Reddit mentions of Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections

My assertions are axiomatic, and quite obviously so, at that. This is not a wise battle for you to pursue, unless you wish to descend into colonial European notions of manifest destiny and the white man's burden.

>>Those people are just as advanced as any other
>
>No, they're not.

Tell me, then: in a contest of using indigenous medicinal plants, who would prove "more advanced" - you, or these tribespeople? In determining who has superior herding techniques, which party would be the victor? In a comparison of familial kinship and relations? Spearcraft? Long-distance hiking? Animal husbandry?

There simply does not exist any way to declare any of these criteria "unimportant" without making a subjective assertion of your own personal values. And the people we're talking about would most certainly have a different class of values about those things. Why would your values be "more objective" than theirs - or anyone's? The answer is that they cannot be. It is your own opinion, and with any degree of humility, all genuinely reasonable people recoginze that, as I hope that you will, too.

>>Civilization and technology are specific types of advancements, but they are not objectively superior to any others
>
>Yes, they are.

Funny - there sure seem to be a great many very well-reasoned arguments against civilization and technology, even from those who have experienced the very height of their "advancement".

I certainly see no evidence for an objective declaration, even just by examing the meta-issue of the debate itself, which is undeniably still open.

>>to add "culture" in there is frankly just plain racist.
>
>No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. You have virtualy no notions of these people's culture. The very definition of "culture" practically prohibits the very idea of it being declared "advanced" or otherwise. It is simply the collection of common and traditional practices of a given group. I would even go so far as to say that if one were to make judgments of "advancement," surely a culture that has been largely uninterrupted and un-usurped for a period of thousands of years has matured and "advanced" far more than a culture which is ever-shifting and highly dependent on technological advances that didn't even exist a generation prior. But even to make an assertion such as that is meaningless, because the criterion "advancement" simply does not make sense when applied to culture - any culture. The only role that such a declaration can fulfill is to demean and devalue another group of people completely arbitrarily, as to support a racist or otherwise xenophobic worldview.

>By what standard are modern Western civilization, technology, and culture objectively superior to barefoot African tribesmen? By the only objective standard of value: their success at meeting the requirements of human life.

And just what are those "requirements of human life?" These tribespeople might tell you some very different things than what you would tell them. Would either of you be "right?" Absolutely not.

As for the rest of your points, they are all similarly obvious - and highly subjective, though largely incontroversial in our demographic - subjective and personal value judgments. Adding the word "objectively" to your statements does not make it so. Even such criteria as you have mentioned - lifespan, "individualism," property rights (lol), etc., are not objectively "advanced." After all, what are the "objective" benefits of a long lifespan if it is filled with ennui, alienation and oppression? What is the value of "individualism" to a person who cherishes deep bonds and shared struggle with others? How can one declare "property rights" to be an objective good when the very concept of such has only existed for a few hundred years, and has arguably led to the greatest ongoing extinction of species in millions of years?

You see? Value judgments, all of it. And for someone who might call themself a "libertarian," you certainly seem not to understand the true spirit of the credo, "live and let live."

That's an excellent question. If you'd like to broaden your thinking a bit, check out:


http://www.amazon.com/Against-Civilization-Reflections-John-Zerzan/dp/0922915989

I'm reading Against Civilization, a compilation of essays by thinkers (from Rousseau to the Unabomber) edited by John Zerzan, cool guy and referent of the actual anarcho-primitivism movement. Reading it will give you an insight to the mindset of the anticivilization movement and probably encourage you to GTFO civilization ASAP.

Most people here say that you'll still need to trade with the nearest town at some point to get enough food (winter, etc). And that's the reason of why hunters-gatherers are nomads. So, maybe this shared fantasy of settling alone in a cabin in the woods has nothing to do with a natural/primitive/sustainable/possible way of living. Forget your cabin, your supplies, nomad is the way to go!

Massive immigration has never been a gain for the host society. In Roman society, they had both massive immigration AND accumulation of wealth at the top.

Have you read John Zerzan? He writes something similar like your quote.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Running-Emptiness-Pathology-Civilization-Civilisation/dp/092291575X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1368215938&sr=8-3&keywords=john+zerzan
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Civilization-Reflections-John-Zerzan/dp/0922915989/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368215938&sr=8-2&keywords=john+zerzan


Very good books.