The Sorceror's Apprentice

[Steve Booth]

Frank, I agree with what you are saying about what the Primitivists say, but I'm trying to get down to the implications behind their views.

Where you say: '...instead they would generally advocate the complete removal of any technology ...' I think this is a fair summary of the Primitivists' beliefs, but this implies some capacity to control, ie to suppress what sort of inventions are built and used.

In my opinion, the Primitivists have not demonstrated any capacity to persuade a large number of people to take up that principle and to suppress technology and inventions on their behalf. Nor do they seem to believe in any social capacity or principle of agency to deliver such a policy.

Regarding powerlessness, even supposing they could achieve it, the people without technology would be powerless eg against the various hazards like diseases wild animals, or the cold eg. They would always be vulnerable to another tribe with technology - this sounds a bit like the Jacques Ellul line of argument.

Powerlessness again comes back to the image of the people in New Orleans faced by Hurricane Katrina, or working people faced with problems caused through global capitalism. The problem seems so large that people cannot see their way out. I think the Primitivist viewpoint makes technology into a similar sort of monster to runaway global warming or runaway capitalism (eg Fredy Perlman's 'Leviathan'). The Primitivists ascribe personal attributes to it, make it into a thinking being which has conscious states, wills things into being or out of being etc. [The Pathetic Fallacy]

I say technology isn't anything more than the aggregate of the individual decisions being made, and that each of these decisions is made by a person who is responsible. I hope this makes sense.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I see what you mean, and I think this is why primitivists, despite the name, would like to see their worldview in terms of going forward, not going backward. The idea being that primitivist communities will arise as a result of broad consensus that technology has brought us nothing but trouble, and a natural tendency towards abandoning things we don't actually need. Many people think that this change will be an inevtiable consequence of the collapse of industrial society as it exists today; which is seen as inevitable due to resource depletion, population expansion, environmental destruction etc.

A key point about primitivism is that it would only be a viable way to live if there were far fewer people in the world than there are today. As things stand conflict over land and resources will be inevitable even without any form of centralised authority guiding it.

As for the risks you talked about, firstly most infectious diseases can only spread amongst large populations, with small independant communities and a smaller total population of humans most diseases are likely to become very rare or even extinct. Other diseases such as cancer will probably fall dramatically as well in a situation where people lead naturally active, unconstrained lifestyles and eat only natural foods. As for wild animals and the cold, it is perfectly possible to make shelters and means of defense/hunting using simple tools and techniques which can be shared by everyone. And nobody would suggest we abolish fire

Essentially, the ideal primitivist world requires an acknowledgement of the past and a common realisation of why complex technologies are no longer used, and why they are not necessary.

 

[8ball]

How much technology are you allowed as a primitivist?

Cos you gotta nail this down to have a primitivist community or there will be arguments.

 

[In Bloom]

As for the risks you talked about, firstly most infectious diseases can only spread amongst large populations, with small independant communities and a smaller total population of humans most diseases are likely to become very rare or even extinct. Other diseases such as cancer will probably fall dramatically as well in a situation where people lead naturally active, unconstrained lifestyles and eat only natural foods. As for wild animals and the cold, it is perfectly possible to make shelters and means of defense/hunting using simple tools and techniques which can be shared by everyone. And nobody would suggest we abolish fire

Just so I can be sure, are you actually suggesting that people were healthier before the development of modern technology?

 

[Steve Booth]

Frank, the technology reduction idea / appropriate level of technology - 'the natural tendency towards abandoning things we don't actually need' - isn't necessarily Primitivism. At the best it's a soft form of Primitivism, or it could be a sort of regression to a simpler lifestyle, a downshifting. I suppose this depends upon who decides, and how we define 'need'.

The hardline Primitivists want an absolute rejection of technology, but there are not so many of these people.

The population reduction point which you make has been an objection against Primitivism for a long time. I think there is some strength to it, although not all Primitivists share this view. George Bradford 'How Deep is Deep Ecology' eg (1989), though more recently some of the US Primitivists have been more directly 'in yer face' Malthusians.

Just one small thing about the disease pool point: Diseases like Malaria seem to spread even in areas where there are low human population densities.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Just one small thing about the disease pool point: Diseases like Malaria seem to spread even in areas where there are low human population densities.

Malaria is an exception because of how it is transmitted. The vectors (mozzies) will spread over a large area even if the hosts (us) don't. Diseases that can only pass directly between humans require a certain population size or they will become extinct after a single outbreak due to the development of herd immunity.

Just so I can be sure, are you actually suggesting that people were healthier before the development of modern technology?

Almost certainly. No pollution, only natural foods, far fewer infectious diseases, active lifestyles, no booze or drugs. Heart disease, lung cancer, type II diabetes, measles, 'flu and any number of other diseases would be effectively non-existent. Civillisation is bad for you.

 

[Steve Booth]

In Mali 20.46 young children per 1,000 head of population died of malaria; 2001 statistic - source Guardian newspaper supplement 'Towards a Fairer World' issued in September 2005. Mali's population density appears to be around 16 people per square mile.

I wonder about other diseases like river blindness, rift valley fever. These seem to occur in countries with low population densities.

There are also other natural hazards like wild animals, tigers, lions, crocodiles, or snakes and insects with poisonous bites like scorpions. It seems to me that the non-civilized world too, is fraught with hazards.

 

[poster342002]

How much technology are you allowed as a primitivist?

Enough to film the piles of refridgerators, TVs and medical equipment rusting in the emptied cities.

 

[Steve Booth]

With respects, I don't think Malaria is the only exception. There are other diseases like Bilharzia (Schistosomiasis), Sleeping sickness and Elephantiasis too. The Infant mortality rate in Sierra Leone, (population density 137 per square mile) is 363 children out of 1000 die before their fifth birthday. [Source Guardian, July 2003]

I think the Jared Diamond 'Guns Germs and Steel' theme has limitations.
Spooky Frank claimed 'most infectious diseases can only spread amongst large populations. With small independent communities and a smaller total poulation of humans most diseases are likely to become very rare or even extinct.' [posting 32 on this thread]
I think the examples of natural hazards and diseases discussed here contradict that opinion.

I think the thread has got a bit sidetracked away from the question about technology being an intermeshing whole, and the Primitivist arguments against the neutrality of technology.

Is the supposed domination of technology over people a state of mind? or is it a fact?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

 

[poster342002]

I think the thread has got a bit sidetracked away from the question about technology being an intermeshing whole, and the Primitivist arguments against the neutrality of technology.

Is the supposed domination of technology over people a state of mind? or is it a fact?

I don't know, but the only time anything like a primitivist regime came to power the result was horrific.

 

[dylanredefined]

How many people could the uk support if we went to a primitive style society and where would the rest go ?