I still don't understand this guy's motive tbh. He wants to escape the imminent collapse of civilization. And for what? So he can eat berries in the wild by himself?
Where does this immutable zeal for living come from?
Most likely: Mental illness.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that every other civ has collapsed.
Sumer, Mesopotamia, Indus River Valley, Mayans, Aztecs, Greenland, Easter Island, Mali and Anazasi all collapsed.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/
Suggested reading: Jared Diamond, Joseph Tainter, Daniel Quinn and John Zerzan.
And you still haven't refuted the fact that practically everyone who ever lived has been enriched by civilization, including yourself. I also find it amusing how you point to the fact that modern foods are unhealthy for you, when people live longer now than they ever have before.
False. Civ does not "enrich" us. It imprisons us either by statism or just sheer-blown collectivism.
China, Japan, France, England, Egypt
Which were all incredibly violent. You just proved my point.
Are you reading anything that is being said? I don't really think you've addressed anything in any comprehensible fashion
We may have to come up with "quizes" or something to our posts to see if you are comprehending anything that is being written to you.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
"Which were all incredibly violent. You just proved my point."
They weren't half as violent as some of the civilizations which you listed above as examples of collapsing civilizations. Furthermore plenty of long standing states, most of those in Europe, have been comparatively free, while many of the more forceful states have collapsed. With this said you haven't given me a good example of a CIVILIZATION and not STATES collapsing. Above you listed
"Sumer, Mesopotamia, Indus River Valley, Mayans, Aztecs, Greenland, Easter Island, Mali and Anazasi all collapsed."
All of which, even during their time accounted for a very small percentage of those within civilization during their time. With this said Sumer, Mesopotamia, Mali, Anasazi, and I believe the Indus River Valley all survived, that is the people were still fairly well off and the civilizations carried on. The STATES, the GOVERNMENTS, which formed them were destroyed, not the civilizations as such. The Mayans and Aztecs were destroyed by the onslaught of encroaching imperialism and mass disease, but you aren't worried about mass alien invaders, and furthermore you'd be likely to be afflicted by one of those things if you were an ancient Native American living outside of civilization.
At any rate, you realize that those would be extremely weak examples even if they were relevant right? Like you're claiming that every civilization is inherently unstable and that collapses are bound to happen all the time. We've had 5,000 years of near global civilization and you can only list of a handful? We should be the ones on the brutal defense here if your claims are true, but even if one argues that we are wrong you are certainly not having an easy time here. With such an overarching claim you should be able to give us several dozen cases of states which have collapsed with exact reasons why, we shouldn't be able to think of a long lasting state which has survived. Instead, you give examples which obviously misconstrue state and society, something which should cast shame onto anyone who claims to be an Austrian.
"False. Civ does not "enrich" us. It imprisons us either by statism or just sheer-blown collectivism."
Things that civilization has given me which I oftentimes take part of:
So basically constant entertainment and intellectual stimulation and a million positive experiences. But no, civilization doesn't enrich me at all. Also, your actions in replying to me upon a highly technical computer would seem to indicate that civilization is enriching or at least positive.
Why can't you seem to grasp this? THE STATE DOESN'T INTERACT WITH PEOPLE ALL THAT MUCH. People are mostly free to interact with others and pursue their own happiness. They often fail in doing so, but these people would have a higher chance of failure in a state of primitivism where there are fewer ideas running around.
Let me turn this around. Practically all primitive societies, groups, and people have ended/been disbanded/died off/assimilated themselves into civilization/been assimilated into civilization. How can you advocate primitivism when primitive culture is inherently unstable? I'm leaving the wild to go to civilization where I will be safe.
Since we're making random lists of countries:
Monaco, Zanzibar, Tuvalu, Barbuda, Uzbekistan, Seychelles, Moldova, Eritrea
:-D
That's incorrect, you forgot The UAE and Cambodia while Monaco is much to grand a country to be put on any list
you forgot The UAE and Cambodia
Dang it! I always forget those. Gosh!
Freedom4Me73986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Life @F4M: But that's not a law - it's not even a pattern, it's just a unique property. We have other unique properties, such as our ability to engage in complex reasoning. You have to be blind not to understand how civ is killing mankind both DIRECTLY (poisoning us through chemicals, making us dependent on ag to survive) and INDIRECTLY (law of life.) Any article on Infowars or Natural News will tell you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Life
@F4M: But that's not a law - it's not even a pattern, it's just a unique property. We have other unique properties, such as our ability to engage in complex reasoning.
You have to be blind not to understand how civ is killing mankind both DIRECTLY (poisoning us through chemicals, making us dependent on ag to survive) and INDIRECTLY (law of life.) Any article on Infowars or Natural News will tell you that.
You guys are focusing on on cyclic appearance and mistaking it for reality. Simply because something has happened 99 times does not guarantee that it will happen the 100th time. In essence, you are confusing induction for deduction.
Nevertheless, the closest thing we have to epistemic efficiency is induction, which has its basis in empiricism. Things most certainly exist, and we experience them, but free will determines what happens with the objects, and free will is free, not pre-determined. So to sit there and say that civilization is evil, one, how do you define evil? Two, are you saying that thus far it has always led to evil, or that it is iherently evil by definition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans,_and_planet_Earth
So to sit there and say that civilization is evil, one, how do you define evil?
Simple: evil is aggression. Destruction of individual rights. This is what civ does.
Two, are you saying that thus far it has always led to evil, or that it is iherently evil by definition?
Every single civ has been aggressive. The ones which weren't died out.
I would like to direct you to the fallacy of composition. It is true that there are people within society/civilization that are aggressive. But the claim that an entire society is evil because of some people is a fallacious argument, nevermind the claim that all societies are evil.
How do you like them apples?
See above. Also, I should be quite surprised that you, as someone who claims to follow Austrian economics rigorously, would make the mistake of equating the metaphor of civilization with that of an acting being. Like I said, I should be surprised, but I am not.
Could you define what you mean by aggressive in the sentence "every civ has been aggressive*"?
F4M, are you afraid to be evil?
Simple: evil is aggression. Destruction of individual rights. This is what civ does. I would like to direct you to the fallacy of composition. It is true that there are people within society/civilization that are aggressive. But the claim that an entire society is evil because of some people is a fallacious argument, nevermind the claim that all societies are evil.
Bullshit. As an austrian I don't believe in that nonsense. "Emergence" is fake.
Are you denying the principles of logic?
"Logic" says civ is not sustainable.
Prepare for collapse.
I'm sure more videos and less sound argument will prove your point.
F4M: "Logic" says civ is not sustainable.
"Logic" says nothing about anything. It is a tool. And it seems you have very little, if any, understanding of this particular tool. If you truly believe that you did not commit the fallacy of composition, then you need to explain why. But you do not do this. I wonder why...not!
As an austrian
It seems F4Me's vegetarian lifestyle has atrophied parts of his thinking processes. Meat and its fat are the fuel that turned us from ape to man. No longer having to expend so much energy digesting huge amounts of raw food, our systems then turned to expending energy on intelligence. We learned how to make tools, and build fire to pre-digest (if you will) and cook our food, which further enhanced this transfer of energy distribution. A couple million years later, here we are. With Internet, smart phones, etc. And yes, cancer, AIDS, etc. But those things aren't inherent in civilization. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but pretty much all negatives in society stem from government. Farm subsidies -> GMOs -> ? (no long term studies). Farm subsidies -> Corn Syrup -> Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. You could probably take all problems in society and trace them back to some kind of government intervention in society. It's not society itself that is the problem. I do think it is smart though to be able to provide for yourself, come SHTF. With soaring prices, it'd be nice to have your own supply. Though government rationing will be easier to enforce with GPS, satellites, etc than during say the Great Depression or WWII. When our monetary system does collapse though, what exactly do you guys see happening?
Do you watch the vids I post? Maybe then you'd realize where I'm coming from.
F4M: "Logic" says civ is not sustainable. "Logic" says nothing about anything. It is a tool. And it seems you have very little, if any, understanding of this particular tool. If you truly believe that you did not commit the fallacy of composition, then you need to explain why. But you do not do this. I wonder why...not!
And using logic is what lead me to my conclusions. I don't believe "the whole" can't be reduced to its parts. People behave violently, therefore civ is inherently violent.
Freedom4Me73986:And using logic is what lead me to my conclusions. I don't believe "the whole" can't be reduced to its parts. People behave violently, therefore civ is inherently violent.
If people behave violently (thus being inherently violent, with the further implication that human existence in any form, civ or otherwise, is inherently violent), you are then suggesting to replace an 'evil' system with an equally 'evil' system?
The only differences in the systems you suggest is that one has more starvation than the other, which I think we can assume will lead to more violence, which by my understanding of your definition is evil, and so the system you want to replace it with will be more evil. (More violence=more evil)
F4M: And using logic is what lead me to my conclusions. I don't believe "the whole" can't be reduced to its parts. People behave violently, therefore civ is inherently violent.
Clearly you aren't using logic because that is the fallacy of composition, unless you are saying that each and every person behaves violently. But that would be false and easily disproven. So, you are not using logic.
Freedom4Me73986:And using logic is what lead me to my conclusions. I don't believe "the whole" can't be reduced to its parts. People behave violently, therefore civ is inherently violent. If people behave violently (thus being inherently violent, with the further implication that human existence in any form, civ or otherwise, is inherently violent), you are then suggesting to replace an 'evil' system with an equally 'evil' system? The only differences in the systems you suggest is that one has more starvation than the other, which I think we can assume will lead to more violence, which by my understanding of your definition is evil, and so the system you want to replace it with will be more evil. (More violence=more evil)
Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other.
You can't adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain.
"Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other.
You can't adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain."
Freedom4Me73986:Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other. You can't adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain.
So humans don't actually behave violently? They are just made violent by civ? Which part of ag is it that makes them violent. Planting, harvesting or eating?
I don't see any way to come to this conclusion logically.
Freedom4Me73986:Wrong. Primitive man was much healthier and better off then civilized man. Deterioration of human health began as soon as AG came into the mix. Primitive man was taller, stronger and happier. Civilized man became diseased, shorter, unhealthier and violent. Eating excessive amounts of meat and grains is probably what turned civilized men against each other. You can't adhere to the NAP all while living a lifestyle which takes violence to maintain. So humans don't actually behave violently? They are just made violent by civ? Which part of ag is it that makes them violent. Planting, harvesting or eating? I don't see any way to come to this conclusion logically.
Ag and civ are the roots of violence in civilized man. Land can only be farmed so much before it stops. So, civs need to take over more land to keep feeding their population. Now all the farmland has been farmed out to the point where farmers are relying on fossil fuels to keep it fertile. But now fossil fuels are running out. So you know a collapse is coming.
My primitive survival skill set is coming along nicely. Now all I need to do is homestead a few acres of forest in NH to live/rewild and gather in.
@F4M: The problem isn't "violence" - the problem is the State. Lew Rockwell has a podcast today with Joel Salatin talking about this issue from a sensible and serious perspective. I think you'd enjoy it.
Clayton -
The state oringinated BECAUSE of civilization and agriculture. The only way I could see a 100% non-violent society lasting is if it rejected civ and moved to a post-civ way of living.
Did you listen to the podcast?
No but I saw him at Liberty Forum. I don't buy it. Civ is a cage and ag are the bars.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/John_Zerzan__Agriculture.html
So the violence comes from when you must expand your territory.
But in the same way as you can only farm land for so long, apparently, foraging and hunting can only work for so long before that stops, since it all grows from the same soil. And then you must expand into the hunting/foraging grounds of others through violence, which again would logically make such a social organization as evil as civ. Even more, since foraging and hunting is far more scarce than resources gained from ag, then obviously violence and expansion must come more quickly and more often, which would make such a social organization 'more' evil than civ.
Excel, I think the rebuttal to your argument would be something like this: "You are wrong! If everyone became a hunter-gatherer, then there would be mass starvation. So there would actually not be any violence when expanding to other areas because people would already be dead!"
Because that's the world we all want to live in.
Hunting and gathering (I don't hunt I only gather) accumulates food in rhythm with nature. H/Gs never have scarcity because they don't gather more then they need for food.
Well, folks, it looks like F4M has just solved economics. There's just simply no such thing as scarcity in a hunter-gatherer society.