Eco-primitivism: The downfall of civilization?

bluemason3 said:Is there actually any solid ground for this kind of romanticizing primitivism? Or was this just part of that old, debunked, pseudo-religious obsession with the "noble savage" that used to be popular in Europe? If this theory is less than 50 years old, there’s zero justification for it.

From what I understand, anthropology and archaeology paint a pretty brutal picture of hunter-gatherer tribal life—honestly, it's not exactly a lifestyle I'd be jumping at.

Socially speaking.

Psychologically, I find the dismissal of severe cognitive limitations even harder to swallow—specifically regarding the lack of verbal and symbolic reasoning or long-term planning. And yet, people use modern tools to criticize the very systems they're ignoring.
Then again, maybe it makes sense coming from someone posting this nonsense; if you're operating on a significantly lower cognitive level, perhaps you can only find common ground with others in the same boat.

Has anyone actually managed to stay sane and level-headed among these clowns?

Nowadays, it seems like any random person who can string a sentence together or drop a three-syllable word is suddenly crowning themselves a philosopher.

Even on this specific subforum, I’m seeing more people just regurgitating what someone else said rather than actually presenting their own coherent, rational thoughts. It makes the ancient Greeks turn in their graves.

Gerald Jackson48 said: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.

The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Some people might say that’s a term loaded with meaning. 😁

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

William Palmer7 said:Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

Only God knows that for sure.

Sam Martinez9 said:Only God knows that for sure.

In that case, bluemason3 is just guessing, since there's really no way to tell if we're getting closer to the goal or drifting further away.

William Palmer7 said:Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

It really depends on which ideology you're buying into: whether it’s the pursuit of happiness, maximizing joy for the greatest number of people, unlocking every ounce of human potential, reaching some sort of cosmic omega point, or total universal enlightenment... But if you scrape off that thick layer of ideological varnish, how much do all those lofty goals actually differ from one another?

William Palmer7 said:Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

There isn't some singular, absolute abstract goal, obviously. However, it's relatively in the interest of any social, biological, or organized group to be as successful as possible (whether that's survival, resource management, military strength, economic power, security levels, healthcare quality, and so on). That's why it makes sense for a developing nation to try and catch up to—or even surpass—the success of a superpower like the US.

Generally speaking, things like a higher standard of living, better health, improved nutrition, and less violence represent progress for most individuals within a community, which in turn drives progress for the whole society.

bluemason3 said:There isn't some singular, absolute abstract goal, obviously. However, it's relatively in the interest of any social, biological, or organized group to be as successful as possible (whether that's survival, resource management, military strength, economic power, security levels, healthcare quality, and so on). That's why it makes sense for a developing nation to try and catch up to—or even surpass—the success of a superpower like the US.

Generally speaking, things like a higher standard of living, better health, improved nutrition, and less violence represent progress for most individuals within a community, which in turn drives progress for the whole society.

There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

Out of all that, only number 2 carries any weight or serves as a real basis for debate. Everything else is just nonsense that flies in the face of actual data.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

In the past, people succumbed to famine. Today, they succumb to obesity. What's the fundamental difference? It comes down to agency. Your choice is to eat nothing but trash.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

Historically, if a couple had twelve children, nine might die, leaving only three survivors.

The notion that parents watching their children perish were somehow more fulfilled than someone living today seems fundamentally flawed, doesn't it?

Furthermore, people weren't on antidepressants back then simply because they didn't exist.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

That isn't accurate. It merely appears that way because warfare technology has advanced; however, I suspect our ancestors would have been just as bloodthirsty if they possessed tanks instead of spears.

Sam Martinez9 said:In the past, people succumbed to famine. Today, they succumb to obesity. What's the fundamental difference? It comes down to agency. Your choice is to eat nothing but trash.

Historically, if a couple had twelve children, nine might die, leaving only three survivors.

The notion that parents watching their children perish were somehow more fulfilled than someone living today seems fundamentally flawed, doesn't it?

Furthermore, people weren't on antidepressants back then simply because they didn't exist.

That isn't accurate. It merely appears that way because warfare technology has advanced; however, I suspect our ancestors would have been just as bloodthirsty if they possessed tanks instead of spears.

We don't really know for sure. All we know is that we eat chemicals, drink chemicals, and take chemicals to fix ourselves, while isolated tribes don't. Personally, I'd say the natural way is better.

And we can't even be certain if isolated tribes fight amongst themselves.

William Palmer7 said:We don't really know for sure. All we know is that we eat chemicals, drink chemicals, and take chemicals to fix ourselves, while isolated tribes don't. Personally, I'd say the natural way is better.

And we can't even be certain if isolated tribes fight amongst themselves.

What exactly don't we know?

Budweiser, everything surrounding us is made of chemical compounds. There’s no such thing as "non-chemical" food or medicine.

And obviously, we eat much better now. We have way more control over food production and storage compared to people who rely solely on whatever they can scavenge in the wild.

Non-standardized medicines where active ingredients haven't been extracted and purified are just worse. You can't dose them precisely, and you end up swallowing a bunch of useless plant matter along with the good stuff.

We actually know quite a bit. I wrote this a few posts ago—people are being silly.
Violent death rates among Stone Age tribal remains sit around 20-50%, while violent death rates in the modern US are about 0.046%.

Granted, not everyone died from violence; many succumbed to disease and malnutrition. But hey, at least they lived their three years to the fullest, dealing with parasites (pretty much everyone in the modern era gets tested for them), rotten teeth, and the constant dread of being speared by a neighboring tribe. Maybe women had it easier and were just picked up for labor, who knows.

Anyway, it's a utopia. 😍

bluemason3 said:What exactly don't we know?

Budweiser, everything surrounding us is made of chemical compounds. There’s no such thing as "non-chemical" food or medicine.

And obviously, we eat much better now. We have way more control over food production and storage compared to people who rely solely on whatever they can scavenge in the wild.

Non-standardized medicines where active ingredients haven't been extracted and purified are just worse. You can't dose them precisely, and you end up swallowing a bunch of useless plant matter along with the good stuff.

We actually know quite a bit. I wrote this a few posts ago—people are being silly.
Violent death rates among Stone Age tribal remains sit around 20-50%, while violent death rates in the modern US are about 0.046%.

Granted, not everyone died from violence; many succumbed to disease and malnutrition. But hey, at least they lived their three years to the fullest, dealing with parasites (pretty much everyone in the modern era gets tested for them), rotten teeth, and the constant dread of being speared by a neighboring tribe. Maybe women had it easier and were just picked up for labor, who knows.

Anyway, it's a utopia. 😍

We can't know how they lived without contact if we haven't reached out yet.
Bringing up the Stone Age doesn't really help our case here.

When I mentioned chemistry, I was referring to man-made, patented compounds.

Though, I suppose even some primitive tribes knew how to isolate and extract certain chemical elements.

William Palmer7 said:We can't know how they lived without contact if we haven't reached out yet.
Bringing up the Stone Age doesn't really help our case here.

When I mentioned chemistry, I was referring to man-made, patented compounds.

Though, I suppose even some primitive tribes knew how to isolate and extract certain chemical elements.

"Uncontacted" is a pretty heavy term. Some people argue there aren't even truly isolated groups left. Most have had some indirect contact through neighboring tribes, or there was contact in the past before they decided to isolate themselves.

Besides, every tribe we interact with today was once uncontacted, so we can learn about their way of life through them.

The Stone Age is definitely relevant since it’s essentially the same lifestyle.

Future hunter-gatherers rely on their environment rather than independent food production (even if some tribes dabble in small-scale farming); just by looking at the location, we can infer a lot about how they live and what they eat.

If the chemical compound is identical, it shouldn't matter whether it's synthetic or pulled from a leaf.

The chemistry aspect here is actually pretty fascinating,

Even the most primitive tribes typically knew how to isolate various toxins, hallucinogens for rituals, or prepare medicinal herbs.

We honestly have no clue how they mastered that. It’s not just some cliché scene from a Western where someone wraps a wound in a leaf; it was much more sophisticated than that.

And they pulled all of that off without any modern labs or formal science,

William Palmer7 said:The chemistry aspect here is actually pretty fascinating,

Even the most primitive tribes typically knew how to isolate various toxins, hallucinogens for rituals, or prepare medicinal herbs.

We honestly have no clue how they mastered that. It’s not just some cliché scene from a Western where someone wraps a wound in a leaf; it was much more sophisticated than that.

And they pulled all of that off without any modern labs or formal science,

They knew what they were doing, but there's a catch.

Some people love to pretend "natural" means better, but if we're talking about hallucinogens, taking something from nature can be way worse than LSD. I mean it in terms of physical toll—what the DEA might call "body load." Since they couldn't perfectly isolate a single active ingredient, you end up swallowing a massive pile of alkaloids that don't help the trip, but definitely poison your system.

It’s certainly not useless,

LSD actually traces its roots back to Bolivia, with traditions stretching back over a millennium.
A thousand years ago, Westerners probably would have just dismissed it as something straight out of a horror movie.

LSD holds quite a bit of prestige.
Sure, pure DMT might be technically superior, but good luck manufacturing pure LSD or DMT while you're wandering through the woods.

How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

William Palmer7 said:It’s certainly not useless,

LSD actually traces its roots back to Bolivia, with traditions stretching back over a millennium.
A thousand years ago, Westerners probably would have just dismissed it as something straight out of a horror movie.

LSD holds quite a bit of prestige.
Sure, pure DMT might be technically superior, but good luck manufacturing pure LSD or DMT while you're wandering through the woods.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good. Just because it alters consciousness—making it seem strange or mystical to a primitive mind—doesn't make it quality stuff. In reality, it's basically controlled poisoning mixed with a heap of superstition.

It’s popular right now because it’s a trend among hippies; tomorrow it'll be something else.

Of course I can't manufacture it myself when I'm living like a caveman without any tech.