Right I don’t support drowning just because I see a gully-washer of a storm coming and get out my umbrella.
I feel the need to say that if the human race survives a major collapse I wouldn’t be sad, but only if it was the “right” people. This kind of thinking seems incredibly fucked up to me. I would hope all the people that strip the Earth for whatever they can, die. I would want those dedicated to living with their ecosystems in balance to survive. That just seems like a day dream, and an incredibly judgmental one at that. I don’t want to think in terms of I am right, and you “others” are wrong, I want my tribe to live, and yours to die. That is personal, death is impersonal, something that comes to us all, “right” or “wrong”.
But the problem isn’t the people, it’s the ideas. It’s the Ideas that need to die. So your “let them all die” philosophy has two problems. First, you are ruling our potential allies to your struggle merely because they don’t currently agree with you. Second, even if every current advocate of a given philosophy were to die right this second, that philosophy could re-emerge, either from reading some found text, hearing a story, or just spontaneously coming up with the same idea. Just like a debate, you don’t win a war of ideas by killing your opponent. You win by converting them.
you don't win a war of ideas by killing your opponent. You win by converting them.
And if you can’t convert 'em you kill em 
And if you can’t convert 'em you kill em ;)[/quote]
Actually, to win a war of conversion, the phrase is “If you can’t convert 'em, let them deal w/ the consequences of their stubbornness”.
Of course, and then they die 
jk
Should be noted that consequences does not have to be negative 
There’s a big difference between that and killing them, tho’.
Right on.
If you guys don’t support genocide you’re certainly pretty fucking glib about it.
Apologies if it seems that way.
Truth be told, I have my hands full trying to take care of my family, I think trying to somehow feed & shelter 6.5 billion people w/ little to no fossil fuels & an increasingly unstable global climate is going to prove a bit much for us to chew.
Humanity tends to protect itself from things outside its control. In addition, while we don’t really want to see people suffer (and die), we recognize that people aren’t the only worthies in this world. Between the enormity of what we expect in the near future and the enormity of the probelms of the present, I hope you’ll find it reasonable for us to occasionally have inappropriate levity.
There’s a little more to it than that. Joking is often a way to deal with situations that make you uncofortable. Some of us make jokes about a possible die-off because it helps us deal.
Being in your face about it can shock people, and some of us think people need to be shocked.
And some of us are frustrated, because the people immediately around us don’t een acknowledge the die off is a possibility, much less the near-certain result of our current lifestyle. Frustration leads to venting, and maybe even a beleif that the head-in-the-sanders deserve what they get.
I’ve hit on all three of these in the past, and seen it in a few others. There are probably more reactions too. But if we’re “glib” about it, it’s because we feel it needs to be confronted, not ignored. There is an elephant in the living room, and the emperor is naked.
Yeah, mm I was actually being extremely cynical and sarcastic, especially to the current state of things.
But I do find it extremely frustrating trying to talk with people sometimes, because I’d rather not lie, water down, and conform with the rest of civilization (at least on my views), for example I was talking with my house mate about cars… and of course I mention I dislike cars, and of course he mentions how he loves them, he loves driving, he like looking at them, he thinks they are beautiful works of art, etc. Of course, I can see that way as well, but to me, it’s all completely the opposite. But just trying to talk with someone about it and you come under attack, (though I suppose if you are disagreeing with them about liking cars, etc. then they feel they are under attack…) like I said I dislike having to depend on cars, and he started attacking me as though it is absurd to dislike depending on cars. I was about to tell him that life and everything can function and exist just fine without cars, but he loves driving too much… what can you do?
Point out that just because you like or even love something doesn’t mean you should be dependant on it for life. It’s OK to not need something. In fact, it is better to not be dependant on something you love, because that dependancy can taint the relationship. For example, I love my kitbashed, linux-based laptop, but I sure as hell don’t keep anything important (without backup)on that beautiful, unreliable goblinbox. When it fails, instead of being upset and frustrated because I lost something important, I have a weekend of figuring out more about computers to look forward to. I love my bike, but I live within walking distance of everything I need to do. I’ve left it sitting broken for a week because I didn’t feel like fixing it today. My wife loves me, but she has her own job.
Also, just because you love something doesn’t mean it’s not bad for you. But that’s something I’d just mention in passing, because people who love whats bad for them love it twice as hard, feuled by need and denial.
Which goes to the civilization acts like an addictive drug argument
It is not possible to get people to hear you when they are too busy listening to themselves tell themselves what you’re saying. There are people around me who are absolutely convinced that I believe the end of the world is coming soon. It doesn’t matter how many times I tell them it’s not the end of the world, just the end of the world as we know it. Doesn’t matter - as far as they’re concerned, I’m a believer in the end of the world.
Same goes for the imminent demise of billions of people. Within myself, I know it’s going to be hard for me to stay sane as I try to block out the waves of agony screaming through the ether. I nearly capsized during the Katrina debacle. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean wasn’t as bad because it happened so fast that the people who died didn’t have time to scream out into the ether. With Katrina, I was non-functional for weeks and in emotional pain for months after feeling the suffering of those still alive. But, when I say, people are going to die, and others hear me say I encourage and support this happening - well, I’ve learned they won’t hear anything else from me other than what their own ears are telling them.
My solution to this point has been to stop attempting to talk to anyone about anything.
Snowflower
Snow Flower
At least in the face of their peers and culture, I say they do that to you to makes themself feel better and keep their self feeling the quick fix rush of false superiority competition games, ultimately, in order to make you out to sound insane to themselves and everybody to avoid the truth…(stopping and thinking, responsibility, themself, neighbor reactions, constant change, opening the mind, and exposure to, unsanctioned education, untamable newness, and much more that the truth holds).
My response is to use analogies. Everyone loves a good analogy, and the effort to try to figure one out kinda wears a groove in their thinking. If you tell someone that sports cars are like fish, they’ll wrack their brains trying to figure it out. Once you get them in that state of “what’s the answer?” then they’re more likely to listen to what you have to say, provided it does explain how sports cars are like fish.
[quote=“MrBrian, post:12, topic:386”][quote author=jason link=topic=414.msg4149#msg4149 date=1188002263]
What, for just plain old misanthropy?
[/quote]
Personally I think humans are just too resourceful to live in balance with the environment but heres a website that presents some good points. http://www.vhemt.org[/quote]
Funny how humans managed to do just that for a couple million years before civilization showed up…
I love that ;D
As far as people saying anarcho-primitivists support genocide, one might want to point out that genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group; that’s one of last things anarcho-primitivists would want since that discourages diversity. If there’s anything anarcho-primitivists want to erradicate, it’s the civilized thinking that’s the ear mark of our culture, not the diverse genes that make up the human population.
yeah you’re right, but I took the meaning of the word incontext of this post to mean, ‘all human kind’. I try not to mince words when the intent seems clear to me. I am glad thats been clarified though. We could more appropriately call this thread, “Anarcho-Primitivists support human extinction”. At least that’s how I took it.
Who here believes in preventing the destruction of “western civilization”? That is a “cultural group” many of us might destroy maybe if we could do it quickly with say… just a word. I certainly believe a few of you would not. But I feel most of us would. Because that’s not possible why pose the question?
I do not propose killing anyone who doesn’t mean me harm. If you do maybe you should go join E.L.F. and leave us to undomesticating ourselves in peace. I think those has-been lefty (or righty) anarchist movements are worried in their hearts that we won’t like them and feed them acorn mush while the statists all die a slow miserable death. They maybe right. I have my family and friends to worry about. It becomes impossible to help others if you diminish yourself beyond the point of recuperation. So NEVER let their talk make you feel guilty. Help who you want and forget the rest just like a mother wolf. Help out of love and never guilt. Love yourself fully and let it spring forth like an artesian well.
Am I out of line here?