| |
|
|
|
 |
Posted 2008-11-08, 06:38 PM
in reply to Chruser's post starting "I think the problem with convincing..."
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem with convincing people of the validity of your anarcho-primitivism-inspired ideals is that they appear derived from assumptions. For instance, your eighteenth premise ("Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology") does not appear valid per se, e.g. due to the fact that there are peoples who live with no energy and essentially very primitive technology yet appear to sustain their selves to a comparable extent to that of modern, industrialized man.
|
I believe the premise 18 is referring to our sense of self as a human, or more basic as an animal. Opposed to a civilian.
Chruser said:
|
Of course, the disadvantages of abandoning the current state of development would be bad in quite a few ways, such as the fact that Earth by itself can not support large part of today's human population, thus large portion of humanity would succumb to starvation, violence emergent from the fight for remaining resources, et cetera.
|
Of course. Premise 7. 9.
Chruser said:
|
Also, your analysis does not consider the prospect of sustaining the world utilizing the fruits of additional, technological advances. As can be inferred from my previous paragraph, technology currently allows billions of people to populate this planet. Assuming your (or Kaczynski's / Zerzan's) plans of rebellion fail, nanomanufacturing will likely arrive in 10-20 years from now (based on Kurzweil's analysis), which will thus allow humanity to control the state and composition of our resources to an order of magnitude perhaps thousands of times greater than what we can do today. Thus, the assumption that the problems of the industrialized world are permanent is likely invalid.
|
Resources are but a fragment of the problems civilization causes, not to mention industrial civilization. Premise 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|