Ok... well first of all most of the North American indigenous peoples were agrarian and supplemented with hunting and gathering. So I'm not sure where your thesis of Neolithic technology being the only sustainable level of technology fits in since they were a little more advanced than that.

Being able to know which flora is edible doesn't mean you understand sustainability. My argument is that primitive people didn't care about the sustainability of the land on which they lived, it was just that for the most part they weren't "successful" enough to cause major ecological damage. There are numerous examples of primitive peoples causing major ecological damage when given the opportunity... like I said, check out the mass extinctions of large mammals across North America, Australia, and parts of Asia and Europe upon the advent of Homo sapiens. Hell, even non-human organisms cause extensive ecological damage when given the opportunity and they have no technology. Hunter gatherers didn't understand that their habits caused their prey to become smaller and smaller through natural selection, or the population dynamics of the organisms around them, just as early farmers had no idea that extensive farming would cause their land to become barren of nutrients... but just as they learned and began crop rotation, we now understand most of the mechanics underlying population dynamics and ecological damage. It's because of civilization that people are able to devote their entire life's work to that cause and that we know so much about all of this.

I don't think we've reached the critical mass at which our greed has stripped and doomed the Earth. I don't agree that primitive life is better than civilized life, but I do agree that our sustainability is definitely a major issue that must be addressed. I just don't think civilization is necessarily at fault... it's us.

No... progress is not relative... it's tautologically measurable. You're not listening. The measure of progress doesn't make value judgements... it merely measures our capabilities. With enough energy and ingenuity we can fashion great machines that could control the Earth's weather... with enough energy we could theoretically survive through any natural phenomena thrown our way, such as supernovas or the collision of galaxies... hell with enough energy we could rip a hole in space-time and see what lies beyond our universe.

Ironically, what you hate most in civilized life, the materialism, the waste, the bourgeoisie... these are all the things that you say will expedite our descent back into hunter gatherer conditions... well at least that's what you used to say. Now it seems you think the world is just plain doomed. That humans will be gone... that perhaps life will be gone? I'll tell you that's quite unlikely... even if we launched every nuke on the Earth we don't have the energy capability to destroy the Earth, and even then, I assure you, bacteria will live on... and if you wait long enough, we might be back to make the same mistakes.

what you hate most in civilized life, the materialism, the waste, the bourgeoisie... these are all the things that you say will expedite our descent back into hunter gatherer conditions

yeah. I know.

the us has enough nukes alone to blow up the surface of the earth 16 times.
so yeah there might still be a rock floating in space here. but to me, that qualifies as destroying the planet. destroy does does not imply disintigration sp

sorry the response was so short I'm strapped for time, I'll post an actual reply soonish

Okay, if I'm counting so far, Sicarius values shoes, fire, religion, philosophy, medicine, education, and mass communication abilities. Many are products of civilization, and some have achieved a pinnacle of relevance in human life after the advent of civilization. (Fur shoes, don't count to me, I don't think we should wear animals as a fashion statement, but whatever floats your boat).

But, what is civilization? A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities. Compared with other cultures, members of a civilization are organized into a diverse division of labor and an intricate social hierarchy.

Sicarius, I assume you take except with agriculture and city-living? Is it farming only or also the domestication of animals you reject? Will your world not contain cows, pigs, goats, dogs, cats, etc.?

Regardless, it is naïve to argue that agriculture and city-living themselves are unsustainable - after all cities have been around for thousands of years - I call that a proven track-record. What you call unsustainable is an issue of carrying capacity – that we will eventually exceed the ability to provide for an expansion of city-living by current modes of agricultural production. Well, as others have pointed out, that has happened many, many times before pre-agriculture and post-agriculture. So, I don't see the value of your sustainability argument - every social ordering is sustainable/unsustainable depending on resource over-consumption.

Here’s the $64,000 question, where do you draw the line? In your brave new world there will be medicine, shoes, clothes, fire, education, religion, and philosophy to a degree. Yet, there will be no cities, cars, Tivos, McDonald’s, or television. What else are you going to throw out the window? What will people do to support their new hunter-gatherer lifestyle? If farming and ranching are out, will you teach us how to hunt again and will there be enough game? If farming is in, what techniques do you reject? Is the Amish way of life sustainable in your version of sustainability?

Very well put.

what i value, science.

the fact that this society allows and supports scientific research of all kinds, so we can understand more about this little universe we live in. (without that Sicarius would be without his ideas about sustainability)

The fact that our natural resources are limited doesn't neccesarily mean we shouldn't use them.

The fact that some chemical processes may release dioxines into the enviroment is not reason to stop abandon civilisation. (it may be reason enough to stop using these specific practices, but you wouldn't know any of this without science)

The sustainability of our civilisation relies almost entirely on energy. We can seperate whatever resources we like from our landfills if we have enough energy/time. The sun is a limited resource (about 4 billions year worth) so arguably no civilisation on earth in indefinitely sustainable.

with scienctific advances it may become possible within that 4 billion years to sustain ourselves beyond the sun's lifetime.

in the shorter term we are likley to be able to divert asteroids which threaten us.

And yes, it is possible that our civilisation will collapse.
That due to climate change (changing rainfall patterns ruining our food/water supplies and several water wars breaking out, famine reducing world population dramatically) and if this results in a return to hunter gatherer pratcies then so be it. I don't hate our civilisation because it may collapse.

That is like saying no o bother trying to do something because you might fail.

people have always had a choice of how to live their lives.
Some grow food in their gardens, but as it happen subsistence level farming is difficult, it requires a lot of time and effort to grow enough food for yourself and your family without mechanised equipment. (even if you don't use oil to fertilise the food, (google: Haber process/nitrogen fixation) you will still find it easier to use fuel to power your machines.)

a majority of people will always choose the laziest option. unless you offer an alternative which allow people to be even lazier then you will fail to have a majority choose you option, whatever colourful arguments you present on the internet.

it is a simple matter of sustainibility chikpea, carrying capacity.
it's not 'my' world and I dont get to choose what is in it.

whatever is unsustainable will have to go.

also you have been mis-reading my posts

cities are by nature unsustainable. they must take resources in from other places (usually by force) to keep themselves running.


what is done to the earth is done to ourselves.



also I'm questioning, once again, why I continue to argue this here

I'm continuing to question THAT you are arguing here. For example, saying cities are unsustainable by nature because resources come from elsewhere is a conclusion that you provide no evidene to refute.

If we all live in caves we will also take resources from surrounding fields, which would be other places, in order to sustain our caves. I am misreading nothing, you just have a simplistic worldview that you have not critically examined in light of other arguments to the contrary.

Very interesting, folks. I liked the past about the toasted bagels and ipods, though I don't own a Tivo. Just for curiosity's sake, what part of the planet do you all hail from?

ok take 20 square miles of country. the people living there can support themselves through agriculture or animal husbandry or hunting or gathering.
the land can support the people living on it

in 20 square miles of say, new york the only source of food is grocery stores. that food comes from somewhere, and it does not come from the city. they must take it from other places.



alsio my first statement was "cities are by nature unsustainable. they must take resources in from other places (usually by force) to keep themselves running." if you dont agree its your job to find what about it you disagree with.

I am from north america

What I don't agree with is the notion of cities being unsustainable because food comes from elsewhere. Within your 20 square miles of farmland the food comes from different parts of that 20 square miles to make the whole sustainable, i.e. you need that 20 square miles to sustain a population and not 10 or 15. Cities don't produce food, but the country overproduces food to sustain the cities - in other words the amount of land needed to sustain cities is greater and located in a different place - BUT that does not make cities by definition unsustainable. Where are you getting this "by force notion"? I don't hijack the grocery truck, nor do I plunder the countryside for my meals.

"cities are by nature unsustainable. they must take resources in from other places (usually by force) to keep themselves running."

I agree with Chickpeas points on sustainability. I understand where you are coming from sicarius, but it doesn't matter. It would be a problem if the ocutnry was being ravaged by city dwellers continously like something out of the viking era. But actually we just trade them things for their food, thats how our economy works. The country has a comparative advantage in food production.

yeah it works out for everyone.

unless the people dont want to give up their resources. thats when its taken by force.
food
oil
lumber
gold
really doesnt matter

if the people in power want it, they get it.

Sic, you've got it backwards. Cities don't steal food from the country... the country produces enough surplus via agriculture that people can afford to live together in large numbers known as cities. It's just more efficient to cluster in such a city instead of spreading the love around.

Your idea seems to say that life itself is unsustainable because one of the fundamental characteristics of life is that the organism draws energy from it's environment, including other organisms, in order to maintain it's own structure and homeostasis. That is to say, it's negentropy.

You're foolish if you think anarchy won't have people in power taking resources from others. You'll find that the biggest and smartest people will always shove others down in order to further their own ends. Hunter gathering tribes frequently drive other less numerous or powerful tribes out of their land... tribes in New Guinea used to eat other tribes because food was scarce enough to justify it... The powerful most certainly take from the weak in primitive tribes.

Much of the purpose of government is to maintain a monopoly of violence. Obviously, that seems to be what you have a problem with, but it keeps societies from degenerating into numerous competing filial tribal groups and allows us to co-operate for mutual benefit. It's the government that drives us out of our Nash equilibrium... though there must certainly be limits to government power, that is not to say governments are inherently wrong.

of course the country produces a surplus. thats the point. but just because its there does not mean you should take it. when you take all there is, well thats unsustainable.

sorry if I'm wearing the word out but I'm sure you see the nesscessity.

the city cannot support itself. that is unsustainability. it does not produce the resources it needs, so it takes them from elsewhere
that IS unsustainability.

Also the point of anarchy is that no one is in power. I'm sure you knew that so I'm assuming you meant the stray sheep that thinks they can seize power?

How do you keep people disempowered? People inherently have will and power. Many people will use these things to attain their goals. These goals are often to attain more power. Once this cycle has begun, you have a discrepancy of power and a power structure evolves. How will you evade such a power structure? Do you plan to take away all people's power through some sort of lobotomy program or possibly a limb-removal service?

@Sicarius
"the city cannot support itself. that is unsustainability. it does not produce the resources it needs, so it takes them from elsewhere
that IS unsustainability. "

But the city becomes sustainable through trade. Are you saying that every region should be completely self-sufficient. Why is that necessary? Even primitive cultures practice trade.

To further spyman's point the world's current population would not be sustainable if broken into a sparsely populated series of tribe-sized societies. We need post-agricultural revolution technologies to divert a Malthusian crisis.

Beyond that post-agricultural revolution strategies design themselves to produce the most food with the least effort. Countries which have not developed through an agricultural revolution in which the majority of people produce their own food (ie. Sierra Leone and a number of other countries in West Africa) are dirt poor. No matter how hard they work their farm they are never going to be capable of producing enough food to sustain their families comfortably and without a 1/4 of starving in a bad season.

If you are against industrial-level farming and fishing I doubt the earth could mantain 10% of its current population. Leaving your anarchaic utopia ultimately less feesable than our current path.

Thanks, spyman. Self-sufficient does not equal unsustainable. All of the countryside is not even self-sufficient. Where do all the tractors, fertilizers, farm implements (like rakes, shovels, hoes, etc.) come from? Factories that are located in the city. Wow, what an amazing interconnected world we live in. Shocking!

Well, it has been mentioned, but you have a strange definition of unsustainable. =P

My point is that I don't think perfect anarchy can attained without drastic measures to make people homogenous... and without that you're just fooling yourself if you think people will hold hands and work together. This isn't an opinion, it's proved all the time through psychological experiments, even with children. People are inherently selfish... if given the opportunity they will exploit others... even to the point that both of them are worse off than they would have been if they co-operated. It's the terrible conclusion of the Nash equilibrium in game theory, but we see it all the time in nature, business, and daily interaction.

I think we already discussed the fact that your idea of a gift economy is really just free market capitalism wrapped in a pretty box with a little bow on top.

oh ok, you listen to john nash. I get it now.

you realize game theory is totally unrealistic, it has been disproven repeatedly. Also, nash was crazy. a paranoid schizophrenic who heard voices, who thought he was part of a secret club, who thought everyone with a red tie was a communist spy. and this is the man you're relying on for social commentary?

the experiments you speak of were exactly opposite of that. they proved that people always worked together and were not inherently selfish.
watch 'the trap' it was a documentary that aired on BBC
its about this specifically

also anarchy is not about disempowerment at all, just the opposite.

I say that cities are unsustainable in that the landbase cannot support the people living on it.

How is anarchy not about disempowerment? Isn't about NOBODY being in power?

Farms around cities are also not sustainable on their own landbase... they require many goods and services provided by cities. Consider the city unit to be the urban centre and the country surrounding it and you reach self sustainability by your wacky definition.

I don't listen to John Nash... I listen to game theory. It doesn't matter if he was a flawed man, it matters that his idea has been backed by all blinded experiments. You don't need to be paranoid schizophrenic to predict the actions of others... we do it all the time, in Diplomacy, in picking out Christmas presents, in corporate competition, etc. Humans are constantly making predictions, especially about the people around them... it's a major evolutionary reason that we have large brains as do all social animals (relatively). It's why a broken escalator might appear to be moving in the direction opposite to that which it normally does and seem eerie... it's because you expect and predict it to be working and going the other way.

The "experiment" done in the trap was done with secretaries. The secretaries probably knew each other, and may have already understood the experiment and perhaps even knew that the results might be published. The fact is that their co-operation was in no way disproof of game theory... it was simply that the game matrix was heavily influenced by metagame factors. These factors were still selfish and tilted the matrix in favour of co-operating. The secretaries might have co-operated to maintain their out of game relationships which could have been spoiled for a relatively unimportant game. Additionally if they understood the experiment they might have purposely co-operated because they might be conceived as more "noble" and "big". They did it for peer approval... Hell, most of the people contributing to charities do it out of guilt, or because they would like to brag about it at cocktail parties. Selfish motive, unselfish outcome. That's the basis of free market capitalism.

Of course people will co-operate in certain instances, but this is because the benefits of co-operating outweigh the risk of not competing. This is a large role of government, which through the monopoly of violence creates incentives through laws that tip the game theory matrix in favour of co-operation. Civilized people murder less than hunter gatherer's not because they're less selfish, but because there's a larger price to be paid in the form of jail time. Anarchy will of course have instances of co-operation... this is apparent to anyone who looks at historical anarchies... but there will always be instances where competing is the natural outcome... and those who choose to co-operate in this environment would be penalized. This is why I think a perfect anarchy is impossible without some sort of homogenizing factor a la Brave New World... but then, even communism would work.

If you try an experiment taking random persons and have them play a simple, anonymous game of co-operate or compete with each other... and have cash rewards involved... you'll find that by varying the game theory matrix with different rewards for each set of combinations of choices you can statistically reach the theoretical conclusion of game theory.

@sicarius
"I say that cities are unsustainable in that the landbase cannot support the people living on it."

Surely whether or not a particular city is sustainable is contingent on many factors - the productive capability of the supporting land-base being one of them. It is a rather sweeping generalization to say that cities per say are unsustainable.

Earlier you argued that self-sufficiency is a prerequisite for sustainability. Do you still stand by that point? It it seems to me to be a key premise to your argument, but it is one that is easily refuted: trade makes sustainability possible without self-sufficiency. You haven't answered that yet.

I just watched about a half of The Trap (this bbc program that Sicarius recommended) and it seems to be mostly rubbish. Do they ever explain an alternative view on human nature than the "cold war era" one? Also, why do they think that selfishness and strategizing were invented in the cold war? What about the other delicate balances of power, influence and opposing desires that have existed throughout history (as any player of Diplomacy would know)?

This film claims that we are not free but doesn't describe what "true" freedom is. Am I to take it that "true" freedom is pre-1930's anything goes capitalism? Please help me out, Sicarius.

All living organisms take resources from one spot to another in order to survive.
Nothing can subsist simply on what it stands on: no piece of life can ever be a standalone thing (though cockroaches do try...)

A living cell is essentially an efficient redistributive mechinism.

By your definition Sicarius, life itself is unsustainable.

Should we revert back to the pre-life stages of existence? :P I don't know if I like where this is headed...