END:CIV Premise 1

[mozartfx1]

Derrik Jensen = insane. I mean, "Stop making beer cans"?  What an asshole. There's a federal prison cell somewhere with this guys name on it. Problem is, he'll find a bunch of Jerry Springer watching sheep and incite them into killing innocent people first. He doesn't have the balls to do anything himself. If he did, he would have done something already. Look how sad he looks. That's because he knows he's a fucking coward. Nut job.

[thanosied]

Government is the problem, not civilization. Taxation is Extortion. Private property is protected for future profit, public property is raped by corporations connected to politicians.

[freejazzfree]

I was just making a veiled criticism of anti-civ Jensen who called the authorities apparently when he was given death threats. I still think he has many interesting things to say

[freejazzfree]

civilization is bad until you get death threats then you call the cops ;)

[irgy709]

...this movie needs some Stewart Brand. Urbanization as it stands today *is* a green force...and it's an irresistible one to begin with.

[notthecheatr]

All of life is *inherently* unsustainable. One day our sun will explode and none of us will still be alive.

Civilization allows us to have science and technology. We won't live forever, no matter what, but it may be that some day we will be able to take our culture and science to other planets, other stars, other worlds. Destroying civilization has no future either; the only difference is we won't have the technology to save ourselves in the end.

[caseyforever]

@notthecheatr no offense but what you're saying is moronic. stating something far reaching such as one day the sun will explode does not void current concerns or put a shadow on the relevance of doing what it takes to save our lives now. it's gets tiring hearing this sort of stuff... it's a cop out. we evolved with the planet and are healthiest on a healthy planet. most of our sicknesses and diseases are from civilization and removing civilization does not remove our knowledge.

[notthecheatr]

@caseyforever I'm not making a cop-out here. I'm entirely in favor of "saving the environment." I just don't think it needs to be, or should be, at the expense of civilization. Destroying civilization is not going to make our problems any better!

[joelemm17]

@notthecheatr I think we should just stop talking about it and go live a more sustainable life. I know thats what i need to do.

[nick9tap]

Consurmerism, wether its oil based or hemp based is in direct opposistion to respect. Save the planet encourage global strike 2012

[yellowecotec]

Henry Fords plastic car made in 1941 was made from hemp plastic and was 10 times stronger than steel. Hemp seed fuel has a 97% conversion ratio and repairs toxic soil. This plant can turn dead land into something living with time. Mushrooms repair soil within MONTHS removing all toxicity.

Hemp seeds have more protien than anything else on the planet and are perfectly balanced with omega3-6-9 BETTER THAN SALMON. I am living evidence of a non meat, dairy, fish diet.

Look in my channel

[Hendar23]

@yellowecotec Hemp plastic has many great qualities, but I'm pretty sure it's not ten times stronger than steel.

[kingxciter]

@Hendar23 yeah it sure has many great possibilits but on the other hand if the world was to use only hemp to make all the plastic needed to this civ. We would run out of space to grow hemp.

[Edwardsjm]

a slow population decline is NOT profitable, the people that own and run the world know this.

[lenarita1]

reposting

[FalconAero]

A farmer forces his seed into the soil, he fights it every day to produce crops. In the ancient metaphor of plant growth to human sexuality, agriculture resembles nothing so much as it does rape. Agricultural societies must believe in the supremacy of humanity. Without the myth of our ownership of all the world, how can their daily chores be excused? Without the drive of mankind’s manifest destiny of world conquest, how can their laborious life be justified?

[kidzed84]

@FalconAero

agriculture is not the problem- monoculture and industrial food production is.

indigenous cultures of all kinds around the world have practiced food garden cultivation for millenia.

in papua new guinea it is morning glory, collards, and various fruit and nuts.

in canada it was the "3 sisters" corn, squash, beans which was a permacultural system for 2k years before western civ.

[usergently]

The raping of mother earth will indeed put an end on us. Evidently!

[drrt6]

Fuck It! I'm in lets do this shit!

[Harryclownie]

anarchy is the future. when society crashes Im gonna stalk from city to city in a bulldozer or wrecking ball. city's look like a growth or a cancer from a satellite. we had this beautiful planet and we have made shopping malls.. good work humanity.

[LLCraver]

I am one vote for an equal money system

[Nutzername36]

@LLCraver there is no error in the system, the system is the error! ;)

[LLCraver]

@Nutzername36 yeah - and we are the system, so time to correct the error in ourselves in order to bring about a system that is no longer existing within error and stands corrected - for eternity.

[Nutzername36]

@LLCraver i´m with you but this system won´t be a money system :)

[LLCraver]

@Nutzername36 an equal money system is an interim solution so that we are able to establish equality - once humans are able to be trusted, b/c obviously we are not able to be trusted at this point, we will be able to stop using any form of currency - the only reason there is money in this world is because of inequality, therefore there will be no reason to have money once we are all equal, in fact.

[TheArjan1982]

read Ward Churchills books

[HerbMaster13]

@12345combination

haha Your a BUMBA CLOT!!!

[12345combination]

Maybe if Jensen wants people to take him seriously he should cited some artilces from peer reviewed journals in his books. But then he'd run the risk of exposing his diatribe as inncorrect. Man actual research is hard.

The Machine is strong. We must purge the weak, hated flesh and replace it with the blessed purity of metal. Only through permanence can we truly triumph, only through the Machine can we find victory. Punish the flesh! Iron in mind and body! Hail the Machine!

[IngeniousEpithet]

Two problems in this world:

1. There are way too many people.

2. They are collectively living far beyond their means

And to top it all off... most people are STILL impoverished/enslaved somehow.

What a disgusting culture.

[Nutzername36]

@IngeniousEpithet there are not too many people on this planet. we can serve the needs of over 9.000.000.000 human beings. and we can do it sustainable. we have the technology and the knewlege to do it right know. all we have to do it to do it. and ok, some % of the human population have the change there behavier, but thats not so hard to do. so please be optimistic. we will build anachic communism and all human will life in prosperity! :)

[IngeniousEpithet]

@Nutzername36

I agree that much much more can be done, as well as in the vein of Anarchism. However, there is no way we can sustain 9 billion people on this planet for the long-term. In fact, even 1 billion would likely be too much when you factor in a certain standard of modern living. I'm not saying I have all the solutions to the problems, but the problems are there nonetheless. Just because it sucks and there's no easy way out doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

[Nutzername36]

@IngeniousEpithet hi. the problem is not overpopulation it´s the way we produce! in fakt there is no overpopulation! after a lot of research i know a lot of the solutions and in cases i don´t know how they work i know that they exists. we can at least supply 9 billion people on the living standard of the first world. if i would guess i would say we can supply 20-30 billion people sustainable.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@Nutzername36

So... how EXACTLY can we continue totalitarian agriculture, industrialization, domestication (of land, animals, and man), etc. without destroying biodiversity, freedom/rights, health, and resources/land-base??

[Nutzername36]

@IngeniousEpithet totalitarian agriculture->we can´t we have to use permacultur->destroying biodiversity/resources/land-ba­se->solved.

industrialization->local/susta­inable/collectivization->freed­om/rights;esources/land-base;b­iodiversity;health->solved.

domestication (of land, animals, and man)->life vegan/permaculture/anarchy->bl­abla->solved.

or do you want to know how we can get there? or is there a missunderstanding because you read the book from this guy and i don´t? if this is the case....

[IngeniousEpithet]

@Nutzername36

Then that would NOT be living within our current civilization. That's what I meant by civilization.

[Nutzername36]

@IngeniousEpithet ... please try to explain to me whats the problem with civ? as far as i understand it civ is "bad" because we consume stuff in a other place than we produce it, so we can´t see the damage that´s done. so let´s produce where we live in an anarchy system, i don´t see the problem.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@Nutzername36

An Anarchist society would require the end of civilization. Not civilization in the sense of peaceful, civil societies, but of OUR civilization which was born 10,000 years ago.

[Nutzername36]

@IngeniousEpithet ok thanks, i think i understand. :)

[Crustanarchy]

@Nutzername36 Most of the world is poor now so if everyone established a "modern" living standard comparable to the U.S. they wouldn't have the resources to do it... they've all been used up or are being circulated in the global market. I believe Jensen said it was calculated that we would need five more Earths if that were to happen.

[Nutzername36]

@Crustanarchy thats right if you take the given standard of production. but i am talking about sustainable production. starts at permaculture to grow food proceed by renewable energy and doesn´t stop at compostable plastic.

[ashevillecat]

@Nutzername36 Just because we can do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Your plan leaves little or no space for wildlife and, more fundamentally, nature. All humans can only live in prosperity if there are FAR fewer numbers of us, or else at the expense of all other life Humans would manage the entire planet, playing God over the evolution of all species. No, we must enclose Civilization and, eventually, kick it off the planet.

[Nutzername36]

@ashevillecat it does! we don´t have a other choice than to push biodiversity up and leave huge areas intact. i live in germany and one day i had an argument with a friend of mine. he say that you can never supply the people living in germany with the agricultural area we have here. so i looked it up and calculated with official numbers from coverment and you can supply more than 3times the people living in germany. germany is the 3th crowded land in the world, 50%of area is agriculture ;)

[ashevillecat]

@Nutzername36 Okay, so this might be possible, but it would mean huge sacrifices that few Germans would accept: no more bananas or oranges; you'd have to go back to diets based largely on wheat, rye, and oats, and meat and dairy would be an uber-premium (the vast majority of this agricultural land would need to be devoted to food crops for humans, not livestock). So you'd have a vegetarian society with little milk or cheese and 50% of the land would have < a dozen species on it.

[Nutzername36]

@ashevillecat i would say a vegan society is more indicated ;) and i wouldn´t call it sacrifice. you can eat everything that you can plant and if i want bananas in germany i build a greenhouse and not far away i woundn´t need a greenhouse because of climate change. so we have ~17%land used to feed humans and with a lot more than a dozen species on it. thats how i calculate ;). and i don´t know exactly how i can teach this to my fellow men and make this real but i know that it´s possible.

[Nutzername36]

@ashevillecat simultaneously we can support the entire energy demand on the area we already sealed (in germany)(energiewenderechner.d­e/en/). needless to say we have to do it locally thus we convey where we live, we produce where we live and we cunsum where we live. if we do it sustainable i see no reason why 9billion people can not live on a first world standard. so start planting something with permacultur or kick your pc out of the window ;)

[ashevillecat]

@Nutzername36 Are you suggesting that permaculture would provide a first world standard of living? Come visit the US sometime and you'll understand that the world does not live like you Germans - with lawns (grass) and roads each covering an area the size of Germany, with centralized power and food production & distribution systems that are far from localized, and a population addicted to cheap fuel (and practically willing to nuke anyone who would take it away). Apples and oranges.

[Nutzername36]

@ashevillecat i know that most of the world have a extrem far lower living standard than germany and i feel good with this living standard. and now think about this. if every human would use the resource for the living standard like in the usa 5 earth would be needed, like in germany ~2,5. i say that the people in germany can life sustainable on the current living standard .Density usa:32/km2, germany:229/km2

if humankind want to survive massiv changes are needed.

[Nutzername36]

@ashevillecat we already now will have to use terraforming if we want to survive. so everyone will have to change there behavier now or we have to reduce the human population now to attain this goal. the second one i´m not in!

[robertojerez]

civilization is not sustainable (prove, look at civilizations up to this day), and the option must not be primitivism (either or trap), there were people on earth long before us, and in big numbers and kept no writing record whatsoever ie civilization, because they didnt have the need to rape mother earth for their needs, how did they do it?. Check out Laura Knight Jadzick for insights about that, dont expect single answers but more questions, finer ones. Keep it up stimulator!

[soupstyles]

Anti-civ shares the same nature / culture dualism as neo-conservative Republican ideology. It just inverts it, romanticizing nature and forgetting that human culture is as natural as anything else. It conflates CAPITALIST civilization with civilization ingeneral. The problem isn't our culture; its class rule, patriarchy, empire etc.

[soupstyles]

There are so many holes in the anti-civ arguments. I don't know where to start. The first is about cities. I agree that the definition of civilization is cities. But I don't agree that cities are necessarily unsustainable or anti-natural. Drawing resources from somewhere else? How is that different from an anthill or beehive? It's quite concievable that city might compost its wastes back into its bioregion; that it will draw its energy from solar sources broadly defined

[IngeniousEpithet]

There really aren't many holes in the anti-civ argument. The main notions of being anti-civ are that our civilization is inherently unsustainable and oppressive and must be stopped before it causes more damage/suffering than it's worth. I see ZERO holes in such an argument.

Paving over an entire WILDERNESS with concrete, steel, glass, plastic, aluminum, and so on IS "anti-natural". Yes, city living CAN be more eco-friendly than it is. But as they are (net result), cities are VERY unsustainable.

[soupstyles]

IngeniousEpithet:

The main point - AS THEY ARE. You don't try and probe WHY cities are like that. For all it's "extreme" style, primitivism isn't very radical; it doesn't go to the root of things. "Civilization" is an obscurantist concept that glosses over capitalism and the state.

Ever wonder why the mainstream media loves to interview Zerzan? He shares the same assumptions as them.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@soupstyles

lol, the mainstream media loves to interview Zerzan? That's like saying the media has a liberal bias, it's BS.

Primitivism absolutely goes to the core of our problems, capitalism and the state are RESULTS of totalitarian agriculture, hierarchy, civilization. Simply eliminating capitalism won't solve our sustainability problems, nor will it solve problems of top-down oppression.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@soupstyles

Continued...

I'm not saying cities shouldn't make an effort to become eco-friendly, but to become truly sustainable as a culture, our cities will have to become nearly unrecognizable in their functions/forms and resources. Civilization, as a concept, already takes capitalism/the state as a granted in what it encompasses. The real root of it all is totalitarian agriculture, hierarchy, and state-enforced/practiced ownership of property/land.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@soupstyles

Also keep in mind, anti-civ concepts/solutions don't necessarily espouse primitivism as the only alternative. However, technologically we will need to lean towards a more primitive culture in our everyday, and perhaps the BETTER (suppressed) advanced technology for infrastructural use so long as it exists. For most people, an anarchist/anti-civ future is a very new concept, very radical and unsure, but we need to explore/experiment rather than criticize based on superficials.

[soupstyles]

Hating cities is quite common and conservative in this culture. That's why we have suburban sprawl. Ample evidence states that rural and suburban living has higher ecological footprint than city living. Manhattan dwellers have the lowest eco-footprint in North America.

[IngeniousEpithet]

The fact that city living, per capita, is more efficient than suburban living still isn't saying much now is it?

[MaSteRKuSH010]

The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything. Albert Einstein.

The slogans of Newspeak are, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. George Orwell.

Google: Can Bush Be Prosecuted? & Zeitgeist - The Movie

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Krishnamurti.

Wiki. Sheeple.

[technologic21]

I was watching Princess Mononoke. The movie specifically addressees the issue of humans destroying nature and if the need to take a step back and actually examine what we are doing to the environment. The clearly evident portrayal of this concept is when Jiko attempts to claim the head of the forest god, Although the forest is being destroyed around him as he runs away with the head. It's when Ashitaka threatens him that he MUST return it that Jiko does so. Brilliant film.

[GoldenBoughTrader]

Driving back from Mendocino along a windy mountain top road, what I saw made me sick. Miles of stumps from clear cutting. When you see something that horrible you know viscerally that CIV is not sustainable and that in all likliehood we will destroy ourselves along with the environment. Like the man says: "Humans are self-extinguishing." I couldn't agree more because in spite of all the damage we've done and are doing to the planet we still fail to see it. The earth will sove the problem for us.

[MrSomewhere]

If the west returned to pre-civ, what's to stop Asia or the Middle East from continuing on their merry way and then conquering us, who conveniently lost our military capabilities?

I loved Endgame, and I hate civ, but let's get real here about how far we can take this principle.

[Christinecedar]

Great video Stimulator!

Gut wrenching, and so it should be.

[fatherprime]

top notch video editing.

[gratex]

it's too simple. Civilisation arose on 3 seperate continents. It's part of our NATURE. Even if we did manage to destroy all cities, we'd be back to square 2 in a couple of generations. This needs real solutions, not fantasies.

[timothyxmcveigh]

Its also part of our nature to evolve and learn...so the idea that because we once did something, or because we now do something now we must continue to do it in the future is just dumb. I don't feel we should take away civilization, but it would definetely benefit everyone/everything to get back in touch with the natural world which we live upon.

[gratex]

How did we lose touch in the first place? I agree about learning, and it's learning we have to do, this is us being fed through the ringer, and we will learn and hopefully never go back... but to turn away from sodom and gomorrah is simply daft, because someone will always look back, repeat, etc.

[HuxleyWasRight]

Oh man, yes, everything would be just great on earth had man never existed.

Ok then, anybody who believes this smug clowns theory, you can start us off by killing yourselves.

[hyperion311]

he's way to radical. I mean ya obviosly we gotta be more sustainable, but dismantling civilization? whats that even mean? kill everyone?

[Zao125]

Is Jensen gonna become a Kurtz like figure in the forest?

[chris3443]

"We should destroy civilization" says a guy on Youtube. This is like advocating the cessation of the use of pencils by writing a letter with...a pencil. This is pure hypocrisy. I am incredibly thankful for modern-day industry, and will continue to support it while also supporting more sustainable practices. Why don't you move to the forest without any modern-day things and see how good it was "back then" with your wild salmon.

[themajikat]

From wiki:

One common criticism of primitivists is that in order to disseminate their views, they make use of print and internet publishing technologies. Such arguments have been employed to suggest that anarcho-primitivists are insincere or hypocritical for using modern technology.

[themajikat]

Primitivists, such as Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, and many others respond that using the internet and print media are effective at spreading their beliefs, and less harmful than doing nothing to avoid seeming "hypocritical".

[themajikat]

They believe that by using effective tools that are already in place today anyway, they can hopefully create a society where those technologies are no longer produced or used. Derrick Jensen has responded to these critics first by saying that it "reveals the weakness of their own position: they cannot rebut the substance of our message, so they simply attack the messenger."

[TiradeFaction]

While I can understand what Jensen is saying in terms of using modern technology to "get his message" across, why is he also using the benefits of modern society whist not spreading his message. He himself, can be living out in the woods, with no technology, no modern clothing, no modern medicine, and only come back to "Spread his message", if he was so inclined. The "idyllic" past mythos still exist in parts of this planet, he can go there, without being a hypocrite and using modern technology.

[themajikat]

Wiki:

Another common criticism, which some believe suggests hypocrisy, is that few primitivist philosophers live in primitive societies themselves.

Jensen states that while the critics are accurate in saying that primitivists do not live a completely primitivist lifestyle, the critics are not accurate in saying that the primitives choose not to. He believes that no legitimate options exist within the system to live such a lifestyle,

[TiradeFaction]

Just going to parrot what he says then eh?

Are you a disciple of Jensen then? Seems like it.

Neat deal eh? There's no valid options for him, so he gets to bitch on and on about "CIVILIZATION", and dreams of the "Noble savage" whist not having to live in that environment himself. Truly humorous.

[themajikat]

and that it is necessary that people "dismantle the industrial economy" before they have a real choice about how they will live.

For instance, Theodore Kaczynski, who did live a primitive lifestyle said:  The honest truth is that I am not really politically oriented. I would have really rather just be living out in the woods. If nobody had started cutting roads through there and cutting the trees down and come buzzing

[themajikat]

around in helicopters and snowmobiles I would still just be living there and the rest of the world could just take care of itself. I got involved in political issues because I was driven to it, so to speak.

 — Theodore Kaczynski

Jensen also claims that focusing primarily on lifestyle changes "serves the interests of those in power by keeping our focus off them." and instead considering one's self to be "the problem", rather than "those in power"

[TiradeFaction]

Lol, well, "fight the power" then brother.

I don't think you'll get many to follow in your dismantling of modern civilization though. Myself included, would not join your "struggle".

[TiradeFaction]

Theodore "Unibomber" Kacyznski was an insane fucktard that killed people of no consequence.

I really hope you haven't taken up admiration of him.

[themajikat]

I was just giving you what their own justification is.

Your childish character assassination and patronizing is just uncalled for.

[TiradeFaction]

Not at all childish.

The unibomber was clinically diagnosed with a number of mental disorders, and the people he killed had no consequence on anything meaningful, on a grand scale at least. The guy is a total nutter. His punishment should manufacturing motherboards and other tech parts for the rest of his life lol!

[chris3443]

If even the means of delivery is hyporcritical, certainly we can't take the speaker seriously? If he considers his way of life superior, then it should need no help in being supported and promoted, since the benefits will be obvious. This is a ridiculous belief system -- remember that you can't eat any modern foods, since all of them have been enlarged and developed my (Shock!) civilization. Corn was about a cm long before smart people got their hands on it and improved on nature.

[TiradeFaction]

I wonder if these primitivists would take their philosophy to heart once they get seriously sick eh? I don't want to see any of them on chemotherapy if they get cancer.

[FeralThought]

what an idiotic comment. what a stupid stupid thing to say. go read a book dummy.

[TiradeFaction]

Uh, excuse me?

You do realize books are a product of civilization, and modern books a product of industrialization?

Jesus fucking Christ, talk about THE most ironic comment I've ever read!

Thanks for the lulz though dipshit.

[FeralThought]

i apologize for calling you a dummy. my bad.

i still wish you'd pick up a book or simply ask a question rather than getting aggressive if you don't understand something.

i suggest starting with endgame by derrick jensen (the sad guy in the beginning of the clip). if you'd have read that book, you wouldn't' have left that ridiculous comment.

[FeralThought]

here's what your comment could have looked like:

you- "um, excuse me, you do realize books are a product of civilization, and modern books a product of industrialization? how can you be against civilization on one hand and then at the same time be using it's technology to attack it?"

[FeralThought]

me- "well, it's quite simple really. primitivists have found that technology is quite a handy tool for dismantling civilization. you don't understand primitivism and it's approach if you think that to be a primitivist you need to avoid technology. why would you try and take down a damn with a stone axe when you've got explosives at your disposal?"

[FeralThought]

it's as simple as asking a question.

i can give you a whole list of books you can find at your local library and bookstore that will definitely answer any other questions you might have. just let me know.

[TiradeFaction]

Primitivism is not something I'm really that interested in, sorry.

[TiradeFaction]

I think Chris put it best, if even the delivery, and means to your philosophy, is using the products of this system you demonize, how can I take you seriously? I'll make you a deal, you and a group of primitivists give up all technology for 5 years, and live in pre civilization basis, and I'll check up on it and make my mind if I like it or not? Kay?

[TiradeFaction]

Also,now that I think of it, shouldn't the use of technology by primitivists be strictly confined towards the destruction of civilization? I hope your messiahs like Jensen aren't enjoying the nice comforts of home heating, home cooling, refrigerated food and modern medicine.

[FeralThought]

so you're not interested in it, but you still want to engage me in conversation? what's the point of that? to make an argument about something you know nothing about and don't want to know anything about? that seems a little arrogant to me.

[TiradeFaction]

Actually, I didn't engage you in conversation. You engaged me in your pathetic attempt at an insult laced with intense irony.

The arrogance here is you thinking I can't possibly know about your ideology because I don't share it. That's typical though :P.

Buh bye.

[FeralThought]

and again, i apologize for starting this off in such a rude way. i'm a dummy for calling you a dummy.

by "vaguely" suggesting you "read a book", i was implying that you read about this specific topic (or any other specific topic) before you attack it. i thought you'd catch that. i'll try and be more specific for you.

[TiradeFaction]

Would this include books critical of primitivism? Same subject.

The old catchline "read a book" is just a debate diversion tactic to try to suggest just because there's books that promote your idea, therefore you have more "credence", when there's books available promoting almost any idea really.

I hope you don't use toilets, because that'd be awfully hypocritical. They're a modern convenience created by modern civilization, and their use would have nothing to do with the destruction thereof.

[FeralThought]

everytime you respond to one of my comments, you engage me in conversation. that's how it works.

you couldn't possibly share my ideology if you don't know anything about it, so i'm not expecting you to share my ideology and i couldn't care less if you do. what bothers me is your ignorant attack on something you know nothing about and show no interest in learning about. i'm only inviting you to learn about it before you try and attack it, that's all.

[TiradeFaction]

*sigh*, dude, you already show your dogmatic thinking by not being able to accept that a critic of your ideology can't possibly know about it! It's like a Christian that goes "Sorry, you're not a christian BECAUSE YOU DON"T KNOW JESUS"

It's not engaging in conversation, but merely defending myself (and getting some lulz) from some truly pathetic attacks.

Thanks for the lulz though dude, it's been fun.

[FeralThought]

but i wouldn't attack Christianity, if i hadn't educated myself about it first.

honestly though, that's a terrible example. my ideology differs from any religion because religion is FAITH IN THE UNKNOWABLE. you can't argue with something that isn't tangible.

[FeralThought]

you could, however learn about primitivism and then make some valid point against it. right now your points are feeble as fuck. they hold no water.

i dare you to read a book i suggest and then get back to me and try to make the same points you're making now. I DARE YOU.

[FeralThought]

ok. i'm tired, my spelling is getting worse and i still need to take my dog for a walk, so i need to end it here for tonight. you can send me a message or i'll respond to you here tomorrow.

sweet dreams.

[TiradeFaction]

Dare me to read WHAT book?

Why not read some books critical of primitivism?

So interesting for a primitivist to be so adamant about books, the irony again is shining.

I DARE YOU to live at least a month completely without modern technology, no iffs ands or buts, and I want to see what you think of primitivism then, k?

[TiradeFaction]

Oh ok, you're just interested in getting me to read your propaganda in the hopes that evangelizing me will be successful.

Lol.

[FeralThought]

you're right. civilization is an inevitable result of humanities progress on earth. obey your cultural conditioning. consume, toil, fear the slave master, eat shit for breakfast and shun those fellow slaves who dare to question their shackles. slobber slobber oink glub glub.

[timothyxmcveigh]

You make a good point about primitivists and books haha. But keep in mind it's not that we can't live without modern technology, it's that we can't live without modern technology in modern society. Get dropped in the middle of the forest and believe me, you'll use what you got...Check out the movie WIZARDS from the 70s haha.

[TiradeFaction]

I never said we couldn't live without modern technology outside modern society, but why would I want to lol?

Interesting...s/n...

[timothyxmcveigh]

Because at some point the human race is going to need to move out of their self centered view of existence and evolve into a place where they see value in the bigger picture. We can't keep thinking that screwing future generations is our right.

[TiradeFaction]

Well I don't think primitivism would really accomplish that, but whatever floats your boat dude.

[timothyxmcveigh]

No, no. I'm not for primitivism. I mean, individually I dont care...But as far as for the whole world? No. We should have the right to live with some level of convenience. What I dont agree with is behavior that severely compromises everyone's health and freedom. We simply need to make our civilization live alongside the natural world better. Like those towns that are built between trees instead of on top of where trees were. This guy is extreme, but he's got the general idea.

[TiradeFaction]

I'd disagree that the "guy" has the general idea, but I can agree with living more sustainably and being more conversationalist. I'm not against that.

[timothyxmcveigh]

I think he's correct that it was a mistake to industrialize the way we have, and that modern society is unsustainable. I dont think tearing it down is realistic, but it's on the right track.

[TiradeFaction]

I can agree up to the point that "tearing it down" is on the right track.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there :)

[TiradeFaction]

Head...fucking...desk.

Totally ignored what I was comparing didn't you?

I'm comparing dogmatic thinkers, and their inability to accept critics of their ideology actually know about it, and aren't critics because they don't know about it.

Fucking hell...

[TiradeFaction]

Well, I don't really have an obligation to be polite to you, especially when you openly attacked me, while being absolutely ironic.

[TiradeFaction]

Maybe you should say "read the books I want you to read", rather than the vague "read a book". I read plenty of books, it's one of the great things of civilization :)

[motorolarules]

Truth feels, tastes, looks good, even when it hurts to feel, taste and see it. I am glad you share this stuff...

[TheBigHo111]

***** FAV shared

[Claybird121]

GREAT

[Ree144]

What is civil about civilizations? We weren't meant to live together in one place in large numbers. Consider the great civilizations of past history they all end suddenly, but weirdly it all seems such a massive mystery to us...

[PerspectiveConflictR]

fuck yeah keep em coming