As a staunch anarcho-primitivist myself, I was anticipating a lot of misconceptions and straw men in your video. I was bracing myself for an hour of cringe. But I have to admit, this is one of the best introductions to A-P I have ever seen on youtube. You have managed to capture the essence of most if not all the A-P arguments, as well as all the standard objections---along with the responses to those objections. You've clearly done your homework, and I am quite impressed. It's difficult to find anything to quibble with, really. This is a top shelf presentation, up there with your video series on metaethics. Well done.
@@erikgreen9899 Yeah, I'm familiar with Huemer and Cuneo. I discuss Cuneo's take on the companions in guilt argument in this video: ua-cam.com/video/7HHBNU_gXP0/v-deo.html As for phenomenal conservatism, I don't have time to talk about this in any detail right now, but briefly: I take it that phenomenal conservatism is the view that if it seems to S that P, then S is justified in believing that P, in the absence of defeaters for P. Two reasons why this doesn't convince me of realism: (1) I don't have any intuitions that imply moral facts, and I'm skeptical that a significant majority of other people have such intuitions. Presumably, most of us have the intuition: "genocide is wrong". This doesn't imply anything about moral facts even in conjunction with phenomenal conservatism, since we could just take it as e.g. expressing a certain emotional attitude. The question is whether we have any intuitions along the lines of "the statement "genocide is wrong" is true" or "it is a fact that genocide is wrong", etc.? Well, no doubt some people do. However, given that there are many people who find moral antirealism attractive, even before carefully considering any of the philosophical arguments, I think it's clear that at the very least, there is much variation about these "realist intuitions". My own intuition is that the statement "genocide is wrong" is not true, and does not describe any fact. It seems to me that it is not true that genocide is wrong, that it is not a fact that genocide is wrong, etc. So for me, it's moral realism that has trouble accommodating the way things appear. (2) Let's grant that we do all share the intuition that particular moral statements are true. Even so, in my view we have plenty of good reasons not to trust that things are the way the appear with respect to these moral intuitions. Many of these reasons are the standard arguments rehearsed by moral antirealists; I think that certain forms of the queerness argument, the evolutionary debunking argument, and problems concerning epistemological accessibility are especially pertinent here. So re the principle of phenomenal conservatism, even if it appears that there are moral facts, we do actually have plenty of defeaters for moral facts.
Good to see I'm not the only one having these thoughts. I am still uncertain if life is worth continueing or not but finding others gives me a tiny bit of hope that I might be able to join a community one day.
"Civilized" life is not worth continuing. If you can, you better start preparing to live freely and naturally. The best time was years ago, the second best time is now.
@@mathaiobeatz1201 most modern medicine is paid treatment of symptoms rather than "cures" Most medicine is needed to solve problem caused by the society that creates modern medicine. Im not saying medicine is bad, but the idea is to not be dependant on it. Live healthy and dont get sick, or live sickly and depend on pills. Which would you prefer? Risk is part of life for sure, some paths are riskier than other- its up to the individual to decide if the risks are worth the reward.
Hunter gather societies relied on the biodiversity that existed before global civilization. Since massive habitat and biodiversity loss has occurred, it would not be possible to return to the same way of living as the environment and conditions have changed.
@@boys-ie5tt today in farming it's all about intensification, getting the biggest yield per unit area of land. If there was a profit incentive and it wasn't such as challenging problem, to introduce biodiversity, using permaculture, taking into account the regional ecosystems, but there's little profit motive. There would need to be some profit motive to keep indigenous knowledge alive and practice it, otherwise it stays hidden or gets lost eventually.
It seems that Zerzan is advocating a mix of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and Buddhism. Also his "symbolic systems" is literally just culture. It seems like he's saying that culture dominates and runs away much like civilization does. There may be some truth to this; however, culture is fundamental to human interactions. You cannot have a group of people and not have culture develop. You get more of a sense of this when you consider that Zerzan is opposed to language and art, as well, which are also aspects of human culture. He seems to be advocating for a kind of existence where one is immediately and immanently aware of one's surroundings without being self-aware, a sort of consciousness without cogitation. This is essentially a lower animal mind. Arguably, this is the kind of awareness that a fish or lizard may have. I think that it's impossible and not a good thing, to attempt humans, who have incredibly complex minds, into so narrow a box. I personally don't like Zerzan much. I think civilization is an awful thing. I think we should return to being hunter-gathers. I don't advocate lobotomizing ourselves or attempting to get rid of language or culture.
@@KaneB Yes! I actually meant, in my original comment, that when I saw your image of the jungle, combined with the title, Herzog’s meditations immediately leapt to mind. “...but when I say this - I say it all full of admiration for the jungle: it is not that I hate it; I love it! I love it very much....but! I love it against my better judgement.” I had to find the clip on UA-cam to quote Herzog verbatim.
Thank for this very informative presentation. (Happy to hear Ted K. cited. )-A lifelong individualist anarchist, I think you've persuaded me to consider the Primitivist position again.
I was raised on a goat and chicken farm hunting dinner, and raised through scouts. I contemplate abandoning society and going back to nature every god damn day
Kane are a professor or do you just enjoy making these videos of all of us? Btw I'm a junior in high school and your Modal Logic vids helped me get through Wittgenstein's Tractatus so thank you for that!
This was indeed interesting. I am not quite sure where I fall in this. Most of the problems that anPrim tries to address, totally align with my views but I am not quite sure that the best solutions are the ones they propose. For example I find Permaculture an interesting concept. It is a form of agriculture that tries to design systems that work as closely to the natural state of the environment as possible but still serves our needs. We could use knowledge and a very limited, deliberately chosen amount of technology to achieve a lifestyle that has all the positives of anPrim with less of the negatives. I wonder if this view has a separate movement.
The way I see it, is that 1) foragers had sophisticated ways of using plants and animals 2) in order to be successful in this way of life, we need to be taught again. I see no inherent conflict with incorporating permaculture into living a foraging life. Most reasonably, it seems like foraging, this time around, will combine the old wisdom and the new.
Probably because (1) I've never put any effort into promoting it and (2) most of the videos are long, dry lectures, which will attract only a fairly niche audience. Honestly, I think ~15K subscribers is pretty good for the kind of channel this is. Maybe I should try to do a bit more to promote it though.
Fantastic video! A follow-up on post-civilized theory would be quite interesting, I think Also, what documents did you read for this? I heard you mention Future Primitive, Running on Emptiness, and Moore's primer, were there any others?
For the details on hunter-gatherer health, I mainly used Mark Cohen's article "History, Diet, and Hunter-Gatherers"; much of this is an updated summary of his book "Health and the Rise of Civilization", which came out in 1989 so is probably somewhat dated now. Re the primitivist material, in addition to the ones that you mention there, Kaczynski was very helpful, as I say in the video. I also recall reading Sheppard, "Anarchism vs Primitivism"; a couple of articles by Andrew Flood, "Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, and anti-civilizationism" and "Is primitivism realistic?"; Aaltola, "Green anarchy: Deep ecology and primitivism"... though I'm not sure how much they influenced this particular video. A lot of my research for this just involved skimming articles on primitivism available at theanarchistlibrary, and then I selected a few that seemed particularly interesting for a closer read. Zerzan was important because he's the most famous primitivist; Kaczynski was important because he's certainly the most rigorous (well, maybe the latter wouldn't want to be labelled a "primitivist", but he's anti-tech, at least).
@@KaneB I think the best moniker for Kaczynski would be an anti-tech radical libertarian (in the old sense of the word). He wasn't looking for the ideal radical/primitive life for human well-being, he was interested in being free of restrictions and coercion, and he theorized that getting away from tech and civilization was the best way to do that, even if it came with hardships or benefits.
The an prim lifestyle sounds like "quality over quantity," it raises the old "is it better to have 100 very happy people or 1000 people who are just happy" question. Even if an prim is a good idea, we can't really go back now, the population growth is like a ratchet, once you grow you can't un-grow without loads of people dying which most people would not accept, even if the survivors would be a bit happier than the average person.
Wow I'm amazed anyone takes this position seriously, but its a fascinating lecture nonetheless. To me it seems like, this whole argument can be reduced to being afraid of downsides of technological progress, and choosing to regress to primitivism to avoid it. Its just, that's such a defeatist position. Lets not do science, because there is a chance we can discover something harmful. Lets not create systems for manufacturing and using technology, because rules will need to be instantiated to protect people from harms if used incorrectly, and those rules might feel chafing. But the thing is there are downsides to every system. Simply pointing them out does not mean primitivism is better. There are also downsides to primitivism. In some ways it is the most restrictive philosophy of all, because it denies the right for humans to use their ingenuity, conceptual thought, philosophy (your whole channel and life purpose!), to make life better for themselves. Their spiritual and intellectual life is now completely dead, replaced by hunting animals and eating around a campfire. In some ways this seems even more utopian than pure communism, because you're effectively asking people to stop thinking. Not to mention your susceptibility to so many more diseases and formerly treatable issues, as mundane as keeping your teeth and gums clean. How is this not considered a much worse restriction? Are the rules that are associated with the invention of medicine REALLY so bad that you'd rather die from an infection than have to live under them? That is almost a reductio ad absurdum without any need for modifications. I would rather try to advance society and find a structure that maximizes freedom, than give up on it all and make no attempt. There are infinitely many variations on human society that we have yet to attempt, especially as technology continues to advance. Hopefully someday we can merge with AI, for example. We might be giving up on a golden age where humanity gets to live millennia in peace once it has resolved most of its issues. I'd rather try than huddle around a campfire where its safe, even though ironically you aren't actually all taht safe there.
You’re not fit for this kind of material at all if you can possibly even conceive of a technological singularity being beneficial to humanity! It would only benefit whatever form we take after the singularity, or whatever role we assume, should the singularity not physically alter us. That is not human! That is not nature. There is no soil in space. I will never give up on being human, I will fight tooth and nail before anyone assumes they can make my children better with AI or gene engineering!
And I’d like to add that the possibility for humanity to advance toward a singularity without technology is absolutely possible! Look at Ayahuasca! Ayahuasca is a technology. Primitive people interface with a simple drug and ask it questions and adjust their lives after experiencing or working with it. That’s literally technology! And it doesn’t emit anything, it certainly is effective, it’s also completely organic and non-toxic. Anarcho-primitivism’s big flop for me is it’s lack of specifics in WHICH technology should be removed from a society. Not every innovation is necessarily a technology. 🤷🏼♂️
Are you familiar with the story of Icarus? Do you understand the concept of hubris? Not everyone is a believer in technolatry or the myth of progress. “Before them gapes the dark abyss to where their progress tends-if by God's mercy progress ever ends, and does not ceaselessly revolve the same unfruitful course with changing of a name.” ⸺ J.R.R. Tolkien in Mythopoeia
This is very useful for rural, more wildlife surrounded households. But let's face it, if everyone suddenly decided to go AP this would be very very bad, for at least a couple of generations. Right? I have a couple of concerns with long lasting/cronic maladies (diabetes, allergies, cancer, etc) and medical attention and so forth... what's the AP view on this? I'm genuinely interested. Also, if one possible view is "if you're allergic to nuts and you eat a nut, you're supposed to go out" that's ok... hahaha
To Anarcho-primitivists, go for it. Start with getting the hell off the internet and pretending your notions have anything to do with human freedom, but you won't.
Feel that's kinda simplistic. An addict can have the self awareness that their addiction is harmful. If the "drug" is taken by force they are free in a sense.
The only way to escape a technological world is through death. Humans are too interdependent and interconnected for it to work. How am I going to convince 30 people to go live with me in the wilderness? Plus, there is very very little unclaimed land on earth, and most of it is in fairly uninhabitable areas.
Our ability to make decisions is always going to be constrained by the external environment. I'd raise a similar point about our inability to know or control what is going on in society, it applies to nature too. I know some people consider domination by other persons to be worse than 'domination' by nature, but I don't see the distinction. 33:40 I think the threats from nature that are outside people's individual control are too common to be dismissed in such a blase way. I think the entirety of infection would count as natural threats people couldn't do anything to control or understand at the time, and as the last year has shown that's a pretty big deal.
@The Gamocha - i'm skeptical that's true, as I for one see natural evil as an injustice. Even if it is true, I can't see the extra psychological harm amounting to much, compared to the evils of nature civilization helps us overcome.
I'm planning on doing a few more videos on anarchism - though I haven't even started writing the scripts yet, so no idea when that will be. I'm not sure if or when I will get around to anarcho-syndicalism specifically.
@@KaneB you might also consider doing some videos on modern democratic theory. i've read Landemore's new book _Open Democracy_ and have found it and a lot of the contemporaries she mentions to be pretty conducive to a more contemporary anarchistic philosophy. that's even beside the applications, especially exemplified in Taiwan or Barcelona. pretty exciting stuff
@@KaneB NOOOOO, do videos on all relevant metaphilosophy, epistemology and phil of science up until 2021 first REEEEEEEEEEEEE. Fuck philosophy of politics!!!!!!
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 I'm not going to stop making videos on those subjects. But I've become increasingly interested in anarchism. Also, frankly, political philosophy gets more clicks. Anarchism is a hot topic these days.
thanks for the video. really makes you wonder if something like that could happen. However, that would only work if all civilization collapsed at the same time. If as little as one city was left, it would grow and grow and eventually try to forcefully control more and more area, more resources, and we'd end up with a civilized world after all.
I think I fall between the An-Prims and the Neo-Luddites. I'm okay with Iron Age technology, as long as it's not connected to civilization. Some of my ancestors were hunter-gatherers in the iron age and used iron tools and weapons but still were semi-nomadic and followed herds around the arctic. There was a permanent shelter they stayed in for part of the year when the herds weren't moving, then a mobile shelter for the rest of the year. They actually did have a food surplus. And they are skilled smiths and woodworkers. The part of the year when they were sedentary was when they made tools and equipment for the rest of the year. I don't think all technology is bad, just the parts that alienate us.
Similar view here. Except I think that the level of civilization should stick to a Late-Bronze Age civilization. Part of me thinks that every civilization is bound to fall to horrible lengths. And everytime we "progress" we fall further down. Why keep collapsing to worse-than-tribalistic lengths when we can find a happy medium in civilization (which I find to be in the Late-Bronze Age). The only reason why I'm not so vocal about my primitivist views is because no society except for an industrial one can have over one billion people on earth. So if we shaped an industrial society to a more primitive one, there would be initially many many deaths. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I'll just end here. Have a good day.
fuck everything. government, civilization, technology, and capitalism I want a cabin in a forest next to a river and go fishing and kayaking. that's my political views
The way technology becomes mandatory through mechanisms of authoritarianism, social pressure etc. Whats very important of course is that technological civilization tore up the landscape itself to satisfy the needs of cars. The military endorsed the creation of the roads so they could claim it from the indiginous people.
The reason such a position is necessary, is because it eliminates the possibility of nuclear destruction, environmental destruction , Which is otherwise imminent and unavoidably catastrophically inevitably The only reason that we should uphold technological progress is to either improve the environment or medicine, Overall synergistic technological progress is unfortunately required,
Thanks a lot for your video! By the way, what do you think about Henry Thoreau and his Walden? How correct is it to call him some kind of anarcho-primitivist and how far his ideas were from what you were talking about here?
Just copying this from another comment: For the details on hunter-gatherer health, I mainly used Mark Cohen's article "History, Diet, and Hunter-Gatherers"; much of this is an updated summary of his book "Health and the Rise of Civilization", which came out in 1989 so is probably somewhat dated now. Re the primitivist material: Moore, "A Primitivist Primer" and Kaczynski's manifesto were very helpful. For the section on Zerzan, I drew on his "Future Primitive" and "Running on Emptiness". I also recall reading Sheppard, "Anarchism vs Primitivism"; Aaltola, "Green anarchy: Deep ecology and primitivism"; and a couple of articles by Andrew Flood, "Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, and anti-civilizationism" and "Is primitivism realistic?"... though I'm not sure how much they influenced this particular video. A lot of my research for this just involved skimming articles on primitivism available at theanarchistlibrary, and then I selected a few that seemed particularly interesting for a closer read. Zerzan was important because he's the most famous primitivist; Kaczynski was important because he's certainly the most rigorous (well, maybe the latter wouldn't want to be labelled a "primitivist", but he's anti-tech, at least).
I hail from the ethical technophile side, and I find myself wondering what primitivists think of cottage core... To me it's clear that almost all of us romanticize a simpler life in perhaps both rational and irrational ways. Technology literally makes everything easier, including domination. Yet as individuals with sticks we can still violently coerce or burn down the forest. We are certainly diminished as individuals in ablity to climb a heirarchy of civilization, but also to the end of something like a death cult, in that we accept our short lives, the ableism of lessor technology and that in the course of future extinctions, it is no longer if but when
The problem is when you start building tools to make other tools to make other tools. AP is nice but never works and will lead to civilization because the first tribe that decides to use their spears, atlatls and bows on another tribe to kill them all for larger hunting grounds *WINS*
I think that there is needed a middle ground between anarcho.primitivists and anarchists, who accept modern technology. That kind of... "ideology", where people accept permaculture (because normal agriculture causes already problems with soil erosion, losing nutrition values, use of fossil fuels, etc)(and because being hunter-gatherer is not possible anymore, because lots of animals are killed and nature is driven to corner by modern civilization, so there is a middle ground needed), and simpler way of living of pre-industrial age. Not necessary denying all modern technologies, but building those machines and maintaining them must be low cost to planet, environment and resources. Sort of "modern technology-critical anarchism". Of course there are no easy answers for exponential population growth, but we have driven ourselves to the corner, and have to accept this situation, and solve it in a way or another. Or face a destruction. Not total, but for most of people, if we don't do anything. Scientists are all the time trying to solve with even more technologies which need more natural resources, but is it enough?
That won't work because technology is part of the problem, along with civilization. That's like saying, "we can live with a little cancer, as a treat". We don't really need to talk about implementation because, with how humans are behaving right now, they will bring about collapse, and the survivors will create a new way of life.
I do have a video on "why is there something rather than nothing?" though I don't discuss Krauss -- ua-cam.com/video/YDNUrwF6VfM/v-deo.html I may revisit that topic in the future, but I don't think I'll ever have much to say about Krauss. I don't find Krauss's work on this particularly interesting philosophically, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't had much influence on other philosophical work on this topic.
@@KaneB Thank you , I think he’s great in his field but when it comes to philosophy he’s shown to lose a debate and throw tantrums. What do you think about Graham Oppy I’m curious
@@IsaacAndersonMedia Oppy's "Arguing About Gods" is probably the best book I've read on philosophy of religion. Though I should note, it's not a topic I engage with often, so I haven't actually read many books on it!
When the Avarage person isn’t properly fed, has access to basic medicine, has poor shelter, and has to deal with a unstable society, privitism starts to look more appealing, I’m not saying it will solve all the problems im just saying the trade offs are better appose to modern life Also native Americans, hadza people, San bushmen, have little disease [other than the flu] due to lack of Domesticated animals, so no need for medicine outside idk hot soup and rest.
But there is one huge problem. You can live as anarchoprimitive if you want. I know that technology works as drug but you can choose and leave society.
I do write code for a living. I can see how we are doomed and how the lazy ones back in the classroom take easily the lead in. business. we are doomed we are doomed. all this needs to end. people don't know how much technology they rely on not to survive once upon a time (médecine etc), but to live basically. I hope I see the premises at least in my lifespan for a real consideration of where we truly are.
You cant build a free society using coercive methods, but if you dont use coercive methods against those who refuse to not ve coercive you just end up a victim.
Humans would be far more healthy, physically and emotionally, in an An-Prim society, but of course people would get sick and die. I believe that in such a society, there would be a much healthier relationship with death, and we would not spend much time and resources clinging to life. Fear of death is not natural, outside of an acutely life threatening situation. And anyway, one of the biggest reasons that the medical industry is as massive as it is is that it’s incredibly profitable for a small number of people. There’s a whole lot more sickness in a world where sickness is profitable.
Paleoanthropologist james C Scott has some wonderful lectures uploaded on UA-cam to help deprogram the “myth of progress” propaganda narrative baked into our western education about early agrarian societies.
Kind of surprising to see you disable comments on the Hume video as I had thought you were somewhat on the free speech side of things, though I could be mistaken. Instead of seeing comments I just see you having moral outrage :) You said you couldn't see a benefit to allowing racists to flourish on that video, but one benefit I could think of is that then, you can both allow for people to discuss and debate the content of the video, and avoid spending time moderating comments, and thus avoid having to come up with some kind of criteria for classifying comments as racist. As it is with comments disabled, the content of the video can't be discussed -- racist comments don't stop people from discussing, but disabling comments does. I think it makes more of a political statement to just butt out of things rather than block the comments with which you strongly disagree -- all we get from that blocked comments section is your common opinion that those comments are disgusting... ok, well someone reading the comments section that agrees with you could reach the same conclusion without you having to tell them that with your anti-endorsement, they (most likely) aren't children who need their parents to tell them what they are allowed to see. And for those reading who agree with the racist comments and are probably prejudiced and biased, they seem moot because well, if such people already had that opinion before reading and agreeing with the comment, then nothing about them changed from any action or inaction on your part. Centrists would likely just disagree with the comments and may or may not want to debate with such commenters -- again they don't need a parent to tell them a racist comment is racist. But if the centrist was convinced, well that's up to them, and perhaps you could engage/debate with them if you were concerned, or you could just immediately assume that because the position they were convinced of is not mainstream, that they simply must have been brainwashed and don't simply think differently, and so the comments must be disabled for such a scenario to be assured to never occur. But it's a hasty assumption, because a centrist would have a hard time being a centrist for very long if they were the type to just jump on an emotional bandwagon to reach their conclusions, and so we could at least give them a chance to rationally reach whatever conclusion they feel makes sense from the comments they read. Besides... a centrist who happened to be convinced of an unpopular position could have value, as that type of person would probably not be as inflammatory or inciteful in explaining their ideas as a prejudiced racist would be, and maybe the centrist would be able to give some food for thought. But yeah, I am pretty strongly on the free speech side of things, so that's just my two cents, there. Sure, there are almost surely limits, as I wouldn't want instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb available to anyone or something, but I just think there is a big cost that exercising control and imposing yourself on a situation has (which includes moderating comments), and it is often not worth it for what it is trying to achieve. Having the comments come down to the opinion of a single person (the sole moderator of comments) seems pretty banal -- again, now we know what the moderator believes about the comments that were once there... but I could have made my own decision about what those comments meant, and probably could have easily reached the same conclusion without his guidance. I personally wouldn't really trust myself to curate content for people as well as the people themselves -- for starters, they probably have different needs and a different way of doing things that I know little about, and what is effective for my functioning might not work well for theirs. If they want my opinion on the content, I can put it out there without limiting the pool of content to things that I don't hate. Sure, I don't always know what benefit leaving any given comment has (I brought up earlier that it allows for a completely open discussion, but I admit the benefits of that are more abstract and not clear-cut, though I still think are noteworthy), but I don't really consider it an improvement to alter the content of the world in my image... that is, if it's in an artificial way... if there are certain racist people commenting, I would rather want to use that information that the world has offered me, if possible, rather than only looking at the world through a lens of what I assume to be noteworthy -- in this case, deleting certain pieces of objective information about the world (comments), in a very broad sense of the term. The more I do the latter, the deeper I put myself into a bubble and reduce my critical thinking about the assumptions I make about the world (and a philosophy channel should be all about questioning all assumptions, I would think, as if we can question if we even exist, or the law of non-contradiction, what can't we question...). So I mean, leaving the comments there doesn't have a huge clear benefit, but nor does deleting them. It's just one of those things where you can make a diminutive change to the world one way or the other. Like if hypothetically you wanted to ban just one (presumably offensive) word in the dictionary, and believed that the benefits of just a single word are so small that it can be ignored, the ban probably wouldn't screw things up much because it's just one word, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, just that if it's not a wise change, it's small enough that it can only screw things up slightly. But we still want to know if the change is wise in principle, especially for deciding when to consider making similar changes in the future based on that principle (e.g., banning more words, or deleting a wider range of comments). I suppose it's plausible that instead you're worried about your image, what people will think or assume about you if you leave the comments up. Well, I wouldn't want to care too much about what people think (easier said than done, I understand), especially if that directly controls your behavior, because you should have more respect for yourself than that. And as you might have gathered, I wouldn't be the type to think that leaving a comment on your channel means that you endorse that behavior generally, since the moderator, as anyone, can simply disagree with (or even hate) the comment while letting the person speak -- it is quite physically possible to do that -- just keep the finger away from the delete button, and this action will not magically make the comments any more agreeable or enjoyable to you or anyone else for that matter :)
Sure, I think that free speech is important. But it's never been my view that a commitment to free speech entails a commitment to the view that every person and every organization must allow everybody to say whatever they want, regardless of the circumstances. For example, if you come to my house for dinner, but then you start trying to convert me to some religion, and you don't shut up about it even when I ask you to, there's a good chance that I'll kick you out. Or suppose there's an online forum for discussing Doctor Who, and one of the posters there starts spamming information about logical positivism, on threads that have nothing to do with logical positivism (imagine this person isn't even trying to make any link with the show; they're literally just spamming paragraphs from the wikipedia page on logical positivism, for instance). I think it would be a good idea to ban that person. I enjoy discussing logical positivism, but a Doctor Who forum isn't the place for it. I value freedom of speech, but I also value freedom of association, and I simply don't want to be part of communities in which racists can flourish. I don't want to provide racists a platform on which to discuss their bigotry. I'm not in favour of shutting down other communities in which racists are given a platform to do that, I'm not in favour of laws against racist speech, I wouldn't advocate for firing people who participate in such communities when this has no relation to their employment, etc. (that's the commitment to free speech!) -- I'm just not interested in joining such communities myself.
How many people actually have the skill and knowledge necessary to be a hunter-gatherer? Most humans would die of dehydration or starvation, so it wouldn't be so bad for other animals and plants
Oh my sweet summer child. Any event that put humanity in an anarcho-primitive state would be kicked off by catastrophe or violence. To suggest that even half of those 8 billion people could start a fire in the rain or swim across a fucking lake is pretty slim. The die-off rate would be astronomical. I’m a Marine and grew up pretty rustically, lot of outdoor experience, Boy Scouts etc but I’d still be hard pressed to learn any handicraft or dressing of game! I think the majority of people would simply die in the first year. And that’s the point! Less air getting wasted. Imagine supporting “human rights” when we are the most virulent and oppressive species on the planet!!
I’d die very happily knowing all the other assholes in my neighborhood were eating rats and pee because they ALSO didn’t know how to survive like me lol like I’m just one less human at the end of the day, and that’s always a good thing for nature :)
Medical care weather tracking? If bleed put leaf on bleed If hurt but no bleed put water on hurt If fell no good get herbs and try eating herbs if dont work then try something else Watch sky there clouds? Rain there no clouds? Sunny.
Telepathy is a way of communication for some primary cultures. I appreciate the video quite a lot, but your dismissal of this subject is unfortunate. Also, the end of civilisation is inevitable. The more powerful civilisation becomes the faster this will happen.
@@gobot90 Read the book Mutant Message written by an American who lived with a group of native Australians. In my own experience i would be thinking a question and my wife would walk all the way from the other end of the house and answer it as if i said it out loud. This happened several times. I lost count.
This would be sweet. But then we could go extinct. But if we colonize other planets, I bet these primitives will start to take hold more (galactic civilizations videogame event)
No idea. UA-cam automatically removes comments sometimes. I've noticed that it often happens to comments that contain links - although sometimes there's no discernible reason. It's very frustrating. Maybe you could try re-phrasing it?
@@KaneB My question was: Have you read "Industrial Society and Its Future" aka The Unabomber Manifesto by Ted Kaczynski? It is considered the most popular book supporting primitivism.
Ah - I'm still seeing your comment on my notifications! It was probably removed because of the youtube link. Anyway, yes, I have read ISAIF. It was definitely the most carefully argued of all the anti-civ stuff I read for this video.
@@KaneB you might also find his article on anarchist library critiquing anarcho-primitivism, where he harshly criticizes the utopian picture of hunter-gatherer society
A few people living off-grid won't be able to live like true hunter-gatherers and it certainly won't bring down civilisation, which is what the whole ideology is about. If they lived off-grid they would have a harder time preaching what they believe in and make it more difficult to achieve their goal.
The fundamental problem with anarchism is that people love hierarchy. People want there to be an authority that can administer justice and fairness. For example, if bandits injure us and take our things and leave us starving and without shelter, we want something to be done to make this better. It's not enough to merely accept that the bandits win and we lose, so we want some authority with enough power to enforce rules upon the bandits and make the bandits lose. Anarcho-primitivism goes even further to undermine a much beloved feature of our hierarchies, because hierarchy is what enables vast numbers of people to be mobilized in large projects to improve the world, such as building paved roads, dams, and other infrastructure to reshape the world into a form that we find more comfortable. Not only do we need to accept bandits, but we also need to give up electricity, all for the sake of liberty. Liberty sounds pretty nice, but how could it possibly be worth the price?
@@garrett9945 : Just because we love hierarchy, that doesn't mean that all hierarchies are good. Even a person who loves apples isn't going to want to eat a rotten apple; this doesn't mean that she doesn't truly love apples. It just means that bad apples are possible, just as bad hierarchies are possible. The question is whether we prefer to be rid of hierarchy entirely rather than replace a bad hierarchy with a better hierarchy. People love hierarchy way more than they love apples. The thought of not having an authority using its power to make our lives better would be a waking nightmare for most people. Look at how easily and painlessly people tend into line under the authority of their government, even in cases where the government significantly abuses its power. Look at all the religions that invent imaginary authorities with cosmic powers. We want our lives to be predictable and controlled and not at the mercy of natural forces that care nothing for our wellbeing. Anarchism seeks to take away this thing that we so love and replace it with "liberty" which is just another way of saying lack of hierarchy. In other words, they want to take away our hierarchy and expect us to be happy from its absence.
"Look at how easily and painlessly people tend into line under the authority of their government, even in cases where the government significantly abuses its power. " - Maybe because people don't have any ideas what kind of life would be without unjustified hierarchies? People are taught to obey teacher, police and leaders from the child, so naturally they don't may thing otherwise, unless they go to university to get educated more about different subjects and critical thinking. (people don't gain knowledge from there alone, but lets say that mainstream of people). And they are very busy in lives to earn money to live, so they don't have time to do their own research on subjects. And anarchism is about getting rid of unjustified hierarchies, not all (except stirnerians). Of course they accept authority of experts (doctors, professors, etc.), who know stuff. And mainstream anarchists advocate for straight democracy, which in upper level is different councils and in the end federalization, which is sort of hierarchical in own sense. And they don't see that as a bad thing, as long as council members can be changed at any time.
@@ivan55599 "Maybe because people don't have any ideas what kind of life would be without unjustified hierarchies?" They do have ideas, and those ideas say that it would be terrible. They don't care whether the hierarchy is justified, because they desire the hierarchy. A hierarchy isn't a burden that we take on for good reasons; it's a tool to make our lives better. Asking for justification for a hierarchy is like asking for justification for electricity. It's just something we want. "People are taught to obey teacher, police and leaders from the child, so naturally they don't may thing otherwise, unless they go to university to get educated more about different subjects and critical thinking." This makes it sound like there's some sort of anti-anarchist campaign that's tricking people, but when does anyone ever tell anyone to obey police and leaders? Where can we find this campaign? It certainly wasn't part of my education. On the contrary, it seems that we don't need to tell people to obey because they naturally want to obey.
If it is scientifically proven that human nature is to follow the leader, then l accept it. Actually no, then it would prove that we are so much in animal level of behaviour, that there is no way nor hope to improve ourselves from "savagery", if we can call it that way. No wonder some of my friends justify right wing traditionalism-monarchism by this reasoning. Before electricity people didn't knew they needed it, as like other inventions, which aren't something what we want unconsciously. This can be connected to human need to do less labor, but for example bureaucratic hierarchies are increasing it. In my country people don't get the healthcare or financial help from the state they deserve legally, but there is so much bureaucracy-hierarchies, so people are very tired of all paper work and asking different testimonies from different authorities to fill paperwork. And often after they think they got it all right, some authority says you got it wrong purposefully, and they are denied financial help not only for asked time, but also for some time for future as a punishment. "This makes it sound like there's some sort of anti-anarchist campaign that's tricking people" Yes l think that there is that sort of thing. Why would government ever suggest ideology which dismantles it? At least in my school there were no word said about anarchism. "State system is just what it is now, don't ask questions". And how kids could understand to ask questions? We take this as given. Not even in university where l studied history and other sciences/humanities. l had to do research myself. And lots of people think that anarchism is anarchy, where there is only law of jungle, everyone is killing and stealing each other, loot and burn stuff. And there are some illegalists, which can be used by normal people, media and government to say "anarchism is to destroy everything, and give us unlawfulness. " But if people want to live in monarchy, fine for me. But allow me to live my own life with my own principles. State doesn't allow that? Then we may have a problem...
@@ivan55599 "It would prove that we are so much in animal level of behaviour, that there is no way nor hope to improve ourselves from 'savagery'." Following the leader is not savagery; it is civilization. If it is our nature to do this, it is because we are human and as a result we are adapted to be an extremely social species that thrives in cooperation. Savage animals like lions are incapable of forming the kind of hierarchies that we can form, and this prevents lions from organizing to fight back and reclaim their habitat from us. "Why would government ever suggest ideology which dismantles it?" The greater mystery is why anyone would suggest an ideology which dismantles our civilization and sends us back to savagery. Anarcho-primitivism is a very strange idea. "And lots of people think that anarchism is anarchy, where there is only law of jungle, everyone is killing and stealing each other, loot and burn stuff." That would be the inevitable consequence of having no authority to help us enforce rules upon each other, though it wouldn't last long since people would not tolerate such a condition and they would quickly band together to create a hierarchy and return to enforcing rules. Once we've had our things stolen, ideology would become secondary. "Allow me to live my own life with my own principles. State doesn't allow that? Then we may have a problem." That's not a problem. That is the whole point of having a hierarchy, so that we can force people to live according to rules and have order in our society. We don't want people killing and stealing.
always good when it starts with a what's up dogs
As a staunch anarcho-primitivist myself, I was anticipating a lot of misconceptions and straw men in your video. I was bracing myself for an hour of cringe. But I have to admit, this is one of the best introductions to A-P I have ever seen on youtube. You have managed to capture the essence of most if not all the A-P arguments, as well as all the standard objections---along with the responses to those objections. You've clearly done your homework, and I am quite impressed. It's difficult to find anything to quibble with, really. This is a top shelf presentation, up there with your video series on metaethics. Well done.
It's great to hear that the video has a stamp of approval from a card-carrying primitivist!
hmmmm? you are a primitivist yet you watch UA-cam? Contradiction much?
(all jokes)
@@AA-ul6mn lmao
@@AA-ul6mn lol its fine to live in a society and criticize it.
I had the same reaction to his race realism videos. Very good at explaining controversial views, this man is.
38:03
"Just how far back should we go?"
All the way, my friend
“What’s up dogs”
That’s a new one
Not all that new...
ua-cam.com/video/Cw_a8NXZwMw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/TSYKP6UKpwk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/j8v90aq-4Pw/v-deo.html
@@erikgreen9899 Yeah, I'm familiar with Huemer and Cuneo. I discuss Cuneo's take on the companions in guilt argument in this video: ua-cam.com/video/7HHBNU_gXP0/v-deo.html
As for phenomenal conservatism, I don't have time to talk about this in any detail right now, but briefly: I take it that phenomenal conservatism is the view that if it seems to S that P, then S is justified in believing that P, in the absence of defeaters for P. Two reasons why this doesn't convince me of realism:
(1) I don't have any intuitions that imply moral facts, and I'm skeptical that a significant majority of other people have such intuitions. Presumably, most of us have the intuition: "genocide is wrong". This doesn't imply anything about moral facts even in conjunction with phenomenal conservatism, since we could just take it as e.g. expressing a certain emotional attitude. The question is whether we have any intuitions along the lines of "the statement "genocide is wrong" is true" or "it is a fact that genocide is wrong", etc.? Well, no doubt some people do. However, given that there are many people who find moral antirealism attractive, even before carefully considering any of the philosophical arguments, I think it's clear that at the very least, there is much variation about these "realist intuitions". My own intuition is that the statement "genocide is wrong" is not true, and does not describe any fact. It seems to me that it is not true that genocide is wrong, that it is not a fact that genocide is wrong, etc. So for me, it's moral realism that has trouble accommodating the way things appear.
(2) Let's grant that we do all share the intuition that particular moral statements are true. Even so, in my view we have plenty of good reasons not to trust that things are the way the appear with respect to these moral intuitions. Many of these reasons are the standard arguments rehearsed by moral antirealists; I think that certain forms of the queerness argument, the evolutionary debunking argument, and problems concerning epistemological accessibility are especially pertinent here. So re the principle of phenomenal conservatism, even if it appears that there are moral facts, we do actually have plenty of defeaters for moral facts.
Good to see I'm not the only one having these thoughts. I am still uncertain if life is worth continueing or not but finding others gives me a tiny bit of hope that I might be able to join a community one day.
ap seems off to me because wouldnt that mean modern medicine would just go away?
without civilization we might aswell call ourselves monkies
"Civilized" life is not worth continuing. If you can, you better start preparing to live freely and naturally. The best time was years ago, the second best time is now.
@@jurikurthambarskjelfir3533 Do you think civilization is on the brink of collapse?
@@mathaiobeatz1201 most modern medicine is paid treatment of symptoms rather than "cures"
Most medicine is needed to solve problem caused by the society that creates modern medicine. Im not saying medicine is bad, but the idea is to not be dependant on it.
Live healthy and dont get sick, or live sickly and depend on pills. Which would you prefer?
Risk is part of life for sure, some paths are riskier than other- its up to the individual to decide if the risks are worth the reward.
Hunter gather societies relied on the biodiversity that existed before global civilization. Since massive habitat and biodiversity loss has occurred, it would not be possible to return to the same way of living as the environment and conditions have changed.
I think this would be a hurdle but not make it impossible. Particularly if people were forced to relocate to rural eco-communes and be re-educated.
@@boys-ie5tt today in farming it's all about intensification, getting the biggest yield per unit area of land. If there was a profit incentive and it wasn't such as challenging problem, to introduce biodiversity, using permaculture, taking into account the regional ecosystems, but there's little profit motive. There would need to be some profit motive to keep indigenous knowledge alive and practice it, otherwise it stays hidden or gets lost eventually.
Thank you, citizen Kane B, for this clear presentation.
It seems that Zerzan is advocating a mix of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and Buddhism. Also his "symbolic systems" is literally just culture. It seems like he's saying that culture dominates and runs away much like civilization does. There may be some truth to this; however, culture is fundamental to human interactions. You cannot have a group of people and not have culture develop. You get more of a sense of this when you consider that Zerzan is opposed to language and art, as well, which are also aspects of human culture. He seems to be advocating for a kind of existence where one is immediately and immanently aware of one's surroundings without being self-aware, a sort of consciousness without cogitation. This is essentially a lower animal mind. Arguably, this is the kind of awareness that a fish or lizard may have. I think that it's impossible and not a good thing, to attempt humans, who have incredibly complex minds, into so narrow a box. I personally don't like Zerzan much. I think civilization is an awful thing. I think we should return to being hunter-gathers. I don't advocate lobotomizing ourselves or attempting to get rid of language or culture.
Show me the text where Zerzan advocates people lobotomize themselves.
Check the Pirahã tribe
Whenever I hear about ‘Anarcho-Primitavism’ I’m reminded of that Herzog doc wherein he reflects on the “obscenity of the jungle”.
Burden of Dreams? That's a fantastic documentary!
@@KaneB Yes! I actually meant, in my original comment, that when I saw your image of the jungle, combined with the title, Herzog’s meditations immediately leapt to mind.
“...but when I say this - I say it all full of admiration for the jungle: it is not that I hate it; I love it! I love it very much....but! I love it against my better judgement.” I had to find the clip on UA-cam to quote Herzog verbatim.
Thank for this very informative presentation. (Happy to hear Ted K. cited. )-A lifelong individualist anarchist, I think you've persuaded me to consider the Primitivist position again.
I was raised on a goat and chicken farm hunting dinner, and raised through scouts. I contemplate abandoning society and going back to nature every god damn day
Was super interesting, thanks so much for all your videos, they've help phrase things in easy terms, and are genuinely very fun to listen to!
first political video about anarcho primitivism?
You sir a real individual!
Not the first - I've done a few political philosophy videos before. I've got videos on libertarianism, voting, Max Stirner, among others.
Kane are a professor or do you just enjoy making these videos of all of us? Btw I'm a junior in high school and your Modal Logic vids helped me get through Wittgenstein's Tractatus so thank you for that!
I'm doing a philosophy PhD.
@@KaneB that’s awesome, I look forward to your upcoming videos
This was indeed interesting. I am not quite sure where I fall in this. Most of the problems that anPrim tries to address, totally align with my views but I am not quite sure that the best solutions are the ones they propose. For example I find Permaculture an interesting concept. It is a form of agriculture that tries to design systems that work as closely to the natural state of the environment as possible but still serves our needs. We could use knowledge and a very limited, deliberately chosen amount of technology to achieve a lifestyle that has all the positives of anPrim with less of the negatives.
I wonder if this view has a separate movement.
The way I see it, is that 1) foragers had sophisticated ways of using plants and animals 2) in order to be successful in this way of life, we need to be taught again. I see no inherent conflict with incorporating permaculture into living a foraging life. Most reasonably, it seems like foraging, this time around, will combine the old wisdom and the new.
May i ask how you will or are trying to practice foraging
It is not about how good it was, it is all about how good it felt. And it is extremely difficult to make a parameter to evaluate that.
How is your channel not bigger ):
Probably because (1) I've never put any effort into promoting it and (2) most of the videos are long, dry lectures, which will attract only a fairly niche audience. Honestly, I think ~15K subscribers is pretty good for the kind of channel this is. Maybe I should try to do a bit more to promote it though.
@@KaneB 37k now!
Fantastic video! A follow-up on post-civilized theory would be quite interesting, I think
Also, what documents did you read for this? I heard you mention Future Primitive, Running on Emptiness, and Moore's primer, were there any others?
For the details on hunter-gatherer health, I mainly used Mark Cohen's article "History, Diet, and Hunter-Gatherers"; much of this is an updated summary of his book "Health and the Rise of Civilization", which came out in 1989 so is probably somewhat dated now.
Re the primitivist material, in addition to the ones that you mention there, Kaczynski was very helpful, as I say in the video. I also recall reading Sheppard, "Anarchism vs Primitivism"; a couple of articles by Andrew Flood, "Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, and anti-civilizationism" and "Is primitivism realistic?"; Aaltola, "Green anarchy: Deep ecology and primitivism"... though I'm not sure how much they influenced this particular video.
A lot of my research for this just involved skimming articles on primitivism available at theanarchistlibrary, and then I selected a few that seemed particularly interesting for a closer read. Zerzan was important because he's the most famous primitivist; Kaczynski was important because he's certainly the most rigorous (well, maybe the latter wouldn't want to be labelled a "primitivist", but he's anti-tech, at least).
@@KaneB I think the best moniker for Kaczynski would be an anti-tech radical libertarian (in the old sense of the word). He wasn't looking for the ideal radical/primitive life for human well-being, he was interested in being free of restrictions and coercion, and he theorized that getting away from tech and civilization was the best way to do that, even if it came with hardships or benefits.
The an prim lifestyle sounds like "quality over quantity," it raises the old "is it better to have 100 very happy people or 1000 people who are just happy" question.
Even if an prim is a good idea, we can't really go back now, the population growth is like a ratchet, once you grow you can't un-grow without loads of people dying which most people would not accept, even if the survivors would be a bit happier than the average person.
@A hétfejű sárkány good points. :-)
I'm a catholic I don't mind killing infidels to bring back purity and innocence
@@kanorcubes329 i don't support your existence
@@stewystewymc3929 We don't support yours
@@jurikurthambarskjelfir3533 did you even read what that guy wrote?
Ted was right
Damn right.
Wow I'm amazed anyone takes this position seriously, but its a fascinating lecture nonetheless. To me it seems like, this whole argument can be reduced to being afraid of downsides of technological progress, and choosing to regress to primitivism to avoid it. Its just, that's such a defeatist position. Lets not do science, because there is a chance we can discover something harmful. Lets not create systems for manufacturing and using technology, because rules will need to be instantiated to protect people from harms if used incorrectly, and those rules might feel chafing. But the thing is there are downsides to every system. Simply pointing them out does not mean primitivism is better.
There are also downsides to primitivism. In some ways it is the most restrictive philosophy of all, because it denies the right for humans to use their ingenuity, conceptual thought, philosophy (your whole channel and life purpose!), to make life better for themselves. Their spiritual and intellectual life is now completely dead, replaced by hunting animals and eating around a campfire. In some ways this seems even more utopian than pure communism, because you're effectively asking people to stop thinking. Not to mention your susceptibility to so many more diseases and formerly treatable issues, as mundane as keeping your teeth and gums clean. How is this not considered a much worse restriction? Are the rules that are associated with the invention of medicine REALLY so bad that you'd rather die from an infection than have to live under them? That is almost a reductio ad absurdum without any need for modifications.
I would rather try to advance society and find a structure that maximizes freedom, than give up on it all and make no attempt. There are infinitely many variations on human society that we have yet to attempt, especially as technology continues to advance. Hopefully someday we can merge with AI, for example. We might be giving up on a golden age where humanity gets to live millennia in peace once it has resolved most of its issues. I'd rather try than huddle around a campfire where its safe, even though ironically you aren't actually all taht safe there.
Me no think words very good at all. OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA!
You’re not fit for this kind of material at all if you can possibly even conceive of a technological singularity being beneficial to humanity! It would only benefit whatever form we take after the singularity, or whatever role we assume, should the singularity not physically alter us. That is not human! That is not nature. There is no soil in space. I will never give up on being human, I will fight tooth and nail before anyone assumes they can make my children better with AI or gene engineering!
And I’d like to add that the possibility for humanity to advance toward a singularity without technology is absolutely possible! Look at Ayahuasca! Ayahuasca is a technology. Primitive people interface with a simple drug and ask it questions and adjust their lives after experiencing or working with it. That’s literally technology! And it doesn’t emit anything, it certainly is effective, it’s also completely organic and non-toxic. Anarcho-primitivism’s big flop for me is it’s lack of specifics in WHICH technology should be removed from a society. Not every innovation is necessarily a technology. 🤷🏼♂️
Are you familiar with the story of Icarus? Do you understand the concept of hubris? Not everyone is a believer in technolatry or the myth of progress. “Before them gapes the dark abyss to where their progress tends-if by God's mercy progress ever ends, and does not ceaselessly revolve the same unfruitful course with changing of a name.”
⸺ J.R.R. Tolkien in Mythopoeia
@@RealAICCllmao your comment has a "translate to English" button
This is very useful for rural, more wildlife surrounded households. But let's face it, if everyone suddenly decided to go AP this would be very very bad, for at least a couple of generations. Right? I have a couple of concerns with long lasting/cronic maladies (diabetes, allergies, cancer, etc) and medical attention and so forth... what's the AP view on this? I'm genuinely interested. Also, if one possible view is "if you're allergic to nuts and you eat a nut, you're supposed to go out" that's ok... hahaha
To Anarcho-primitivists, go for it.
Start with getting the hell off the internet and pretending your notions have anything to do with human freedom, but you won't.
the funny thing is in primitive society they even wouldn't realise what is anarchism 😂
Feel that's kinda simplistic. An addict can have the self awareness that their addiction is harmful. If the "drug" is taken by force they are free in a sense.
The only way to escape a technological world is through death. Humans are too interdependent and interconnected for it to work. How am I going to convince 30 people to go live with me in the wilderness? Plus, there is very very little unclaimed land on earth, and most of it is in fairly uninhabitable areas.
Our ability to make decisions is always going to be constrained by the external environment. I'd raise a similar point about our inability to know or control what is going on in society, it applies to nature too. I know some people consider domination by other persons to be worse than 'domination' by nature, but I don't see the distinction.
33:40 I think the threats from nature that are outside people's individual control are too common to be dismissed in such a blase way. I think the entirety of infection would count as natural threats people couldn't do anything to control or understand at the time, and as the last year has shown that's a pretty big deal.
@The Gamocha - i'm skeptical that's true, as I for one see natural evil as an injustice. Even if it is true, I can't see the extra psychological harm amounting to much, compared to the evils of nature civilization helps us overcome.
Can you please do Anarcho-syndicalism next? Thank you!:)
I'm planning on doing a few more videos on anarchism - though I haven't even started writing the scripts yet, so no idea when that will be. I'm not sure if or when I will get around to anarcho-syndicalism specifically.
@@KaneB you might also consider doing some videos on modern democratic theory. i've read Landemore's new book _Open Democracy_ and have found it and a lot of the contemporaries she mentions to be pretty conducive to a more contemporary anarchistic philosophy. that's even beside the applications, especially exemplified in Taiwan or Barcelona. pretty exciting stuff
@@prenuptials5925 Thanks for the recommendation!
@@KaneB NOOOOO, do videos on all relevant metaphilosophy, epistemology and phil of science up until 2021 first REEEEEEEEEEEEE. Fuck philosophy of politics!!!!!!
@@dontyoufuckinguwume8201 I'm not going to stop making videos on those subjects. But I've become increasingly interested in anarchism. Also, frankly, political philosophy gets more clicks. Anarchism is a hot topic these days.
want banana get banana
😳
@@Flow86767 🥵
thanks for the video.
really makes you wonder if something like that could happen. However, that would only work if all civilization collapsed at the same time. If as little as one city was left, it would grow and grow and eventually try to forcefully control more and more area, more resources, and we'd end up with a civilized world after all.
Before the agricultural revolution the population of the entire earth was roughly the size if Cairo Egypt - Harari
Fantastic Video, my friend. I learnt a lot
Have you read Samuel Clarke's Living Without Domination? It has a chapter on primitivism.
No, never read that. Thanks for the recommendation.
I think I fall between the An-Prims and the Neo-Luddites. I'm okay with Iron Age technology, as long as it's not connected to civilization. Some of my ancestors were hunter-gatherers in the iron age and used iron tools and weapons but still were semi-nomadic and followed herds around the arctic. There was a permanent shelter they stayed in for part of the year when the herds weren't moving, then a mobile shelter for the rest of the year. They actually did have a food surplus. And they are skilled smiths and woodworkers. The part of the year when they were sedentary was when they made tools and equipment for the rest of the year. I don't think all technology is bad, just the parts that alienate us.
Similar view here. Except I think that the level of civilization should stick to a Late-Bronze Age civilization. Part of me thinks that every civilization is bound to fall to horrible lengths. And everytime we "progress" we fall further down. Why keep collapsing to worse-than-tribalistic lengths when we can find a happy medium in civilization (which I find to be in the Late-Bronze Age).
The only reason why I'm not so vocal about my primitivist views is because no society except for an industrial one can have over one billion people on earth. So if we shaped an industrial society to a more primitive one, there would be initially many many deaths.
I have a lot of thoughts on this but I'll just end here. Have a good day.
**british accent high voice** What's up dogs! *goes on to discuss political philosophy*
I am hooked. Go on.
The traditional Hobbesian view is literally just the projections of civilizationists about their own hellscape world.
Hell yes!
Civilization is a heat engine. This brute datum makes our fate inescapable.
fuck everything. government, civilization, technology, and capitalism I want a cabin in a forest next to a river and go fishing and kayaking. that's my political views
The way technology becomes mandatory through mechanisms of authoritarianism, social pressure etc. Whats very important of course is that technological civilization tore up the landscape itself to satisfy the needs of cars. The military endorsed the creation of the roads so they could claim it from the indiginous people.
The reason such a position is necessary, is because it eliminates the possibility of nuclear destruction, environmental destruction ,
Which is otherwise imminent and unavoidably catastrophically inevitably
The only reason that we should uphold technological progress is to either improve the environment or medicine, Overall synergistic technological progress is unfortunately required,
for every problem i see in modern society i see the answer in a primitive way of living/society
Excellent video on this Kane I would love to have a further discussion on this if you would like I still have a few questions on this
8:53 you said this is their worktime, whille the picture says leasure time.
Not sure if itd a mistake or im not getting something
really enjoyed this lecture. thank you very much for educating
Thanks for bringing some more awareness to this subject. I hope more people will see the value in it.
return to monke
there
i destroyed all your arguments with facts and logic
Understandable, have a great day
monke sad
My wife is a doctor
Thanks a lot for your video! By the way, what do you think about Henry Thoreau and his Walden? How correct is it to call him some kind of anarcho-primitivist and how far his ideas were from what you were talking about here?
The philosophically interesting parts reminds me of the dialectic of enlightenment
Hello, I congratulate you on your video, I loved it. What authors did you read to do it? I would like to have some references.
Just copying this from another comment:
For the details on hunter-gatherer health, I mainly used Mark Cohen's article "History, Diet, and Hunter-Gatherers"; much of this is an updated summary of his book "Health and the Rise of Civilization", which came out in 1989 so is probably somewhat dated now.
Re the primitivist material: Moore, "A Primitivist Primer" and Kaczynski's manifesto were very helpful. For the section on Zerzan, I drew on his "Future Primitive" and "Running on Emptiness". I also recall reading Sheppard, "Anarchism vs Primitivism"; Aaltola, "Green anarchy: Deep ecology and primitivism"; and a couple of articles by Andrew Flood, "Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, and anti-civilizationism" and "Is primitivism realistic?"... though I'm not sure how much they influenced this particular video.
A lot of my research for this just involved skimming articles on primitivism available at theanarchistlibrary, and then I selected a few that seemed particularly interesting for a closer read. Zerzan was important because he's the most famous primitivist; Kaczynski was important because he's certainly the most rigorous (well, maybe the latter wouldn't want to be labelled a "primitivist", but he's anti-tech, at least).
@@KaneB thank you very much
I hail from the ethical technophile side, and I find myself wondering what primitivists think of cottage core... To me it's clear that almost all of us romanticize a simpler life in perhaps both rational and irrational ways. Technology literally makes everything easier, including domination. Yet as individuals with sticks we can still violently coerce or burn down the forest. We are certainly diminished as individuals in ablity to climb a heirarchy of civilization, but also to the end of something like a death cult, in that we accept our short lives, the ableism of lessor technology and that in the course of future extinctions, it is no longer if but when
Hey if you're doing more stuff on political philosophy, maybe do a lecture on natural law (hobbes/aquinas) or the state of nature (hobbes/rousseau)
Kane have you made any videos about the philosophy of time? If so can you please share the link with me please? Thanks.
No, I don't have anything on that topic
@@KaneB okay no problem
You didnt mention the modern problems like mental illness and depression
The problem is when you start building tools to make other tools to make other tools. AP is nice but never works and will lead to civilization because the first tribe that decides to use their spears, atlatls and bows on another tribe to kill them all for larger hunting grounds *WINS*
We need an AI dictatorship to return us to nature by force dawg
Love this video.
I just wanted primal music for a story I'm writing... Why is there an ideology about ooga boogism?
I think that there is needed a middle ground between anarcho.primitivists and anarchists, who accept modern technology. That kind of... "ideology", where people accept permaculture (because normal agriculture causes already problems with soil erosion, losing nutrition values, use of fossil fuels, etc)(and because being hunter-gatherer is not possible anymore, because lots of animals are killed and nature is driven to corner by modern civilization, so there is a middle ground needed), and simpler way of living of pre-industrial age. Not necessary denying all modern technologies, but building those machines and maintaining them must be low cost to planet, environment and resources. Sort of "modern technology-critical anarchism". Of course there are no easy answers for exponential population growth, but we have driven ourselves to the corner, and have to accept this situation, and solve it in a way or another. Or face a destruction. Not total, but for most of people, if we don't do anything. Scientists are all the time trying to solve with even more technologies which need more natural resources, but is it enough?
That won't work because technology is part of the problem, along with civilization. That's like saying, "we can live with a little cancer, as a treat". We don't really need to talk about implementation because, with how humans are behaving right now, they will bring about collapse, and the survivors will create a new way of life.
Can you make a video ; Something from Nothing ( explaining Lawrence Krauss perspective on “Nothing” ) and other views of nothing in the same sense .
I do have a video on "why is there something rather than nothing?" though I don't discuss Krauss -- ua-cam.com/video/YDNUrwF6VfM/v-deo.html
I may revisit that topic in the future, but I don't think I'll ever have much to say about Krauss. I don't find Krauss's work on this particularly interesting philosophically, and as far as I can tell, he hasn't had much influence on other philosophical work on this topic.
@@KaneB Thank you , I think he’s great in his field but when it comes to philosophy he’s shown to lose a debate and throw tantrums.
What do you think about Graham Oppy I’m curious
@@IsaacAndersonMedia Oppy's "Arguing About Gods" is probably the best book I've read on philosophy of religion. Though I should note, it's not a topic I engage with often, so I haven't actually read many books on it!
@@KaneB ah ok I have that book as well it’s well written . I have some Biology homework to be catching up on have a good day ,baker.
When the Avarage person isn’t properly fed, has access to basic medicine, has poor shelter, and has to deal with a unstable society, privitism starts to look more appealing, I’m not saying it will solve all the problems im just saying the trade offs are better appose to modern life
Also native Americans, hadza people, San bushmen, have little disease [other than the flu] due to lack of Domesticated animals, so no need for medicine outside idk hot soup and rest.
Do you have a link to this slideshow? Thank you.
The Goodbye at the end 😂
do you have a twt?
Probably not. I have no idea what a "twt" is.
@@KaneB twitter
@@hachid9579 No, I don't have a twitter.
But there is one huge problem. You can live as anarchoprimitive if you want. I know that technology works as drug but you can choose and leave society.
It's easier said than done. Especially since most land is owned by people these days and they will use violence against you for being on it.
You have an incredibly powerful illusion of control.
What is your stance on morality not sure if you made a video on this already .
I do write code for a living. I can see how we are doomed and how the lazy ones back in the classroom take easily the lead in. business. we are doomed we are doomed. all this needs to end. people don't know how much technology they rely on not to survive once upon a time (médecine etc), but to live basically. I hope I see the premises at least in my lifespan for a real consideration of where we truly are.
“What’s up dogs?” Something is wrong here. Well, not objectively wrong :P
Solarpunk is better than Anprim IMO.
Solarpunk is the logical endpoint of greenwashing
"What's up dogs" 😂😂
I love this guy
You cant build a free society using coercive methods, but if you dont use coercive methods against those who refuse to not ve coercive you just end up a victim.
Anprim is real future in no-eletric fall system world.
in today's thinking, it won't ever happen
The based side of politics.
Great video
How Anarcho-Primitivist want to solve the problem with medicine?
Humans would be far more healthy, physically and emotionally, in an An-Prim society, but of course people would get sick and die. I believe that in such a society, there would be a much healthier relationship with death, and we would not spend much time and resources clinging to life. Fear of death is not natural, outside of an acutely life threatening situation. And anyway, one of the biggest reasons that the medical industry is as massive as it is is that it’s incredibly profitable for a small number of people. There’s a whole lot more sickness in a world where sickness is profitable.
If only it would work
oogga bbogga bbogga bbo
Yes, I did find it interesting and very well articulated, cheers.
Paleoanthropologist james C Scott has some wonderful lectures uploaded on UA-cam to help deprogram the “myth of progress” propaganda narrative baked into our western education about early agrarian societies.
In the 60s huh?
I enjoy long not dying in childbirth tbh
Do you also enjoy strip mining, deforestation, and the 6th mass extinction? Thats the cost of living to 100.
If you died in childbirth, you wouldn’t know it because you’d be dead.
Kind of surprising to see you disable comments on the Hume video as I had thought you were somewhat on the free speech side of things, though I could be mistaken. Instead of seeing comments I just see you having moral outrage :) You said you couldn't see a benefit to allowing racists to flourish on that video, but one benefit I could think of is that then, you can both allow for people to discuss and debate the content of the video, and avoid spending time moderating comments, and thus avoid having to come up with some kind of criteria for classifying comments as racist. As it is with comments disabled, the content of the video can't be discussed -- racist comments don't stop people from discussing, but disabling comments does. I think it makes more of a political statement to just butt out of things rather than block the comments with which you strongly disagree -- all we get from that blocked comments section is your common opinion that those comments are disgusting... ok, well someone reading the comments section that agrees with you could reach the same conclusion without you having to tell them that with your anti-endorsement, they (most likely) aren't children who need their parents to tell them what they are allowed to see.
And for those reading who agree with the racist comments and are probably prejudiced and biased, they seem moot because well, if such people already had that opinion before reading and agreeing with the comment, then nothing about them changed from any action or inaction on your part. Centrists would likely just disagree with the comments and may or may not want to debate with such commenters -- again they don't need a parent to tell them a racist comment is racist. But if the centrist was convinced, well that's up to them, and perhaps you could engage/debate with them if you were concerned, or you could just immediately assume that because the position they were convinced of is not mainstream, that they simply must have been brainwashed and don't simply think differently, and so the comments must be disabled for such a scenario to be assured to never occur. But it's a hasty assumption, because a centrist would have a hard time being a centrist for very long if they were the type to just jump on an emotional bandwagon to reach their conclusions, and so we could at least give them a chance to rationally reach whatever conclusion they feel makes sense from the comments they read. Besides... a centrist who happened to be convinced of an unpopular position could have value, as that type of person would probably not be as inflammatory or inciteful in explaining their ideas as a prejudiced racist would be, and maybe the centrist would be able to give some food for thought.
But yeah, I am pretty strongly on the free speech side of things, so that's just my two cents, there. Sure, there are almost surely limits, as I wouldn't want instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb available to anyone or something, but I just think there is a big cost that exercising control and imposing yourself on a situation has (which includes moderating comments), and it is often not worth it for what it is trying to achieve. Having the comments come down to the opinion of a single person (the sole moderator of comments) seems pretty banal -- again, now we know what the moderator believes about the comments that were once there... but I could have made my own decision about what those comments meant, and probably could have easily reached the same conclusion without his guidance. I personally wouldn't really trust myself to curate content for people as well as the people themselves -- for starters, they probably have different needs and a different way of doing things that I know little about, and what is effective for my functioning might not work well for theirs. If they want my opinion on the content, I can put it out there without limiting the pool of content to things that I don't hate.
Sure, I don't always know what benefit leaving any given comment has (I brought up earlier that it allows for a completely open discussion, but I admit the benefits of that are more abstract and not clear-cut, though I still think are noteworthy), but I don't really consider it an improvement to alter the content of the world in my image... that is, if it's in an artificial way... if there are certain racist people commenting, I would rather want to use that information that the world has offered me, if possible, rather than only looking at the world through a lens of what I assume to be noteworthy -- in this case, deleting certain pieces of objective information about the world (comments), in a very broad sense of the term. The more I do the latter, the deeper I put myself into a bubble and reduce my critical thinking about the assumptions I make about the world (and a philosophy channel should be all about questioning all assumptions, I would think, as if we can question if we even exist, or the law of non-contradiction, what can't we question...).
So I mean, leaving the comments there doesn't have a huge clear benefit, but nor does deleting them. It's just one of those things where you can make a diminutive change to the world one way or the other. Like if hypothetically you wanted to ban just one (presumably offensive) word in the dictionary, and believed that the benefits of just a single word are so small that it can be ignored, the ban probably wouldn't screw things up much because it's just one word, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, just that if it's not a wise change, it's small enough that it can only screw things up slightly. But we still want to know if the change is wise in principle, especially for deciding when to consider making similar changes in the future based on that principle (e.g., banning more words, or deleting a wider range of comments).
I suppose it's plausible that instead you're worried about your image, what people will think or assume about you if you leave the comments up. Well, I wouldn't want to care too much about what people think (easier said than done, I understand), especially if that directly controls your behavior, because you should have more respect for yourself than that. And as you might have gathered, I wouldn't be the type to think that leaving a comment on your channel means that you endorse that behavior generally, since the moderator, as anyone, can simply disagree with (or even hate) the comment while letting the person speak -- it is quite physically possible to do that -- just keep the finger away from the delete button, and this action will not magically make the comments any more agreeable or enjoyable to you or anyone else for that matter :)
Sure, I think that free speech is important. But it's never been my view that a commitment to free speech entails a commitment to the view that every person and every organization must allow everybody to say whatever they want, regardless of the circumstances. For example, if you come to my house for dinner, but then you start trying to convert me to some religion, and you don't shut up about it even when I ask you to, there's a good chance that I'll kick you out. Or suppose there's an online forum for discussing Doctor Who, and one of the posters there starts spamming information about logical positivism, on threads that have nothing to do with logical positivism (imagine this person isn't even trying to make any link with the show; they're literally just spamming paragraphs from the wikipedia page on logical positivism, for instance). I think it would be a good idea to ban that person. I enjoy discussing logical positivism, but a Doctor Who forum isn't the place for it.
I value freedom of speech, but I also value freedom of association, and I simply don't want to be part of communities in which racists can flourish. I don't want to provide racists a platform on which to discuss their bigotry. I'm not in favour of shutting down other communities in which racists are given a platform to do that, I'm not in favour of laws against racist speech, I wouldn't advocate for firing people who participate in such communities when this has no relation to their employment, etc. (that's the commitment to free speech!) -- I'm just not interested in joining such communities myself.
Brilliant
Imagine 8 billion Hunter-gatherers, in 2 months all animals would have been eaten and every edible plant would have gone extinct.
How many people actually have the skill and knowledge necessary to be a hunter-gatherer? Most humans would die of dehydration or starvation, so it wouldn't be so bad for other animals and plants
@@counterfeit1148 Its not rocketscience
Oh my sweet summer child. Any event that put humanity in an anarcho-primitive state would be kicked off by catastrophe or violence. To suggest that even half of those 8 billion people could start a fire in the rain or swim across a fucking lake is pretty slim. The die-off rate would be astronomical. I’m a Marine and grew up pretty rustically, lot of outdoor experience, Boy Scouts etc but I’d still be hard pressed to learn any handicraft or dressing of game! I think the majority of people would simply die in the first year. And that’s the point! Less air getting wasted. Imagine supporting “human rights” when we are the most virulent and oppressive species on the planet!!
I’d die very happily knowing all the other assholes in my neighborhood were eating rats and pee because they ALSO didn’t know how to survive like me lol like I’m just one less human at the end of the day, and that’s always a good thing for nature :)
I subed in less than a second.
Medical care weather tracking?
If bleed put leaf on bleed
If hurt but no bleed put water on hurt
If fell no good get herbs and try eating herbs if dont work then try something else
Watch sky there clouds? Rain there no clouds? Sunny.
Trapped in a technological prison connected with 60 billion people, in eternal pain, immortal. No escape. No longer human.
@@purplevincent4454 what
Telepathy is a way of communication for some primary cultures. I appreciate the video quite a lot, but your dismissal of this subject is unfortunate. Also, the end of civilisation is inevitable. The more powerful civilisation becomes the faster this will happen.
Telepathy, really? Tell me more. Which primitive societies could communicate with only their minds? Sounds amazing
@@gobot90 Read the book Mutant Message written by an American who lived with a group of native Australians.
In my own experience i would be thinking a question and my wife would walk all the way from the other end of the house and answer it as if i said it out loud. This happened several times. I lost count.
One guy said people communicate with their minds and we're all supposed to believe that? Do you realize how insane that sounds?
@@goosewithagibusBut like…brown people do it so
@@gobot90 I have no idea what to make of that comment.
notmuch dawg, how are you?
This would be sweet. But then we could go extinct. But if we colonize other planets, I bet these primitives will start to take hold more (galactic civilizations videogame event)
"nuclear power planets" :)
Return to monke
TLDR : reject society return to monke 😂😂
I thought that anarchism is the dumbest ideology, until I found out about anarcho-primitivism lol
Was my comment deleted?
No idea. UA-cam automatically removes comments sometimes. I've noticed that it often happens to comments that contain links - although sometimes there's no discernible reason. It's very frustrating. Maybe you could try re-phrasing it?
@@KaneB My question was: Have you read "Industrial Society and Its Future" aka The Unabomber Manifesto by Ted Kaczynski? It is considered the most popular book supporting primitivism.
Ah - I'm still seeing your comment on my notifications! It was probably removed because of the youtube link. Anyway, yes, I have read ISAIF. It was definitely the most carefully argued of all the anti-civ stuff I read for this video.
@@KaneB you might also find his article on anarchist library critiquing anarcho-primitivism, where he harshly criticizes the utopian picture of hunter-gatherer society
@@prenuptials5925 Yes, that's an excellent article - I do actually mention it in the video.
Return to Monke
Primitivism is an apocalyptic ideology.
@Theodore J. Kaczynski what is inaccurate about my thesis?
Yes, because dystopia is inevitable.
Collapse is inevitable even if every anprim was snapped out of existence
Stop using the internet then, go live off the grid and practice what you preach.
A few people living off-grid won't be able to live like true hunter-gatherers and it certainly won't bring down civilisation, which is what the whole ideology is about. If they lived off-grid they would have a harder time preaching what they believe in and make it more difficult to achieve their goal.
whats up dogs lol. I will donwload this video and listen to it at work
The fundamental problem with anarchism is that people love hierarchy. People want there to be an authority that can administer justice and fairness. For example, if bandits injure us and take our things and leave us starving and without shelter, we want something to be done to make this better. It's not enough to merely accept that the bandits win and we lose, so we want some authority with enough power to enforce rules upon the bandits and make the bandits lose.
Anarcho-primitivism goes even further to undermine a much beloved feature of our hierarchies, because hierarchy is what enables vast numbers of people to be mobilized in large projects to improve the world, such as building paved roads, dams, and other infrastructure to reshape the world into a form that we find more comfortable. Not only do we need to accept bandits, but we also need to give up electricity, all for the sake of liberty. Liberty sounds pretty nice, but how could it possibly be worth the price?
@@garrett9945 : Just because we love hierarchy, that doesn't mean that all hierarchies are good. Even a person who loves apples isn't going to want to eat a rotten apple; this doesn't mean that she doesn't truly love apples. It just means that bad apples are possible, just as bad hierarchies are possible. The question is whether we prefer to be rid of hierarchy entirely rather than replace a bad hierarchy with a better hierarchy.
People love hierarchy way more than they love apples. The thought of not having an authority using its power to make our lives better would be a waking nightmare for most people. Look at how easily and painlessly people tend into line under the authority of their government, even in cases where the government significantly abuses its power. Look at all the religions that invent imaginary authorities with cosmic powers. We want our lives to be predictable and controlled and not at the mercy of natural forces that care nothing for our wellbeing.
Anarchism seeks to take away this thing that we so love and replace it with "liberty" which is just another way of saying lack of hierarchy. In other words, they want to take away our hierarchy and expect us to be happy from its absence.
"Look at how easily and painlessly people tend into line under the authority of their government, even in cases where the government significantly abuses its power. " - Maybe because people don't have any ideas what kind of life would be without unjustified hierarchies? People are taught to obey teacher, police and leaders from the child, so naturally they don't may thing otherwise, unless they go to university to get educated more about different subjects and critical thinking. (people don't gain knowledge from there alone, but lets say that mainstream of people). And they are very busy in lives to earn money to live, so they don't have time to do their own research on subjects.
And anarchism is about getting rid of unjustified hierarchies, not all (except stirnerians). Of course they accept authority of experts (doctors, professors, etc.), who know stuff. And mainstream anarchists advocate for straight democracy, which in upper level is different councils and in the end federalization, which is sort of hierarchical in own sense. And they don't see that as a bad thing, as long as council members can be changed at any time.
@@ivan55599 "Maybe because people don't have any ideas what kind of life would be without unjustified hierarchies?"
They do have ideas, and those ideas say that it would be terrible. They don't care whether the hierarchy is justified, because they desire the hierarchy. A hierarchy isn't a burden that we take on for good reasons; it's a tool to make our lives better. Asking for justification for a hierarchy is like asking for justification for electricity. It's just something we want.
"People are taught to obey teacher, police and leaders from the child, so naturally they don't may thing otherwise, unless they go to university to get educated more about different subjects and critical thinking."
This makes it sound like there's some sort of anti-anarchist campaign that's tricking people, but when does anyone ever tell anyone to obey police and leaders? Where can we find this campaign? It certainly wasn't part of my education. On the contrary, it seems that we don't need to tell people to obey because they naturally want to obey.
If it is scientifically proven that human nature is to follow the leader, then l accept it. Actually no, then it would prove that we are so much in animal level of behaviour, that there is no way nor hope to improve ourselves from "savagery", if we can call it that way. No wonder some of my friends justify right wing traditionalism-monarchism by this reasoning.
Before electricity people didn't knew they needed it, as like other inventions, which aren't something what we want unconsciously. This can be connected to human need to do less labor, but for example bureaucratic hierarchies are increasing it. In my country people don't get the healthcare or financial help from the state they deserve legally, but there is so much bureaucracy-hierarchies, so people are very tired of all paper work and asking different testimonies from different authorities to fill paperwork. And often after they think they got it all right, some authority says you got it wrong purposefully, and they are denied financial help not only for asked time, but also for some time for future as a punishment.
"This makes it sound like there's some sort of anti-anarchist campaign that's tricking people"
Yes l think that there is that sort of thing. Why would government ever suggest ideology which dismantles it? At least in my school there were no word said about anarchism. "State system is just what it is now, don't ask questions". And how kids could understand to ask questions? We take this as given. Not even in university where l studied history and other sciences/humanities. l had to do research myself.
And lots of people think that anarchism is anarchy, where there is only law of jungle, everyone is killing and stealing each other, loot and burn stuff. And there are some illegalists, which can be used by normal people, media and government to say "anarchism is to destroy everything, and give us unlawfulness. "
But if people want to live in monarchy, fine for me. But allow me to live my own life with my own principles. State doesn't allow that? Then we may have a problem...
@@ivan55599 "It would prove that we are so much in animal level of behaviour, that there is no way nor hope to improve ourselves from 'savagery'."
Following the leader is not savagery; it is civilization. If it is our nature to do this, it is because we are human and as a result we are adapted to be an extremely social species that thrives in cooperation. Savage animals like lions are incapable of forming the kind of hierarchies that we can form, and this prevents lions from organizing to fight back and reclaim their habitat from us.
"Why would government ever suggest ideology which dismantles it?"
The greater mystery is why anyone would suggest an ideology which dismantles our civilization and sends us back to savagery. Anarcho-primitivism is a very strange idea.
"And lots of people think that anarchism is anarchy, where there is only law of jungle, everyone is killing and stealing each other, loot and burn stuff."
That would be the inevitable consequence of having no authority to help us enforce rules upon each other, though it wouldn't last long since people would not tolerate such a condition and they would quickly band together to create a hierarchy and return to enforcing rules. Once we've had our things stolen, ideology would become secondary.
"Allow me to live my own life with my own principles. State doesn't allow that? Then we may have a problem."
That's not a problem. That is the whole point of having a hierarchy, so that we can force people to live according to rules and have order in our society. We don't want people killing and stealing.
вери кул найс беби
reject modernity, return to monke
The final stage of comservatism lol
oooga booga