ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

[EcoTribalVegan]

It's nice and all to talk about a new society. But without any direction or examples of HOW to achieve these things, it is impossible to convince people. Whereas, on the other hand, primitivist culture has been tried and tested and is still working millions of years after it started. After only ~10,000 years of civilisation/agriculture, we're already seeing ecological collapse everywhere. I meantioned this before when discussing it with you sheepdog, you have to account for this. How can you stop civilisation from being more exploitative than it is, to the point where it is NOT ecologically destructive and then therefore not harmful to free animals.

[sheepdog]

It's also true that the love of a parent can be universal compassion in a selective compassion society...this IS using the tools of a new society while still living in the old one and I think that it's a Great point.

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand me. It's rarely done and I've learned a lot from it.

[sheepdog]

It's nice and all to talk about a new society. But without any direction or examples of HOW to achieve these things, it is impossible to convince people. Whereas, on the other hand, primitivist culture has been tried and tested and is still working millions of years after it started. After only ~10,000 years of civilisation/agriculture, we're already seeing ecological collapse everywhere. I meantioned this before when discussing it with you sheepdog, you have to account for this. How can you stop civilisation from being more exploitative than it is, to the point where it is NOT ecologically destructive and then therefore not harmful to free animals.

I'm very much in agreement with you that there is a pressing need for real examples to guide people in the new direction. And I agree that primitive societies do provide some great examples of sustainable living. But I think it is also true that, "you can never go home again". Things will never be the way they were and so we cannot just point to the past and say that is the answer.

I have referenced previously, "The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People," by Tim Flannery, who has done a careful study of the effects of primitivism and as one reviewer states,

With a sweeping gesture, Flannery dispels one of modern mythology's most cherished ideals. The image of the "Noble Savage," living intimately and in harmony with his surroundings is demolished by the evidence. Instead, Flannery shows how the intrusions of humans into previously unoccupied lands led to mass slaughters and the extinctions of countless species. His study covers the vast territories of the South Pacific - continents, large islands and archipeligoes - examining geology, weather and climate, flora and fauna. After completing this book, you will have a new view of our ancestors and how humanity has viewed nature.

His arguments are very compelling, detailed and profuse. If you really want others to believe that he is wrong and primitivism is the way to go you have quite a mountain of argument to overcome.

Instead, I would agree with Flannery that primitive man is just as destructive as modern man. What we need is a different man.

Still, your complaint that I have not provided examples of the changed society is well founded. I'm frustrated by that too, but it's harder to describe convincingly something that has never been than what is known from the past. We need a different man. We need to become invisible. Unfortunately, it's very hard for people to imagine themselves invisible.

[EcoTribalVegan]

I'm very much in agreement with you that there is a pressing need for real examples to guide people in the new direction. And I agree that primitive societies do provide some great examples of sustainable living. But I think it is also true that, "you can never go home again". Things will never be the way they were and so we cannot just point to the past and say that is the answer.

I know, we came to this consensus before the server crash on ARCO. But this is unfortunately where it ended when you could not provide a concrete example of HOW civilisation could stop being inherently destructive. And I like the quote by noted primitivist John Zerzan:
"Tearing up the concrete could begin immediately, as my late friend Bob Brubaker once counseled. Literally, under the pavement, it's the beach!"

Flannery's work is still very much contested:

Both arguments are hotly contested. Still more controversially, Flannery recommended that ideally, Australia's population should be as few as 6 million (less than a third of its current level) and that European-imported livestock be phased out in favour of native species such as emus, kangaroos and crocodiles. [5]

Flannery discussion

This was referring to his claim that "firestick farming" by australian aborigines destoyed the landscape. But of course we never will know because of introduced species (caused by the conquest of civilisation).

The image of the "Noble Savage," living intimately and in harmony with his surroundings is demolished by the evidence.

But how far back can one go and still be human? I strongly suspect if one went back far enough, before perversion of agriculture, the concept of a noble savage would be very real. By this I mean I believe that the very first group of animals to be considered "human" would have met this affinity in nature. Unfortunately our "greater" mind developed elaborate and destructive plans/technologies to eliminate work and increase safety. But now we have to work more and face man-made dangers.

[sheepdog]

I know, we came to this consensus before the server crash on ARCO. But this is unfortunately where it ended when you could not provide a concrete example of HOW civilisation could stop being inherently destructive. And I like the quote by noted primitivist John Zerzan:
"Tearing up the concrete could begin immediately, as my late friend Bob Brubaker once counseled. Literally, under the pavement, it's the beach!"

It is a fair criticism that I have provided no concrete examples. But attitude is first. So what attitude do you advise? Is it an attitude of primitivism? Does that mean no technology? What is an attitude of primitivism? How does that change our thinking?

The attitude I would suggest is an attitude of Universal Compassion. That is to say, an attitude of complete commitment to Compassion. I believe that attitude has been applied from time to time by individuals from the very beginning of our history as humans, in the most primitive state, all the way up to today and, if we are to continue, will become the norm in the future. I don't think one needs to be primitive to live Universal Compassion. In fact, as you have suggested, primitivism would require the hunting of animals for food, not a thing we would do out of choice were we completely committed to Compassion.

Universal Compassion leads us to use our skills to progressively and relentlessly reduce our effect on the natural world. As our effect on the natural world diminishes, we begin to disappear -- the natural world notices our presence less and less -- until ultimately we become invisible to the natural world. Ecological invisibility is the goal. Universal Compassion is the required attitude.

For concrete examples of the process of becoming invisible look at

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/default.asp

The idea of reducing our ecological footprint has been taken only to the point of sustainability. But that's because the attitude of Universal Compassion has not been adopted. Sustainability is the end point of selective compassion. Invisibility is the end point of Universal Compassion.

[EcoTribalVegan]

It is a fair criticism that I have provided no concrete examples. But attitude is first. So what attitude do you advise? Is it an attitude of primitivism? Does that mean no technology? What is an attitude of primitivism? How does that change our thinking?

AS for now, it's much the same as any enviromentalist. While I do not outright disown technology (clearly), I am very weary of it's impact on nature. I just revere nature and abhor most advances made in the name of civilisation. If you name any technology, there is almost always - in any case I've encountered - some unforeseen (or even foreseen yet ignored) consequences to it's creation and utilisation.

The attitude I would suggest is an attitude of Universal Compassion. That is to say, an attitude of complete commitment to Compassion. I believe that attitude has been applied from time to time by individuals from the very beginning of our history as humans, in the most primitive state, all the way up to today and, if we are to continue, will become the norm in the future. I don't think one needs to be primitive to live Universal Compassion. In fact, as you have suggested, primitivism would require the hunting of animals for food, not a thing we would do out of choice were we completely committed to Compassion.

So this, in effect, supports my belief in the "Noble Savage" which you wanted to dismiss with Flannery's comments. But if this is seen today it's only for our fellow man (even if that) and clearly not for animals in their natural (or unnatural) environments.

And it's only a necessity to hunt for food if it is a necessity. I unfortunately doubt we'd be able to get all our vitamins and minerals without agriculture. But I think it was you that posted in ARCO before the crash that our ancestors were vegetarians; but how this carries to us depends on where we draw the line for "humans". But as I said, even this hunting (which would clearly be combined with gathering as well to a large extent) would probably be a lesser evil than the 16 species a day that go extinct as a result from civilisation expansion. That's just the number that go extinct. Not even the thousands, if not millions or more, that would die every day from lack of food, habitat, available water, etc because of civilisation's inherent destruction/consumption.

Universal Compassion leads us to use our skills to progressively and relentlessly reduce our effect on the natural world. As our effect on the natural world diminishes, we begin to disappear -- the natural world notices our presence less and less -- until ultimately we become invisible to the natural world. Ecological invisibility is the goal. Universal Compassion is the required attitude.

This is essentially what primitivism is. We would be part of nature again as opposed to a separate and parasitic organism.

I will have a look at that link tomorrow. It's late here and I just wanted to quickly reply before I went to bed.

[sheepdog]

But as I said, even this hunting (which would clearly be combined with gathering as well to a large extent) would probably be a lesser evil than the 16 species a day that go extinct as a result from civilisation expansion. That's just the number that go extinct. Not even the thousands, if not millions or more, that would die every day from lack of food, habitat, available water, etc because of civilisation's inherent destruction/consumption.

But why not devise a strategy that eliminates both extinction and hunting? Why not devise a strategy that eliminates gathering? Why do we need to gather? Gathering can be destructive. Gathering is just another "technology", albeit a very primitive one. And like any technology when applied to the natural world it will be destructive. Devise a strategy that neither hunts, nor causes extinctions, nor gathers, nor applies any technology no matter how primitive to the natural world at all. None of it. That is the only strategy in which I am interested. Anything else is just one more useless compromise.

So next you will ask me what that strategy is and if I do not answer to your satisfaction you will reject the idea of the strategy. That's the difference between you and me, I think. I can believe in that strategy even if I don't know what it is yet, because I am not willing to accept even a little hunting, nor even a little gathering. Whereas you are not willing to believe in that strategy because you can accept hunting and gathering. You say you revere nature, but apparently not enough to insist on the end of all hunting and gathering. Personally, I'd rather see us go extinct than continue with the exploitation of nature that is hunting and gathering. But as an alternative to our real extinction we could become virtually extinct by becoming invisible. Either way Nature will be rid of us and the effects of our technolgy, completely and permanently.

[EcoTribalVegan]

But why not devise a strategy that eliminates both extinction and hunting? Why not devise a strategy that eliminates gathering? Why do we need to gather? Gathering can be destructive. Gathering is just another "technology", albeit a very primitive one. And like any technology when applied to the natural world it will be destructive. Devise a strategy that neither hunts, nor causes extinctions, nor gathers, nor applies any technology no matter how primitive to the natural world at all. None of it. That is the only strategy in which I am interested. Anything else is just one more useless compromise.

I would very much like that. That's why before the crash (B.C. ) I started that topic asking people if they knew any veg*n tribal peoples.

And gathering isn't a technology. It's an instinct. Especially to us having evolved from frugarian ancestors. Technology works AGAINST natural homeostatic mechanism. Even if we gather, we eventually give back to the environment. We move seeds around. Agriculture is the complete opposite of that. Growing things only we want in specific locations and thereby stripping the land.

So next you will ask me what that strategy is and if I do not answer to your satisfaction you will reject the idea of the strategy.

This is a boundary you will have to overcome in order to persuade anyone (including myself). People like concrete examples, not utopian pipe dreams.

[sheepdog]

But why not devise a strategy that eliminates both extinction and hunting? Why not devise a strategy that eliminates gathering? Why do we need to gather? Gathering can be destructive. Gathering is just another "technology", albeit a very primitive one. And like any technology when applied to the natural world it will be destructive. Devise a strategy that neither hunts, nor causes extinctions, nor gathers, nor applies any technology no matter how primitive to the natural world at all. None of it. That is the only strategy in which I am interested. Anything else is just one more useless compromise.

I would very much like that.

Great! Then we are in complete agreement. We want the same thing. I'm eager to learn more.

This is a boundary you will have to overcome in order to persuade anyone (including myself). People like concrete examples, not utopian pipe dreams.

This statement is insulting and derisive. Why would you make such a statement, especially to someone who is actually in agreement with you? How 'bout we stick to helpful exchanges instead?

[EcoTribalVegan]

This statement is insulting and derisive. Why would you make such a statement, especially to someone who is actually in agreement with you? How 'bout we stick to helpful exchanges instead?

I didn't mean it to be insulting at all. I was just trying to help your argument. I'm sorry you mistook my intentions.