Stone Age Freedom
by Jason GodeskyThe Stone Age is making a comeback. It doesn’t matter if we want it or not. Collapse is inevitable; civilization is unsustainable, and it must end soon, one way or another. The key to survival is to separate ourselves from our doomed civilization, to ensure that when it dies, we are no longer dependent on it. Critics of primitivism like to point out that the Stone Age way of life is only viable if some 99% of the world’s population dies off. They are right; but we face precisely that in the near future. There is nothing that can change that, but we can change how we react to that fact. As we saw in thesis #20, thesis #27, and thesis #30, collapse is not necessarily such a bad thing. It is far preferable to the alternative. Every human being will be faced with a choice: to die as civilized people, or to thrive in a new Stone Age. Our myths of “the primitive” cloud our understanding of what that means, and leads us into despair. It shouldn’t. We should not hear “Stone Age” and think of a life that is “nasty, brutish and short“; rather, we should understand that living in the Stone Age means being free for the first time in our lives.
Thomas Elpel, author of Botany in a Day, founder of Hollowtop Outdoor Primitive School, major contributor to the Society of Primitive Technology, and all-around primitive skills guru, thinks differently. In “The Quest for Freedom,” Elpel makes the argument that Stone Age living is, at best, a “metaphor” that points us towards a sustainable way of life. While I wouldn’t think of arguing what it’s like to live primitively with Elpel any more than I would argue physics with Einstein (I don’t really know physics very well), his vision of sustainability is not the least bit sustainable. In the article, he pushes for ecologically-friendly home relying on solar power and other “green” technologies. All of them rely on an industrial economy, which itself relies on increasing complexity and fossil fuels. Such “green” technologies use energy more efficiently, but as Jevons paradox shows, using energy more efficiently will result in more energy consumption overall, not less. As Elpel himself admits, “Creating a fully sustainable industrial society is mostly a matter of scaling up the issues of sustainability from one household to every household, business, building and process in our economy.” Of course, the very problem with all of our “green” technologies to date, such as biodiesel, is precisely that they do not scale. Like Daniel Quinn, Elpel diagnoses civilization’s problem as one of vision:
For those who correctly see that ‘civilization is the problem,’ the sustainable alternative they’ve been searching for doesn’t look much different on the surface–there are still houses and cars and media–but it will be powered by a completely new, much more holistic worldview.
This suffers from the same flaw as Quinn’s writing: “vision” is not an independent variable in a culture. Our vision comes from the way we live, not vice versa.
Why should we settle for a mirage of “green” techno-sustainability at all? Elpel says it’s because the Stone Age wasn’t sustainable, either. His case comes down to a single paragraph:
But knowing that civilization isn’t sustainable doesn’t justify the conclusion that Stone Age living somehow is. Stone Age living would be just barely sustainable if we killed off about 95% of the present human population. Even then, it would require becoming nomadic in many environments to allow excessively over-harvested areas recover. Indeed, with only Stone Age technologies, our ancestors succeeded in causing significant deforestation (e.g. present-day Arizona), desertification (e.g. present-day Australia), and mass species extinctions (e.g. mammoths in North America). The rate of environmental destruction by the human race was much slower during the Stone Age than it is today, but the effect was ultimately the same. It was unsustainable.
Elpel repeats the point about the population, but this puts the problem entirely backwards. He characterizes primitivists like us as people “who foresee the ultimate crash of civilization and a coming time when people will be forced to return to the Stone Age or die.” The issue that everyone can’t do it is a non-issue. It’s quite true that everyone can’t do it. Everyone won’t do it. For the 1% who will survive, however, it is precisely how they will do so. Anyone who depends on a system that is collapsing will die with that system. The survivors will be those who are not dependent on it.
Elpel correctly points out that a Stone Age existence is a nomadic one, but while his writing certainly seems to indicate that this is a negative thing, he does not indicate why. In our own society, the kind of nomadic lifestyle enjoyed by hunter-gatherers is reserved only for the extremely wealthy who can afford winter and summer homes, and move seasonally between them. Stone Age foragers maintain an annual cycle, moving between a few seasonal camps in the same fashion. They also enjoy the kind of leisure–and the same recreational activities–as our most wealthy. That is to say, in civilization, one can measure one’s wealth, power and prestige by how much one can afford to live in the fashion that all humans once lived.
Elpel’s main point about the unsustainability of the Stone Age is a rehashing of the “overkill” theory, which we have discussed here before. Then, I concluded:
No, there was no noble savage; but there was no murderous savage, either. Humans were not created good or evil–just human. Our entrance into the Americas, Oceania and the rest of the world was as harmless as wolves, lions or sharks. My words there are carefully chosen. We don’t normally consider wolves, lions or sharks particularly “harmless,” and neither were humans. But we recognize the place such predators have in the natural world. We recognize that they’re part of a bigger picture. We know that introducing them into a new situation will have far-reaching effects on that situation, but we also know that’s not a reflection of their own nature, but the nature of ecology itself. Just like humans.
So, Elpel’s argument that the Stone Age was “unsustainable” rests on an incredibly tenuous piece of evidence. He’s right, the unsustainability of civilization does not imply that the Stone Age was sustainable. It was the sustainability of the Stone Age itself that proved that. While Elpel depicts the Stone Age as unsustainable without good evidence, at the same time, he depicts “green” technology as sustainable–again, with no good evidence.
Elsewhere, Elpel points out that the Stone Age life is a difficult one. That may well be true, but if so, Elpel neglects to point out: so is the civilized one. As we saw in thesis #25, the Stone Age quality of life is far, far superior to our own.
Elpel depicts Stone Age life as a difficult one, and were it the only account we had to go by, we might be very discouraged. Fortunately, we also have a much more useful example from Brent Ladd, titled, “Realities of Going Primitive.”
Ladd and Elpel have both accomplished what the Tribe of Anthropik is trying to start: to make a go of primitive living, separating the umbilical cord that binds us and ending our reliance on civilization. Elpel has found a life that’s far better than most in an ecologically-friendly house that’s much less unsustainable than, say, my apartment building. Ladd’s life was not a pure primitive experience, either, as he himself admits.
Ladd outlines the difficulties of “going primitive” in the modern world. Civilization cannot coexist with anything, and while a very clever person can becoming more or less primitive on its periphery, it has an array of methods to deny anyone the possibility of living any other way. Ladd illustrates many of them: hunting regulations and bag limits geared towards trophy hunters rather than meat hunters; rules in national forests and privately-owned forests that severely restrict mobility and necessary resources; even, in one instance, the threat of having one’s children taken away by Children and Youth Services, because wigwams do not meet the codes required: tar paper on the roof, a wooden floor, no open fire, and a rat wall.
Civilization may be dying, but it’s not dead yet, and as Ladd’s account illustrates, we need to find a way to co-exist with a system that wants to kill us all while we wait for it to die. That can be a problem, as Ladd showed, but it need not be an insurmountable problem. Elpel’s idea of “sustainability” is anything but, but it is a far less destructive way to remain part of the same, unsustainable civilization. The Tribe of Anthropik, though, leans more towards Ladd’s solution.
The key is to end our reliance on civilization–not necessarily our interaction with it. Civilization will not allow that; rangers, CYS, and a whole array of government impediments have been erected to ensure that.
We’re looking at buying several small pieces of land, adjacent to a national forest. The forst will be our range, but to avoid the attention of authorities, we’ll own the land we actually live on. Land taxes, hunting and fishing licenses, and other such requirements mean that we will still need a small flow of monetary income. There are a number of ways to procure that, since the flow is quite small. Primitive skills schools can be an excellent way of providing for that income while helping others prepare. As Elpel so eloquently put it in his otherwise problematic article:
Without the benefit of modern camping equipment, the Stone Age journey provides the opportunity to face your own soul, to deal with your dreams and fears. There are no distractions, no breaks for a pick-me-up candy bar and soda, no excuse to go zone out for a while with the television, and there is no safety net. There is just you and your wits to keep you alive. What you overcome in the process is not nature, but your own insecurities. The result is the feeling of total freedom–the realization that you have broken free from your own cages, and that is a freedom that you will take with you wherever you go.
A successful website or other home-based business might even provide sufficient income, if the need for income is sufficiently reduced. Essentially, what one needs from civilization is simply the means to overcome civilization’s interference, the role of civilization in one’s life is defined only in terms of its self. It does not provide food, shelter, security, community, or any other thing you need: it provides only the means by which one can escape it. At that point, civilization is no longer needed, it’s simply a nuisance. Independence has been achieved.
Though their evaluations are markedly different, both Elpel’s account and Ladd’s come back to the same, basic point of freedom. As Ladd writes:
I suppose there are levels of freedom these days. In my opinion, going primitive offers the most freedom possible. At times it exhilarates me and definitely enhances my life. My life is my own. If I want to go explore a new wilderness area, I go do it. If I want to go scout for beaver or deer or whatever, I go do it. If I want to simply sit half of the day in the sun by the river, I can do that too. I am very flexible with what I can do and when I do it. This is a part of being free, I believe.
Elpel echoes the same sentiment:
On one primitive outing, I watched John from the city lie down on a rock and drink straight from a mountain lake, and it was like watching him taste freedom for the first time in his life. On that trip in the mountains of Montana, we were in 100,000 acres of unspoiled land without visible property lines or boundaries. We could walk where we wanted to, camp where we wanted to, drink from the streams, and eat wild edible plants–free for the picking.
In the same fashion as Ladd’s “levels of freedom,” collapse also poses “levels of survival.” There are more difficult ways of life, like the kind of “green” technology that Elpel favors, or permaculture, or any number of other alternatives proposed, which may or may not be viable. They require more resources and more work, so they’re less likely to work. The same way that the Stone Age offers the most freedom possible, it also offers the most security. Foragers can live anywhere that permaculturalists can grow a forest garden, and wherever one can live in the kind of ecologically-friendly home Elpel has built. But those things cannot survive in other areas, where only foragers can survive–and even thrive. Foragers live in the arctic and in the Kalahari. Whichever way the collapse goes, Stone Age foraging is the most versatile, flexible, adaptive, and robust way of life that the human race has ever come up with. Other ways may survive, or they may not, but if Stone Age foragers cannot survive, then there is no point worrying at all–because if even they can’t survive, then no one can.
As Ladd points out, community is crucial. The Tribe of Anthropik is a community. If you see us focusing more on the nitty-gritty, understand that’s only because we’ve already forged our community and can now turn our attention to the practical reality of primitive life. I have no doubt it’s going to be a bumpy ride, and we’ll keep you updated on our progress in these pages right up until the very end, but in the end, I cannot be shaken from my faith that humans must live as humans, and freedom is as essential as breath.
One thing I would like to point out, however, is that the term “Stone Age” is not synonymous with a “nomadic tribal existence.” Historians often point out the existence of Stone Age (Neolithic) civilizations–such as the Mayans
I think what is a more accurate to discuss this is “tribal foraging freedom” versus “Stone Age freedom,” but again, that’s because I’m more educated on the topic.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 6:31 PM
Oops, typo.
I think what a more accurate way of discussing this is “tribal foraging freedom” versus “stone age freedom.”
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 6:32 PM
Quite right; the Stone Age was divided into the Paleolithic, the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. The Neolithic was still the Stone Age, but it had agriculture, kingdoms, etc.
Then again, “Stone Age forager” might be a good distinction these days. Not that anyone’s done it yet, but it’s possible now to have foragers who rely on rifles, geodesic dome tents, and glossy field manuals. That’s not sustainable, either; it can be a good stepping stone towards sustainable, but if you stop there, that’s not good, either.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 6:36 PM
My point exactly.
Unsustainability may be inherent to some lifestyles, but sustainability is not necessarily present to any lifestyle either. Foragers can be unsustainable.
A few examples: The overharvesting of Brazil nuts by local Brazilians in the Amazon, or the bushmeat trade of primate animals in the African rainforest.
Granted, they are not Stone Age foragers. But they are foragers.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 6:40 PM
Can be. But all known examples are the products of contact with, and pressure from, civilization.
Also, the Neolithic societies in question became unsustainable at the precise moment they ceased to be foragers.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 6:58 PM
Oh, I overlooked that bit. Assuming I cared about diplomas, do you have a Master’s or a Doctorate’s in anthropology? Being the relevant field here, of course. To make such a claim assumes you already know about my B.S. in the field, so what kind of graduate study have you taken?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 7:07 PM
Jason, you misunderstood me.
When I said that I was “more educated on the topic,” I was not talking about being more educated than you. I was not as specific as I should have been.
I am aware of your credentials. Again, I was not trying to claim that I was more educated than you or anyone in your tribe. I don’t have a master’s or doctorate in anthropology, nor have I done a graduate study on the subject. Rather, I have read extensively on the subject, as well as other authors on the Internet. Indeed, another way the Internet has circumvented hierarchy is by giving people a lot more access to information that is not reliant on having to go to a “hierarchal” university to acquire.
Rather, I was comparing myself to other people that I know who know very little about anthropology and history. When I first came across the Tribe of Anthropik, I had already read essays by Joseph Tainter. I had already read essays by Peak Oil advocates. I had already read essays by primitivists. Thus, when I started reading Anthropik’s essays, I was able to understand terms like “diminishing returns,” for example that were used in some of the essays. I didn’t have a hard time understanding what you meant when I read the 30 theses. But a person unfamiliar with anthropology, primitivism, etc., might have a more difficult time, not to mention dismissing it flat outright as sheer lunacy.
However, many people I know don’t know what Peak Oil is, or Joseph Tainter, or that the Stone Age consists of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, or Neolithic. They believe in the Hobbesian myths, and have no idea of the alternative view. When I mention Peak Oil, I sometimes have to spell “P-E-A-K” to them since they are unaware of the topic. When I try to discuss any ideas like the reality of “tribal” living, they dismiss it as tomfoolery.
Also, by pointing out that the Stone Age meant more than a nomadic life, I was pointing out that just because you live in the Stone Age does not necessarily make you free, as has been shown by the Neolithic kingdoms. The education comment was then to point out that introducing an essay like this one by showing the freedom that the Stone Age had to offer is useful for people not necessarily aware of what the Stone Age really means. However, for people who are aware that the Stone Age means more than a nomadic tribal life, it can be misleading from a historical perspective, since while Stone Age tribal societies were “free,” there have been hierarchal Stone Age societies and hierarchal Stone Age foraging societies.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 7:56 PM
Again, I don’t really want to argue with you over the issue of education. I wasn’t questioning your education, nor was I trying to brag about mine.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 7:58 PM
OK … like I said, I didn’t even notice it at first, and your catch was a good one. I hate academic pissing contests over who’s accumulated more pieces of paper, but when Giuli read the comment she thought you were trying to get a dig in on me. When I re-read it, that’s what I thought, too. Glad to know we were just misinterpreting you and you were just making a good, solid correction on precision. I think my point stands, but you were quite right to point out the imprecision there. No harm, no foul.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 8:03 PM
Of course. But I did not intend to “dig in on you,” and I’m glad we understand that.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 8:10 PM
The stone age is coming again, yes, but the time span involved in society’s collapse and the sufferings which must follow preclude anyone living today from reaching (as it were) “the other shore.” Simply stated, anyone living in an industrial/technological culture is not a primitive regardless of his/her preferences.
The stone age cannot come until all the vestiges of modern idustrial society cease to exist. While malls, grocery stores, McDonalds, gas stations and power plants continue to operate we are still in the dismal present and not a part of the glorious (for the optimist, but who really knows?) stone age future.
While I expect that oil is going to climb to the high triple digits in the near future and an unprecedented economic depression will follow, these conditions are not the stone age. While people still think about gasoline and consumerism the present age persist. While electricity and phone service still operates the stone age has not come.
The stone age is coming, perhaps, or (what I believe is much more likely) humankind will collapse directly into extinction. We won’t live to see either outcome. The processes involved require centuries or millennia to reach their proper conclusion.
Forty years from now isolated remnants of modern industrial society will still persist. The United States may no longer exist, globalization might have reached its end, and economic growth disappear. Even so, somewhere in this world industry and technology will still survive.
If you want to experience the coming stone age you will have to live for centuries at the very least. Until then, the best course of action is the cease consumption, minimize all economic activity and appreciate the Universe’s beauty.
Comment by David Mathews — 20 February 2006 @ 8:11 PM
I was also challenging Elpel as well in his characterization that the Stone Age existence is always a nomadic one. There are exceptions, as Franz Boas showed the world, as well as unsustainable Stone Age civilizations.
Comment by aksum — 20 February 2006 @ 8:24 PM
You are misleading people to think they can purse their lips from untreated water. Even crystal clear unpolluted water can make you sick because of the little critters living in it. It’s best to dig into the sand some feet away from the exposed living water, and drink from that what seeps into your hole.
And you people know as much about the stone age as Fred Flintstone! Come on, no one really knows what the collapse is going to morph into…
Comment by Rick Larson — 20 February 2006 @ 11:11 PM
That’s Elpel’s prose, not mine. Some water is safe, but I wouldn’t try it.
Do you need to drop every apple to know what will happen next? After all, I’ve never dropped this apple before.
This isn’t the first collapse, so it’s pretty easy to know what’s going to happen next.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 11:32 PM
Whats going to happen is an easy call, how humans will react is an entirely different call.
If some can survive by horticulture, if some can survive by practicing permaculture, if some have saved 50 years worth of food in a bunker, they all will survive for a time. And if some go wilding, some of these also may survive, and will continue to survive as long as the Earth and Sun decides them too.
Also, the timing may be an issue. An idea that is forming in my mind is there may be civilization for a longer time (after collapse) that exsists off previous manufactures, and from the dislocation and concentration of humans, and resources from previous rapings of the planet.
However, this will be a brutish life and the best choice would be to live in the wild. Free, just as you are saying.
Comment by Rick Larson — 20 February 2006 @ 11:45 PM
I disagree, but then again, my next article is on the timeline of collapse, and why I think civilization will be gone in 30 years.
Really? So, the Sioux were civilized? When the Romans ruled the Mediterranean, that meant that the !Kung were no longer living as people in the Stone Age? If there are civilized people in the world, but they’re all far away and have nothing to do with you, I fail to see how that could make such a big difference on your own life.
No, it’s not, but if that’s all that happens, then Peak Oil won’t have much to do with the collapse of civilization, and we’ll collapse for other proximate causes. If Peak Oil is going to be involved at all, it will be because of very high depletion rates–that is, upwards of 10%. Under those conditions, collapse would follow around 10 years after peak, i.e., 10 years from now.
I disagree, as you might conclude from Thesis #28: Humanity will almost certainly survive. Civilization is frail, but humans are some of the most adaptive species on the planet–right up there with cockroaches. Even before civilization, we lived in the Arctic and in the Kalahari, in the Amazon and in the Himalayas. Civilized people depend entrely on grains, but humans are transhumant omnivores. We can eat basically everything. We can survive in nearly every climate on earth. If it gets to the point where humans can’t survive, then it won’t matter much, because at that point we’re talking about the end of all multi-cellular life on earth, anyway.
If it takes that long, then it isn’t going to happen at all. This either happens quickly, or not at all. “Suddenly” is part of the definition of collapse.
Probably–but if their power to affect your life is permanently broken, what does it matter to you? How much did Rome affect the !Kung?
Why? Individuals may be difficult to predict, but groups are infinitely predictable. In every other collapse, reaction was a constant. People reacted the exact same way, every single time. Why would we be any different? Has human psychology changed that drastically?
As they usually do, but “for a time” is an important element here. You’ll be able to survive in the cities for a time, too.
Indeed, there will be some isolated “cities” trying to keep civilization going for 100, even 200 years. They’ll also be small, isolated, and incapable of projecting their force against anyone who, well, steps out of the way, so who cares? If the only civilizations in the world are such that you can simply walk out of them, then they can peter along as long as they like; they harm no one but those too short-sighted to leave them behind.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 10:16 AM
here is something that “RedWolfReturns” said on the CAC board and it may explain why Elpel thinks the “stone age” is nasty adn brutish, etc:
Yeah, from what I know of Tom it seems that his approach to understanding the comforts of primitive living has been the “abo trek” approach. Basically this is where a bunch of primitive skills & crafts folks get together, make a bunch of abo-tech items and then go on an extended journey using them. In my opinion such an approach is probably quite a challenge and an adventure, but it gives a very poor impression of what is possible in terms of being comfortable living primitively. First of all, the majority of the “skills” native people’s depended on were qualitative, not quantitative, and would not be evidenced in their technology. Civilized people trying to use native technology without these qualitative abilities is a sure way to invite discomfort into one’s life. Also, a long overland journey (such as the abo-trekkers do) would have been one of the more exceptional situations for primitive people, and would not have been the most comfortable time for them eihter. Sure primitive hunter gatherers are nomadic, but that doesn’t mean the spend all their time wandering. The time where they travel is a time of relative discomfort for them as well, compared to the time where they are living in a base camp. So you have civilized group of people (not a family or a clan) coming together and trying to use technology they aren’t prepared to use in order to do something that would have been abnormally uncomfortable for primitive people to do in the first place. Then these same civilized people (quite naturally) figure that primitive living is uncomfortable. Hmmm…
http://p073.ezboard.com/fcacstfrm1.showMessage?topicID=390.topic
Comment by Scott — 21 February 2006 @ 11:16 AM
Interesting. I’ve noticed that those who talk about a primitive community have very promising things to say, while those that talk about primitive skills tend to be much more somber.
I’ve noted that the one who talk about primitive skills being difficult to pick up are the ones who don’t get much practice in….
Learning from the experience of others is going to be important for this. That’s why the Tribe of Anthropik will be sharing our experience online–open source primitivism!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 11:23 AM
Jason:
This is more of a general question, but I was wondering why I haven’t heard of you outside of this website.
I have been reading your articles for the last six months (or more) and agree with you whole-heartedly. I also took your advice and read Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies. I can’t really see how someone could argue the inevitable collapse that is discussed on this site everyday.
The thing is that I know there are people out there who would argue it. They would fight with you tooth and nail about our civilization finding a way to survive through technology. They wouldn’t give an inch on the idea of technology (and development for that matter) being susceptable to diminishing returns.
Have you ever engaged in a public debate on this issue with some of those people that think our brand of civilization will go on forever? I’m just curious because I would love it if your views were out there for more to see.
Keep up the Great work.
David
Comment by David — 21 February 2006 @ 12:08 PM
I’m trying to get more publicity for all this, just to increase the survival rate, but civilization requires people to believe the unbelievable–because of that, to be a primitivist is to forever be a fringe of a fringe of a fringe. To date, no, I’ve never had that kind of opportunity. I’ve had one radio interview so far (recording available in the Vault), and I’m working on making the Thirty Theses into a book, but that’s it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I spent two months with Tom Elpel in Montana, and I was only “uncomfortable” during our primitive outings in the most trivial sense of the word. On the whole, I had a blast, and I feel that the skills I learned will be immensely valuable in the future. However, I would like to point out that Tom has a great deal of experience in primitive living, and that perhaps his perspective is a slightly more realistic and pragmatic one.
First of all, I think the “civilization” vs. “stone age” dichotomy is a bit over-simplified, but, regardless, I don’t think that in the near future we’ll be forced to pick between one or the other for our survival. In all likelihood, we will depend upon both, and I think this new way of living will be neither one nor the other, but something entirely new. Tom knows what it’s like to live primitively, and yet still he has chosen to accept some degree of modern comfort. Many of the Native Americans began to adopt European ways of living, despite their hatred for the people that were slowly destroying the land. The “civilized” way of life arose because many found it to be preferable to the old way of life. It’s more comfortable, it’s easier, it’s luxurious, and it’s insulated from the fluctuations of the natural world. This is not to say that it is “better,” nor is it to say that luxury and comfort are good things, but only that it has certain advantages that we might be wise not to cast aside simply for being on more on the “civilized” end of the spectrum. If we are a product of the natural world, then all of the modern developments of civilization are in a sense natural. Some are detrimental, certainly, but others either are or could be both sustainable and conducive to a free way of living. Tom is doing what he feels is best with what is available to him, and I think that in itself is more of a “stone age” way of thinking.
Moreover, many political philosophers have argued that a free way of life is only available to the man who lives in society. Aristotle, for one, argued that the state was a natural extension of a social animal, and that without it man is unable to fully (freely) express the totality of his nature. This is hard to argue with. How many states have existed before this one? What reason is there to think that they are an abomination of man’s true nature? If there has been a 10,000 year gap between what we were and what we are now, why should we believe that we are truly what we were then and not what we are now? The future will not be a stone age, it will be a new age, and civilization has served us well as a road to it. I have no doubt that great change is coming, but if we dismiss all “civilized” developments as errors to be cast aside, I suspect will be unable to deal with challenges that the future will present to us.
Comment by Casper — 21 February 2006 @ 12:22 PM
Probably moreson than almost anyone else, at least in North America. I wouldn’t dream of countering his account solely with my own experience, as paltry as it is. My main beef with his article has nothing to do with his experience of “Stone Age living,” as it does with his acceptance of an anthropological theory (the “Overkill” theory) that’s unsupported. As a primitive skills expert, he’s one of my heroes. But that doesn’t mean he’s an anthropologist!
If you’re right about that, then we’ll be looking at the very real possibility of the end of all life on earth. As I said above, this will either happen soon and suddenly, or not at all.
Out of curiosity, I’ve never heard Tom refer to any kind of primitive community. Has he ever lived with one? As we discussed above, I think this might change one’s opinion of primitive living drastically–but if Tom has also lived long-term with a primitive community, that might pretty effectively disprove that hypothesis.
That is simply not true at all. The civilized way of life had to be inflicted on people by force–and often repeatedly before it would take. There were innumerable tribes that fought to the very last man, or killed themselves, rather than suffer the civilized way of life. Every indigenous person I’ve ever heard who could still remember a time before civilization intruded into their lives said the very same thing, that their lives had been far, far better before, and that civilization was the single worst thing to ever happen to them.
We discussed why the civilized way of life arose in thesis #10, and why it expanded in thesis #12. Civilization began so that the elite few could lord over the many; it expanded because its only alternative was its own destruction. It is practiced today by so many because their alternatives were to do so, or die–and many (if not most) chose to die.
Which is why “natural” is such a meaningless word, as we’ve often discussed here. “Natural” is not the measure of a good life. The civilized life is ridden with disease, stress, poor diet, and a lack of community. That these things could be considered “natural” is one thing, but they are never good. The further one moves from a civilized way of life, the greater one’s quality of life becomes.
Indeed. You won’t see me dismissing anything solely on the grounds that it’s “civilized.” Unsustainable, or creates more problems than it’s worth, certainly … but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would be shocked if any society, however sick, could go 10,000 years without creating something worthwhile.
Really? I find it very easy to argue with. Most social animals have no states, but let’s assume Aristotle really meant “hierarchy.” Even then, there are many counter-examples. We may require etiquette to smooth our interactions, but there is a difference between manners and dominion. Hierarchical societies suppress personal expression greatly. One can hardly appreciate the scale of that suppression until one actually watches a society where the individual is not suppressed. See Paul Radin’s Primitive Man as Philosopher; while not addressing this point directly, the intense emphasis that any free society automatically places on individual expression is incredible. In hierarchical societies, talking out of turn is too daring a personal expression to brook.
A few dozen, all in the short span of 10,000 years, showing it to be one of the most volatile, unstable, and unsustainable things any animal has ever tried.
This was addressed specifically in thesis #7 and thesis #11.
Because the genes have not changed (much), only the way we were raised. We may not have anyone to raise us that way anymore, but we still have the same brains, the same psychology, the same genes. We’re still the same animal. We’re still maladapted to this diet (thesis #21) and we’re still maladapted to hierarchy itself.
There won’t be any metals in that new age, though. The primary material for tools will be stone, so it will be a stone age. But I agree with you, the new stone age won’t be anything like the old one. We shouldn’t reject things from civilization just because they’re from civilization–but, given the subtlety of the problems civilization has created, we’d be well-advised to hold all of civilization’s artifacts as guilty until proven innocent.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 12:51 PM
Jason,
I’m posting this here in hopes to here some of your, or the tribes, thoughts on a response I left on the Learning Primitive Skills thread you wrote a few weeks back. The subject was about Tom Brown Jr. and his mentor Grandfather. My posts were the last two (#89 and #90). I tried emailing you privately about it and didn’t get a response. Perhaps I sent it to the wrong email address.
Curt
Comment by Curt — 21 February 2006 @ 1:05 PM
#89, and #90.
I didn’t respond because I don’t have anything to say. I still don’t think “Grandfather” was real, but I don’t know Jon Young. Is he lying? Is he paid off? Am I just completely wrong and all these things that are plucked right out of Western, “noble savage” mythology actually happen to Tom Brown? I have no idea. For now, he’s added on the list of “people who think ‘Grandfather’” was real. Not necessarily the list of credible people who believe so–like I said, I know nothing about him. So, there’s really nothing to say.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 1:12 PM
Jason
Did you find out what reasons Brent Ladd gave for going back to civilisation?
Comment by Aaron — 21 February 2006 @ 6:40 PM
No.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 6:51 PM
Comment by Casper — 21 February 2006 @ 9:13 PM
That was obviously the case, but the question is why. I’ve avidly pursued the accounts of people like Elpel to see what’s in store for us, but I have to disagree with your characterization. Sure, I’ve read some discouraging accounts that are just as you say–but I’ve also read a lot of accounts that go very much the other way. I’d split them 50-50.
So, my question is, why did the ones that work, work, and why did the ones that didn’t work, not?
Even with a community, things can go wrong. Are there common lessons that can be learned, pitfalls we can then take care to avoid?
We cannot avoid the basic fact that this is human nature. This is the way of life humans evolved for. It worked for us for millions of years. The idea that we’re basically unsuited for it is nonsense. The question is not whether or not it’s the optimal way of life for us–it is, we know it is. The question is whether or not our attempts to live that way of life have, basically, “missed something.” We’re not part of a functioning culture, so we have to make one, and that carries a big risk with it of a lot of things we can screw up. Now, culture’s adaptive, so it will compensate for us–so we don’t need to be perfect. But it’s like trying to reconstruct any other organism–at the very least, you need to make sure the bones and the muscles and the arteries and the heart are all hooked up right.
So, I collect such stories, and I’ve learned a lot from the discouraging ones. Each case teaches me something new about what pitfalls to avoid–but in every case so far, there’s been a glaring omission that caught me immediately and made me mutter, “Well no wonder!”
I do; the things wrong with it are essential to it. The things that are OK about it are universal to all human cultures. I can’t point to any particular thesis, since this was revisited, again and again, in nearly all of the Thirty Theses.
But regardless of our opinions of civilization, it does not matter whether we believe it should be abandoned or not. It is dying, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Those who abandon it will survive; those who do not, will die along with it. I do not know if my way of thinking is more “correct” than yours or not, but I do know that mine will prevail–for the simple fact that the only people who will survive this century will be those who share that view.
No matter how much it is reworked, reshaped, and rebuilt, a stone will always be a stone. From the rock halls of Petra to a simple pebble in front of your house, there’s a great deal of diversity there, but they all share certain things in common.
No matter how much it is reworked, reshaped, and rebuilt, a civilization will always be coercive, hierarchical, dehumanizing, and unsustainable. It must always grow, or it will die (thesis #12); it will always pursue complexity (thesis #13); it will always be caught in the “Food Race” (thesis #4); it will always be difficult, dangerous and unhealthy (thesis #9); it will always subject the masses for the benefit of the elite (thesis #10); it will always be subject to diminishing returns (thesis #14); it will always make us sick (thesis #21); it will never have a monopoly on medicine (thesis #22) or knowledge (thesis #23) or art (thesis #24); it will always reduce our quality of life (thesis #25); it will always be an unnecessary evil (thesis #11). But it will also always collapse (thesis #26).
To move beyond civilization is not to renounce technology, or even comfort. One can live in primitive luxury–if that’s what one desires. One need not merely survive–one can thrive. That’s exactly what our ancestors did–why can’t we?
Civilization is doomed. Even some techno-utopia of “green,” supposedly “sustainable” technology is doomed (because it is not sustainable at all). That means that war, disease, oppression, poverty, control, politics, conquest, fearmongering, manipulation and coercion are all doomed. Art, philosophy, religion, music, theater, medicine, knowledge and all those others things are universal to all human cultures, and four times older than civilization–and they will long survive it.
We can change the way things are–we have to change the way things are. But first, we must abandon the notion that civilization can be reformed. The things that are terrible about it are not peripheral to it, the way the good things about it are; it’s the terrible things that define it. What civilization has that is good, are the things it shares with all cultures; what it has that is terrible, are all the things that are unique only to it, that define it as its own thing. To change the way things are, first we must understand what it is we’re dealing with, why it cannot be reformed, why it is dying, why there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and why that is the best thing that could ever happen for us.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 10:09 PM
Jason wrote: “I didn’t respond because I don’t have anything to say. I still don’t think “Grandfather” was real, but I don’t know Jon Young. Is he lying? Is he paid off? Am I just completely wrong and all these things that are plucked right out of Western, “noble savage” mythology actually happen to Tom Brown? I have no idea. For now, he’s added on the list of “people who think ‘Grandfather’” was real. Not necessarily the list of credible people who believe so–like I said, I know nothing about him. So, there’s really nothing to say.”
Thank you for a response.
Comment by Curt — 21 February 2006 @ 11:15 PM
“Those who abandon it will survive; those who do not, will die along with it. I do not know if my way of thinking is more “correct” than yours or not, but I do know that mine will prevail–for the simple fact that the only people who will survive this century will be those who share that view.”
It might be true that those who abandon civilization will survive and others will die, but abandoning civilization and believing it “should” be abandoned aren’t all the same thing. You can still like parts of civilization and believe it is unsustainable, and abandon it anyway. You don’t have to believe that civilization is dehumanizing to believe it is ecologically unsustainable.
Consider: Many ecovillages consist of people who have abandoned our present civilization, and agree that our present civilization is unsustainable, but do not believe it is inherently unsustainable. David Holmgren is an ecovillage advocate, and a permaculture advocate, and does advocate foraging as a supplement. His plan involves abandoning civilization, but he’s not anti-civ.
I think that those who survive will abandon civilization, but abandoning civilization and arguing whether or not it “should” be developed is different.
Comment by aksum — 21 February 2006 @ 11:54 PM
Typo–I meant “should be abandoned,” not “developed.”
Likewise, you can try to gain independence from civilization without believing it cannot be reformed.
In “Permaculture Activist,” for example, there a quite a few examples of permaculture experiments that include foraging. Many of these permaculture advocates have gained independence of civilization. They are in a much better position to survive collapse than a person who doesn’t prepare at all.
Yet while they are independent, and have sustainable communities, many of them believe that permaculture is the reason why civilization can be reformed. They see our present “growth economy” as unsustainable, and our present society as unsustainable, but they do not see it as inherent to civilization. They also don’t see the distinction between “agriculture” and “horticulture,” and also define civilization much differently than you do. (They define civilization not by increasing complexity, but by a “complex” society, which is not true.) While that might not be true, their approaches to surviving collapse are still sustainable.
Comment by aksum — 22 February 2006 @ 1:05 AM
It is certainly true that it is behavior, not necessarily psychology, that will ultimately prevail. This question reminds me of the question of the evolutionary basis of emotions. Why do we feel hate, anger, love, etc.? It’s a simple matter of motivation. We were selected for love, because people who love someone are more likely to reproduce. People who fear dangerous things are more likely to avoid them, and thus survive long, and thus reproduce.
Here, who are the people more likely to abandon civilization–those who believe civilization can be reformed, or those that don’t? While there may be a few who survive anyway, does it not stand to reason that those most likely to abandon civilization–and thus, the most likely to survive–will be precisely those who believe that civilization should be abandoned? People can reproduce without love; people can survive without fear. It’s simply less likely; and that is why we have love and fear, because without them, we are less likely to survive. Likewise here, those who believe that civilization should be abandoned start off at an advantage compared to those who hold the opposite view.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 February 2006 @ 10:11 AM
Two Quotes from Aldous Huxley seem appropriate to me to many of these ‘discussions’.
Civilizations current trajectory, and well established unsustainability (as the oil depletes).
“Facts do not Cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Although, it is quite apparent that most will ignore them for many reasons, medio, psychological stability, to prevent feeling of helplessness (need for control/power is a basic human psychological need)or just plain ignorance. The thirst for knowledge and learning exist in far too few human beings at the current time. Academia is a good example, most just want degree, jobs, the hell with learning anything…sadly this has caused Degree’s to become more an more a ‘vocational license to work’.
The second quote, “There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self.” A.H.
The choices people make the next few years likely will determine the fate of humankind…if the choices are poor, even viable foraging may not exist, if Nukes etc. are employed en masse. The flux will continue, and our observations and choices will color our lives, as they always have. The upcoming collapse, only brings to light something we each seek to avoid each day, death. Dealing with the collapse of civilization is not only a practical matter, but a philosophical one as well. Many will choose to hang onto civilization if they idealize the good points to it, and those that focus their observations on the negative aspects are more likely to consider exiting.
I’m keenly interested in the future articles I see here, on practical methods to transition out…
Comment by Bubba — 22 February 2006 @ 10:37 AM
“Here, who are the people more likely to abandon civilization–those who believe civilization can be reformed, or those that don’t? While there may be a few who survive anyway, does it not stand to reason that those most likely to abandon civilization–and thus, the most likely to survive–will be precisely those who believe that civilization should be abandoned? People can reproduce without love; people can survive without fear. It’s simply less likely; and that is why we have love and fear, because without them, we are less likely to survive. Likewise here, those who believe that civilization should be abandoned start off at an advantage compared to those who hold the opposite view.”
I wasn’t saying it’s less likely. But it’s still possible.
That’s true. But again, there are many people on the Internet who tell stories about abandoning our civilization not because they believe that civilization is inherently unsustainable, but a “growth economy” or “modern civilization” is. They are still motivated to join ecovillages for this reason. They don’t have a historical perspective, but are motivated to do the same things.
Likewise, there are quite a few websites by wilderness schools who teach students how to survive in the wilderness and go primitive. Yet they believe this is their way of “caring for the earth” due to the destruction caused by modern society and do not have a historical perspective. Yet they still talk about the virtues of going primitive.
David Holmgren, for example, advocates a foraging and permaculture mix. But he also believes that pre-industrial agrarian civilizations were sustainable. Obviously, that’s not true, but he’s still advocating a way of life that will survive collapse.
In short, it seems that while most of these people are motivated due to their anger toward modern society, they don’t all believe that civilization itself is the root of all those problems. But they still are motivated to advocate independence anyway.
Comment by aksum — 22 February 2006 @ 11:17 AM
Even anti-civ people who advocate permaculture and foraging sometimes believe in false examples of “civilized” exceptions. William Kotke, author of the Final Empire, is very anti-civ, but he believes that the Nabatean civilization was sustainable (the civilization that created the rock halls of Petra). Obviously, that was not true since they collapsed in 300 years, but he’s still very anti-civ and is advocating a way of life that will survive collapse as well, despite his beliefs about Nabatean “sustainability.”
Comment by aksum — 22 February 2006 @ 11:55 AM
Oh, the irony …. here I am, Mr. Materialism, getting nailed for suggesting that psychology might have a role! OK, I give in! It’s an advantage, not necessarily determinative!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 February 2006 @ 12:56 PM
Here is a quote that I continually hold up to myself and anybody else who may be interested. It is from Stanislav Andreski’s, Social Sciences as Sorcery written in 1972.
“Some of our worst mistakes come not so much from poor logic or bad deductions; but from a faulty premise and proneness to delusions.”
Here are two o