Industrial Society And Its Future

>robin williams an hero'd despite being rich and famous

He had dementia dude.

Yeah, I mean that's why he committed suicide.

huh

Think about how much human action is required to run your car. There had to be miners and oil workers to extract the raw materials, factory workers to refine them, more factory workers to manufacture and assemble the parts, men to transport and sell and maintain.
The more complex the technology becomes, the larger these dependent systems grow. And the more complex they become, the more restrictive they are. Each link in the chain needs to do a job to precise specifications at a precise time, etc. in order for the whole thing to function without collapsing.
Replicators, superdrugs, neurotech, space exploration, etc. would almost certainly require these systems at a level of complexity and restrictiveness we can barely imagine.

And what do you plan on doing in the meantime? Waiting for it all to collapse or moving to live off the land?
Genuine question by the way. I've asked myself the same and even going Amish doesn't seem to be the answer.

That's the thing. I actually read ISAIF and other anprim works and I largely agree with the conclusions but what people, especially and in particularly Ted, doesn't realize is why people are reluctant to live primitively. They want quality of life. They don't want to die so easily which is what a transition to a primitive friendly governance would look like. It's why we transitioned from foraging to agriculture. We're the only animals who are self aware enough to be scared of death and want efficiency, so people are going to massively resist anything demonstrating regression. If they could help it, that is.
Honestly, and I mean this without value judgement, a lot of people who are inclined toward primitivism are those on the spectrum, myself likely included. I believe it's because of some remnant of neanderthal gene. During a major societal collapse the future will look majorly autistic.

The decline in health care quality would be a major hurdle.

Ted is not Anprim. He wrote an article against Anprim even.

I wish this would stop being repeated. He's against "Anprim" not anprim. He associates that label with Zerzan who claims there was gender equality and a shorter workday, which he refuted in one of his works. I've read Ted's writing. He's not for an agrarian society, or a medieval one like Skrbina. He lashed out against agriculture though he admits there's no stopping people from small scale farming. He's against large scale technology and prefers a hunter gatherer society. If anprim is only defined by Zerzan's terms, I agree with you. But I have no idea what else to call him.

to add on to what

The decline in health care quality would be a major hurdle.
[...]
I wish this would stop being repeated. He's against "Anprim" not anprim. He associates that label with Zerzan who claims there was gender equality and a shorter workday, which he refuted in one of his works. I've read Ted's writing. He's not for an agrarian society, or a medieval one like Skrbina. He lashed out against agriculture though he admits there's no stopping people from small scale farming. He's against large scale technology and prefers a hunter gatherer society. If anprim is only defined by Zerzan's terms, I agree with you. But I have no idea what else to call him.

said, Ted is criticizing the myth of anarchoprimitivism, that hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian, tolerant, and worked less. In reality, they were likely patriarchal, violent, homophobic, etc. and while do not have modern “work” like we do (Ted touches on this with his usual psychological analysis) they labored for a great deal of the day.
“Anarchism” vis-a-vis rejection of government control and “Primitivism” are both concepts that Ted writes in favor of, though he has no illusions that these would be fairy tale societies.

The decline in health care quality would be a major hurdle.
[...]
I wish this would stop being repeated. He's against "Anprim" not anprim. He associates that label with Zerzan who claims there was gender equality and a shorter workday, which he refuted in one of his works. I've read Ted's writing. He's not for an agrarian society, or a medieval one like Skrbina. He lashed out against agriculture though he admits there's no stopping people from small scale farming. He's against large scale technology and prefers a hunter gatherer society. If anprim is only defined by Zerzan's terms, I agree with you. But I have no idea what else to call him.

>The decline in health care quality would be a major hurdle.
No microplastics and ubiquitous toxins, less stress and mental illness, more exercise and the benefits that comes with that, etc.
Ultimately there are many things we should keep rather than return to the past. The more medical knowledge that can be preserved, the better, even if we can’t make grandma’s insulin anymore.

Sorry, I’m not trying to convince you of the necessity of anti-tech, since you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject. I’m just adding my own stance, that we should actively work to preserve most of our system-independent technology. I know that some neo-Luddites instead prefer to have absolute technological regression.
Where do you stand on that?

Nice