Eco-primitivism: The downfall of civilization?

Rejecting Time

"Can we actually abolish time? Its constant movement acts as both the master and the yardstick of a social existence that is becoming increasingly hollow and technically mediated. Contrary to everything spontaneous and direct, time is making its connection to alienation clearer by the day. This means our renewal project has to tackle the full breadth of their combined power. We can only replace this fragmented way of living with the possibility of a whole, complete life—a life without time—once we eliminate the primary causes of that division.

We have treated time as a substance for so long that today it feels like an indisputable fact of nature, a force existing entirely on its own. Increasing our awareness of time—essentially accepting it—is just part of how we adapt to an extremely materialistic worldview. Time is a constructed dimension and a fundamental building block of culture. Because it is inexhaustible by nature, it serves as the perfect model for governance.

Every ritual is a human attempt to return to a timeless state through symbolism. Yet, a ritual is also an act of stepping out of that state; it’s a misstep that pulls us even further from our goal. The timelessness inherent in numbers is a key component of this evasion, helping to establish time as an unbreakable, rigid concept.

Using the stars, years and their divisions are imposed upon us as instruments of organizational authority. Shaping the calendar is essential to shaping civilization itself. After all, the calendar is the first symbolic artifact used to regulate human behavior by measuring time. But here, we aren't talking about controlling time; it's quite the opposite. It is a process where time traps a person within a world of objective alienation. In such a world, no adult is capable of securing or reclaiming the freedom from time that every child naturally enjoys—and is eventually forced to lose. Training people to accept time is a crucial part of schooling, which is vital for society. As Fraser points out, this conditioning serves as a near-perfect summary of the entire process of civilization."

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism isn't just about Zerzan, even if he is the most famous figurehead. Some thinkers within the movement wouldn't advocate for such a massive regression.

Does Zerzan, or anyone else, actually offer an answer to the "how"?

How do we dismantle civilization—basically, how do we undo it?
How do we stop trying to fix problems and instead start unsolving them?

William Palmer7 said:Does Zerzan, or anyone else, actually offer an answer to the "how"?

How do we dismantle civilization—basically, how do we undo it?
How do we stop trying to fix problems and instead start unsolving them?

Zerzan doesn't. There are other radicals out there who push for direct action and a frontal assault on both the state and civilization itself.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Zerzan doesn't. There are other radicals out there who push for direct action and a frontal assault on both the state and civilization itself.

Does it always have to involve violence, or can we just peacefully opt out?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism, often called anarcho-primitivism, is this radical anarchist movement that calls for a total return to our original, primal communities. It isn’t exactly a mainstream topic here in the States. For decades, American thought has been dominated by Marx, along with some Hegel and Kant—essentially that Enlightenment school of thought that tends to be somewhat favorable toward the state, legal structures, reason, and symbolic thought.

Anarchists and Marxists split ways very early on, and they’ve never truly reconciled, even though they share a common enemy in capitalism. But anarchists don't believe you can build a better society through a communist state. Anarcho-primitivists take it a step further; they reject not just the state, but civilization itself, technology, and—according to people like John Zerzan—even symbolic thought. In his view, alienation doesn't start with class struggle like Marx argues, but with the very invention of symbols and rituals.

Essentially, John Zerzan argues that humans were truly free only in a state of immediacy, before we had the ability to describe anything because language didn't exist yet. From this perspective, the birth of symbols (and words) was the catalyst for both the rise of civilization and the inherent restlessness found within it.

The core argument of eco-primitivism goes like this: civilization isn't necessary, sustainable, or even the right direction. It’s a detour. The "true path" is how we lived for hundreds of thousands of years before organized society ever began. Some anarcho-primitivists openly advocate for violence and attacks on technology—take Derek Jensen, for example, who writes about using bombs to tear down things like dams—though most are content to stick to lectures and writing.

Now, this is quite fascinating... even if anarcho-primitivism strikes me personally as being a bit unhinged. It catches my interest because I once encountered a theory suggesting that language—this archetype of symbolism—acts somewhat like a parasite.

Acclimatizing oneself to time—that is the essence of schooling—is absolutely vital for the stability of society.

That point is also compelling and likely hits the mark. Do you happen to have a specific quote where they dive into the "why" (though one might question whether "reason" even applies to this school of thought) or at least hint at the underlying motives? I remember reading about how sleep patterns in the Middle Ages were entirely different from our modern rhythms. The quote touches on certain elements, but it feels a bit thin. I'm not particularly inclined to turn to Fraser for this, given his expertise lies more in ancient civilizations rather than the nuances of the modern era.

William Palmer7 said:Does it always have to involve violence, or can we just peacefully opt out?

I guess it depends on who you ask. Most people in these circles agree that civilization is inherently violent and unsustainable, so its collapse is really just a matter of when, not if.

ironmarlin1 said:Now, this is quite fascinating... even if anarcho-primitivism strikes me personally as being a bit unhinged. It catches my interest because I once encountered a theory suggesting that language—this archetype of symbolism—acts somewhat like a parasite.

Acclimatizing oneself to time—that is the essence of schooling—is absolutely vital for the stability of society.

That point is also compelling and likely hits the mark. Do you happen to have a specific quote where they dive into the "why" (though one might question whether "reason" even applies to this school of thought) or at least hint at the underlying motives? I remember reading about how sleep patterns in the Middle Ages were entirely different from our modern rhythms. The quote touches on certain elements, but it feels a bit thin. I'm not particularly inclined to turn to Fraser for this, given his expertise lies more in ancient civilizations rather than the nuances of the modern era.

You should check out his essay on time.

https://anarchist-library.net/...the-end-of-time

Melissa Stewart6 said:You should check out his essay on time.

https://anarchist-library.net/...the-end-of-time

Ah, I feel like I stumbled upon that one somewhere back in my younger, more idealistic days... though, honestly, it’s quite refreshing to see this idea that the sheer terror of linear time actually finds its roots with Augustine. You know, even Wittgenstein's second major work kicked off by circling back to Augustine... albeit focusing on language instead. Of course, Augustine—true to form—got the whole thing spectacularly wrong. First with the concept of time, and then with the mechanics of language. We even have the sharp-witted Nietzsche weighing in on the Christian era, noting: "One must read any of the Christian agitators, such as St. Augustine, to understand and sense the kind of filth that has surfaced at the peak." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist)
The fact that he completely misread the situation really highlights the sort of decadence that began to seep into "civilization" once Christianity took hold. Now, there was one British philosopher who actually held some affection for Augustine's little ramblings about time. Then there’s another fellow who, calling him a "British philosopher" feels almost like an oxymoron, routinely misinterpreted everything he touched. I am, of course, referring to Russell. Honestly, I don't see why we wouldn't just categorize him under the history of activism rather than actual philosophy.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Zerzan, who spends his time writing while simultaneously handing out free vegan food on street corners and setting up video projections about animal slaughter, but well... c'est la vie. Don't go telling me that things aren't clichés.

ironmarlin1 said:Ah, I feel like I stumbled upon that one somewhere back in my younger, more idealistic days... though, honestly, it’s quite refreshing to see this idea that the sheer terror of linear time actually finds its roots with Augustine. You know, even Wittgenstein's second major work kicked off by circling back to Augustine... albeit focusing on language instead. Of course, Augustine—true to form—got the whole thing spectacularly wrong. First with the concept of time, and then with the mechanics of language. We even have the sharp-witted Nietzsche weighing in on the Christian era, noting: "One must read any of the Christian agitators, such as St. Augustine, to understand and sense the kind of filth that has surfaced at the peak." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist)
The fact that he completely misread the situation really highlights the sort of decadence that began to seep into "civilization" once Christianity took hold. Now, there was one British philosopher who actually held some affection for Augustine's little ramblings about time. Then there’s another fellow who, calling him a "British philosopher" feels almost like an oxymoron, routinely misinterpreted everything he touched. I am, of course, referring to Russell. Honestly, I don't see why we wouldn't just categorize him under the history of activism rather than actual philosophy.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Zerzan, who spends his time writing while simultaneously handing out free vegan food on street corners and setting up video projections about animal slaughter, but well... c'est la vie. Don't go telling me that things aren't clichés.

EDIT: Regarding that point about how he's fundamentally misunderstood everything...

ironmarlin1 said:Ah, I feel like I stumbled upon that one somewhere back in my younger, more idealistic days... though, honestly, it’s quite refreshing to see this idea that the sheer terror of linear time actually finds its roots with Augustine. You know, even Wittgenstein's second major work kicked off by circling back to Augustine... albeit focusing on language instead. Of course, Augustine—true to form—got the whole thing spectacularly wrong. First with the concept of time, and then with the mechanics of language. We even have the sharp-witted Nietzsche weighing in on the Christian era, noting: "One must read any of the Christian agitators, such as St. Augustine, to understand and sense the kind of filth that has surfaced at the peak." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist)
The fact that he completely misread the situation really highlights the sort of decadence that began to seep into "civilization" once Christianity took hold. Now, there was one British philosopher who actually held some affection for Augustine's little ramblings about time. Then there’s another fellow who, calling him a "British philosopher" feels almost like an oxymoron, routinely misinterpreted everything he touched. I am, of course, referring to Russell. Honestly, I don't see why we wouldn't just categorize him under the history of activism rather than actual philosophy.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Zerzan, who spends his time writing while simultaneously handing out free vegan food on street corners and setting up video projections about animal slaughter, but well... c'est la vie. Don't go telling me that things aren't clichés.

I'm not quite sure which of Augustine's "time nonsense" theories you're referring to; could you walk me through your reasoning? 🤔

Here is a quick summary of a paper I found regarding Augustine and the concept of time.

(The underlining is mine!)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/example_link

In both scientific research and philosophical debates, space and time are usually treated as a package deal. While Augustine doesn't have a specific treatise dedicated solely to space, his views would likely be very similar to his famous discourse on time. To make sense of that discussion, the first part of this article provides a brief overview of the various ways space and time have been perceived. While Aristotle links time to motion (change) and Scholastic philosophy defines it as a mental construct, Augustine ties time to the very origin of matter—specifically, creation ex nihilo. For him, time begins with creation; outside of creation, time simply doesn't exist. But if time consists of indivisible moments of "now," how can we talk about different durations or even measure it? Aristotle connects time measurement to movement, whereas Augustine connects it to the soul—specifically, to memory. This leaves us with the big question: what *is* time? If time is motion, as Aristotle argued, then it makes sense that it can serve as its own measure. However, if we try to observe time itself, measurement becomes impossible because we can only measure "completed" time, which by definition is already gone. If we instead relate time to the soul and memory, measurement becomes possible. The impressions left by passing events in our memory allow us to compare them, giving us a way to gauge intervals. For Augustine, the past isn't "real" because it's gone, and the future isn't real because it hasn't happened yet; even the present, which seems to be the only thing that's truly real, effectively doesn't exist unless it is actively trying to avoid becoming the past. Consequently, for Augustine, time isn't a physical reality unless it exists within the soul as the memory of the past and the anticipation of the future. Time is essentially the stretching of the soul (distentio animi) between a past that no longer exists (but survives in memory) and a future that isn't real yet (but exists in our expectation).

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism, often called anarcho-primitivism, is this radical anarchist movement that calls for a total return to our original, primal communities. It isn’t exactly a mainstream topic here in the States. For decades, American thought has been dominated by Marx, along with some Hegel and Kant—essentially that Enlightenment school of thought that tends to be somewhat favorable toward the state, legal structures, reason, and symbolic thought.

Anarchists and Marxists split ways very early on, and they’ve never truly reconciled, even though they share a common enemy in capitalism. But anarchists don't believe you can build a better society through a communist state. Anarcho-primitivists take it a step further; they reject not just the state, but civilization itself, technology, and—according to people like John Zerzan—even symbolic thought. In his view, alienation doesn't start with class struggle like Marx argues, but with the very invention of symbols and rituals.

Essentially, John Zerzan argues that humans were truly free only in a state of immediacy, before we had the ability to describe anything because language didn't exist yet. From this perspective, the birth of symbols (and words) was the catalyst for both the rise of civilization and the inherent restlessness found within it.

The core argument of eco-primitivism goes like this: civilization isn't necessary, sustainable, or even the right direction. It’s a detour. The "true path" is how we lived for hundreds of thousands of years before organized society ever began. Some anarcho-primitivists openly advocate for violence and attacks on technology—take Derek Jensen, for example, who writes about using bombs to tear down things like dams—though most are content to stick to lectures and writing.

I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

While Bertrand Russell certainly held Saint Augustine’s musings on the nature of time in high regard, I can't help but feel those reflections are little more than the frantic ramblings of a madman. Then you have John Zerzan, who suggests there is something far more insidious lurking beneath the surface of it all. Even Friedrich Nietzsche—long before Zerzan arrived on the scene—seemed to grasp, as evidenced by the quote above, that the entire edifice of Christianity is built upon something quite predatory.
I have absolutely no intention of wading through those dense theological formulations regarding this supposed "problem" (assuming you even have the patience for such things) just to have my mind further scrambled, which, if I’m being honest, is likely exactly what the author intended.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Rejecting Time

"Can we actually abolish time? Its constant movement acts as both the master and the yardstick of a social existence that is becoming increasingly hollow and technically mediated. Contrary to everything spontaneous and direct, time is making its connection to alienation clearer by the day. This means our renewal project has to tackle the full breadth of their combined power. We can only replace this fragmented way of living with the possibility of a whole, complete life—a life without time—once we eliminate the primary causes of that division.

We have treated time as a substance for so long that today it feels like an indisputable fact of nature, a force existing entirely on its own. Increasing our awareness of time—essentially accepting it—is just part of how we adapt to an extremely materialistic worldview. Time is a constructed dimension and a fundamental building block of culture. Because it is inexhaustible by nature, it serves as the perfect model for governance.

Every ritual is a human attempt to return to a timeless state through symbolism. Yet, a ritual is also an act of stepping out of that state; it’s a misstep that pulls us even further from our goal. The timelessness inherent in numbers is a key component of this evasion, helping to establish time as an unbreakable, rigid concept.

Using the stars, years and their divisions are imposed upon us as instruments of organizational authority. Shaping the calendar is essential to shaping civilization itself. After all, the calendar is the first symbolic artifact used to regulate human behavior by measuring time. But here, we aren't talking about controlling time; it's quite the opposite. It is a process where time traps a person within a world of objective alienation. In such a world, no adult is capable of securing or reclaiming the freedom from time that every child naturally enjoys—and is eventually forced to lose. Training people to accept time is a crucial part of schooling, which is vital for society. As Fraser points out, this conditioning serves as a near-perfect summary of the entire process of civilization."

At its core, time is a physical category; without it, our entire universe simply wouldn't exist. Naturally, humans have this innate desire to exert control over time. We want it to bend to our will, to move in the direction we choose, to accelerate when we’re in a rush, or to grind to a halt exactly when we need a moment to breathe......

So far, we’ve only established the fact that time can move at different speeds.

To push this investigation any further, we’re going to need much more advanced technology. Whether humanity will ever actually develop the tools necessary to manipulate time itself... I honestly don't know.

If we ever do achieve that, we might just end up becoming God. For now, though, we are merely the children of God. And as any parent knows, you spend most of your time making sure your kids don't hurt themselves, kill each other, or cause some massive catastrophe ........

Sam Martinez9 said:I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

Sam Martinez9 said:I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

I have to disagree with the anarcho-primitivist stance. I’ve actually laid out my reasoning in a previous post—if you look back through it—but my core contention is simple: some civilizations are objectively better than others, and civilization itself evolves and improves alongside technological advancement.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

Ultimately, whose fear or comfort is at stake isn't the point; we aren't children who need to hide under the covers. We ought to view the world with as much rationality as possible, setting aside fear, hatred, or tribalism whenever we can.

Regarding his specific points, I honestly don't know yet. My schedule has been quite hectic lately, so I'm only posting this now because I promised I would. I've shared what I currently know, as I haven't had the bandwidth to dive deep into his full body of work. However, I do intend to sit down and study his arguments properly once things settle down.

That is all from me for today.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

Look, society, tech, and the natural world are always bumping heads and messing with each other—it’s constant. Sometimes tech actually helps us out, but half the time? It’s just straight-up destructive.

You can't really take Zerzan seriously—I mean, sure, they probably threw out some interesting ideas about language and symbols, but that’s about it...

"Technology driving development" is such a load of crap—it’s like an ant trying to tell the world how to run things. It's just not realistic, and honestly, it never actually works out for the community as a whole.

Now this is actually interesting... THE HONEY BEE NETWORK: VOICES FROM GRASSROOTS INNOVATORS

Most one-size-fits-all fixes being cooked up for the "green revolution" zones? They aren't going to do squat for marginalized communities living in fragile environments. There’s basically zero organizational structure out there that actually pushes scientists to work alongside people developing tech with limited reach—it just doesn't exist. If we want tech development and rollout to actually mean something for disadvantaged communities and marginalized areas, international and national research orgs need a massive overhaul. Period.

You can't trust the market, the national channels, or any of those big international networks to actually link up global knowledge hubs. It’s a joke—they fail at connecting people in a way that lets local communities and individuals actually build their own solutions for whatever they need, regardless of where they are in the States.

Look, the Honey Bee Network—even with basically zero resources or experience—just proved that this kind of transformation actually works. Their whole model is about empowering people through sustainable tech development; it’s all about boosting income and survival tools by leveraging local knowledge. They do it through documentation, adding real value, experimenting, and just getting people talking about local innovations. It's legit.

Copyrighted article by Cultural Survival, Inc.

Wouldn't you say that Zen Buddhism offers a much more effective remedy for these issues than eco-primitivism ever could? I mean, isn't the whole core of Zen about embracing the present moment and living with immediacy? Sure, Buddhism doesn't go out of its way to try and dismantle language entirely, but maybe that’s because such a drastic move isn't even necessary in the first place.

The whole concept of eco-primitivism is just fundamentally unachievable. Honestly, the fact that these people want to tear down civilization just so they can chase some idealized, comfortable existence they've cooked up in their heads really points to a massive lack of self-discipline. True renunciation means choosing to step away from civilization through willpower, not blowing the whole thing up just so you don't have to deal with the actual struggle of self-control. People can spin all the fancy philosophical webs they want to mask that laziness, but if you ask me, it’s hardly worth wasting time studying.

Anyway, that’s my two cents, in short—I haven't had much free time lately. I haven't even been able to get around to reading most of the other posts properly, so bear with me while I vent.

Sent from my Reddit

So, would this be some kind of Buddhist economics middle ground? You know, trying to find that sweet spot between total hedonism and extreme asceticism—where you basically try to reconcile those two extremes. But it feels like John Zerzan is chasing something else entirely. He’s taking this hardcore stance that seems way more aligned with our raw, primal instincts.

The thing is, he doesn't seem to see this as an individual struggle. A typical ascetic would focus on their own discipline, but he’s calling for massive social shifts instead. That’s classic leftist thinking right there. They rarely start with the person; they go straight for the collective, hoping to fix things for the individual by changing the whole system first.

hiddeneagle98 said:Wouldn't you say that Zen Buddhism offers a much more effective remedy for these issues than eco-primitivism ever could? I mean, isn't the whole core of Zen about embracing the present moment and living with immediacy? Sure, Buddhism doesn't go out of its way to try and dismantle language entirely, but maybe that’s because such a drastic move isn't even necessary in the first place.

The whole concept of eco-primitivism is just fundamentally unachievable. Honestly, the fact that these people want to tear down civilization just so they can chase some idealized, comfortable existence they've cooked up in their heads really points to a massive lack of self-discipline. True renunciation means choosing to step away from civilization through willpower, not blowing the whole thing up just so you don't have to deal with the actual struggle of self-control. People can spin all the fancy philosophical webs they want to mask that laziness, but if you ask me, it’s hardly worth wasting time studying.

Anyway, that’s my two cents, in short—I haven't had much free time lately. I haven't even been able to get around to reading most of the other posts properly, so bear with me while I vent.

Sent from my Reddit

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher—you know, that legendary economist—actually titled one of his most famous books...Buddhist economics—man, where do we even start with that?Basically, everything he wrote back in the 50s was all about pushing local resources—you know, that whole "economy where people actually matter" vibe.

He was the one who actually kicked off the whole concept...Appropriate technology—it’s more than just a buzzword, it's the whole damn point. We need tools that actually fit our lives instead of this massive, soul-crushing industrial machine we're stuck in. Just thinking about how much we've lost to "progress" makes me want to scream.He talked about tech that’s actually easy to use and fits right in with the Third World—stuff you can actually scale down to small local communities. He even worked his way around as an economic consultant in places like Myanmar, India, and Zambia.

He started out as a total Keynesian—one of those die-hard followers of John Maynard Keynes—but somehow ended up becoming one of the biggest names in the whole heterodox economic scene.

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher

Back when he was a young guy, Ernst Friedrich Schumacher was a hardcore atheist—but man, seeing him ditch that whole materialistic, capitalist, agnostic modernity thing as he became obsessed with religion? That was something else.

It’s pretty obvious he’s got a thing for... Buddhism—man, what a trip.But man, ever since the late fifties— Catholicism. It really hit him hard—shaped his whole way of thinking.

He noticed. It’s pretty wild how much my own take on money and work lines up with what you see in those old papal encyclicals about social issues—it's basically the same vibe.From Leo XIII.'s "Rerum Novarum" all the way up to John XXIII.'s "Mother and Teacher"—plus everything else... Distributism—man, people just don't get it. It’s basically the only way forward if we actually want to fix this broken system. So, what are G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and Vincent McNabb actually backing here?
The guy basically soaked up most of Thomism—it gave him a solid, objective framework to lean on, unlike all that ego-driven subjectivism and relativism nonsense that defines modern philosophy and society today. He was also pretty obsessed with tradition—just couldn't get enough of it. Christian mysticism—man, what a trip.He was deep into reading folks like Saint Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton—stuff he actually bonded over with his buddy, the Catholic writer Christopher Derrick. He ended up converting to Catholicism back in '71.

Amanda Jackson5 said:If we follow that logic, it implies that being human is essentially undesirable. It feels like a romanticization of a primitive, animalistic existence—likely flavored with secularized millenarian ideas and those "emanation" theories where being further from the "source" equates to a worse, uglier, more difficult existence. And if that's the case, why stop at criticizing civilization? We could just spiral into an infinite regression. You can actually find similar lines of thought in places you wouldn't expect, like among biologists, where some even argue that life itself is inherently self-destructive. Peter Ward calls this the Medea Hypothesis (as a counterpoint to the Lovelockian Gaia hypothesis):

In contrast to the Gaia hypothesis (or theory), which is named after a nurturing mother figure or Mother Nature, Ward proposes a hypothesis named after a much more toxic maternal figure—Medea. What’s the core idea? There is a fundamental tendency within life around us, including our own species, to make the Earth less hospitable for life, ultimately rendering it "uninhabitable." Throughout history, the evolution of life has triggered a series of catastrophes that were devastating for biological stability (which Ward refers to as Medean events), and it will continue to do so. Instead of the "return to nature" advocated by environmental movements, people should focus on practical work to maintain the possibility of survival for ourselves and other living beings. The reality is that we live on a planet that is aging rapidly, and if we want to survive as a species, we will soon be left with only two choices: planetary engineering or leaving the planet entirely. Rather than trying to restore the planet to its pre-human state, we should do exactly what the Gaia hypothesis suggests life does—optimize conditions for future life.

Peter Ward: The Medea Hypothesis – Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive? Princeton University Press, 2009.

Contrary to all of that, I was raised in the spirit of the Enlightenment, so I believe in progress, and by extension, I believe in civilization. Nothing good for humanity comes from a lack of civilization. This isn't a question of immediacy versus mediation. The very essence of being human is self-awareness and intellect, which is nothing more than mediation. The further you drift into mindless instinct, the closer you get to that immediate, pulsing existence, and the further you move from a consciousness whose very core is representation. In the end, you just arrive at death and nothingness. I truly don't see how that could be considered a desirable state, especially for human beings.

The only real value in eco-primitivism or any movement trying to drag us back to the past is that they act as a necessary reality check for those obsessed with progress, the Enlightenment, etc.—basically, they counter Pinker's "Enlightenment Now!" style of thinking.

Humanity is like a guy lugging around way too much luggage—he's stumbling, rushing too hard, dropping stuff everywhere, and constantly having to backtrack just to pick up the pieces.