I'm on the edge of glory!
Can you type back to me and give me a sum up what these paragraphs are saying?
Do you think I'm stupid????
OK fine. It's about the Illiad. What else are you going after?
I already explained why I became anti-civ: libertarianism is all about ethics, namely anti-aggression. I did research and came to the conclusion that 1) civilization is inherently aggressive, 2) civ is inherently unsustainable and will collapse soon enough and 3) that civ survives because of mass aggression commited by the state. Enough for you?
But since H/G is by the same standard as civ even more inherently aggressive, unsustainable (no, nature doesn't magically regrow everything you harvest from it) and only survives as long as H/Gs can aggressively expand into new territories (migration) to maintain their supplies, it seems to me like you're back to square one...
H/Gs were way more peaceful then civilized man. That's what all the evidence shows. H/Gs do not have a culture of violence the way we do.
Migration doesn't mean "expanding territory" the way states do. It just means moving from place to place when food in one place becomes scarce.
Expanding terriroty doesn't mean the violent slaughter of inhabiting peoples and then consuming the resources in the new territory, the way H/G tribes do. It just means employing superior technology to new areas in order to increase productivity.
The evidence shows that violence was very common in H/G societies. (Graves show that a lot of H/G era people died due to violence). Two thirds of modern H/G societies are in an almost constant state of tribal warfare, and the only H/G tribe that is virtually completely isolated from the world remains so because they immediately try kill anyone who moves onto their turf. (North Sentinel Island). So NSI, a H/G society that is virtually untouched by civ, the closest case we have to ancient H/Gs, kill or try to kill anyone who lands or gets close to their island.
Admittedly, a farmer will be pissed off at you if you walk through his fields, but he's not likely to start shooting you the moment he spots you.
H/Gs were way more peaceful then civilized man
Nope.
Clayton -
Wrong.
Critical reviews of Pinker
Freedom4Me73986: Nope. Wrong. Critical reviews of Pinker
Don't be ridiculous.
You know, I just had to burst out laughing when I clicked that link titled "Critical reviews of Pinker", and it was FUCKING AMAZON.COM REVIEWS. Thread over.
Some of those reviews have info which debunks Pinker. You can also look up the facts on civilization and violence.
AP Photo: Guy who debunked Steven Pinker in an Amazon review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
"Pinker's hypothesis doesn't include the mass killing of other life forms--not just environmental destruction, but countless species wiped out and a daily holocaust of animals for human consumption. That massive violence against other species UTTERLY discredits this book."
Ah Ishmael, I've found you.
You don't think food can become scarce in more than one place at the same time? What if two (or more) rival tribes end up in the same territory after food?
"Pinker's hypothesis doesn't include the mass killing of other life forms--not just environmental destruction, but countless species wiped out and a daily holocaust of animals for human consumption. That massive violence against other species UTTERLY discredits this book." Ah Ishmael, I've found you.
I follow the NAP. That means I don't exercise force against anything living. I don't eat animals or animal products, not just for health reasons (almost all dairy is cancer-haven) but for libertarian reasons aswell. It's statist to keep living an unnecessarily violent lifestyle.
I applaud you for your attempt to make your actions consistent with your values but I think your values are more than a little silly.
If God didn't intend for us to eat steak then why did he make it so delicious?
Tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that.
bloomj31: If God didn't intend for us to eat steak then why did he make it so delicious? Tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that.
/thread
I applaud you for your attempt to make your actions consistent with your values but I think your values are more than a little silly. If God didn't intend for us to eat steak then why did he make it so delicious? Tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that.
Human beings are not designed to eat meat. Early man was not a "hunter gatherer" but just a gatherer.
I digest meat just fine.
Obviously you are wrong, bloomj31, because someone, somewhere has used the evil internet to say otherwise.
Freedom4Me73986:[...] just a gatherer.
Some people gather wild animals.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Human beings are not designed to eat meat.
What a scientific ultilitarian you are ! Do you wish to show me an optimal graph of human diet as well?
Maybe you can even use awesome mathematics while doing it too..
"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
Freedom4Me73986: I applaud you for your attempt to make your actions consistent with your values but I think your values are more than a little silly. If God didn't intend for us to eat steak then why did he make it so delicious? Tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that. Human beings are not designed to eat meat. Early man was not a "hunter gatherer" but just a gatherer.
Except that, you know, we started eating meat long before the "homo" genus ever arrived on the world scene
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Did you?
vive la insurrection: Except that, you know, we started eating meat long before the "homo" genus ever arrived on the world scene Did you?
Touche
Freedom4Me73986: I follow the NAP. That means I don't exercise force against anything living. I don't eat animals or animal products.
I follow the NAP. That means I don't exercise force against anything living. I don't eat animals or animal products.
Plants -> Not alive.
You heard it here first, folks.
Seriously though, I'm guessing you meant you don't exercise force against anything that's alive and has a certain level of cognitive ability?
This is the most entertaining thread I've ever read. I've also never encountered such a willfully ignorant person.
Since he avoided the question I'll post again. You don't think food can become scarce in more than one place at the same time? What if two (or more) rival tribes end up in the same territory after food? What if for the sake of argument groups of herbivore tribes find themselves in a food shortage in a given territory, how would they sustain themselves without agriculture?
If some hipster 'hates' civilization I say should be dropped in the backwoods for a month without a cell phone or other fancy devices to complicate their lives. :)
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
14 Signs that the collapse of civilization has already begun
Keep laughing at me for being an anti-civ survivalist anarcho-capitalist. If you had any brains you'd be one too.
If the world is going to hell and a handbasket, why the hell do I want to be around.
Moreover why would I want to be around if all life was was sitting in the forest fighting bears and eating berries, hating any form of sendetary association with other humans?
I dont get you people.
Freedom4Me73986 wrote the following post at 05-04-2012 1:02 AM: That's really innaccurate, or at least overly general. The hunter gatherer societies we know today have tons of free time. | Post Points: 20
That's really innaccurate, or at least overly general.
The hunter gatherer societies we know today have tons of free time.
If the world is going to hell and a handbasket, why the hell do I want to be around. Moreover why would I want to be around if all life was was sitting in the forest fighting bears and eating berries, hating any form of sendetary association with other humans? I dont get you people.
That's why you get a head start: learn survival skills and homestead a large amount of land to hunt/gather/permaculture on.
Why not just move to a tribal area in various parts of the world where they already do all that instead of waiting for this at home? You'd certainly get the best training for it that way instead of relying on just naturalnews.com. I have trouble picturing exactly how you envision a "civlization collapse" anyway. Is it some sort of mass human exctinction event and its sort of like Mad Max? Is it a US government collapse where I'd imagine its powerful military remnants wouldn't really let you do whatever you want as you imagine. Or is it simply a place where truck shipments from farms to cities has been halted? Any details of this future is fun to imagine so I'd love to hear your take.
+1 auctionguy
I'm pretty sure it will be a nuclear holocaust where all the survivors have stayed alive by living in vaults and where F4M's father leaves the vault one day and F4M gets his very own Pip-Boy 3000 and then leaves the vault to find his father.
1) Once again, your not reading anything I type.
I am saying for most of us, it's simply not worth it. The lifestyle you talk about is too crappy to care all that much. We would rather die.
If your lifestyle is so miserable all you want to do is live the longest to get one rather odd after the fact "I told you so", knock yourself out - but I think that's a little stupid and petty. There are other things worth caring about than some shit future that I want no part of.
2) And "about the Iliad" isn't really a summary of anything - it's a one sentece guess at the subject. Which once again doesn't help me in thinking you are bothering to comprehend anything any one is trying to say to you. Right now all you seem to do is have a little soap box you wish to stand on and repeat variations off the same handful of sloagns
You have no interest in what anyone has to say, yet you are in a discussion forum - which means it is impossible for you to function with any usefulness in the context of this forum
That's why you get a head start: learn survival skills and homestead a large amount of land to hunt/gather/permaculture on. Why not just move to a tribal area in various parts of the world where they already do all that instead of waiting for this at home? You'd certainly get the best training for it that way instead of relying on just naturalnews.com. I have trouble picturing exactly how you envision a "civlization collapse" anyway. Is it some sort of mass human exctinction event and its sort of like Mad Max? Is it a US government collapse where I'd imagine its powerful military remnants wouldn't really let you do whatever you want as you imagine. Or is it simply a place where truck shipments from farms to cities has been halted? Any details of this future is fun to imagine so I'd love to hear your take.
What am I in denial of?
Let's just say for argument's sake that I thought that civilization was going to collapse.
Why would I want to go live in the woods? I hate the outdoors.