Man försöker sen blir man

Anarkist

Anarkist & ateist är samma

Inga regler inga herrar

Då flyger man hellre åt helvete

Bunden vers (Haiku) av Federico Romano
Läst 3344 gånger och applåderad av 9 personer
Publicerad 2012-12-19 18:00

Skriv ut
Spara som PDF

Federico Romano Mille lettori in un mese, sará il titolo? Tusen som hittade hit, niohundra sista månaden kan det vara titeln? 2013-06-16

Magica Konstigt jag tolkade inte denna text alls som många andra ser jag men kanske tolkar jag fel. Min tolkning och som jag ser på det eller iallafall vill se på det (ty annars så är det ju skrämmande!) är enligt följande: På ett sätt kan man anse att anarkist och ateist är samma sak, på det sättet att man vill stå fri, utan regler, men detta är dessvärre inte rimligt att applicera på allt i livet och inte heller att således rekommendera, då någon alltid tenderar ta över och bli en ledare ändå, och risken är att det blir en farlig sådan! Även om tanken kan vara god från början. 2013-05-27

ej medlem längre Jag är Inge kvinnoföraktare tvärt om.. Älskar kvinnor.. Men just feminism handlar mycket om makt.. Tycker Larz är äckligt vulgär.. Det handlar inte om det utan om värderingar uti från det sunda förnuftet . 2013-05-26

ej medlem längre Vilken vinkling . Tror själv att man bara ska vara sig själv och och om så sker vad är man då? Intressant och fin text till reflektion. 2013-05-26

Lars Hedlin Bra stå på dig...Applåd till dig! 2012-12-20

Larz Gustafsson Inget kvinnoförakt alls. I Gamla Testamentet står det att all vår rättfärdighet är som en fläckad klädnad. Men i den hebreiska grundtexten står det att det handlar om den tidens använda dambindor. 2012-12-19

Jeflea Norma, Diana. Lifestyle Anarchism (Till våra dagars Era och händelser jag rätade till stavningen på synpunkter i pärm Link) /MvH/Diana. *Patterns in the Void* Anarchism, Particle Physics, Occultism, & Hacking Primitivisms: GTFO! -The coupling of anarchism and primitivism within modern radical discourse needs to be entirely deconstructed. First, I would like to point out the obvious and inherent logical fallacies in this coalescence of, on the one hand, an array of social movements whose sole unifying ideological standpoint is an opposition to unequal power dynamics, and on the other hand, a socio-cultural movement which openly advocates biological essentialism, which translates to in substantiation of fluid gender identities and other such destructions of personal freedom, and the abolition of human creativity and inquiry through the “moral obligation” for humans to “fill their niche” within a biosphere. This is not even mentioning other troublesome logic within the primitivism discourse, which I won’t touch upon here, but will simply say, “You, dudes, ever heard of this thing called the naturalistic fallacy? It’s closely tied to other problematic and illogical argument forms like appeal to nature and appeal to tradition…wait, were you calling yourselves anarchists? Anarchists making appeals to tradition. Yeah. Okay.” Get the fuck out of my movement. I’m concerned with freedom, not anthropocentrically, but freedom in a broader sense of a maximization of informed agency, which includes taking into context the environment we all share. That’s right, I said it. I care about the trees; I care about the non-human and human animals; I care about the cyborgs and the robots and the AIs. To quote queering the Singularity: “Outside of hierarchy, a diversity of legitimate life arrangements exist. We need a radical coalition capable united action against the oppressors and a future vision that embraces both reaching for the stars and returning to the woods.” But I don’t care about you, primitivisms. Can’t you see that my way still allows you to opt-out and go live in the woods? It’s not the scientists who are the enemy here, it’s the goddamned State. So get the fuck out, you primitivisms, you who go around bombing nanotechnology research centers, too blinded by your dogma to understand that nanofabrication would provide methods of materials production while drastically reducing mining and logging. If you can build atoms and molecules from the particles up, why mine coal when you could literally grow it in a lab? No, this isn’t science fiction; welcome to the 21st century. And why do you persist in subservience to “natural” limitations? We need to look at what we are capable of, rather than rely on frequency analysis of events. Yes, humans are, more often than not, born as either male or female. Yes, governments cover every scrap of dry land. But none of these have to be the case. Also, your leader: Yeah, he’s cooperating with the FBI. Y’all were saying something? Wait. I can’t hear you. All I’m hearing is “We’re a bunch of fascistic, heteronormative, and illogical scum.” I’m going to cut this short because Donna Hardaway rather elegantly postulated (minus the socialist portions) my position twenty years ago in “A Cyborg Manifesto”. Read it. It’s good. It’s really, really good. Seriously, read “A Cyborg Manifesto”. This was written by Isis. Posted on Monday, August 29, 2011, at 2202. Filed under Anarchism. Tagged anarcho-transhumanism, anti-primitivism, cyber feminism, cyborg manifesto, Donna Hardaway, nanotechnology, naturalistic fallacy, primitivism theory, queer, William Godwin. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed. 11 Comments 1. Vince wrote: (Apologies for the accidental post before this one. Couldn’t erase it.) A good argument, it seems to me, is indeed that by significantly reducing society’s technological capabilities, the capability to circumvent ruthless authoritarian regimes severely diminishes as well, effectively bombing large parts of society into abusive and ignorant environments for most of us. It seems to me that most primitivisms simply don’t understand the dynamics of knowledge, information and technology. Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at 0208 | Permalink 2. l wrote: There are so many things wrong with this article, but here’s a few: 1. Neither Lyre Keith nor Derrick Jensen is anarchists. They may be influential to varying degrees among those who identify with anti-civilization or primitivism tendencies, but they are not anarchists. 2. You’re creating a straw man of primitivism. You’re not using valid sources to reference your arguments, and even if you were, to attribute a single position or attribute to any sect of anarchism eliminates nuance and is essentialist. Most anarchists are not platforms. 3. To claim that anarcho-primitivists are against fluid gender is insulting, and I’m not even a primitivism. I do know so many queer anarcho-primitivists. I’d challenge you to accuse them to their faces of upholding rigid gender conceptions. 4. When was this movement more than anyone else’s? What gives you the claim more those whose ideological nuances you take some kind of misguided issue with? I say misguided because you’re not actually opposing real people here, but the obscene hyperbole of the real people you know. 5. That you claim to know the long-term consequences of such relatively untried technology as nanotech is ridiculous. Technological development cannot be separated from the motives and ethics of those developing it, and the money is coming from corporations and governments. Do you really think they’ll use it to cut back on logging and mining? Do you have a plan to take over its development and usage before it is used in countless immeasurably destructive ways? If so, speak up and act. These points and more. I wish that people would get the fuck over the unrealistic and exaggerated picture they have of what primitivisms are. What we need right now is alliances based on immediate action and need, not further horizontal aggression and the solidification of obscure ideological cliques. The world is fucked up and getting worse, gets off the internet. And yes there are shitakes who call themselves anarcho-primitivists. There are also shitakes who call themselves anarchy-communists, vegan anarchists, animal liberation activists, and Tran’s humanists. Monday, September 5, 2011 at 0107 | Permalink 3. Suit wrote: Why do so many “primitivisms” live in major cities? There’s plenty of land in North America where one could live a low-tech existence. Are most of them like Ted Kaczynski where they feel the need to destroy everyone’s tech rather than just their own? Monday, September 5, 2011 at 1540 | Permalink 4. Robyn wrote: I don’t have any illusions about you actually approving my comment, but the fallacies of your argument simply must be responded to. Okay, large inhale: First, let’s look at the fallacies and unexamined premises in your first long-ass run-on sentence. Care to elaborate on how “biological essentialism… translates to in substantiation of fluid gender identities”? Or are we just to accept that as a universal, unexamined truth? Perhaps you will reference John Saran’s “Patriarchy, Civilization and the Origins of Gender” for a total refutation of your argument? Allow me to quote the conclusion, which I hope will shed some light on the popular primitivism perspective on gender: “The wholeness of original genderlessness may be a prescription for our redemption.” What was that you were saying about biological essentialism predicating/perpetuating gender roles? Perhaps you ought to talk with one of the numerous transgendered folks I know who consider themselves primitivisms, or maybe the genderless ones… I also find it troublesome that you suggest we’re making a moralistic argument that humans fill their niche, while also defending industrial science and technology. Hey, guess what! the idea of “niche” is borrowed from modern ecology, which as I recall is considered a science! Perhaps you should look to your own beloved disciplines to see where the evidence for our arguments comes from. Better yet, since when have primitivisms ever argued for the “abolition of human creativity and inquiry”? I certainly never have, and neither have any of the myriad prime authors I’ve read. OH! Or maybe you were just slamming us with this nonsense because you equate Civilization/Technotopia with human creativity and inquiry?! Now it makes sense. Furthermore, let’s discuss your mention of logical fallacies, since your own argument is so abundantly overflowing with them. First: throwing around a handful of verbose philosophical terms (e.g. “natural fallacy”, “appeal to nature”, etc.) DOES NOT make your argument more valid or immune to criticism. For what it’s worth, I agree with you about the natural fallacy and the appeal to nature, which is part of the reason I (and other primitivisms) NEVER use the word “nature” in my arguments. John Zerzan often does, unfortunately, and this is a flaw in his critical thought that I intend to point out to him. Now, more about fallacies. Ever heard of “begging the question” or “petition principia”, ’cause your tirade smacks of questions begged. We’ve already visited a few of these, but let’s look at all the rest just for shits and giggles. Since when, as you suggest, is Derrick Jensen our “leader”? Did I miss the Glorious Primitivism Elections? Since when can we have only one “enemy”? Can Industrial Science AND the State not both be our enemies? Hell, for that matter, since when are the two even separable? Perhaps you’d care to explain how “nanofabrication would provide methods of materials production while drastically reducing mining and logging”? Or maybe you’d like to discuss how it’s desirable to “reduce mining and logging” rather than entirely eliminate them? Are your nabobs made of Magic, or Ether, or Manna? Are they not manufactured in FACTORIES, using base materials directly or by proxy that are manufactured/produced/acquired INDUSTRIALLY? Did we (anarchists) all reach consensus that we see our bodies and ecological roles as “limitations”, or did you just logically impose that one on all of us without examining it? P.S.: When the hell did this become your movement? Did I miss that congress, too? Or does the movement actually still belong to all of us? Seriously, dude. Beg the question no more; you’ve done it to death. Maybe in your studies of Critical Thinking, you’ve heard of the “ad hominem” fallacy, also known as the Personal Attack, ’cause you sure as shit know how to use it. Point of advice: next time you make an argument against primitivism/primitivisms, try actually MAKING AN ARGUMENT against us and our philosophy. Calling us “a bunch of fascistic, heteronormative, and illogical scum” is not only a cheap shot and a logical fallacy, it’s also really BAD LOGIC. I don’t know a single primitivism (myself included) that is fascistic or heteronormative, and only a handful that are illogical. The rest of us don’t fit your narrow little box (you technotopians do love forcing things inside boxes, don’t you?), and our arguments are NOT invalidated because of your infantile name-calling. Neither would your arguments be invalidated if I called you, for example, a factory-worshipping, cyborg-fucking, body-hating, fascistic, dominatrix. This fallacy is fun though, isn’t it? Let’s talk about another logical fallacy: “argumentum ad vacuum”, the appeal to force. When you say “Get the fuck out of my movement” and “So, get the fuck out you primitivisms”, this is incredibly threatening language, and is so clearly an appeal to force. These forceful appeals combined with your ad hominess and begged questions make your argument (if it can be called that) absurdly childish at best. It essentially amounts to: “Noah, nay, Primitivism sucks ass. Fuck y’all.” I want to explore one further unexamined premise in your writing the bothers me almost above all the rest. The general atmosphere of your nano-philia is that humanity is ultimately FLAWED, i.e., humanity needs to be saved, needs SALVATION. This bizarre ill-logic belies civilization, and all civilized religions, including your belief in the Nano Christ. Daniel Quinn explores this subject at length in his works, particularly in “The Story of B”, which I highly recommend you read while I’m reading your “Cyborg Manifesto”. Isis, this kind of mental garbage (<- ad hominem) makes me worry about you. Why the hell are you so furious at folks who should be your allies? What do you hope to accomplish by bashing us? Worse still, what do you hope to accomplish by making really, really bad arguments? Epic fail. Try again. Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 1756 | Permalink 5. Margaret wrote: Alright, so conflating primitivism with Jensen and Keith is a cheap shot, but this brings up a lot of really, really problematic stuff in contemporary anti-civ discourse. The blatant second wave feminism of Keith and Robyn (note, Robyn, how you use “dominatrix” in the same sentence as “fascistic” in an attempt to equate them?) is intensely problematic and yes, needs to be addressed. And blowing up scientists? Come on, that’s some bullshit. You commenters come off as exactly what Isis is decrying when you say “no fair! Don’t call us simple-minded and stupid! Nor but all science is bad!” Are there issues with nanotechnology? Yes. Is it going to turn us all into grey goo? No. My theory is that primitivisms don’t like nanotechnology because it is the ultimate refutation of the primitivism platform. Part of the primitivism platform is that technology can never be sustainable. Yet nanotechnology offers us a chance at just that: the ability to construct without mining, the ability to harness power without polluting, etc. and therefore threatens the purity of the primitivism position. Now, I don’t personally think nanotechnology is going to get pulled off as simply and magically as that, but the thing is, technology is always used by both sides. We’re going to use it and the evil motherfuckers that run and destroy the world are going to use it. So if that shit does go down and we do get nanotech fabrication of all our heart’s desires, then we sure as shit better not just leave that to Leviathan. As for what Isis can call “their movement” on their own blog, the answer is whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to. Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 1626 | Permalink 6. TrollHarderBetter wrote: I can’t presume to speak for the author, but this is obviously not intended as a comprehensive and detailed argument against primitivism (as such are both widely available and frankly pretty obvious), but rather as an outburst of annoyance that takes place within the wider debate. For example a person shouldn’t have to package the whole of the critique of neo-Nazis’ and counter proposition of anarchism, for example, into every time they cry something like “goddamn cunt-zombie neo-Nazis!” to their friends. And a neo-Nazi who haughtily declares “that’s not a complete argument, that’s at best some loose references and insults” is correct… but also being silly. Deciding not to waste time fully reiterating arguments and instead reference them loosely is both an important utility in our language and frequently practical. My bet is Isis was assuming any primitivisms reading their blog were intellectually honest enough to be caught up on anti-primitivism 101… or at least have some awareness of where the debate currently is. Too bad that wasn’t the case. Reran equates gender merely with a functional division of labor rather than a reified dichotomy in identity — pretty much entirely missing the point. Hell even the focus on the dichotomy misses the point. (“But zoom there were totally three or four genders in some cultures on turtle island, that’s acceptable isn’t it?!!11!”) Tran sexuality is about recognizing that there’s no non-arbitrary line possible between identity and body and agency in the construction of one means agency in the construction of the other. John’s whole rant is a laughable 70s flashback clusterfuck of loose associative metaphors and damnation by association. An appeal to ancient and profoundly dated second-wave reflexively ‘feminine’ championing perspectives, capped off with “bah you can’t escape the confines of your body because the context leading to those concepts is entirely outside my ken / paradigm and I don’t want to investigate it”. In other words the same old prime “nun-uh” in response to exploration of scientific realities outside their usual tiny operating parameters. I wish I could say something substantive about John’s piece, but there would have to be some substance in there to begin with. Oh I suppose we could get into the same old citrating thumping arguments where anti-primitivisms quote extensive anthropological evidence of exceptions to the primitivism narratives and primitivisms declare that ‘you’re missing the point!!1!’ because they’ve strung together some broad inferences that look really pretty in a certain light. Basically catch the fuck up on queer theory and then we’ll be able to continue this. > “Hey, guess what! the idea of “niche” is borrowed from modern ecology, which as I recall is considered a science!” ROFLOLCOPTER. Man that’s so ridiculous I bet they haven’t even named this fallacy yet! You can tell folks years from now that you were committing this idiocy before anyone knew it was even possible! You’re the hipster of fallacies! Also, while we’re at it, I’m totally not letting you pass at stringing “industrial” onto “science and technology”. That’s just deliberately disingenuous as hell and you know it. Science refers to understanding. Technology refers to capacity. Infrastructure refers to applied material structures. They are not the same fucking thing. Knowing HOW to build a can opener is not the same thing as making billions of can openers for no good reason, stamping them onto people’s faces, replacing trees with large can openers, and pouring them by the thousands in lines to make roads. The insanity of our present infrastructure may be “enabled” by the existence of knowledge, but there are no magical forces of historical inevitability that prescribed it the moment we obtained that knowledge. That kind of almost Marxist thinking (yay making broad inferences off macro patterns in an incredibly dynamic context and then treating those inferences like iron laws of physics) is insane, insulting and totalitarian. It assumes human agency out of existence and then seeks to stomp on anyone who seeks/defends knowledge. Right, so Isis claims that primitivism is pretty damn infected with the natural fallacy and you’re at least aware enough of reality to admit this is true with Saran’s coterie. (BTW merely refraining from using the word “nature” isn’t enough to avoid the fallacy.) Primitivism is — definition ally — a conservative philosophy. It argues that something that worked previously has a proven track record and deviations or changes 1) can be argued to be correlated to negatives and 2) are risky/unproven (for certain self-serving definitions of “proven”) and thus should be rejected. When “the good old’ days” correspond to not having any material agency over ourselves or our surroundings (and also being cut off from knowledge and understanding) beyond that our bodies originally evolved to handle, that’s so damn close to a naturalistic argument that it’s grunting in its ear passionately. Not quite the same thing. But if the conservative argument doesn’t hold stand on its own rationally — and it clearly doesn’t — it’s a good bet the naturalistic fallacy is propping it up. And a body is by definition a limitation because there are things it can’t do. I mean come the fuck on, how is this even debatable? Who the fuck are you to confine me to a prison? To decide arbitrarily that “these are all the capacities you should have”? Because what? Because a human body “was good enough for pa”/”was good enough for our ancestors”? (Like hell presuming to speak for them) Fuck that shit. I’ll put magnets in my fingers if I want. I’ll upload myself and surf the corona of the sun as a swarm of tin can sized robots if I want. I mean what the fuck. How fucking dare you. Humanity doesn’t “need salvation”. Rather consciousness likes to consciousness all over the place. Thinking things like to think and expand their capacity and their agency in processing and engaging with the universe around them. Humanity as a whole happens to be behaving pretty shiftily right now and should get around to stopping being such a dick/fool, but that’s both obvious to any anarchist and neither here nor there. The reason technology is awesome is because it expands what I can do, it expands my agency. And as an anarchist I don’t settle for “good enough” when it comes to agency. Trans humanists are those anarchists who are so anarchist that they declare “No Compromise” when offered a living death retirement with a bunch of other useless punks confined to doing meaningless repetitive things for the rest of their days and never allowed to expand their own capacity PAST A CERTAIN POINT. It doesn’t matter if that society happens to be freer than any other so far in history. “Free enough” is for liberals. You’re right, “Get the fuck out of my movement” is a declaration (or clarification) of hostilities. Primitivism is utterly irreconcilable with anarchism. One seeks to permanently limit agency, the other seeks to expand it. And now primitivisms are openly shooting scientists, scientists! You wage war on us; we’ll wage war on you. But first things first, stop pretending you have anything in common with us. Friday, September 9, 2011 at 0203 | Permalink 7. Robyn wrote: @Margaret, just to clarify a few things: First, I used the word “dominatrix” simply as the feminine form of “dominator”, not meant to be interpreted in the sexual sense. Although, the power-dynamics of sexual relations are a total different conversation that I’m happy to have any time. For the record, yes, I do equate the dominator/dominatrix mentality with fascism- it is impossible without this mentality. I am in no way a second-waver, btw. Okay, moreover: where the hell did you read “us commenters” decrying all science? Much of primitivism thought, as I illustrated in my argument, comes from Ecology and Anthropology, both of which are modern sciences. Besides that, herbal medicine and native technics are the implementation of 2 MILLION YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. K? This brings me to my next point: technology. Regardless of what the Illustrious One, John Reran, says, it IS NOT the universal primitivism platform to oppose technology. Guess what! Friction fire is technology; brain tanning is technology; fire-hardened spears are technology; tracking is a technology and a science. This primitivism, at least, is NOT universally opposed to technology. I am (as are other primitivisms) opposed to the absurd notion that technology is ethically/morally neutral, and that we cannot as thinking, sentient creatures evaluate the goodness or badness of individual technologies. Finally: you, too, fail to address Isis’s and your own fallacious claims about nanotech. Perhaps you’ll explain to me/us how, exactly, nanotechnology is a refutation of our ideals/philosophy? How, again, is this tech manufactured? Oh, right, that hasn’t even been addressed yet. I guess I’ll just assume it’s made of magically-manifesting Anther or Angel-breath. The magical thinking you two are exhibiting is astonishing. Also, for the record, the discussion isn’t about using nanotech or not. If it were already available, you bet your ass I’d use it- to destroy industrial civilization. It’s about the manufacture, the fabrication, the extraction, the landmass, and the resources. Be honest, Margaret: you use laptops quite frequently, as do I, but do you actually think the production of laptops is a good and liberating thing? I sure as fuck don’t, but that doesn’t make me hesitate to use this already-extant technology to advance my goals and the goals of my apparently-odious Movement. Friday, September 9, 2011 at 1546 | Permalink 8. Robyn wrote: @Sit: There are very few accessible places left that AREN’T cities. Beyond that, what better place to destroy urban culture than in the Rubs? If I want to blow up a police station, I don’t go to a rural non-policed area. Beyond THIS, if you’re implying that primitivisms are hypocrites (which are usually very true), that doesn’t invalidate the things we’re claiming. Everyone I know who opposes Statist societies lives under the oppressive shadow of a State. Does that make their ideas less valid? Friday, September 9, 2011 at 1549 | Permalink 9. Daytrip wrote: The way I see it, technology is not the enemy. Nor is mining, harvesting, manufacturing, any of that. All of these things can be done sustainably. The real enemy is money. If everyone did what was best for humanity as a whole, for LIFE as a whole, no man would consume more than he needed and the impact on the web of life that sustains US would be considered fully before any action was taken. Instead, many people do what they feel is best for them and them alone. They want control. Control comes from power. Money is damn near the most powerful force in humanity. If there were no profitability in it, deforestation would never happen. Instead, people have shelves and shelves of books they’ll never read (if they ever even read them in the first place). If there wasn’t money to be made off of it, there would be no massive-scale strip-mining. Instead, there are people who trade in their Corvette for a new one every year. If there were no money to be saved by it, oil companies wouldn’t cut so many corners or be nearly so negligent, and disasters like the Deep-water Horizon would never happen. Nanotech is incredible, and it offers unmatched potential for technological advancement. But it WILL be bastardized by greedy fucks with nothing in mind but themselves. Instead of spending R&D dollars on things to better the human condition, all of that money will go toward efforts to produce consumer-bound goods with greater efficiency and lower overhead, and thus a greater profit margin. With these things in mind, it’s easy to understand why people say that money is the root of all evil. Friday, September 9, 2011 at 1658 | Permalink 10. Michael wrote: Re some of the folks in this thread: The fact that the initial steps of nanotechnology would involve using our existing industry is meaningless. If the point is to move away from our existing industry we’re not going to be able to do that over night without killing seven billion people. One way or another we’re going to have to continue partially using our existing industry in the near future. Using it to develop nanotechnology that allows us to decouple from said industry is far more positive. The industrial world is not original sin, and things developed within it are not inherently tainted by it. Further while the development of nanotechnology requires previous scientific and engineering breakthroughs, it doesn’t inherently require a widespread industry covering the earth with specific applications of those previous breakthroughs. In a world that had remained anarchist technological development could have continued in an incredibly limited manner without forcing widespread adoption until those technologies became sustainable — like nanotechnology is no making possible. But anyway the past doesn’t matter, the future matters, and nanotech as well as many other technological developments is the best way forward. Friday, September 9, 2011 at 2120 | Permalink 11. I wrote: Hey there… just a few thoughts… I agree with a lot of things in the original post as well as the critical comments, but there were some things I reacted to… One such thing is the statement by Isis that there is room for everyone, including primitivisms, in a techno future. While that obviously be true, it is by no means guaranteed, and within the existing framework, it is frankly unlikely. As things stand, technological innovation, even of the type that might be used for example to reduce pollution and resource depletion, is invariably used to the exact opposite end. The reason, I believe, is the growth paradigm. Like someone pointed out, technology does not exist in its own bubble, but must be seen in the light of what it is likely to be used for. I would like a world where there is room for true wilderness, but where one could go outside their little hut in the woods and look up to see the sky streaked by crafts carrying colonists to other worlds. I would like to be able to destroy cancer by taking a hypo spray of nabobs- but not at the expense of every living creature having their habitat reduced so that a hyper spray factory can be built, and a motorway, and a mine, and a factory for the machinery for the mine, and a factory to make the machinery that makes the machinery… With new technology like Nano and maybe someday (this October?) cold fusion, and with a culture focused not on growth but sustainability (including population sustainability) this might be possible. But as things stand today – if you invent something or produce something, you are contributing to degradation. I can’t bear thinking about the ever decreasing wilderness and the ever-increasing infrastructure required producing the endless amounts of useless shit that we consume, but I must point out that there is an important distinction to be made between industry and technologic development. As long as we have a society that is based on industrialism, all technology is a real threat to the wilderness, as it will be used to destructive ends. The same argument is true when we look at money. It is not money that is the problem, however once put to work inside a system of industry and a GROWTH based economy, it becomes a facilitator for destruction – or entropy- a degradation of the availability of resources and of wilderness – and thereby a degradation of freedom. The more resources we have” used up” and the more is tied up in the chain of production and consumption, the less is available and the fewer choices we have. One reason for my primitivism leanings is probably a reaction against increasing mass (of people, products, etc.) that is pushing back wilderness, and increasing complexity, which causes alienation as fewer and fewer people understand how things work (or even understand their own work), have control of their lives, are reduced to an ever smaller spoke in a giant wheel they can’t even see because it is like a two dimensional creature trying to understand a three dimensional shape. Also it is important to remember that today the creativity and innovation that goes on with technology is restricted to a small class of people – inventors and scientists and maybe engineers- while the VAST majority of people involved in the production and operation of technology are more exchangeable than ever and reduced to little more than muscle power. Right now, technology is displacing ever more jobs and replacing real craftsmanship. In a world without the industrial and growth paradigms, however, there could be production without depletion of resources, without the need for expanding infrastructure. There could be innovation fuelled by curiosity and need, not quest for profit. There could be real jobs, with room for ingenuity and tinkering, there would be increased autonomy. Technology and money could coexist quite happily with wilderness and primitivism. They would be no threat to each other and therefore it would be redundant to debate over which is right or morally superior. They would be simply two different life choices, two outlooks, and arguing against one or the other would be basically an attempt to stifle diversity, which I think we should all be careful not to do… Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 0339 | Permalink One Trackback/Pingback 1. Patterns in the Void › DIY Compostable Electronics on Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 1804 [...] another reason why nanotechnology is awesome and primitivisms are not awesome: organic [...] ‹ It’s Still Love Botnets and Dosing › Patterns in the Void by Isis Agora Lovecraft Is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unsorted License 2012-12-19

Angel of love Bilden illustrerar känslan.. 2012-12-19

Dufvenberg Kvinnoförakt Larz... åter. Bra text. Kort och explosiv. 2012-12-19

ej medlem längre har varit där, och mått som förtjänat 2012-12-19

Larz Gustafsson Anarkismen är bara en vidrigare variant av liberalismen. Småborgerligt trams. Ateismen är något jag lämnade bakom mig 1984. Precis som en menstruerande kvinna byter binda. 2012-12-19