"Agriculture is the greatest of all evils"

>leftists who call themselves "wild"
Who are you thinking of?

No, herding was and still is in a few cases done by pastoral nomads. The Mongols, Turks, Huns, and so on were pastoral nomads. Even the Arabs were and still are. Agriculture is farming food such as wheat, rice, and other grains. These foods were the building blocks of the first cities. The Chinese were able to have a large population in pre-modern times thanks to their rice production methods.

Zerzan and other associated degenerates. They call themselves and their ideology as "wild", "Untamed", "primtive", when they themselves are the representatives of one of the most civilised ideologies out there. Communism only happens in civilisation, gender equality only happens in civilisation, peace only happens in civilisation.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

"Agriculture is the cultivation and breeding of animals, plants and fungi for food, fiber, biofuel, medicinal plants and other products used to sustain and enhance human life."

Who are his associates is what I ask. It's the first time I heard the name Zerzan.

Zerzan is an anarcho primitivist who claims that all hunter gatherer societies were communist equal utopias. Just go on his wikipedia article, I hate those scum so I can't be bothered to list them out.

I wish you could just tell me who are the leftists who said they were wild. It sounds so ludicrous. Or was it a metaphor?

Humans aren't going to miss all the grass they fed their sheep and cows you brainlet

Just go on zerzan's wikipedia page and look up associated people and their writings.

That is not how agriculture is applied to history and anthropology.

you're useless desu

Ted's still a Leftist, as is Zerzan. There is a strong current of critique from anarchists against the Left, very good critiques at times; and this stems back to the original split between anarchists and communists. However, even at the most extreme fringes of this critique - as in Camatte, Invisible Committee, Perlman, or Dupont - they remain Leftists. This comes down to accepting the narrative of historical materialism.
And that's a terrible article. Those aren't the core tenets of anarcho-primitivism, nor does he add anything to discussion by writing 5,000 words on the supposed non-sourcing of primitives working less. It's basic common sense to know this, and as a source there are plenty of anthropological studies proving this - there is also an MIT study showing how even feudal societies worked far less than modern zeks.
------
As for agriculture, I cannot say that I have read Zerzan on this, or perhaps I just forget. But I may still be able to give a sense of their thinking. For Perlman, I think it comes down to both the loss of the connection to nature and also the specialisation that arises in the settled landscape. He gives the example of a flood and how reaction to the flood creates a new class of those who build the solutions. We then have a subversion of the elders, the truly wise who lead the society, and this infighting eventually destroys all of the old ways while removing the leadership that is connected to nature. Perhaps worse is the subsequent building of walls (necessary to keep raiders and enemies out) which further divides nature and introduces a system of slavery. Civilisation then builds upon this feedback runaway of destroying the old ways and infighting amongst the classes/neighbouring groups.
I don't like this mainly for its dialectical materialism, but I think the problems of agriculture should still be considered: permanent destruction of areas of land; loss of nomadic lifestyles; introduction of diseases and poor health; domestication and denaturing of both animals and humans, not to mention their relations; division of classes into warriors and farmers, which creates walls and subjects citizens to rape/plunder; pacification of sectors of the populace; the introduction of feminised labour for men, and thus a shift in male/female roles towards that of the feminine (basically the opposite to what Ted is suggesting, but also seeing gender in a very different way from that of anarchists; introduction of fragility to the food systems; etc.
For me it is very much for spiritual reasons rather than material consequences, and what I find interesting is the philosophical/theological return to the land of those who are disillusioned. Many of the greats suggest this return, as if it were some great revelation, but agriculture is the original point of the fall - both scientifically and spiritually. It seems that there is a desire to be close to loss,

>when you mainline rousseau

The Germanic Tribes had none of the issues that anarcho primitivsts say that agricultural societies had, even though they used agriculture. There was no destruction of the environment by Germanic Tribes, yet the australian aboriginals destroyed the vast forest that once covered australia.

I mean that statement is the logical conclusion to "critical theory"

cont'd
or perhaps they seek something similar to what the primitivists are after. It is a primal urge, it's just that neither been able to fully describe what it is they are after. The journey is simply an attempt to formulate a deeper identity and knowledge. (What else could it be for individuals like Heidegger and Tolstoy to adopt the uniform of the peasantry?)
Now we are seeing the horrible end of agricultural thinking, and both animals and humans are domesticated into pasture they cannot escape. It has become the absolute prison that destroys not only the land it sinks into itself but upon its collapse will initiate the worst period of cannibalism in human history. The desecration of God's territory now relies on human input that we cannot keep up with, and unless a technology takes us further from nature billions will be forced into hot war or starvation. perhaps worse than this is the slow descent into a world desert as aquifers dry up and petroleum fertiliser sucks every last nutrient from the soil.
Stay positive, noble moderns.

brainlets who pick up Ted because they can't understand actual intellectuals like Ellul or Virilio never cease to make me laugh. Somehow the mentally ill guy incapable of forming relationships and sending out bombs isn't a "degenerate" because he wrote a half-assed assessment of leftist psychology.

It is you're just dumb

How much do we know about how they actually lived? And how much they may have destroyed nature?
In any case, I can only see primitivism from the point of catastrophe, something we are thrust into. In some sense it is an ideal, but with the destruction of nature and the extinction of so many species we would likely have to rely on pastoralism.
Wouldn't mind seeing a source on how these tribes lived with nature.

In terms of equality they certainly were much closer than we are. not even comparable. And strangely enough, also more right-wing as well. So perhaps its not so crazy to be something other than a political binary autist stuck in the liberal era.

Your version is as fake as theirs. Or perhaps worse, as it comes from the NATURE IS WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL myth.
They had forms of equality and respect for fellow man that we can only dream of. But keep dreaming about the OW MUH BALLZ WILL TO POWER UTOPIA.

>MUH ACADEMIA

He's an anthropologist. And was getting attacked by 'antifa' long before all the SJWs were attacking the Right.
Basically other primitivists, individualist anarchists, and anti-left anarchists.

t. brainlet

What, do you actually expect someone who comes into a thread sperging out about degenerates to actually be familiar with the last century of ethnographic and anthropological research?

>MUH INTELLECTUALS

Meanwhile Ted is over here with a PhD in Maths

How much math is present in his writings?

Tacitus, Germania

Except nature always involves death. The Peaceful tribes got BTFO by the warlike ones.

Keep dreaming about MUH PEACEFUL EGALITARIAN UTOPIA

Math requires the most intelligence of any human pursuit, so a successful mathematician can easily tackle philosophical and ethical problems.
>inb4 b-but IQ isn't real!!

>peaceful tribes btfo by manbun hipster fags

Wow

He's right though, it's not like they didn't have culture, religion, notions of honour, tradition, equality, sacredness, and the like. Small groupings of peoples had much more complex social and hierarchical dynamics. I would say they lived more lively too, not exposed to such a broad spectrum of ideas and standard meaningless contrarianism as we are, they lived with far more sincerity. Obviously none had anything like a "PEACEFUL EGALITARIAN UTOPIA". But to frame it as some animalistic pseudo-darwinian struggle of strong and weak, is just dishonest and stupid.

the cain and abel story is about the inevitable victory of sedentary tribes over nomad tribes. some sages have predicted a revenge of abel over cain at some point in the future, we'll see

pic related, Douglas P Fry, and Raymond C Kelly would all like to have a word with you.

>AnPrim

The most brainlet of ideals.

I’ll take the meaninglessness, over dying from a sprained ankle because of muh primitivism thank you.

I think what the OP quote is trying to get at is this:

The agricultural revolution (around 10k years ago?) allowed humans to increase food production to the point where long-term static settlements become not only feasible but also the norm. While increased production seems like an objectively good thing this didn't lead to an increase in the quality of life in individuals. Indeed, static settlements led to increased chances of disease, lower variety of food sources in diet (diets were often limited to the one or two crops sourced locally which lead to nutritional problems), more specialisation (so less and less understanding of things which don't directly pertain to your individual task) etc.

Now no one is saying that nomad pre agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were utopian but the time spent by an individual in the task of gathering enough foodstuff for himself or for those for whom he was responsible was much less than the 'field-time' spent daily by a proto-farmer.

2

It is important to note however that there is not a direct correlation between what is best for the individual and what is best for humanity as a whole. While individuals may have suffered (and perhaps continue to do so) as a direct result of the agricultural revolution, said revolution allowed the human population to increase exponentially.

The population of a species is probably the main criterion by which we measure the success of a species.

Now humans have sentience so we have our own subjective measures of success which may (and probably don't) coincide perfectly with those used by nature. We can thus decide whether we measure what is good or bad for humanity differently (individual happiness, self-actualisation, technological advancement etc etc.).

NB that 'evil' is a totally subjective term that depends wholly upon (in this case) how you perceive the effects that agriculture had on humankind and civilisation.

Primitivism is intentionally stupid, because of an opposition towards abstractions. And for Zerzan even language.

It's a critique, which doesn't imply oppositional values.
Do theologians oppose God for questioning scripture?
>orienteering questions for brainlets

>primitivist culture millions of years
>every culture since, a few hundred
>civilisation gets BTFO by its own feedback runaway
Great argument ya got there

Except the greatest civilisation in history saw it as the ideal.
And basically every religion describes it as paradise living with God, followed by a disastrous fall into oblivion.
>living in oblivion ruled by idiots
>blames primitive people for not being idiot civs like him
>praise Zekism
>accuse brainlets and men who live in harmony with nature as being fags with their shit all fugged up

>lives in a labyrinth of healthcare obelisks
>doesn't real that all medicine comes from plants
>thinks primitives were isolated bugman virgins like he is

I like eating

Hunter gathering was a better life style than permanent settlements. Compared to hunting and gathering agriculture was far more arduous and we see evidence from human fossil records from that time. Rather, permanent settlements reduced infant mortality because there was some form of food for the winter months. Newborns are sensitive to nutritional deficit and die within days. After this period, hunter gatherers lived longer and grew talller.
Agriculture is the worst curse in human existence.

yo man, what is a zek

>he hasn't read Against Leviathan

nope, i havent

>confusing noble Germanics with hipster faggots
lmao
Life is a darwinian struggle of the strong over the weak. And that's good.
Why does every Unnatural, civilised anarcho primitivst think that every society that uses agriculture is a settled, sedentary, hierarchal society with cities and roads?

The Germanics used animal husbandry and hunting for most of their food, but did use agriculture, they never had cities, they never had roads, they never had a complex hierarchy, many were nomadic or semi nomadic.

BTFO

Sounds like shit people that needed the Romans to lift them.

>medical knowledge is just plants dude

Ya I’ll take my advanced medical care over what is tantamount to homeopathy.

Agriculture is cuckoldry. You are devoting your energy to raising genetic material that is not your own

I like technology and not working more than what it takes to walk to the grocery store, for food.

It’s stupid because thinking living like a savage is at all a good thing is moronic. If mankind thought living in the dirt was so good, why did we move on from living like nomadic savages?

Never said that 'every society that uses agriculture is a settled, sedentary, hierarchal society with cities and roads'.

I said that agriculture has made such societies feasible and the norm.
Learn to read

BTFO

>MUHPINION
>MUH ZIONTISM
>meanwhile, advanced medical care kills a million people every year through spread of disease and shit bureaucratic accidents

>stupid is as stupid does
>if someone cheats on their partner it was simply because they found something far better
The age limit for universities needs to be increased to 30, and no women allowed.

And yet, saves untold more allowing for people to flourish, along with modern agriculture. Sorry sweety, but primitivism is for people who can’t hack it.

Nah, univrisites should be nationalized, and offered for free and have the entry bar lowered so the most people can get in. Or the very least offer only STEM courses.

Having food available most of the time is great

Sure, bro. People are so healthy and smart.
>hiding symptoms beneath technology is better than full health and preventive treatment
>MUHBALLZ!!!

not a single counter argument that isn't based on pure laziness
read kazcynski's thing as well if some of you are more interested

So your arguments boil down to "I want food readily available/abundance of food?"
This argument is easily blown out of the water.
1. Famines exist, in which millions of people die horrible deaths and suffer needlessly, because of the invention of agriculture (whether directly because the crops fail or die of a disease, or indirectly because the population is too high)
2. You might be able to walk into a grocery store and get food, but many many people cannot. Or if they can, they can't afford to purchase healthy food (or are too ignorant) turning millions of people into bloated malnourished monstrosities, because of agriculture.
3. The average hunter gatherer worked very little, maybe seven hours a week. Compare that to working forty or more hours a week just to be able to afford food and other essentials (and no one will take care of you when you're older either)
Throughout history, billions of people have suffered terribly and died worthless deaths because of agriculture. Disease, famine, malnourishment, low iq, war, violence, rape, the suffering of the common man, are all direct results of the invention of agriculture.
You don't even know what you're missing out on. You have no frame of reference.

>The average hunter gatherer worked very little, maybe seven hours a week.
source

Even medieval serfs worked less

hell yeah, let's destroy industrial civilization. then we can crawl on all fours until the sun burns out rendering everything we just did pointless.

>mfw

God was right.

I don't think I've ever heard an estimate as low as 7 hours a week, but check out pg 36, Leisure and Work (sorry for the shitty scan).
faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/lee.pdf

If you search "hunter gatherer working hours" you can find various articles regarding studies of other societies.

Don't worry, industrial civilization is doing a great job of that all on its own.

underrated

>it’ll collapse any minute now!

Umm sweety, it’s not going anywhere.

Doesn’t exist.

And get, the trade off of having agriculture blows primitivism out of the water. We have technology that literally creates suns. I’d say our progress to where we are, is worth it. Better to grow and be in pain then stagnate like a worm. This whole promotion of primitivism, is nothing more than a noble savage myth.

Ya, they are. We have the means to help people who would other die off in primitive ages. I can live up to my 80’s while such a feat was near impossible, in the primitive nightmare.

That's some nice gluttony fag.

>homeopathy
>homeopathy is equal to herbs and spices
You are unaware and should be ashamed of yourself

>Life is a darwinian struggle of the strong over the weak. And that's good.
Read a textbook on evolutionary biology ones in a while

I hate agriculture. Every time I drive down the highway all I see is same plant spread out in every direction for miles. It just looks so disgusting.

Read anthropology
What are different cultures? You and Zerzan leftists both have distorted views
Though the case can be made for both of them being correct since tribes have different cultures, but there's some shared features too (like shamans, animism, totemism and so on)

Anyway, anti-civ is a pipedream that will only happen if it is not supposed to happen. But there are still valid critiques of civilization and modern life. Stuff like hormesis, evolutionary medicine, evolutionary mismatches and so on and so on.
Also book related: against the grain.

It’s nonesense, much like thinking primitive medicine is at all viable.

Read Darwinian medicine and maybe you'll grow a brain pleb

Add to this iatrogenics
The best medicine has come up with are anti-biotics and vaccines, and anti-biotics are now destroying the gut flora and becoming less useable thanks to people being tards

>muh disease of civilization

Which has easy solutions, solutions afforded by not living in the the idiocy of primitivism.

Sounds like a people problem then a medical one. A problem with an easy solution afforded to us by our modern age.

Beekeeping is the poetry of agriculture

>this entire thread
*malthusian chuckling*

The only alternative is permaculture. If one isn't going to live primitively then they should make it a project like Sepp Holzer's, try to rival the aesthetic of nature while working within it.

>technology is a self-correcting system
You're a pathetic creature. And there are plenty of simple medicines that rival anything created by science.
But no medicine to return your sunken chest to that of a man.

Modern Agriculture sucks. Too many modern chemicals and amenities involved that may make things easier for people to make money, but makes everyone sick in the long run.
Also it just looks like shit and destroys everything. Why don't people just let nature take over? You shouldn't have to be completely primitive to live off the land. There's just too many people to do it though.
Maybe there's just no balance anymore and it sends everything out of wack. I wish I was a cave man 1 million years ago fucking around in the woods all day and shit. That way I could be healthy and truly free.

I can focus my life on the study of knowledge.

>Truth doesn't exist