Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody here has said a word about today's generations needing to be responsible for the sins of their progenitors so whether you believe it or not, it's probably not a good idea for you to bring it up and go down that road, it's a red herring and it's off topic anyway.
Did they? Are you absolutely sure about that? How long ago did the ancestors do that, how many park reserves did they set aside for bison and wolves and such, and where are all these large parks? I'm pretty sure that no national parks were set aside for anything in USA and Canada until just shortly before the turn of the 20th century. And it was the standing presidents and prime ministers in those times that discussed it amongst themselves and decided it needed to be done to follow in the footsteps of Britain and European countries. It was not general public ancestors who did it or even thought of it, let alone care about it. It's the people today who care and value more about the need for national parks than any ancestors ever gave any thought to.
.
Yellowstone was the first national park. It was established in 1872.
Winterfall have you seen the Netflix series on the Unabomber Ted kazinsky?
This thread is like everyone is the shrink trying to get kazinsky to see how delusional he is. And you are kazinsky.
Lol, I know who the unabomber is and I’m not an anarcho-primitivist.
It should be noted that his manifesto was taken seriously by many intellectuals but it’s irrational to compare me to him.
The history of agrarianism, permaculture, confederate democracies, social hierarchies far out date me to people like John Stuart Mills, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Epicurus, and many more.
I want to move society forward into a kinder place where local politics, unification (confederacy), and technological application promote sustainability and natural expansion.
That doesn’t mean I think we should go back to a hunter gatherer society.
That also doesn’t mean I won’t learn from native non-agricultural societies like the Eskimos or that I want to demolish these cultures (or what remains) for profit.
From the Niger River Delta rebels to the Zapatistas, indegenous politics isn’t something new, and I’m looking to learn and implement what is good into society, not just embrace endless technological applications.
Winterfall have you seen the Netflix series on the Unabomber Ted kazinsky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Lol, I know who the unabomber is and I’m not an anarcho-primitivist.
I only started reading his manifesto recently because in the wake of the New Zealand shooting, someone had said that Brent Tarrant had been "Ted-pilled".
I will say, I'm a bit confused why you think Ted was "delusional". All he is really saying is "Modern technological society comes at a cost".
In fact, he is basically saying the same things Rousseau and Thoreau had said in the previous centuries. Except Ted is far more angry, and much less-likable(and was, you know, blowing people up).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
That doesn’t mean I think we should go back to a hunter gatherer society.
While you often recognize the evils of "society", you continue to believe beyond all evidence that it can be reformed. Basically, you refuse to see that the moment you accept government-authority as legitimate, you will always end up right back where we are, or worse.
A few years ago I tried to solve this problem by adopting the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Who believed that government should be "reset" every generation. But such a government could never develop nukes, or fly to the moon, or defend itself from those who can.
Quote:
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." - Thomas Jefferson
I only started reading his manifesto recently because in the wake of the New Zealand shooting, someone had said that Brent Tarrant had been "Ted-pilled".
I will say, I'm a bit confused why you think Ted was "delusional". All he is really saying is "Modern technological society comes at a cost".
In fact, he is basically saying the same things Rousseau and Thoreau had said in the previous centuries. Except Ted is far more angry, and much less-likable(and was, you know, blowing people up).
While you often recognize the evils of "society", you continue to believe beyond all evidence that it can be reformed. Basically, you refuse to see that the moment you accept government-authority as legitimate, you will always end up right back where we are, or worse.
A few years ago I tried to solve this problem by adopting the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Who believed that government should be "reset" every generation. But such a government could never develop nukes, or fly to the moon, or defend itself from those who can.
1. I said is manifesto was praised by intellectuals and had a lot of value, I don't deny that. Some people say he is delusional because he wouldn't conform to modern society and his writing had many grammatical errors and of course he sent active bombs to certain places harming individuals.
2. Despite him saying things that were more or less accurate you can't repeat the past, that is one thing I'm sure of. Instead we should try to build a future that mitigates the affects of modern society.
Of course his points as to why the modern economy has to organize people in a certain way, and that social conformity is forced is hard to argue against, there is no point in repeating the tribal societies of the past without modern day innovations.
I still point out old habits like the sacred groves in India that help sustain the forestry and provide for its people, and that is a method that by itself is very primitive (but good).
1. I said is manifesto was praised by intellectuals and had a lot of value, I don't deny that. Some people say he is delusional because he wouldn't conform to modern society and his writing had many grammatical errors and of course he sent active bombs to certain places harming individuals.
The underlined and bolded is a big "except." Dylann Rooff also had a manifesto that in some respects made sense, except that he killed people as an incidental activity. Similar to people asking Mary Todd Lincoln whether, "except for that" did she enjoy the show, Our American Cousin at Ford Theater.
The underlined and bolded is a big "except." Dylann Rooff also had a manifesto that in some respects made sense, except that he killed people as an incidental activity. Similar to people asking Mary Todd Lincoln whether, "except for that" did she enjoy the show, Our American Cousin at Ford Theater.
You can read about him more. He didn't target random people, but people he thought were promoting a technological future the most. 3 people died which is very sad, but I wouldn't put that on the same level of Dylann.
That being said it was morally wrong, he should never have done it, and I feel little to no sympathy for him.
That being said none of his horrible actions mitigate what he wrote and the quality of his observations.
Even young indigenous people, using modern methods, are going back to their communities are trying to perseve their way of life.
It is not all bad.
Well- You could buy 100 acres or so, raise your own food, generate your own energy via wind, drill a well, and make your own clothing. I have 500 acres where there is plenty of fish, deer, turkey, and the ability to grow your food. You could draw your own water, make your own soap, eat everything you kill and raise. Have at it if you want to do so. I think you would be ready to give up after three days.
Have you ever processed and dried your own meat? Ever make pemmican? Make some pemmican in your kitchen and tell me how much you would love living off that for months at a time. If you do attempt to make pemmican, render the fat outside, as it will smell up your house.
They had a "reality tv show" several years ago in which several families, all of whom claimed to be very self sufficient, were observed doing so in a mid 1800s environment. All of them struggled, particularly with food and all failed.
If you have ever spent any time out in the actual wilderness, you know how extremely difficult such a life can be. One devotes 100% of your time to growing/processing food, getting water, repairing things, and making things for survival. Ever try to cut up a tree with an axe only (no chainsaw)? It takes all day. You have to fashion and make everything you have not carried in, which can be challenging. Such stuff is "fun" when you don't have to rely upon it for survival. Using horses for farm work is a royal pain in the ass and is back breaking labor. My dad and uncles used horses for some work in the 1930s and do not remember it fondly.
Such a life, which sounds idyllic, is actually very, very hard work which essentially no people would enjoy. Don't you think that if given a choice, the American Indians would have chosen to get their food from a grocery store and popped it in a microwave, rather than hunting, processing, and cooking their food? Don't you think they would rather have bought clothes off a rack rather than make them from buffalo hides?
People in the past endured a "simple life" because they had to do so. If given the choice, they would choose a much easier modern day life, which actually allows leisure time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
