F4Me,
would you mind if I started a new thread and asked for a poll on how many people wathc the videos you post?
as a side question to the poll, peoples oponions why your videos are / are not useful?
"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
Go ahead. It won't change anything. You can be a sheep all you want and keep denying the fact that civilization is not sustainable and will collapse.
You can be a sheep all you want and keep denying the fact that civilization is not sustainable and will collapse.
Once again you are either missing the point, not reading anything, or simply not bothering to adress anything I say. What you stated has nothing to do with what I said. I am critiquing your method and presentation of ideas. Something that seems well echoed in the community. I am saying your method of presenting the way you see the facts is at best fruitless and at worst counterproductive.
Freedom4Me73986: K first of all your forgetting that ag is NOT sustainable. Agriculture destroys the soil after years and years. This means ag societies need to keep expanding their territory to find fresh soil to keep growing food. Soon enough all the soil will no longer be able grow our food, so we'll HAVE to default to an H/G way of living. Your using ONE H/G group and applying it to every H/G. Fail. Civ will peak. It's crashing now b/c of tragedy of the commons, state monopolization and a ton of other factors. K, first of all you're forgetting that H/G is NOT sustainable. H/G devastates the natural supply of resources. This means that H/G societies need to keep expanding their territory to find fresh soil and game. Soon enough there will be no good soil or game left, so no food will be replenished and we'll HAVE to default to an ag way of living. A single field in my neighborhood has been farmed to an extent that can feed at least 20 families for more than 500 years now. You know what it hasn't been able to sustain? H/G and foraging. H/G peaked 10000+ years ago. Any attempt to return to it will crash and burn because of the tragedy of the commons, tribal warfare and a ton of other factors. | Post Points: 20
K first of all your forgetting that ag is NOT sustainable. Agriculture destroys the soil after years and years. This means ag societies need to keep expanding their territory to find fresh soil to keep growing food. Soon enough all the soil will no longer be able grow our food, so we'll HAVE to default to an H/G way of living.
Your using ONE H/G group and applying it to every H/G. Fail.
Civ will peak. It's crashing now b/c of tragedy of the commons, state monopolization and a ton of other factors.
But let's say just for the sake of argument that he were able to make a convincing case that agriculture was leading to the imminent collapse of civilization. Does it really then follow that we should abandon agriculture altogether and just live in the woods hunting and gathering all day for eternity?
I mean we're not talking about reforms, we're not talking about making improvements, we're talking about completely scrapping a system which makes it possible for billions of people to seek alternative employment in whichever field best suits them and which helps produce tons of food for people to eat in favor of living in the woods. We're talking about living lives far removed from one another, living in self sufficient poverty eating berries or whatever. How is this the best possible alternative?
I think I'd rather die in the collapse of civilization. To me all the awesome things that civilization and agriculture provide for me make whatever price I might have to pay worth it. It's not living per se that's important to me, it's living comfortably and I can't imagine a life of self sufficiency being anywhere near as comfortable and awesome as the life I currently lead. I wouldn't have all this wonderful stuff at my disposal that I don't have to produce myself. I'd be toiling all day everyday trying to catch fish or find berries that weren't poisonous. Fuck that man.
It's not all about surviving the collapse. It's about adhering to the NAP. Ag and civ are inherently aggressive. Violence in H/G societies was way less than it is in civs and that's a fact most anthropologists support. H/Gs do not kill each other the way civilized people do.
So you would get rid of civilization and agriculture just to lessen the amount of aggression in the world? You would pay that price?
I have the skills to survive w/o resorting to ag, civ or tech. I've lived in the woods as a gatherer for days on end. It's not hard once you know what your doing.
Well ok then.
Saturday, May 12, 2012 22:57 EDT.post #149 Freedom4Me73986:How does self-sufficiency equate to ending the DoL?By definition, perhaps? One is either self-sufficient or interdependent.If you haven't already, I strongly urge you to read The Ultimate Resource.In the video A Tale Of Two Revolutions (posted by John James here), narrator Bill Whittle makes this statement:
Freedom4Me73986:How does self-sufficiency equate to ending the DoL?
Now, although the phrase "the noble savage" is often attributed to Rousseau, he never actually in fact used that term, but he did believe that man in his natural state was a virtuous creature, and that all of the wars and conflicts that have arisen were merely the inevitable result of people staking claims to property and ownership that primitive man never envisioned, let alone practiced.
It's not all about surviving the collapse. It's about adhering to the NAP. Ag and civ are inherently aggressive.
No it's not. I can do whatever I want in my agricultural property, including trading with the owner of the other agricultural property. It's all voluntary, and there is no aggression anywhere.
It's not all about surviving the collapse. It's about adhering to the NAP. Ag and civ are inherently aggressive. No it's not. I can do whatever I want in my agricultural property, including trading with the owner of the other agricultural property. It's all voluntary, and there is no aggression anywhere.
This post is specifically for Freedom4Me.
The internet can be a wonderful place, where you start out looking for one thing, and through a few random clicks, end up in a neat place you never intended to be! I was looking into Clarence Darrow, a search brought me to this site, and on the side of the page about Clarence Darrow was a link that said, "Is Civilization Evil?" My answer was, "Of course!", but what is this link about?" And here I am!
Yes, Freedom4Me, civilization is evil. No qualifiers, no buts--it can't be anything but evil. And I have skimmed some of your posts and I think you really do get it. That's very rare to find someone who has put together so many pieces of the puzzle as you appear to have done.
Have you read Ted Kaczynski's (the media-dubbed "unabomber") "Industrial Society and Its Future"? It does such a wonderful job of explaining what you are talking about and in such plain and easy-to-grasp language. It's online for free. In fact, it's been several years since I've read it. I should probably go read it again...
I'm afraid that a forum like this isn't the best place to convert anyone. I am a bit surprised at the some of your opponents' responses. I thought this was a website where mainstream and government propaganda are at least questioned. The many responders on here seem to be far more defenders of the status quo than questioners of it.
After 20 years of studying and analyzing just what is real and what is not, I find that very few people can wrap their heads around what you are talking about. You have to undo a lot of brainwashing and acquire a lot of knowledge of a lot of different subjects to be able to see the big picture. Government propaganda machine has lots of money, lots of power, and lots of conspirators and it's VERY VERY difficult to undo all of that.
And I can understand where they are coming from. I graduated high school at 18 as the most docile, brainwashed person ever. I believed everything I was told and obeyed all orders perfectly. There was definitely a time where I would have called you crazy, too. "We can't possibly live without government!! Without police!! Without money!! Without farming!! What kind of lunatic are you?!?" I would have said all those things to you at one point in my life because I simply had no information that would allow me to make sense of it. Then, piece by piece, the information presented itself to me (books, documentaries, personal observation) that lead me to understand that not only can we live without all those aforementioned things, but that they are the root causes of suffering and evil in the world.
I don't have time to write anymore, but, Freedom4Me, you have a supporter that gets it. You may have some details wrong or out of context, but that's okay. You are absolutely on the right path. And if you haven't read Ted Kaczynski's writing I mentioned above, you will be glad you made it a priority to read it!
May you two have a wonderful life in the woods together eating berries.
LOL
I have but I'm not a fan. Kaczynski's religion is anti-tech. My religion is the NAP. I don't hate civ for the sake of hating civ. I hate civ b/c it's aggressive and the source of almost all violence today. I also believe there will be a civ collapse in the near future, probably a massive die-off after peak oil and the bottoming out of ag, so I want to be ready. I'm a survivalist and a "doomer" if u want to call it that. ppl don't understand how civ is collectivist and violent. Theyd rather have their easy life but dont realize the violence behind it OR the fact that its not sustainable.
I am a bit surprised at the some of your opponents' responses. I thought this was a website where mainstream and government propaganda are at least questioned. The many responders on here seem to be far more defenders of the status quo than questioners of it.
I came to this forum to discuss austrian economics and how the gov is constantly lying to us and trying to control us. Tech is the instrument the state uses. I know most people here are anti-state but none of them are anti-tech or anti-civ.
One question F4M: What do you think about owning land property?
Being anti-civ doesn't mean your communist/socialist. In fact I plan on leaving civ after I've homesteaded some property up north. Property rights happen w/o civ and will probably remain when civ collapses.
Would you rather get your food from here:
Or here:
?????
From the first.
So you would rather eat GMO full of chemical pesticides and fluoridated water?
Interesting thread. I will throw something in too:
Division of labour empowers humans to create great works at the risk of people becoming too specialised. People working on the same project or working in the same organisation often do not understand each other. In many cases nobody oversees the complete picture. This undermines the effectiveness of the organisation as a whole. Many organisations rely on advisors and specialists, such as lawyers, IT specialists and market analysts, while managers often do not understand the work they do and the advice they give. Humans have a limit to what they are capable of managing but common sense does not always prevail, especially when complex solutions are chosen where simple solutions suffice. The biblical story of the Tower of Babel warns us for the division of labour gone too far. After becoming specialised, people are very dependent on each other, while they do not understand each other any more. In this way a society disintegrates and therefore the story of the Tower of Babel is reflecting the situation we live in today. After the collapse of the city civilisation, the people became scattered from there over the surrounding countryside (Gen. 11:8). An important theme in The Bible is Eden versus Babylon or rural living versus city life. The story on the Tower of Babel is part of this theme. The building of the Tower of Babel may also reflect the effect of usury and credit in the financial system. Usury is the principle cause of the division of labour and the concentration of people in cities. Credit amplifies the booms and busts spurred by usury. Most sky scrapers have been built in the years just before financial crises. Historically, skyscraper construction has been characterised by bursts of sporadic, but intense activity that coincide with easy credit, rising land prices and excessive optimism.
You need to read Richard Manning's Against the Grain to understand how ag has ruined mankind forever. He makes the point that agriculture destroys the earth and makes us dependent on it for survival, which creates a collectivist society and leads to the formation of states.
Food production grows faster than population growth, and is doing so with fewer and fewer resources. What's more, population growth declines with economic growth.
Which means that, as time goes on, we'll have more food for fewer people, and using less land/water/energy/etc. to produce the food.
It seems the trends do not support the idea of "overpopulation -> not enough food -> collapse"
Further, even if you were right about this, what gain would I have from voluntarily going out and living "life" (I use that term rather loosely) in this gathering way? I'd rather party on down with the rest of the ignoramous civilization-lovers, and then join you when everything collapses. It only takes about a week of camping to learn all the skills required.
Also, life would be much easier after the collapse. After all, I'll have thousands of other people living in the same conditions, and I could trade them my spear-heads for other things that I want and... oh no, there's that pesky civilization again.
OK I'll give u that. But that still doesnt counter my fact that agriculture is not sustainable and is inherently aggressive. The Law of Life I've talked so much about is basically the NAP: you may compete to the fullest extent of your capabilities, but you may not destroy your competitors, destroy their food or deny them access to food. Thats just the NAP taken to its logical conclusions. I wouldn't be anti-civ if I wasn't pro-NAP.
There's TONS of advantages to living off-the-grid, esp. in the least violent state of New Hampshire. First, it drains the state. Your self-sufficient so ur not dependent on the state for anything. Second, it prepares you for a SHTF moment. Third, it's healthier. H/Gs were way healthier and happier and LESS VIOLENT then agricultural/civilized man.
Here is an example of the evils of civilization:
http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-monsantos-monopoly/
You still haven't even come close to demonstrating that ag is unsustainable or leads to violence, or even argued for it convincinvly. When it comes to " deny them access to food.", this rather obviously breaks with the property rights and homesteading principles you espoused earlier. Homesteading land, thus claiming it as your property, is by definition an attempt to deny others access to food. Also, I'd rather get my food from the grocery store.
(I don't know how to quote individual parts of a post, yet, so I just stuck it in a table)
Here's the problem with LoL and your extension of the NAP: They do not apply to human nature. So it's moot. It's just as problematic with every other political system which tries adjust human instincts, morals, principles. For the very same, fundamental, reasons that socialism will never work, your system will never work.
Humans are naturally aggressive creatures. From the times of cavemen, humans have been responsible for wiping out entire species of creatures (scientists believe that humans are major contributors behind the extinction of many prehistoric creatrues - giant beaver, giant sloth, mammoth, to name a few). Even Native Americans would burn down forests to clear land, and slaughter animals to the point of extinction.
Also, I disagree with your hypothesis that agriculture is unsustainable. Sure, certain ways about doing it may be unsustainable, as with everything in the modern world. But the underlying concept of agriculture is exceptionally sound, and will be with us until the end of humanity. Even if civilization was to collapse, agriculture would be back within... well, moments.
LOL, I come back for one sec to ask a quick question about Jevons Paradox, and what do I come across? The primacy of the old forums has returned (thank the maker), and a thread about the evil of civilization. Too perfect! I just finished "Endgame" by Derrick Jensen, which is all about this!!! So, anyways, is anyone here familiar with the paradox?
As it relates to this thread, does this imply that voluntary trade is an inadequate method of indefinite resource aquisition? In other words, will the only way to aquire coal once the voluntary sources dry up be force?
Here is a video by Jensen relating to the books:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9os1GFuWJ0
God, haven't even gotten off the first page yet, and the ancap-bots are going nuts!
Why the population is still growing: overshoot
The "hypocrisy" of learning survival skills from the internet/using the internet for propoganda:
If aboriginal populations hadn't been exterminated, I wouldn't have to resort to the cruddy replacement of the 'net. A village elder would've have been much more preferable.
Also, I'd like to point out that the state was directly responsible for the creation of the internet, the AR-15, and the Colt 1911. Bet there's a lot more "hypocrites" out there on the forums now, huh?
I throwing my hat in the ring with Freedom4Me on this one.
Jackson LaRose: God, haven't even gotten off the first page yet, and the ancap-bots are going nuts! Why the population is still growing: overshoot The "hypocrisy" of learning survival skills from the internet/using the internet for propoganda: If aboriginal populations hadn't been exterminated, I wouldn't have to resort to the cruddy replacement of the 'net. A village elder would've have been much more preferable. Also, I'd like to point out that the state was directly responsible for the creation of the internet, the AR-15, and the Colt 1911. Bet there's a lot more "hypocrites" out there on the forums now, huh? I throwing my hat in the ring with Freedom4Me on this one.
Good luck, maybe you can form a tribe together. Or wait, that's too evil for F4M.
I don't need a tribe to survive and no one else does either if they know enough to be 100% self-sufficient.
Ag and dependence on ag will undoubtedly lead to civ's demise. It already is.
Freedom4Me73986: I don't need a tribe to survive and no one else does either if they know enough to be 100% self-sufficient.
Well, maybe you can trade with him for some stuff you don't need, then.
Freedom4Me73986: Ag and dependence on ag will undoubtedly lead to civ's demise. It already is.
I'm not gonna watch the video, but the guy does have a beard, I'll accept that much.
Working on the tribe bit. I would argue that "rugged individuals" don't get very far in the long run. Of course, I'd also advocate networks of voluntary mutual support (oh wait, that's just a tribe), but that's probably a bit too "red" for this forum!
Before it gets buried here, any thoughts on Jevon's Paradox?
Ryan Faulk gives his own version of civ collapse.
Jevon's paradox: increased efficiency increases demand. For this reason energy conservation will not help because any increased energy efficiency of a product will increase demand for the product, thus offsetting the effect of the increased energy efficiency
Economic theory is therefore defective because it ignores human nature and the finiteness of the Earth's resources. All economic activity uses energy and natural resources. More economic growth equals to more poverty as natural resources are assets.