Thoughts on anarcho-primitivism

There have been an increasing number of reports into the state of the planet, and how as a species mankind is creating a range of problems with the impact that our societies have. It appears that there is concensus that we do not generally live sustainably, and that a consequence of this could well be that we either need to change our way of interacting with the plant, or change the size of our population. Ideas of overpopulation really began with Thomas Malthus, and his investigations into the land requirements to provide for the food needs of expanding populations. Since then there have been a number of investigations into sustainable population levels with figures suggesting that we are already overpopulated by a factor of six, to suggestions that we can sustain an additional three billion people yet. The problem with these investigations, and with many others into areas such as the use of fossil fuels or climate change is that there seems to be an expectation in the general population, particularly in the developed world, that a solution will be found in time to make everything alright without any need for radical change.

This almost certainly comes from the developed worlds reliance on technology and innovation over the last 300 years, and the certainty with which scientific pronouncements are made. Additionally, the development of the western world has led to increased aspirational growth in the developing world and a feeling of inequality which will make re-organising resources or potentially limiting resources, much more difficult. These inputs in combination have led some people to suggest that there is a need to be prepared for a time of severe austerity and difficulty in the foreseeable future, and the breakup of civilization. Should this occur people will be forced, it is argued, to return to a far more self reliant hunter gatherer lifestyle. This brings it's own difficulties since if we compare the populations of both hunter and prey in early human history when we were hunter gatherers we find a far higher ratio of prey to hunter with vast herds of prey animals being pursued by small bands of hunters.

We see this most clearly in North America, where prior to European settlement there are stories of the indigenous tribes living just such an existance with an oral tradition of vast herds of buffalo and bison, rivers teaming with fish so dense that they became a bridge, flocks of birds miles wide, and vast plains of usable plants for berries and seeds. These resources are no longer so freely available, research has suggested that we have reduced fish stocks by 90%+ for some key species, large land mammals by 80%+ and at the same time the population pressure on those resources has incresed by a factor of 10000 or so. Not asustainable position. James Lovelock has suggested that we need an urgent depopulation of something in the order of 80% of the human population, but bearing in mind the impact that we have already had, this doesn't seem like anything like enough.

I would argue that having an apocalypse plan, and learning the skills required to survive post-civilisation is a useful practice, but taking it the step further and beginning to follow a primitivist lifestyle now really serves no purpose and risks missing any technological developments that may prove useful. It appeals on an emotional level, but not on a cerebral one.