(untitled)

I frankly believe civilisation is the worst thing ever to happen to us. The world needs to go back to hunter gatherer times. We can't be trusted with technology, we can't be relied on to sensibly use technology, the only rational solution is to burn it all to ash. Depression, Apathy, Bi-Polar, Politics, Charities, Preservation Groups, AID's, Mustard Gas, Nerve Agents, Nuclear Weapons, Immigrant Invasions, the fuarrrking feeling of wanting to headbutt an icepick while shopping for food. All spawned from Civilisation. Even the "good" things like medicine and plentiful cheap food are contributing to the giant, black, lava like blob slowly encompassing us all in an inescapable future of miserable drudgery and empty existence. Violent revolution is necessary because it's like trying to take alcohol from an alcoholic, you just have to take it away and let them detox long enough until they realise they're better off without it. They'll never surrender it willingly. he story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip. The body count climbs through a series of globewars. Emergent Planetary Commercium trashes the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Continental System, the Second and Third Reich, and the Soviet International, cranking-up world disorder through compressing phases. Deregulation and the state arms-race each other into cyberspace. By the time soft-engineering slithers out of its box into yours, human security is lurching into crisis. Cloning, lateral genodata transfer, transversal replication, and cyberotics, flood in amongst a relapse onto bacterial sex. Neo-China arrives from the future. Hypersynthetic drugs click into digital voodoo. Retro-disease. Nanospasm. Beyond the Judgement of God. Meltdown: planetary china-syndrome, dissolution of the biosphere into the technosphere, terminal speculative bubble crisis, ultravirus, and revolution stripped of all christian-socialist eschatology (down to its burn-core of crashed security). It is poised to eat your TV, infect your bank account, andhack xenodata from your mitochondria. 〔〔 〕〕 Machinic Synthesis. Deleuzoguattarian schizoanalysis comes from the future. It is already engaging with nonlinear nano-engineering runaway in 1972; differentiating molecular or neotropic machineries from molar or entropic aggregates of nonassembled particles; functional connectivity from antiproductive static. Philosophy has an affinity with despotism, due to its predilection for Platonic-fascist top-down solutions that always screw up viciously. Schizoanalysis works differently. It avoids Ideas, and sticks to diagrams: networking software for accessing bodies without organs. BWOs, machinic singularities, or tractor fields emerge through the combination of parts with (rather than into) their whole; arranging composite individuations in a virtual/ actual circuit. They are additive rather than substitutive, and immanent rather than transcendent: executed by functional complexes of currents, switches, and loops, caught in scaling reverberations, and fleeing through intercommunications, from the level of the integrated planetary system to that of atomic assemblages. Multiplicities captured by singularities interconnect as desiring-machines; dissipating entropy by dissociating flows, and recycling their machinism as self-assembling chronogenic circuitry. Converging upon terrestrial meltdown singularity, phase-out culture accelerates through its digitech-heated adaptive landscape, passing through compression thresholds normed to an intensive logistic curve. But how is it even possible? >One man can't topple the earth, it's just not possible >He couldn't topple his country, or even his county, at best he could take on and win against a large town IF he's incredibly clever, cunning and has nothing to lose >Teamwork brings the risk of betrayal, and with the amount of people required betrayal would kill any plan before it started >How do we destroy all the guns? The boats? The cars? The Fridges? The electricity, gas and oil networks? >An alternative would be just killing so many people there's no one to maintain or rebuild the technology and it collapses naturally, but how do you kill billions without someone stopping you?

> Suggesting primitivist hell forever is any better OP, lookup the average lifespan in pre-agrarian cultures. You decry civilization's violence, but nomadic pre-agrarian life is nothing but violence and strife. That seems a bit incoherent, if not hypocritical.

>>32374 Better than aging.

>>32375 If we manage to solve the quality-of-life issues related to aging (such as senescence), then all the deaths and misery due to it prior will simply be testament to our failure to do it fast-enough. That's a technical problem, and it requires a solution in the same vein. If we destroy any chance of ever doing this, then we are choosing that it is better for every life to always and ever be short, brutish and filled with suffering with no other option.

>>32374 This. People like to think before the agricultural revolution humans were singing songs without a care in the world. Obviously not true. The likes of us would likely not survive back then, nor would we in the post-apocalyptic worlds we envision.

>>32374 my god, this has been debunked over and over. The average lifespan was so low because infant mortality was so high with all the medical treatments of modern society(along with all the various poisons and poor diets), a 5 year old today can expect to live 10-20 years longer than a 5 year old way back when. I don't even agree with OP. Technology can be responsibly used. But I just fuarrrking hate this "argument".

>>32413 That addresses the lifespan part, but not the rest of the problem with the lifestyle. I'm willing to retract the lifespan part, since in any case the main point of the post is the fact it's not any more peaceful or great a time. Quite the contrary.

Only thing here coming from the future is OP, i had to unpack this thread like it was an Hermetist poem and even then i struggle to see how going back to a pre-agrarian society would benefit us in any way. What you're trying to describe as the future of civilization is nothing more than a result of human nature, put us back into a pre-agrarian society and we will just restart the cycle, this time with even less resources to fight over. I suggest you rewrite this in a more coherent and understandable way.

what i dont understand about anprims is that they literally can go back to that lifestyle if they want l but no they all just want to whine on the internet and take things for granted

>>32478 Yes. Not peaceful good. Makes man into strong man. Today man weak, woman like. Man then strong.

>>32478 well, the wars back then were on a much smaller scale, and there's little evidence to suggest that lives in most pre-agrarian societies were/are "nasty, brutish, and short". Seems to me that with less crowding there is generally less reason for conflict. the main reason why pre-agrarian society was undesirable is because they were very precarious, a bad year or a big fire or a septic piece of meat could end up killing your whole tribe. >>32753 well the thing is that they actually can't. All the good land has already been settled, vagrants are essentially not allowed to exist in most countries, and most of the land is dying due to pollution. >>32754 most of the stressors creating "strong men" involved the need to run long distances for hunting and having irregular food intake.

I really hope this is an elaborate troll.

>>32755 >most of the land is dying due to pollution. If you live in a place that has no environmental controls whatsoever like Bejing, that might be right, but if you went to someplace like the Urals, The Black Forest, or any of the many national parks in places like the US or Canada, you'd see that they are very clean and habitable to all life there.

>>32757 national parks, where unlicensed habitation is outlawed and the predator population is all out of wack because they can eat human garbage. No thanks. Closest thing you might get in the US is national forest land, you can inhabit it for 90 days at a time if you don't trash it up too bad, but you can't hunt without a license.

>>32758 And the issue of not being able to squat on the land is....? By allowing people to inhabit and settle the land you would cause its deforestation and provoke the decrease in populations in the wildlife there. The predator populations are fine and are being managed as we speak.

>>32757 Yes, but you'd be living in complete isolation most likely, and the government that owns the land you're settling would want you either to pay taxes or to reintegrate into a city, there are actual stories of vagrants being persued by governments. All in all, it's a far cry to what it would be for the entire society to be in that state

>>32760 I am focusing on more of an individual case, with over 7 billion people and soon to be more, there is no sane reason for any people, let alone entire countries, to embrace extreme primitivist and nomadic beliefs.

>>32761 Yes, sorry i mistyped, what i meant is that for the individual living in a pre-agrarian society would be far different than essetially larping as a hunter gaetherer in a natural park.

>>32762 True, but it's the closest you can get without running off into the Canadian tundra or Amazon rainforests and I don't see any sane reason as to why someone would want to live EXACTLY like how hunter-gatherers lived.

>>32374 More like violence and victory for the conquerors and strife for the weak sôybôys of their time. See Neolithic and Bronze Age Proto-Indo-Europeans for details. Also, the Celts and Germans of the Bronze and Iron Ages grew taller than the Romans and Greeks because they had a diet of meat, wild plants, and dairy as oppose to grain, grain, and more grain. I will say many aspects of civilization are fine and can work well with the positive aspects of the much more "savage" times.

There's many Christian homestead farming communities with global networks. I hear the Amish are becoming bigger in recent years.

>>33395 lol, muh christians (fuarrrk god and fuarrrk christ) are the dumbest, most gullible people on the face of the earth. it's no wonder jim jones got a thousand of them to kill themselves.

>>33396 how pointless and edgy of you. are you new here?

>>33398 Looking past the edginess, they're 100% correct. You're likely a poor christian soul, gullible as fuarrrk

>>33403 >they Who are you talking about? There's only 1 person. >You're likely a poor christian soul, gullible as fuarrrk Oh, he dared to point at someone being a contrarian edgelord used to argue with other kids on Discord in a cruel fight for attention. Must be from the %camp I don't like%, because my underdeveloped brain is unable to process a worldview bigger than two states. Both you and >33396 contributed to the retardation of this board by contributing nothing to the meaningful discussion. Very nice. I refuse to believe two grown men could write those posts because my faith in humanity has not yet ceased, so you should know you have to be over 18 to post on this board.

>>32753 They absolutely cannot. It's not even legal to live that way, nor should it be. It'd just be some people encroaching on what small wild places are still left on Earth. The plentiful populations of game and sea life our ancestors lived off of are greatly depleted. None of the (most of them valid) arguments against primitivism justify the current global technocracy either. The current trajectory isn't sustainable, nor can we go backwards, so how about we try something else?

>>33415 "They" is a valid third person pronoun for anyone when you aren't certain who the person is. This is standard English, which I assume to be your second or third language.

>>33423 So.... what would something better be in your eyes? Not to imply that primitivism is good or anything like that.

>>33360 I don't think you'd have those same beliefs if you were just a regular person that had to eat gruel every day and had barely any amenities at all and your only choice for a career in life is to be a shopkeep or a farmer. Plus every few years your country would be devastated by raiders, wars, and oppression by your lords.

>>33426 You see, people who post these fantasies on imageboards always fancy themselves a chieftain or centurion or something. If they had the personality and organizational skills to hold that position and not be mutinied against or killed in battle, they'd apply it to something practical in the present instead of living vicariously through an idealized history that was probably nothing like they imagine.

>>33425 If I had the answers I'd not be sitting here with the other amateur philosophers on a message board, I'd be saving the world. I think we might just be fuarrrked since there's no real way to change the direction of civilization. If there is some huge collapse, things will be considerably worse for some centuries.

It's amusing how arguments that hunter-gatherer life was good, without evidence, are nearly always immediately attacked as untrue, also without evidence. The best real picture of stone-age life we have is native Americans before European conquest, and what little we know about isolated tribes in the Amazon rainforests and elsewhere. It can be argued that they didn't have it so bad at all, and perhaps the average life was better then than it is now.

>>33430 The Indian tribes in what would later be America regularly suffered from deaths during wintertime, war, and starvation, and that's not even mentioning the weird religious beliefs that existed that in some places led to human sacrifice and cannibalism. It was far from happy and they lived better when they became civilized.

>>33430 >>33452 Most Natives Americans are honestly a terrible example for "stone age" cultures since most of their practices have been gone for ages and a lot of the records available have some distortion. Basically a lot of practices have either been lost or modified with contemporary advances. While many modern natives have negative thoughts on the conquest, it's less because they can't go shoot buffalo and more because of the whole genocide/land grab. And really the presence of highly stratified societies in Mesoamerica and the Andes honestly already make this pointless. And really, if you still want to use them as an example of "primitiveness" then the fact they were almost wiped out by a foreign disease just highlights the frailty of being low-tech. Your group remains highly vulnerable (hell, just look at the Black Death). Though in those cases the problems stem from different groups of humans having different tech levels, so a stable "primitive" society would need some way to maintain a hard cap on development. The Amazonians might make a good example since they're active and some actively refuse modernization. A first-person account is more valuable.

>>33452 > they lived better when they became civilized. Funniest thing I've read all day. Boy are you deluded.

>>33495 >Funniest thing I've read all day. Boy are you deluded. Their primitive backwards bs was all but extinguished. You're a hilarious idiot.

>>33495 How so?

>>33423 >so how about we try something else? Unfortunately, that won't happen. Anything we think of might one day be an interesting sci fi short story, at most. >>33452 >The Indian tribes in what would later be America regularly suffered from deaths during wintertime, war, and starvation, and that's not even mentioning the weird religious beliefs that existed that in some places led to human sacrifice and cannibalism ah yes, because civilized folks have never died during wintertime, or due to war, or due to starvation, and they've *certainly* never killed themselves or each other due to weird religious beliefs. >>33497 yes, it was extinguished through genocide, alcohol imports, forced relocation, force "re-education", forced adoption, etc. etc. it was wiped out because the white people wanted them gone.

>>32373 Nice! I can copy/paste Nick Land too. Start thinking harder about the CCRUs writings instead of letting your jaw drop "wow cool collapse!!"

>>33452 >they lived better when they became civilized I love when people talk out of their nates.

>>33541 Uh.... how are their teeth supposed to prove your point? The evidence you're using even shows that this is due to dietary change.

Its not civilization in itself that kills us, but our enormous lack of willingness to use resources effectively by thinking creatively or at all even, to reduce inefficiency. This society just grables everything up and swallows half the soykaf out again raw. Not to mention the tendency to reward idiocy and corruption by the system. If people werent so wasteful with things they had and thought of how it could reused in the best way and subsisting from idiotic misuse, im sure no trouble finding examples here, then we would have no problems.

>>33430 >>33452 Talking about "uncivilised" societies as monolithic is pointless and this goes for both negative and positive depictions of "primitive life". It is also not helpful for changing the present in any way. Have a read: https://archive.is/Kv954

>>33551 And for you diet impacts nothing and has no relation with civilization whatsoever? The fact that people even physically change to the worse and suffer from teeth decay with all what comes from it, like jaw underdevelopment and mouth breathing and disproportional body development, bothers you a little talking about 'improvement of their life'? Do you really think people just have to brush their teeth twice a day without a reason? Do you think that is an improvement? I really can't tell if you are asking questions with obvious answers out of curiosity or simply to make a counter-point without actual point.

>>33598 Of course, it does, but this was likely when the new world was new to them and they had yet to adapt to the new modern lifestyles of the modern age. The diet that helped their teeth was more down to coincidence than anything else, primitive cultures often suffered from disease, fatal winters, and a fragile food system, Africans suffered from Malaria for thousands of years and it was never even combated until civilization and technology arrived. Without technology, these cultures and groups never would have been able to grow to the size that they did and they likely would still be suffering today.

>>33601 they are still suffering today, just for different reasons. Africa is the continent most impacted by climate change, slavery, pollution, etc. Also sickle-cell anemia is more common in parts of Africa because of Malaria.

>>33618 That's why the economy and country overall crashed and burned when whitey was booted. But sure, cling onto the multicultural myth :)