmills and toxic solar panels. Your dumb fucking idea is to destroy the world more slowly, that's all.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Hey retard. Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it so. What exaclty are you using to power your computer? As far as any environmental damage solar and wind may cause themselves, it's not impossible to find a solution to those problems as well. See that's what you lack, any fucking imagination. You have no solutions. All you have is nitpicking of any other possible solution.
olivemike81 3 years ago
Hey ass-wipe, what difference does it make what is powering my computer? What the fuck is your point? You keep saying we'll find solutions (to the problems created by the present 'solutions', ironically) but that doesn't make it so. That's an act of faith. You have no solutions, just more of the same. i.e. more technology. Very imaginative! Fucking hilarious. I'm not against alt. energy, I'm saying it isn't ultimately a solution. Think deeper for fucksakes.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
lol You laigh at my solutions? You're the one who said we should all use "low tech handicrafts" like that's ever going to fucking happen. How fucking stupid are you?
olivemike81 3 years ago
Obviously not nearly as stupid as you. Low tech handicrafts is a solution in a way solar and wind energy isn't. It solves the problem by getting rid of the problem. Saying it will never happen is just another way of saying you don't want it to happen. Fine, go change your lightbulbs then and leave the real problems to us. You seem utterly incapable of dealing with the on-going collapse happening around us anyway. You have no answer except substituting technologies as a stop gap measure.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Allright I'm done arguing with your dumbass. Take your low tech handicrafts and shove them up your ass. You seem utterly incapable of realizing that no one is going to adopt any of your dumbass ideas on a large scale. Here's where we differ. Yes solar and wind have drawbacks but instead of just foresaking them I think we should look for ways to reduce or eliminate those drawbacks. You just want to say "fuck it" and promote some bullshit idea that will never happen.
olivemike81 3 years ago
A good example? Nope. Coal scrubbers were first used in the 1980s (30 years after) and then only a few coal plants had them. Today, they're still not mandatory and not in widespread use. However, even the "advanced" techology of scrubbers has managed to kill people. In 2005 an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in Norway was proven to emanate from a scrubber, causing ten deaths and more than fifty cases of infection as it spread the bacteria through the air during a period of only two weeks.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
So what's your solution? Let everyone starve to death?
olivemike81 3 years ago
yeah, that's it. Didn't read my post did you. If you're going to engage in bad faith debating then go fuck yourself.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
No you go fuck yourself. What's your solution? Doesn't seem like you have one to me. You just criticize everyone else's ideas.
olivemike81 3 years ago
olivemike81 has reading comprehension issues. So I'll repeat my solution: Begining in 2010 a world wide movement to establish a Fourth Reich that will eliminate all non-aryan and non-primitive people from the earth through mass starvation and population die-off.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
Re: criticism. Your first post was a criticism of primitive ideas and how you didn't want to live in the woods. What a fucking hypocrite.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
Wow I hope you were joking on that 2010 idea. If not that makes you one of the biggest pieces of shit around today. You don't have a plan for solving our environmental and energy problems. You have a plan for killing billions of people. Go fuck yourself. But do it after you shit in the woods.
olivemike81 3 years ago
He took the bait! See? olivemike81 is just an idiot after all.
nurktwin1960 3 years ago
I think the key is that it isn't social-anarchism, it aligns with post-leftist ethos.
pvh2110 3 years ago
dude can't wait to see the whole thing. Green Anarchy is a really great journal to read.
idemandmydreams 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jeffrey "Free" Leurs was a dumbass when he set fire to SUV's.
sk9utube 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear John Zerzan & sympathizers; I love your agenda of self-reliant tricks and tips of living frugally in respect and harmony with nature, but I can never forgive the element of your followers who use black block tactics vandalizing and inciting cops on peaceful protestors, especially when you resort to violence. You people are provocoteurs who incite martial law more than anyone I've ever met in my entire fucking life.
sk9utube 4 years ago
user = NDClark "Anarchy is Stupid" /watch?v=vhpaZPYI8-U
sk9utube 4 years ago
great video! i had no idea green anarchy was being used in academics anywhere. i'll definitely come back to watch the rest of the film when its up.
teysah 4 years ago 3
Nice Job. Looking forward to the Long Version.
OttOmOlOtOv 4 years ago 2
thank you for posting this!
awesome
pennilesscripple 4 years ago 2
thanks. this is my first documentary. I will finish the full version soon and post it up.
pvh2110 4 years ago
i'm looking forward to it
it's a great magazine
i wish the circulation were higher :(
pennilesscripple 4 years ago 2