Anarcho Primitivism

Personally I disagree with Primitivism on the grounds that it isn't trying to move forward, it's trying to move backward. It isn't possible to reclaim the past, and as much as technology can be used to hurt the environment, it's also our best option for restoring it right now.

As a primitivist myself I actually understand your point, the only reason I am a primitivist is simply because it is sustainable for the global ecosystem. It isn't really based on improving humanity but more so limiting the power humanity wields. But of course there could be a plethora of ways this can be done. But primitivism is the most direct and effective route. Of course I could be completely wrong.

Hmmmm. I am neutral on primitivism. I feel it is a necessary school of thought. As well as a great way for the planet period. As Humans do have too much power. And there is no real answer on how to nullify that power. And if it was taught in school. We can somehow integrate it into human nature. As well as use tech to slow down the destruction of the planet.

I do not see why we have to move backwards to be sustainable. We can make rapid and meaningful pushes in an environmentally friendly direction while slowing down the rate at which we produce tech without losing our standard of living.

I think personally that we should stop seeing artificial and natural as separate things. Humans are an expression of nature so the things we make are an expression of nature.

The problem is that a lot of the things we create are toxic to ourselves and the things around us. We should begin working to better interface with natural systems instead of attempting to control them.

My biggest problem with primitivism is that it essentally requires genocide to function, cuz if we are to return to a more primitive social structure and life it will be impossible to sustain the 7 billion people on this planet.

I agree with this pretty much. I mean it's just not possible for us to live primitively (unless I'm taking what primitivism is to literally) simply because we don't have the space per person to do so effectively. Like it sure is the most sustainable way to live, but I think it does also hinder someone with a disability or a mental illness, ability to contribute to society the way that they could, in a 'traditional' anarcho-communist society

We also would lose the means to make many vital medications and treatments that are keeping disabled people alive.

Plus, it's just not possible to go backward. You can't put everything back in the box.

We should strive toward refining technology to be beneficial to our environment or at least compatible instead of this sheer parasitism.

We can start by replacing agriculture with permaculture (human-formed ecosystems which support various interrelated food and utility crops that foster each other's growth).

My primitive leanings are mild but i formulated them because my acceptance of anarchism was heavily influenced by Native American studies classes I've been taking here at my university. There are a great many tribes and First Nations (and other groups around the world that live under similar colonized conditions) that have resisted the euro-americentric narrative of a linear, upwards progress model of technology and the hegemony of western science that comes with it.

I by no means want to generalize this to all tribes but a not insignificant number of people live in specific resistance to enforced Western Civilization. This includes opposition to factory animal farming which keeps animals in horribly inhumane conditions rather than subsistence hunting which allows them the dignity and respect of a natural, free roaming life prior to being hunted. Of course there are more symbiotic, responsible and respectful methods of farming animals practiced like migratory sheep herding but these are not viable on a scale large enough to feed cities worth of people. And before someone wants to assert that everyone should switch over to a pure vegan diet, as an anthropologist I'm very much against that assertion. Cultures invest traditions, history, and social structures in their hunting, meal preparation, and eating traditions that would have to be entirely overhauled in order to accommodate a vegan living. I've nothing against communities that prefer to live that way, but you can't espouse it as a lifeway for all people at the expense of vital aspects of their culture.

Other opposition includes objections to the mental health issues imposed by Civilization in the form of industrial concrete, lighting, and noise pollution inherent in cities that harms not only the people living in them but also the surrounding environment. Paving over environments instead of living within them, light pollution blotting out the sky and disturbing wildlife, and draining and tilling important ecosystems for farmland or lumber. The valuing of aesthetics and its value to the mental health of individuals and communities was an important part of what my professor talked about but I'm very aware that balancing it out with processes that are needed to maintain large populations is tricky and I'm not sure where I stand on it.

I know we're not necessarily debating FALC here but I also have misgivings about the environmental impacts necessary to maintain increased production of technology considering the mining of materials, pollution inherent in processing and synthesizing these materials and the fuels used to power them. I think some of this can be addressed and alleviated once the capitalist system has fallen and people are able to focus on creating sustainable and clean methods of production with the incentive for the maximization of profit removed but the earth does not have an endless supply of usable material to meet the needs of the endless potential of technological progression.

The point I was trying to make when I started this is that this isn't "going backwards" for a lot of communities but trying to salvage and maintain cultures and communities that evolved to their ecosystems over thousands of years but have been intentionally crushed and eradicated by capitalist states and systems because they are "inconvenient" and "backward." They neither want nor need encroaching development of technologies that supersede so called "primitive" technologies and techniques that they already use. I also think there's a lot about sustainability and environmental respect we can learn from these communities to help heal both social and environmental wounds left by the ravages of capitalism. Now what I've said clearly isn't going to apply to all communities. Communities that are already westernized and living in cities are going to have different goals and needs but I take issue with painting all traditions of primitivism with the same "unrealistic and backwards" brush.

I'm not Native American so I don't want to claim to know everything about this or to be its best advocate but I acknowledge that there are viewpoints here that people often gloss over or ignore when arguing against primitivism. I think its valuable to take some of these viewpoints into consideration and get a little intersectionality going here.