On the one hand, we have civilization advocates pointing out the massive increases in power, population, technology, & standards of living
-
-
-
and corresponding decreases in death, disease, suffering, & violence. On the other hand, we have an idea that living closer to a state of
-
nature was more psychologically satisfying for primitive hunter-gatherers, despite all the disease etc. Even if the latter group is correct
-
on this point, I don't actually agree with this as a goal. First, hunter-gatherers are vulnerable to being wiped out by civilizations
-
(current or reborn in the ashes), so it's not exactly a stable endpoint. Second, it is conceivable that through technology we may be able to
-
mitigate the psychological downsides of civilization, allowing people to eventually get the suffering reductions without the
-
psychological dissatisfaction. Finally, civilization is our only hope for eventually escaping Earth and the exploding sun
-
(admittedly a long-shot).
-
Nevertheless, I have some sympathy for the primitivists, and I think they have some important contributions.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
All good points against the primmie trend: unstable, unattainable, unwanted. Same stupid debate was had among anarchists in the 90s
-
I still like seeing their position, though
-
Sure. I've just seen most of this debate before. It becomes trendy for ppl in radical fringe communities (left or right).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they're associated. Kaczynski himself hates the left and has written some insightful things about it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.