[Decky]

Funny I thought he said 'give up and you will be shot like partridges'

No that's what he did.

[Paradigm]

For what it's worth, here's anarcho-primitivist Derrick Jensen explaining the anti-civ critique:

[youtube]QLiDcLua58I[/youtube]

[SolarCross]

Paradigm - interesting, his argument has some truth to it.. but well it is not as if non-city dwelling people didn't war, eg the mongols! warring to get stuff that is 'needed' is surely the cause of most (if not all) wars and self-sufficiency will do much to prevent that cause but there are other ways to mitigate this risk like multiple inter-dependancy. The more extensive your trade network the less dependant you are on any one supplier which provides redundancy in case of supply failure as well allowing a better bargaining position.

[Nunt]

cause of most (if not all) wars and self-sufficiency will do much to prevent that cause

Why would this be. Self sufficiency means that you only consume what you produce. But this not eliminate that people perceive a need for more wealth. Imo self sufficient societies are more likely to wage war. If they attack their neighbour, they lose nothing. They werent getting anything from their neighbour in the first place. Second, there are limits to self sufficiency. Not every location/people can produce everything equally well. So if your neighbour makes some awesome good, then you could either get it trough trade or you could take it from them by force. If trade is not an option, then force definatly is.

[Suska]

The issue was put to me as a matter of "hydraulic civilization" [Maurer, History Explained]. The Mesopotamians developed a society reliant on irrigation. Even though the benefits of irrigation are clear the infrastructure can be a burden, it necessitates bureaucracy and continual labor. So I don't even have to go as far as to talk about imported resources or property and labor as it benefits a minority. Even in the case that it benefits everyone - even in the case that a population has already expanded to the point of requiring the infrastructural elements to sustain itself - even in the case that the labor has not compounded and continually become more difficult every generation of living people has to want this and want to work at this, and when they don't the food supply collapses. The interesting thing from my perspective is that this actually happens. Probably for a number of reasons including warfare, mismanagement, cultural malaise, what have you.

We live in a presumption about how much we want. We have duties instead of initiatives. You can't even own land in the modern world without paying something continually. You can't have the money to do that without some kind of employment (past or present), and generally you can't be employed unless you can get around in a car. It's not just the effort people object to but the preordained quality of it. The wonderful system without which cities would die, and let me remind you of the general animosities between rural and urban cultures. Rome, as a detailed example, eventually stole and distributed land among loyalists, bullied Egypt and so on to survive. And when the "dream that was Rome" came to look like a lie that was pure bullshit the whole thing turned into scrap for anyone to break down and cart off.

We live in a massively "hydraulic" civilization. We are born into a sort of slavery. We are dependent. We cannot take a break. When the burden fails to compensate - when oil runs out - when partisan grudges mean we can't cooperate like we used to the whole thing needs to be scaled back or tyranny becomes the answer.

...

The idea that self-sufficiency would naturally lead to militarism is silly. Canadians would be a bigger threat in that case. The fact is we're talking about ways of life and the natures of contentment and escalation (ambition). Civilization can go fuck itself as far as I'm concerned. Even if that means a massive die-off. If its MY ambition to help generate and sustain it then I will do that work gladly. If not well, I may look fondly on New Yorkers and work the ground for their surplus, or simply hearing what they have to say, and want to do, recognize that not only do they play stupid games with ridiculous amounts of money but they are not quiet about the cultural and political animosity they have toward rural people. So I may not, and I may not be the only one.

Honestly, if it's just a habit and a hassle fuck it. I'd rather live in a tree.

[Nunt]

The idea that self-sufficiency would naturally lead to militarism is silly. Canadians would be a bigger threat in that case.

1) Please read the nuance "more likely to lead to aggression" rather than "will naturally lead to aggression"
2) The US trades quite a lot with Canada.

[Suska]

"more likely to lead to aggression" is still complete nonsense. The fact that a nation trades doesn't mean anything if those trades aren't necessary. What you're saying is that a people who don't need to trade at all will be inclined to use that against others but it doesn't follow that everyone is a violence escalating imperialist, and every aspect of life a factor in that.

In fact Canada is probably one of the most self-contented territories on Earth, as Canadians are in general individually. It probably has something to do with consisting of a huge resource rich wilderness and a small population, much of which fancies itself wilderness-savy. The Canadian back yard is big enough to swallow a handful of European nations and they have a strong frontier tradition. But even this doesn't really enter the calculation as much as most would think. Individual Canadians tend to be moderate with their ambitions, like the Dutch or the Danish. That's a personal choice about a quiet simple life - it strikes your average American as boring.

[Nunt]

"more likely to lead to aggression" is still complete nonsense.

There a whole literature on how trade promotes peace. Just google it.

[Suska]

Are you saying that? That trade promotes peace? Or are you saying that a lack of trade promotes war?

What I'm saying is that such generalizations are nonsense.