PDA

View Full Version : Worst Mistake in History of Human Race



zhao
11-10-2007, 11:06 PM
the Jarred Diamond article below is too important to stay buried in page 14 of some political thread. (obviously those who have joined in the discussion with me before feel free to ignore)
__________________________

i have been interested in the fundamental claims (if not the concrete solutions) of Anarcho-Primitivism for some time, and unsurprisingly, every time i bring up these ideas, there is only resistance -- nothing but knee-jerk dismissal of anything resembling the Noble Savage (stanley kubrick you listenin?). but consider the opposite: humans have ALWAYS lived the way we do now, with slavery and systematic oppression and heirarchy and power and subjugation and exploitation, even under drastically different conditions such as small population and abundance of resources, for millions of years.

is that believable if you really think about it?

agriculture (and with it the myriad of new forms which we call civilization) started roughly 10,000 years ago, in response to, as a necessity created by a drastic diminishing of natural vegetation -- a result of the last ice-age. there is ample evidence that prior to that, earth was exponentially more lush and abundant a place compared to the earth that we know.

but whether an egalitarian and peaceful paradise existed for 4 million years prior to the advent of language/power/civilization is not necessarily the main point; even though a reasonably good case for this has been made many times (the ancient myths and religions of ALL cultures, for instance). the important thing is that these claims allow us to open up to the idea that the way we live today may not be the only way, that it may prove to be a very recent development.

the important thing is to realize that what we believe today about ourselves and our history is tainted by civilisation itself, its ideology, and its agendas -- and that it may not be nearly as rational or factual as we think.

the story of our violent and competitive ancesters is dominant in our art and culture, and the representation of our past in the image of our present may be completely false.

the way we look at the world and ourselves, it may be a very limited view, which excludes multiple other ways of perceiving and understanding, which are all just as valid, if not much more valid.

what i am interested in is NOT bemoaning how the world sucks today in comparisson to some edenic, prehistoric perfection, NOR am i advocating a return to gathering and hunting - a "natural" way of life (whatever the fuck that means); what i AM suggesting, however, is that the only way to envision a better future is to strip away the lies and illusions that we have been living under - the myths perpetrated by civilization - and to realize that human potential is much wider and bigger than our culture would have us believe, and that maybe we haven't ALWAYS lived the lonely dog-eat-dog way we do now. only when we break from these limited and limiting traps which define us can we possibly find another way of existing.

if we deny that there are other ways of life, if we refuse to accept the possibility that we once were different, if we do not believe that our specie is CAPABLE of living peacefully, gracefully, then what better future can there be?
______________________________

so without further ado, here is the Essay by world reknowned historian, biologist, archaeologist Jarred Diamond, in which i find much vindication for these "outlandish" and "absurd" ideas.

PDF of entire article with illustrations here (http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf).

also copied below:

zhao
11-10-2007, 11:08 PM
The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

By Jared Diamond
University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn’t the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren’t specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.

At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We’re better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?

For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It’s a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it’s nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.

From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?

The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.

While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it’s hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen’s average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.

So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren’t nasty and brutish, even though farmes have pushed them into some of the world’s worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don’t tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.

How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.

In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy (Discover, October). And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.

Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner’s sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.

continued ---

zhao
11-10-2007, 11:08 PM
One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5’ 9" for men, 5’ 5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5’ 3" for men, 5’ for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced bya bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

The evidence suggests that the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don’t think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. "When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it’s become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate."

There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition. (today just three high-carbohydrate plants–wheat, rice, and corn–provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn’t take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities.

Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing élite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A. D. 1000, the élite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an élite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be iimproted from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?

Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts–with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.

Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.

As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.

Thus with the advent of agriculture and élite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on eperson per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it’s because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it’s old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don’t have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.

As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It’s not that hunter-gatherers abandonded their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn’t want.

continued ---

zhao
11-10-2007, 11:09 PM
at this point it’s instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past, and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.

Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and logest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture’s glittering façade, and that have so far eluded us?

end.

turtles
12-10-2007, 03:28 AM
Zhao, between this and your juice-fast stuff, you might have the most intellectual relationship with food out of any one I know :) I like it actually, it's interesting to put such an emphasis on it.

Anyway, as for this actual article, I certainly don't think it's crazy to argue that the human diet back in our hunter-gatherer days was better for us than in our post-agriculture days. After all, we evolved as hunter-gatherers, agriculture came strictly after the current step in evolution that ended with homo sapiens. I'm also kind of partial to the agriculture==beginning of widescale social hierarchies, exploitation of nature and other people, overpopulation, wide spread diseases etc. The article's obviously too short to get in to details though, so I can't really comment on how believable I find those claims to be.

This bit kinda jumped out at me though:

"Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
Well that's great and all, but still we're talking 26 years, vs the 80+ I can expect for my own lifetime. I know you're not saying we should go back to the hunter-gatherer days, I'm not trying to misconstrue your arguments. But if we're going to use life expectancy/general health as a metric for measuring the quality of a given society (which is a pretty good metric, though it certainly doesn't tell the whole story), then we pretty much have to conclude that starting agriculture was a good idea, because look at how much longer we live now. In other words, the short term loss (in terms of life expectancy) caused by switching to agriculture was eventually outweighed by the success of the societies in the long run, and the "progressive" view is essentially correct.

Yes this is making the assumption that agriculture was the start of the push towards the sciences, which gave us the medicine and technology that keep us alive and healthy today. Given the massive proportion of time we humans spent as hunter-gatherers vs farmers, and the relative development of science during those two periods, you can't help but conclude that the effects of agriculture had a lot to do with the development of science/technology.

So the primitive hunter-gatherers had lots of free time too, but what were they doing with their free time? Why weren't they building interesting things, discovering new ideas, making sophisticated works of art? (...or maybe technological development truly does follow an exponential curve, and we are just finally coming out of the long flat build up; maybe those hunter-gatherers had to work really really hard for a long long time just to reach the level of technological sophistication that could lead to agriculture... :D ).


I guess broadly my issue is (and I don't mean to sound dismissive here but...): "yeah sounds about right, but how does this apply at all to our current circumstances?" It's so far removed from our lives today that it's hard to know what to do with it. I know you've mentioned this in other places more in terms of our happiness levels, but that's a much harder argument to make, and one that I notice Diamond largely stays away from above.

noel emits
12-10-2007, 09:55 AM
Not to speak for zhao but he says above that the reason for posting the article is to consider that other ways of life are possible.

The life expectancy thing is interesting and a bit weird, but then maybe we did spend a lot of prehistory only living into our 20s. Would explain a lot ;) Also don't forget that perception of elapsed time can be hugely variable - given the right psychic and cultural conditions 26 years could be a very different lived experience to what it generally is now. And I don't suppose that modern hunter-gatherers have such short lifespans. ?

Regarding 'happiness', I've mentioned before how in 'The Human Zoo' Desmond Morris talks about how humans have spent most of their time living in small tribes. Now at this late stage in history we live in much bigger groupings and are constantly surrounded by 'strangers' that we would have evolved to be wary of. We have to fight this to live together so we end up with cognitive dissonance as well as anxiety. We have to pretend to ourselves that it's 'natural' but on the whole our modern way of life is more stressful I would say.

On top of that we are more distanced from our own survival - so many people in developed countries end up doing the most bizarre, abstract and apparently meaningless things for 'work' in order to be able to eat and live. It's not really a recipe for fulfillment and dignity.

Mr. Tea
12-10-2007, 10:15 AM
The title of this thread makes me think of this:
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u167/bccscl/Bunny.gif

zhao
12-10-2007, 10:17 AM
i should have mentioned before that i do not necessarily agree with everything in the Diamond piece, and it does not nearly cover all of the important points and issues that I'm interested in. but while it may not necessarily be the best out there on this subject, it is more than sympathetic to many of the basic ideas of Anarcho-Primitivism. my main reason for choosing it over others is because people are less likely to knee-jerk dismiss Jarred Diamond than someone like John Zerzan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan), whose work makes up a much more radical stance and all-encompassing world view. many consider Zerzan to be missing a few marbles, but i consider him to be the dictionary definition of sane sobriety, and whole heartedly recommend his books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-8444555-4265525?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20Zerzan) (some of which are published by a division of Columbia University Press).


don't forget that perception of elapsed time can be hugely variable - given the right psychic and cultural conditions 26 years could be a very different lived experience to what it generally is now.

very important point. thanks for that.


On top of that we are more distanced from our own survival - so many people in developed countries end up doing the most bizarre, abstract and apparently meaningless things for 'work' in order to be able to eat and live. It's not really a recipe for fulfillment and dignity.

good stuff about this Desmond Morris guy (will look into).

and yeah, designing graphic packages for MTV would fit well with description of alienated labor :D some might think it's an OK job but all i fucking ever do is sit here alone in front of my computer, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. :(

noel emits
12-10-2007, 10:22 AM
Mr Tea - are you saying that making animated gifs of someone petting a bunny will lead to the downfall of civilisation?

Mr. Tea
12-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Mr Tea - are you saying that having two tiny people attached to the front of your camera is a big fashion no-no?

You took the words right out of my mouth! :D

zhao
12-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Mr Tea,

please remove your un-funny and less than irrelevent post, the only possible intention of which is to trivialize with childishness, to mock and ridicule in the most uninspired way possible.

while you are at it, please remove your own presence from this thread if you are not interested in participating in a constructive manner.

Mr. Tea
12-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Dude, chill. I think this is a very interesting topic, but it's 10.30 here which is early for me, I need a while to warm up.

zhao
12-10-2007, 10:43 AM
i am "chill".

please remove the picture.

mixed_biscuits
12-10-2007, 10:57 AM
and yeah, designing graphic packages for MTV would fit well with description of alienated labor :D some might think it's an OK job but all i fucking ever do is sit here alone in front of my computer, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. :(

I have done a few jobs where I felt the same. Consequently, I changed jobs until I found something that I enjoy.

vimothy
12-10-2007, 11:02 AM
Zhao:

Am I right in thinking that while Diamond is looking nostalgically at pre-history, Zerzan has a political programme for "going back there" (as in recreating past lifestyles now)? Could you say something about the possible practical methods for achieving the "future primitive" society?

vimothy
12-10-2007, 11:20 AM
Zhao:

Am I right in thinking that while Diamond is looking nostalgically at pre-history, Zerzan has a political programme for "going back there" (as in recreating past lifestyles now)? Could you say something about the possible practical methods for achieving the "future primitive" society?

I would also be interested to know Zerzan's views (or your own, or the general anarcho-primitive consensus) on the global division of labour, and what will happen to this under the conditions of the future primitive society.

Mr BoShambles
12-10-2007, 11:43 AM
Hi Zhao,

Further to Vims question, if obstacles - such as the worlds present population levels - could be somehow skirted and a return to a hunter-gatherer existence en-mass was possible, in your view would that spell the end of (1) the infrastructure that we have today i.e. telecommunications, modern education and healthcare services and forms/networks of transport etc (2) any significant technological/scientific advances in the future?

Surely this would be so since such activities can only be generated and sustained through a division of labour which free's up some peoples time away from subsistence production so that it can be devoted to other exploits. In essence then mankind would just abandon the last 400/500 years of rational/scientific 'progress' (stemming from the 'Enlightenment' -our cultural heritage) and return to a localised subsistence lifestyle.

Is this possible and, more importantly, desirable?

Mr. Tea
12-10-2007, 11:50 AM
Hi Zhao,

Further to Vims question, if obstacles - such as the worlds present population levels - could be somehow skirted and a return to a hunter-gatherer existence en-mass was possible

......


Is this possible and, more importantly, desirable?

I'm sure Zhao can speak for himself, but he has said before and also in this thread that he's *not* advocating a literal return to a cave-man lifestyle.

Also, I'm sorry for interrupting your thread zhao, hope the bunny is less offensive than the redneck.

Mr BoShambles
12-10-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm sure Zhao can speak for himself, but he has said before and also in this thread that he's *not* advocating a literal return to a cave-man lifestyle.

No I appreciate that Tea but I am trying to visualise a future along anarcho-primitive lines... Diamond's writing is fascinating and raises valuable considerations but in practical terms towards what kind of future does it lead us? Or rather what does Zhao (or anyone else) interpret from his writings as lessons or policies for mankinds future?

vimothy
12-10-2007, 12:12 PM
Surely this would be so since such activities can only be generated and sustained through a division of labour which free's up some peoples time away from subsistence production so that it can be devoted to other exploits. In essence then mankind would just abandon the last 400/500 years of rational/scientific 'progress' (stemming from the 'Enlightenment' -our cultural heritage) and return to a localised subsistence lifestyle.

And with what population, i.e. how would future primitivism deal with the "Malthusian limit" nature imposes? Or, do you, like Gek, believe that this limit is actually some kind of apex in any case ("not poverty")?

How large is the scope of Zerzan's vision? Is he advocating personal change, or change for the whole of society?

(For a good visualisation of the Malthusian limit, go here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691121354/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-6403440-0239910#reader-link) and turn to page 2, figure 1.1)

zhao
12-10-2007, 12:52 PM
Re: what do we do with these recent archaeological findings, in practical terms, to bring about a radical change in human life:

i honestly haven't gotten there yet.

but one set of answers might be a return of various social forms and functions from the past which have been neglected in recent times.

our (or at least mine) teenage pop-guru Peter Lamborn Wilson (Hakim Bey) advocated things like the dinner party or the the quilting bee as revolutionary act --- to occupy time within a group outside of "commodity-order", outside of "spectacle", creatively, and of one's own free will -- inventing games to play, etc. rebuilding a sense of *true* community in over coming proscribed alienation.

also the revolutionary "secret society" for the common people -- a return of clandestinity, to engage in fun and also "criminal" activities such as smuggling and the trading of goods outside of the market place -- a private economy which exists within global capitalism.


1. First, we can speak of a natural anthropology of the Temporary Autonomous Zone. The nuclear family is the base unit of consensus society, but not of the TAZ. ("Families!--how I hate them! the misers of love!"--Gide) The nuclear family, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," appears to have been a Neolithic invention, a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy. The Paleolithic model is at once more primal and more radical: the band. The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi- nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance--and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open--not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc. (American Indian society preserves certain aspects of this structure even now.)

In our own post-Spectacular Society of Simulation many forces are working--largely invisibly--to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms--and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.

2. The TAZ as festival. Stephen Pearl Andrews once offered, as an image of anarchist society, the dinner party, in which all structure of authority dissolves in conviviality and celebration (see Appendix C). Here we might also invoke Fourier and his concept of the senses as the basis of social becoming--"touch-rut" and "gastrosophy," and his paean to the neglected implications of smell and taste. The ancient concepts of jubilee and saturnalia originate in an intuition that certain events lie outside the scope of "profane time," the measuring-rod of the State and of History. These holidays literally occupied gaps in the calendar--intercalary intervals. By the Middle Ages, nearly a third of the year was given over to holidays. Perhaps the riots against calendar reform had less to do with the "eleven lost days" than with a sense that imperial science was conspiring to close up these gaps in the calendar where the people's freedoms had accumulated--a coup d'etat, a mapping of the year, a seizure of time itself, turning the organic cosmos into a clockwork universe. The death of the festival.

Participants in insurrection invariably note its festive aspects, even in the midst of armed struggle, danger, and risk. The uprising is like a saturnalia which has slipped loose (or been forced to vanish) from its intercalary interval and is now at liberty to pop up anywhere or when. Freed of time and place, it nevertheless possesses a nose for the ripeness of events, and an affinity for the genius loci; the science of psychotopology indicates "flows of forces" and "spots of power" (to borrow occultist metaphors) which localize the TAZ spatio-temporally, or at least help to define its relation to moment and locale.

The media invite us to "come celebrate the moments of your life" with the spurious unification of commodity and spectacle, the famous non-event of pure representation. In response to this obscenity we have, on the one hand, the spectrum of refusal (chronicled by the Situationists, John Zerzan, Bob Black et al.)--and on the other hand, the emergence of a festal culture removed and even hidden from the would-be managers of our leisure. "Fight for the right to party" is in fact not a parody of the radical struggle but a new manifestation of it, appropriate to an age which offers TVs and telephones as ways to "reach out and touch" other human beings, ways to "Be There!"

Pearl Andrews was right: the dinner party is already "the seed of the new society taking shape within the shell of the old" (IWW Preamble). The sixties-style "tribal gathering," the forest conclave of eco-saboteurs, the idyllic Beltane of the neo-pagans, anarchist conferences, gay faery circles...Harlem rent parties of the twenties, nightclubs, banquets, old-time libertarian picnics--we should realize that all these are already "liberated zones" of a sort, or at least potential TAZs. Whether open only to a few friends, like a dinner party, or to thousands of celebrants, like a Be-In, the party is always "open" because it is not "ordered"; it may be planned, but unless it "happens" it's a failure. The element of spontaneity is crucial.

The essence of the party: face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance, conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss-- in short, a "union of egoists" (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form--or else, in Kropotkin's terms, a basic biological drive to "mutual aid." (Here we should also mention Bataille's "economy of excess" and his theory of potlatch culture.)

zhao
12-10-2007, 12:53 PM
continued:


3. Vital in shaping TAZ reality is the concept of psychic nomadism (or as we jokingly call it, "rootless cosmopolitanism"). Aspects of this phenomenon have been discussed by Deleuze and Guattari in Nomadology and the War Machine, by Lyotard in Driftworks and by various authors in the "Oasis" issue of Semiotext(e). We use the term "psychic nomadism" here rather than "urban nomadism," "nomadology," "driftwork," etc., simply in order to garner all these concepts into a single loose complex, to be studied in light of the coming- into-being of the TAZ. "The death of God," in some ways a de-centering of the entire "European" project, opened a multi-perspectived post- ideological worldview able to move "rootlessly" from philosophy to tribal myth, from natural science to Taoism-- able to see for the first time through eyes like some golden insect's, each facet giving a view of an entirely other world.

But this vision was attained at the expense of inhabiting an epoch where speed and "commodity fetishism" have created a tyrannical false unity which tends to blur all cultural diversity and individuality, so that "one place is as good as another." This paradox creates "gypsies," psychic travellers driven by desire or curiosity, wanderers with shallow loyalties (in fact disloyal to the "European Project" which has lost all its charm and vitality), not tied down to any particular time and place, in search of diversity and adventure...This description covers not only the X-class artists and intellectuals but also migrant laborers, refugees, the "homeless," tourists, the RV and mobile-home culture--also people who "travel" via the Net, but may never leave their own rooms (or those like Thoreau who "have travelled much--in Concord"); and finally it includes "everybody," all of us, living through our automobiles, our vacations, our TVs, books, movies, telephones, changing jobs, changing "lifestyles," religions, diets, etc., etc.

Psychic nomadism as a tactic, what Deleuze & Guattari metaphorically call "the war machine," shifts the paradox from a passive to an active and perhaps even "violent" mode. "God"'s last throes and deathbed rattles have been going on for such a long time--in the form of Capitalism, Fascism, and Communism, for example--that there's still a lot of "creative destruction" to be carried out by post-Bakuninist post-Nietzschean commandos or apaches (literally "enemies") of the old Consensus. These nomads practice the razzia, they are corsairs, they are viruses; they have both need and desire for TAZs, camps of black tents under the desert stars, interzones, hidden fortified oases along secret caravan routes, "liberated" bits of jungle and bad-land, no-go areas, black markets, and underground bazaars.

These nomads chart their courses by strange stars, which might be luminous clusters of data in cyberspace, or perhaps hallucinations. Lay down a map of the land; over that, set a map of political change; over that, a map of the Net, especially the counter-Net with its emphasis on clandestine information-flow and logistics--and finally, over all, the 1:1 map of the creative imagination, aesthetics, values. The resultant grid comes to life, animated by unexpected eddies and surges of energy, coagulations of light, secret tunnels, surprises.

zhao
12-10-2007, 01:08 PM
And with what population, i.e. how would future primitivism deal with the "Malthusian limit" nature imposes? Or, do you, like Gek, believe that this limit is actually some kind of apex in any case ("not poverty")?

(For a good visualisation of the Malthusian limit, go here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691121354/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-6403440-0239910#reader-link) and turn to page 2, figure 1.1)

that Gregory Clark book looks interesting. but i could not find a chart? page 2 seems inaccessable to me... do you have to pay for it or something?

i'm not sure how these folks attempt to deal with the coming resource crisis. maybe, and i'm just guessing here, they, like Gek, look forward to it as necessary catalyst for the kind of social change they advocate?

i just got Collapse the latest by Diamond. can't wait to dig in :D

vimothy
12-10-2007, 01:12 PM
I think that I would be worried that TAZ-style politics, whether one calls it Immediatism, future primitivism or just plain anarchism, devolves into the kind of lifestyle anarchism typified by CrimethInc (http://www.crimethinc.com/) - you know, just have fun, go travelling, live out of dumpsters. Can it affect change across society more broadly? I mean, Wilson must surely (great writer, bad politics, IMO) realise that his kind of refusenik saturnalia is impossible without capitalism to exploit.

vimothy
12-10-2007, 01:17 PM
that Gregory Clark book looks interesting. but i could not find a chart? page 2 seems inaccessable to me... do you have to pay for it or something?

No you just cycle through the pages. Page 2 follows the the contents and introduction - it's actually about six pages in.

It's here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1270/778/400/worldhistory.jpg

zhao
12-10-2007, 01:33 PM
I think that I would be worried that TAZ-style politics, whether one calls it Immediatism, future primitivism or just plain anarchism, devolves into the kind of lifestyle anarchism typified by CrimethInc (http://www.crimethinc.com/) - you know, just have fun, go travelling, live out of dumpsters. Can it affect change across society more broadly? I mean, Wilson must surely (great writer, bad politics, IMO) realise that his kind of refusenik saturnalia is impossible without capitalism to exploit.

good points... these theories and guides are of course anything but worked out... they are full of problems and contradictions.

i have no answers nor, i suspect, does anyone else :(

that chart looks to be drawn with the same hockey stick Gore used in his movie... i guess in all likelihood we come to the same boring conclusion -- "we is all of us fucked and ain't shit no one can do about it" :( :(

vimothy
12-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Think we should probably discuss the Unabomber and the whole "armed joy" thing as well.

zhao
12-10-2007, 01:41 PM
i'm down with that but really need a nap first :D

noel emits
12-10-2007, 02:16 PM
What this whole period of 'history' has given us is tremendous advances technology and scientific understanding - there's no way we should or could chuck that out so it has to merged with some of the lost ideas from the distant past. At the moment we are seriously under-utilising the tech that we have / can do. So I say to you: FUCKEN ROBOTS PEOPLE! ;)

OK - first step is to build massive solar powered generators in space that can beam down energy to earth - I think the major problems with having permanent cables running into orbit have been more or less solved now in theory using nano construction of massively long carbon molecules - anyway, there must be a way to do it. Then we need to take all that water that is causing the ocean levels to rise and pump it into the outback of Australia and other deserts, turning them into huge farms. Then we get loads of robots to do all the physical work. There's bound to be enough people who will be interested enough in the engineering side of things to make this work.

zhao
12-10-2007, 03:08 PM
OK - first step is to build massive solar powered generators in space that can beam down energy to earth - I think the major problems with having permanent cables running into orbit have been more or less solved now in theory using nano construction of massively long carbon molecules - anyway, there must be a way to do it. Then we need to take all that water that is causing the ocean levels to rise and pump it into the outback of Australia and other deserts, turning them into huge farms. Then we get loads of robots to do all the physical work.

i vote we keep this kid around what do you guys think?

vimothy
12-10-2007, 03:10 PM
I'm totally down with robots :D

john eden
12-10-2007, 07:45 PM
our (or at least mine) teenage pop-guru Peter Lamborn Wilson (Hakim Bey) advocated things like the dinner party or the the quilting bee as revolutionary act

Oh, and child-fucking.

john eden
12-10-2007, 07:54 PM
i vote we keep this kid around what do you guys think?

A big "yay!" here. I think looking back at previous eras is very important and the little I have read shows that life was not completely intolerable before capitalism. But no, I don't want to swap. For me it's harnessing technology and resources in a different/better way, not doing away with it all.

The difficulty I have is that people tend to then project their desires back in time and dig up any old stuff to justify their current beliefs. There is a large dose of romanticising in primitivism and it gives me the creeps, not least because of the large reduction in population which would be required as has been said.

Some friends of mine got into a large and long spat with some UK anarcho-primmies after publishing this piss-taking leaflet about them:

http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/gba.htm

The main difficulty I have I think is that it all ends up being incredibly moralistic and apocalyptic. The group concerned published texts lauding the Unabomber, the Aum cult, Ebola etc and had a very harsh attitutde towards "consumer zombies" and people who claimed the dole, etc. Certainly the bulk of UK anarchist scene decided it wanted nothing to do with them.

zhao
12-10-2007, 10:12 PM
life was not completely intolerable before capitalism.

The difficulty I have is that people tend to then project their desires back in time and dig up any old stuff to justify their current beliefs. There is a large dose of romanticising in primitivism and it gives me the creeps, not least because of the large reduction in population which would be required as has been said.

i know you are prolly just casually throwing terms around or taking the piss but i'm on about pre-civilization, not pre-capitalism...

sure anarcho-"primmies" might be guilty of romanticizing the past, but capitalism is guilty of painting the past in a horrific light to justify the horrific present.

the idea of an innocence lost long ago is THE most common theme in all of the roots of human stories, in every civilization from egypt, china, australian aboriginies, aztecs, etc., etc.

and to shift the scope to WITHIN the period of civilization, the heights of wisdom, thought, art, and music of glorious past cultures is much more significant than we in modern times care to remember or admit. the Islamic occupation of Spain in the 12th century for example, was a time of flourishing ideas and high culture, with amazing irrigation systems, running water, city planning, etc.

what i'm getting at is the distortion of our modern views, and how many times history has been revised -- and the nature of this distortion is without question along the lines of making our present culture to seem the best and most advanced. while in reality this view is somewhere between gross simplification and complete falsehood.

take for instance the most recent revision of history by the industrialists of the 19th century, who shaped American nationalism through education reform, in building the myth of the East/West divide.

sorry much too big a subject for the time i have at the moment...

Mr. Tea
12-10-2007, 10:28 PM
The main difficulty I have I think is that it all ends up being incredibly moralistic and apocalyptic. The group concerned published texts lauding the Unabomber, the Aum cult, Ebola etc and had a very harsh attitutde towards "consumer zombies" and people who claimed the dole, etc. Certainly the bulk of UK anarchist scene decided it wanted nothing to do with them.

I'd certainly assume dissing the dole would automatically put you in most anarchist's bad books. This lot sound a bit like 17th-century doomsday Puritans.

Seriously though, does this:

While the far-Right knows it will go nowhere without the Left, many of our Anarchist supporters have yet to realise that it is tactically necessary to adopt the techniques of the Nazis and the Secret State in order to overthrow mass society.
remind you of the pet project of anyone on here (http://www.dissensus.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=9)?

gek-opel
12-10-2007, 10:47 PM
Ah but monsignor Tea, my purported project would entail an immanent critique through practice using precisely the tools of avant-capitalism itself... I have also already gone on record as saying that whilst I have some sympathies with an annihilist viewpoint, if realistically pursued to its end it would entail little more than a reversion to a feudalist system at best, which is to be rejected. Indeed such a projects aim is merely to achieve a position whence the landlocked course of history can begin again, a position of creative fecundity, rather than the arid death bowl of the Nazi death camps. The apocalypticism invoked is entirely responsive to the popular imagination of our time, again an ironical critique of its own insanely limited perspective, that there is capitalism or annihilation, and nothing possible outside of this emaciated binary. In which case utopian apocalypticism is to be embraced to the extent that it enables the negation of the warped-time ever-present we are mired in, and actually might give way to the opening out of possibility rather than nihilism, which is entirely to be rejected. Indeed finding an escape from "the death of everything new" of our age is the least nihilistic course of action of all.

I do however know some people who are really down with the whole reduced population thing... they reckon it all went pear shaped when we left the medieval era population wise...

gek-opel
12-10-2007, 10:53 PM
Though I did enjoy the maniacal nature of it. I suspect the piss-take version was somewhat more compelling than the actual target...

Mr. Tea
13-10-2007, 12:12 AM
Sure, it's obviously not quite the same thing, I was just commenting on the whole idea of using your enemy's own methods as a means of his undoing, 'fighting fire with fire'.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 02:58 AM
continued:

yay for the nomadology references


you all realize that hunter gatherers lived entirely on half rancid meat and our feast-or-famine metabolisms still work according to what worked then. right? this is the reason for the sharp rise in obesity in the developed world--humans simply did not eat refined carbohydrates in the pre-agricultural eras. we have the same basic metabolic functional capacity of a hunter-gatherer, but eat like and aggrarian...or however you spell that

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:07 AM
I think that I would be worried that TAZ-style politics, whether one calls it Immediatism, future primitivism or just plain anarchism, devolves into the kind of lifestyle anarchism typified by CrimethInc (http://www.crimethinc.com/) - you know, just have fun, go travelling, live out of dumpsters. Can it affect change across society more broadly? I mean, Wilson must surely (great writer, bad politics, IMO) realise that his kind of refusenik saturnalia is impossible without capitalism to exploit.

of course, the real goal is to become a BwO (body without organs).

two direct paths to the BwO (D&G even list them):

heroin
S&M

one of my favorite questions is: how is a BwO any better/worse than any other virtual body, say, a cyborg from like T2, in effecting any sort of active resistance to capitalism.

(there is a very long answer to this question, and if you bother typing it out, i will pay you to use it for a block quote in this paper i'm writing about kraftwerk's "man machine" vis-a-vis D&G and the "mechanical" process of desire )

zhao
15-10-2007, 06:02 AM
one of my favorite questions is: how is a BwO any better/worse than any other virtual body, say, a cyborg from like T2, in effecting any sort of active resistance to capitalism.

isn't the BwO synoymous, at least to a degree, with the Virtual body? it is a collection of unrealized possibilities of the body, or alternative modes of existence yet un-tried.

from wiki:

Even though any form of desire can be produced on it, the empty BwO is non-productive. The full BwO is the healthy BwO; it is productive, but not petrified in its organ-ization. The cancerous BwO is caught in a pattern of endless reproduction of the self-same pattern.

seems to me that Terminator, heroin and S+M would all belong in category of the cancerous BwO.

my own take on the BwO, not necessarily anything to do with Anti-Oedipus, is a consciousness / body unconditioned, uninhibited, un-afraid, uncompartmentalized, undivided, the opposite of "head in a jar", unified and whole, pre-Descartes, pre-lingual, pre-symbolic, inhabiting an imagistic realm of the imagination of immediate yet complete immersion in the senses.

which is a lot to do with primitivism.

something like seeing the world and everything within it as it is, for what it is, like an animal would (but obviously with human intellect)

zhao
15-10-2007, 06:03 AM
Oh, and child-fucking.

of course not condoning Paedophelia, children's sexuality do need liberation.

goomba
15-10-2007, 10:22 AM
Vegetarions and Vegans in my eyes are the worst mistake! Why would someone not want to eat what is only natural to us humans! Perhaps not the WORST mistake or even a mistake so we'll say a fault in the human being!

Worst mistake would probably have to be something along the lines of......I don't want to get into trouble for this........but................truthfully......... ........................I'd have to say religion!

It's because of different religions that there is war among people! Hope you all don't mind me saying it but in a way it's true! I understand the need for believing in something but the way it's worked out has led to death, dating back thousands of years!

If anyone wants to know if I'm religious then I'd like to say I'm a Jedi! LOL

Sorry to anyone if I have offended them!

matt b
15-10-2007, 10:45 AM
Vegetarions and Vegans in my eyes are the worst mistake! Why would someone not want to eat what is only natural to us humans! Perhaps not the WORST mistake or even a mistake so we'll say a fault in the human being!

goomba, please read a little more on the topics you post about or shut the fuck up. otherwise, i doubt you'll be welcome here for long

zhao
15-10-2007, 11:35 AM
haha goomba's views on religion is identical to those of Richard Dawkins. and that speaks volumes about Dawkins. :D

AND might i add that his dietary opinions are very telling about what sorts of persons are fervently anti-vegetarian LOL :D

Mr. Tea
15-10-2007, 12:19 PM
'Vegetarions' sound like a warlike alien race, possibly hailing from the planet Tofu and possibly thwarted in their plans to invade Earth by Doctor Who. :)

noel emits
15-10-2007, 12:30 PM
'Vegetarions' sound like a warlike alien race, possibly hailing from the planet Tofu and possibly thwarted in their plans to invade Earth by Doctor Who. :)
Incorrect - vegetarions are gaseous partciles emitted by decaying plant matter.

On the other hand should the Vegans come knocking at your solar system...

zhao
15-10-2007, 12:51 PM
haha goomba's views on religion is identical to those of Richard Dawkins. and that speaks volumes about Dawkins. :D

AND might i add that his dietary opinions are very telling about what sorts of persons are fervently anti-vegetarian LOL :D


'Vegetarions' sound like a warlike alien race, possibly hailing from the planet Tofu and possibly thwarted in their plans to invade Earth by Doctor Who. :)

if vegetarians are aliens then this must be human:

http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/data/image_3_821.jpghttp://www.vegsoc.org.au/abattoir/full_size/2legs.jpg


From everything I've read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America at least still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick. And broiler chickens, although they do get their beaks snipped off with a hot knife to keep them from cannibalizing one another under the stress of their confinement, at least don't spend their eight-week lives in cages too small to ever stretch a wing. That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral ''vices'' that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding. Pain? Suffering? Madness? The operative suspension of disbelief depends on more neutral descriptors, like ''vices'' and ''stress.'' Whatever you want to call what's going on in those cages, the 10 percent or so of hens that can't bear it and simply die is built into the cost of production. And when the output of the others begins to ebb, the hens will be ''force-molted'' -- starved of food and water and light for several days in order to stimulate a final bout of egg laying before their life's work is done.

Simply reciting these facts, most of which are drawn from poultry-trade magazines, makes me sound like one of those animal people, doesn't it? I don't mean to, but this is what can happen when . . . you look. It certainly wasn't my intention to ruin anyone's breakfast. But now that I probably have spoiled the eggs, I do want to say one thing about the bacon, mention a single practice (by no means the worst) in modern hog production that points to the compound madness of an impeccable industrial logic.

Piglets in confinement operations are weaned from their mothers 10 days after birth (compared with 13 weeks in nature) because they gain weight faster on their hormone- and antibiotic-fortified feed. This premature weaning leaves the pigs with a lifelong craving to suck and chew, a desire they gratify in confinement by biting the tail of the animal in front of them. A normal pig would fight off his molester, but a demoralized pig has stopped caring. ''Learned helplessness'' is the psychological term, and it's not uncommon in confinement operations, where tens of thousands of hogs spend their entire lives ignorant of sunshine or earth or straw, crowded together beneath a metal roof upon metal slats suspended over a manure pit. So it's not surprising that an animal as sensitive and intelligent as a pig would get depressed, and a depressed pig will allow his tail to be chewed on to the point of infection. Sick pigs, being underperforming ''production units,'' are clubbed to death on the spot. The U.S.D.A.'s recommended solution to the problem is called ''tail docking.'' Using a pair of pliers (and no anesthetic), most but not all of the tail is snipped off. Why the little stump? Because the whole point of the exercise is not to remove the object of tail-biting so much as to render it more sensitive. Now, a bite on the tail is so painful that even the most demoralized pig will mount a struggle to avoid it.

gek-opel
15-10-2007, 01:45 PM
Zhao: In the UK recently there have been a number of television programmes relating to the alienation of humans from the processes of production of their food (predominantly of course: meat). Watching these programmes I was struck by the realization that at its most fundamental level (to eat meat we ought to kill it ourselves) this mini-movement (meat-realism or whatever) is almost classically Marxist in its analysis of the estrangement of labour (within the food market). The squeamishness and prissiness of most of the individuals they took through the processes was actually quite shocking to me. Most of them preferred not even to think of meat as animal muscle/entrails/organs etc... The estrangement is emphasised here by the literal alienation of man from the industrial holocaustic death-factories at the centre of meat production...

goomba
15-10-2007, 02:46 PM
haha goomba's views on religion is identical to those of Richard Dawkins. and that speaks volumes about Dawkins. :D

AND might i add that his dietary opinions are very telling about what sorts of persons are fervently anti-vegetarian LOL :D

Haha don't know who he is but I'll check wikipedia or something later!

As for Matt B. What have I said that is so wrong LOL! I have a joke about vegans and veggies and you get all protective! It's not as if I'm saying that it's wrong and it should be banned or something! Just saying that I love eating meat like steak and stuff and in my opinion I could not live without meat and don't understand why some people choose to not eat it as it's something humans have done since we were apes! Everyone has an opinion and everyone have a reaction, whether it be positive or negative reaction at the end of the day this is a topic about peoples opinion now if you don't mind just bring your stress levels down a little, breathe slowly and we'll get through this nice and fine!

I don't eat cow! I eat beef! I don't eat pig! I eat bacon! :D

Mr. Tea
15-10-2007, 02:48 PM
Watching these programmes I was struck by the realization that at its most fundamental level (to eat meat we ought to kill it ourselves) this mini-movement (meat-realism or whatever) is almost classically Marxist in its analysis of the estrangement of labour (within the food market)

I'm really not sure I buy this idea. I mean, there are plenty of good reasons why different people do different jobs, right? It would be insane if everyone had to do literally everything for themselves (well, it would be impossible, wouldn't it). To put it another way, it's only through the efforts of men who are prepared to wade around in a big tunnel full of shit (for which they are of course paid) that sewage systems are maintained; I'm pretty glad I don't do this for a living, but all the same I don't think that implies I shouldn't have the right to have a flushing toilet in my house.

Of course, whether any particular person feels guiltily squeamish, perversely glad or completely apathetic about the suffering of animals in our farms makes not a jot of difference to the animals themselves, and it's clearly to the good that we have at least some laws to garuantee certain minimum welfare standards, and that more and more people are buying free-range meat and eggs.

noel emits
15-10-2007, 02:57 PM
'Vegetarions' sound like a warlike alien race, possibly hailing from the planet Tofu and possibly thwarted in their plans to invade Earth by Doctor Who. :)
But maybe there's more to that than is immediately apparent.

To take the cheap sci-fi analogy a bit further perhaps the human race is comething like the ancient vulcans in Star Trek - a violent warlike race that decides the only way it can survive is to evolve consciously and curtail it's more dangerous impulses. In that sense the Vegitarions *(c)2007 Goomba, represent the cultural awareness that wishes to move away from the blithe assumption that because we can then we must do whatever we want to subjugate all other creatures, especially by eating them.

Mr. Tea
15-10-2007, 03:03 PM
In that sense the Vegitarions *(c)2007 Goomba, represent the cultural awareness that wishes to move away from the blithe assumption that because we can then we must do whatever we want to subjugate all other creatures, especially by eating them.

Haha, reminds me of this:
http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/news/images/09-2002/09-29-02%20eleawta.GIF
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/death-comes-dinner.php

noel emits
15-10-2007, 03:14 PM
...because we can then we must do whatever we want to subjugate all other creatures, especially by eating them.
In fact you could just as well say that because we can stop eating animals, at least to the extent that we do, then we must do so. If as Goomba says the apes that we were ate other animals it was strictly out of necessity. Could that be why there is often such weirdly vociferous criticism of Vegeterionism (sic) - because it must not be acknowledged that it is indeed perfectly possible to enjoy food and be healthy without eating meat?

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:17 PM
seems to me that Terminator, heroin and S+M would all belong in category of the cancerous BwO.



nope, let me find the reference...i have nothing better to do...i think it's on like page 340 something of that latest edition of mille plateau

noel emits
15-10-2007, 03:20 PM
I'm really not sure I buy this idea. I mean, there are plenty of good reasons why different people do different jobs, right? It would be insane if everyone had to do literally everything for themselves (well, it would be impossible, wouldn't it). To put it another way, it's only through the efforts of men who are prepared to wade around in a big tunnel full of shit (for which they are of course paid) that sewage systems are maintained; I'm pretty glad I don't do this for a living, but all the same I don't think that implies I shouldn't have the right to have a flushing toilet in my house.
The problem is that what more or less immediately happens is that the farming of animals becomes an industry and as that industry gets bigger it must sustain itself. So then it's no longer done out of the necessity of providing the food that is needed or desired, but to create and maintain the market so that the industry itself can survive and prosper. This is of course a mechanism that has wider siginificance than (even) just the food market. It's all a bit arse about face really, as I'm sure Marx was fond of saying.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:21 PM
my own take on the BwO, not necessarily anything to do with Anti-Oedipus, is a consciousness / body unconditioned, uninhibited, un-afraid, uncompartmentalized, undivided, the opposite of "head in a jar", unified and whole, pre-Descartes, pre-lingual, pre-symbolic, inhabiting an imagistic realm of the imagination of immediate yet complete immersion in the senses.

which is a lot to do with primitivism.



yeah...remember when Erakah Badu had that video where it was all tribal anarcho-futuristic? it was right after she decided a PhD was just a "piece of paper" and gave it all up...

vimothy
15-10-2007, 03:27 PM
seems to me that Terminator, heroin and S+M would all belong in category of the cancerous BwO.

As I remember it, the explicit example of a BwO in A Thousand Plateaus is a charming little S&M vignette. I think. Someone else can corroborate, I'm sure.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:31 PM
if vegetarians are aliens then this must be human:



all of this is entirely human. look at what we do to one another

ever been to one of those medieval torture museums? i went to that one in Rothenberg where that cannibal guy who cut of that other guy's penis lived. on the Tauber? i think...

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:40 PM
an online reference, taken from http://www.echo.ucla.edu/volume1-issue1/middleton/middleton-article.html


A valuable text for thinking through these issues is Deleuze and Guattari's "How do you Make Yourself a Body Without Organs?" in which they discuss the sort of remappings of the affective geography of the body potentially enabled by masochists and drug users.19 These forms of experimentation, in their reading, allow for a disconnection of affects from meanings in which they have been entrenched by discourses of psychoanalysis, medicine, and so on. The crucial point perhaps is that the "lines of flight" away from oppressive social structures which such practices represent are never inherently productive or destructive, but can have very different effects depending upon the care and caution with which they are undertaken. The body of the heroin user is a body in process, and can be a mode of passage, but only when connected up with other forms of productivity and creativity. If this is the case, as Deleuze and Guattari write: "The Body Without Organs reveals itself for what it is: connection of desires, conjunction of flows, continuum of intensities. You have constructed your own little machine, ready to be plugged into other collective machines."

zhao
15-10-2007, 03:54 PM
all of this is entirely human. look at what we do to one another

ever been to one of those medieval torture museums? i went to that one in Rothenberg where that cannibal guy who cut of that other guy's penis lived. on the Tauber? i think...

i've said before that human beings are capable of behaving like angels or monsters, the entire spectrum from graceful empathy to horrifying cruelty -- it just depends on the situation.

so to say "human nature" is cruel and evil is just as absurd as saying it is loving and peaceful.

remember that failure of an argument that humans are selfish by nature because if 4 people are in a room all starving and there is only 1 piece of bread they would all fight for it?

to that i say what if 4 people are in a room and have just taken ecstasy? observations of them would lead to the conclusion that human "nature" is blissfully happy.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 03:56 PM
I'm not saying we're 100% evil and blood lusty, but that's definitely part of who we are. If you're going by observation.

That's why the non-organic body is such a lofty goal, right?

matt b
15-10-2007, 04:30 PM
As for Matt B....

ah, it must be so exciting joining your first discussion board

vimothy
15-10-2007, 05:04 PM
Some friends of mine got into a large and long spat with some UK anarcho-primmies after publishing this piss-taking leaflet about them:

http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/gba.htm

That leaflet - OTM

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 06:12 PM
I actually have no idea what the leaflet is talking about. I guess I haven't met enough "anarcho-primmies"

Mr. Tea
15-10-2007, 06:15 PM
That phrase is giving me an image in my head of a sort of cross between G. G. Allin and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. :rolleyes:

dHarry
15-10-2007, 06:28 PM
D&G explicitly state that drugged & S&M bodies are botched, failed, cancerous attempts at BwOs.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 06:32 PM
where?

EDIT: I am not at home right now, so I do not have a copy of MP to look at. I explicitly seem to remember this one passage (you can find all kinds of references to it on the internet) where they talk about how the only real "cheats" to the BwO are S&M, heroin, and there's one other thing I completely forget...of course, not all drugged or sado-masochistic bodies are the BwO, but these are methods they endorse.

I am willing to defer if you can show me where they say the opposite, since it's been a while.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 06:45 PM
Thank god for wikipedia. This is what I think the deal is: any BwO can be "full", "empty", or "cancerous", and you can be either a cancerous, full, or empty BwO depending on how "productively" you are able to maneuver your drug addiction/fetishism.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 06:50 PM
Also, check out this protracted argument on another forum so we don't have to get into it:

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=950065

zhao
15-10-2007, 06:55 PM
Thank god for wikipedia. This is what I think the deal is: any BwO can be "full", "empty", or "cancerous", and you can be either a cancerous, full, or empty BwO depending on how "productively" you are able to maneuver your drug addiction/fetishism.

that's what i already SAID. sigh...


Even though any form of desire can be produced on it, the empty BwO is non-productive. The full BwO is the healthy BwO; it is productive, but not petrified in its organ-ization. The cancerous BwO is caught in a pattern of endless reproduction of the self-same pattern.


particularly:


The cancerous BwO is caught in a pattern of endless reproduction of the self-same pattern

which sounds like heroin abuse, S/M and Terminator to me.

Mr. Tea
15-10-2007, 06:57 PM
...or an obsessive-compulsive knitting enthusiast?

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 07:00 PM
yeah, but becoming a BwO through heroin abuse is fine as long as you "get there" to productivity, as long as you don't become cancerous...check out that link to the argument on Cross-X, I think that one person makes a good point--D&G were sweating Burroughs so bad until it got them negative backlash, then D decided to make it clear he was not "endorsing drug addiction"

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 07:00 PM
that's what i already SAID. sigh...



particularly:



which sounds like heroin abuse, S/M and Terminator to me.

I think you're confusing a full BwO with a healthy organic body. That's the exact sort of binary D&G are trying to escape from...

zhao
15-10-2007, 07:23 PM
trust me, i'm the first to defend heroin. especially against the false claims society and the war on drugs makes about it. but all said and done (and i've done enough of it to know), it is just simply not good for creativity. even Burroughs admits it -- he said something like he'd have been a better writer if he wasn't a junky or something to that effect.


I think you're confusing a full BwO with a healthy organic body. That's the exact sort of binary D&G are trying to escape from...

not exactly sure what you mean. explain?

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 07:55 PM
I totally agree. Everytime I have relapsed and managed to get off again, it's always been mostly because I simply lose any creative ambition when I'm on it, and I get sick of that. Not to mention thousands upon thousands of dollars. And friends. And shrinks. (I am the first to admit that it's the one drug that should be completely illegal and the ban legally enforced across the board.)

Think about it in the old "Oedipal" Freudian terms: how can you sublimate anything when you have absolutely ZERO libido? This is where D&Gs views on this become interesting to me, in the way they try to salvage some hope for an "Anti-Oedipal" "full" BwO that results from heroin use, even though the put the obvious disclaimers on it.

The weirdest thing getting clean is having to SEE and SMELL and TASTE and FEEL things again. It takes a lot of getting used to. On bupe, if I go outside and smell anything, say a big blast of fuel smell from a car, I instantly wretch just from the sensation.

What I meant was that the BwO is not supposed to be "energized" necessarily, or "healthy"...

zhao
15-10-2007, 08:25 PM
What I meant was that the BwO is not supposed to be "energized" necessarily, or "healthy"...

physical health can be a trap, sure, but in an optimum state an organism has the courage and fucking audacity, necessary to explore unfamiliar lines/paths/plains -- not sure what it would be in Delusian terms -- let's just say ways of being.

a healthy body and confident mind has the most number of options of how to live, and to creatively produce.

with that said i do love my weed.

zhao
15-10-2007, 08:30 PM
get off again ... mostly because I simply lose any creative ambition when I'm on it

how can you sublimate anything when you have absolutely ZERO libido?

the 2 are very much related, and it's an interesting equation, but creative ambition is not the same as libido and they each can exist without the other.

zhao
15-10-2007, 08:32 PM
even weed i'm smoking less and less of.

but heroin should not be illegal. it is a WONDERFUL THING. really. amazing. but turns into a nightmare if, and that's very often, abused.

i've never had a habit. most ever was every weekend or every other weekend. now it's like once a few years, if a special occasion comes up...

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 10:57 PM
the problem is, there is no way to use opiates without the direct supervision of a doctor without developing a dependency over time. even people with the supervision of a doctor often develop dependencies. good for you if you managed not to get addicted, but it literally only takes 24-48 hours/three or four dime bags of decent shit to get back on the wagon. there's always the big lie: "just one more time..."

the only thing i can fathom that is worse than withdrawal is being shuttled to a concentration camp. even there you have something to cling to, because there's some hope you'll die in the camp. i know someone who had withdrawal last 10 full days.

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 10:59 PM
a healthy body and confident mind has the most number of options of how to live, and to creatively produce.

it's only taken me 25 years to begin to figure this out

nomadologist
15-10-2007, 11:01 PM
the 2 are very much related, and it's an interesting equation, but creative and ambition is not the same as libido and they each can exist without the other.

well, Freud disagreed. He thought art was just the product of repressed libido, or libido that couldn't find an outlet otherwise. That's what called "sublimation"...

zhao
15-10-2007, 11:36 PM
yes i'm familiar with that but i don't agree. i get very creative and produce better, or at least just as good, when I'm having lots of sex -- when the wolf is fed i feel like i can focus better on other things sometimes.

and if I'm less productive when i'm having lots of sex it's because girls takes up too much time :p

hundredmillionlifetimes
15-10-2007, 11:39 PM
a healthy body and confident mind ...

Except that such - when unqualified - statements become indistinguishable from the incessant super-egoic injunction of today's reality principle, of capitalist realism, of emulating Arnold Schwarzenegger and his gym junk ...



with that said i do love my weed.

The telos (of lack), only permitted after the regime that produces 'a healthy body and confident mind.' 'Because I'm worth it!', as Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc, like to squeal.

zhao
15-10-2007, 11:57 PM
Except that such - when unqualified - statements become indistinguishable from the incessant super-egoic injunction of today's reality principle, of capitalist realism, of emulating Arnold Schwarzenegger and his gym junk ...

it is not necessary that these statements are indestinguishable. what i choose to do with my life is distinguishable from what people like the Governator choose to do with theirs.

how can you fight for things you believe in, not to mention the enemy, if you are unhealthy? the physically unfit and sickly artist is such a damaging stereotype it pisses me off that people romanticise heron chic in relation to creativity.

artists need to stop falling victim to such stupid notions -- and empower themselves. physically, financially, politically, socially.


The telos (of lack), only permitted after the regime that produces 'a healthy body and confident mind.' 'Because I'm worth it!', as Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc, like to squeal.

so i enjoy both excercising as well as a drink and a smoke, so what? you are implying that makes me a republican? what is your point exactly?

nomadologist
16-10-2007, 01:30 AM
Except that such - when unqualified - statements become indistinguishable from the incessant super-egoic injunction of today's reality principle, of capitalist realism, of emulating Arnold Schwarzenegger and his gym junk ...



The telos (of lack), only permitted after the regime that produces 'a healthy body and confident mind.' 'Because I'm worth it!', as Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc, like to squeal.

good points

nomadologist
16-10-2007, 01:33 AM
so i enjoy both excercising as well as a drink and a smoke, so what? you are implying that makes me a republican? what is your point exactly?

he's talking more about the BwO in its capacity to become a force of resistance to capitalism...really BwOs are trying to attain to the schizophrenic's ability to resist capitalism...the whole discourse around "health" and the emphasis on it has been hijacked by capitalism, wouldn't you say?

exercise videos, protein powder, Arnold, etc.

zhao
16-10-2007, 02:32 AM
the whole discourse around "health" and the emphasis on it has been hijacked by capitalism, wouldn't you say?

so if capitalism co-opted "health", we should all become sickly to "become a force of resistance" to capitalism?

does that make sense to ANYONE out there?

capitalsim hijacked heroin chic too. as it did punk, hiphop, and affordable home furnishing. it hijacks everything. such is its nature. i don't feel like i need to spell out the rest of this argument.

hundredmillionlifetimes
16-10-2007, 02:38 AM
it is not necessary that these statements are indestinguishable. what i choose to do with my life is distinguishable from what people like the Governator choose to do with theirs.

Absolutely.


how can you fight for things you believe in, not to mention the enemy, if you are unhealthy? the physically unfit and sickly artist is such a damaging stereotype it pisses me off that people romanticise heron chic in relation to creativity.

Sure, it's just that ideas of health extend far beyond the questionable notion of the body as well-oiled hierarchical machine in the service of some other. And surely today, the mediatized obsession is not with the 'sickly artist' but with the sickly performance-enhanced athlete/consumer?


artists need to stop falling victim to such stupid notions -- and empower themselves. physically, financially, politically, socially.

Disciplined resistence to the oppressive status quo is a sickly notion, as opposed to an extremely healthy one? Empower yourself: Get With The Programme (even as it kills you)?



so i enjoy both excercising as well as a drink and a smoke, so what? you are implying that makes me a republican? what is your point exactly?

As most of us do. It's the paradox here (getting 'healthy' in order to quickly abandon it, and vice versa, and then quickly reversing everything again) that serves as a symptom of the contemporary deadlock, not indulging in even more as a (ideological) 'solution' to it.

zhao
16-10-2007, 02:54 AM
Sure, it's just that ideas of health extend far beyond the questionable notion of the body as well-oiled hierarchical machine in the service of some other.

not sure if i understand this... are you saying that health is more than proscribed condition of optimum slave labor productivity? if you are, that is also what I am saying. so we agree?


And surely today, the mediatized obsession is not with the 'sickly artist' but with the sickly performance-enhanced athlete/consumer?

and...?


Disciplined resistence to the oppressive status quo is a sickly notion, as opposed to an extremely healthy one? Empower yourself: Get With The Programme (even as it kills you)?

why "opposed"? being healthy, overcoming all the roadblocks set up by the system such as addiction, is a part of disciplined resistance. and how is "getting with the (health) programme" going to "kill you"?


As most of us do. It's the paradox here (getting 'healthy' in order to quickly abandon it, and vice versa, and then quickly reversing everything again) that serves as a symptom of the contemporary deadlock, not indulging in even more as a (ideological) 'solution' to it.

yes this pretty accurately describes what happens with me i admit. but i don't have a huge problem with it. all things in moderation and all that. (even moderation MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D)

nomadologist
16-10-2007, 04:19 PM
not sure if i understand this... are you saying that health is more than proscribed condition of optimum slave labor productivity? if you are, that is also what I am saying. so we agree?


but you didn't agree.

"heroin chic" is a now a cultural fossil from the 90s, Pete Doherty's "career" notwithstanding. it was capitalism at its finest, i agree.

but that does not mean that the inverse is anti-capitalist--that being "healthy" and "fit" can't be ways of falling in line. doesn't have to be, but health certainly doesn't get you to the BwO now does it? I mean, maybe some sort of blood-letting endurance sport could, I don't know...

nomadologist
16-10-2007, 04:22 PM
so if capitalism co-opted "health", we should all become sickly to "become a force of resistance" to capitalism?

of course not. but certain mental illnesses, according to D&G, can get you "outside" the apparatus. they hated freud's emphasis on the neurotic. a perfect example of typical contemporary neurotic behavior is crash dieting, fad dieting, exercise bulimia, "powdered" nutrition, etc. our whole relationship to "embodiment" is umm problematic at best.

hundredmillionlifetimes
17-10-2007, 05:21 AM
it's only taken me 25 years to begin to figure this out

I know the feeling ...

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/drunkgirls.jpg


"heroin chic" is a now a cultural fossil from the 90s

1950s/1960s 'heroin' chic!

I'm envious ... interesting - and rare - staged photo though.

zhao
17-10-2007, 09:09 AM
i like the brunette better than the blonde. i'm pretty sure.

(i checked the forum rules and posters are allowed 1 stupid comment per every 25 good ones. I have a little stack of them saved up)

Gavin
17-10-2007, 12:08 PM
i like the brunette better than the blonde. i'm pretty sure.

(i checked the forum rules and posters are allowed 1 stupid comment per every 25 good ones. I have a little stack of them saved up)

Pssst, they're both brunettes (check the eyebrows).

goomba
17-10-2007, 12:18 PM
ah, it must be so exciting joining your first discussion board

I apologize for not using quotations! It's such a terrible thing I have done that has concluded in the presumption that I am new to discussion boards!

There must have been something that touched a nerve in my original post to cause you to criticise me in two different occasions. What happened to freedom of speech? Or does it not count in your little world?

zhao
17-10-2007, 12:23 PM
goomba we all agree with matt b.

the only reason no one else has told you to read the posts before answering them is because we don't think you are worth our time.

now do something other than waste everyone's time or piss off.

goomba
17-10-2007, 12:37 PM
goomba we all agree with matt b.

the only reason no one else has told you to read the posts before answering them is because we don't think you are worth our time.

now do something other than waste everyone's time or piss off.

Fair enough! I'll take it on the chin and leave then! Sorry to bother you all.

Cheers

matt b
17-10-2007, 12:53 PM
Fair enough! I'll take it on the chin and leave then! Sorry to bother you all.

Cheers

goomba, i don't want you to leave, but if you post please think about what you're writing and sort out the emboldened huge font bollocks.

ta!

Mr. Tea
17-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Also, there are kids in Africa who've never even seen an exclamation mark, let alone used one, so please be a bit more sparing with them, eh?

zhao
17-10-2007, 01:19 PM
hey goomba i apologize for sounding harsh. i don't want you to leave either. just read the posts and respond to them...

nomadologist
17-10-2007, 03:06 PM
I know the feeling ...

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/hundredmillionlifetimes/drunkgirls.jpg



1950s/1960s 'heroin' chic!

I'm envious ... interesting - and rare - staged photo though.

heh looks like they haven't discovered the restorative powers of cocaine yet

hundredmillionlifetimes
17-10-2007, 06:57 PM
heh looks like they haven't discovered the restorative powers of cocaine yet

nor yet read their D&G.

IF THERE'S NO BOOZE LEFT TO DRINK THEN GET YOURSELF AN EIGHTBALL!!

[though with that old valve radio in the background, picking up every transmission on the planet, they must have just heard Leary's 'drop out' transmission].

nomadologist
17-10-2007, 09:43 PM
nor yet read their D&G.

IF THERE'S NO BOOZE LEFT TO DRINK THEN GET YOURSELF AN EIGHTBALL!!

[though with that old valve radio in the background, picking up every transmission on the planet, they must have just heard Leary's 'drop out' transmission].

roffle

zhao
18-10-2007, 02:03 AM
only takes 24-48 hours/three or four dime bags of decent shit to get back on the wagon

curious: how long / much did it take to get on the wagon for the first time?

people, usually having no first hand experience, will often say that you try it once and are immediately hooked. which is neither my personal experience nor the way i have heard seasoned junkies tell it: that it takes actually a long time and a lot of dope to gain a physical dependency - i've heard up to a month of daily use.

the problem with not having a dependency though (of course minor compared to the daily ordeal and eventual horror of addiction), is that each time i do it i feel sick and throw up for 20 minutes before the beautiful drone settles in. :confused:

Mr. Tea
18-10-2007, 01:42 PM
heh looks like they haven't discovered the restorative powers of cocaine yet

Sod that, in the 50s you could walk down to your neighbourhood pharmacy and buy all the speed you wanted OTC!

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 04:02 PM
curious: how long / much did it take to get on the wagon for the first time?

people, usually having no first hand experience, will often say that you try it once and are immediately hooked. which is neither my personal experience nor the way i have heard seasoned junkies tell it: that it takes actually a long time and a lot of dope to gain a physical dependency - i've heard up to a month of daily use.

the problem with not having a dependency though (of course minor compared to the daily ordeal and eventual horror of addiction), is that each time i do it i feel sick and throw up for 20 minutes before the beautiful drone settles in. :confused:

see, this is a hard question to answer, because for the first six months, i was stopping every couple of weeks and just dealing with somewhat milder withdrawal for a few days until i went out of my head and decided i couldn't take it. i would be in class and start having serious panic attacks and cold sweats as soon as one week after. i can say that i have felt serious withdrawal after only being on dope for two days, but i can't tell you when the breaking point was between when i was truly hooked and when i admitted i was to myself. this takes some people one day, some people six months. i was around 3 months, esp because i was smoking or blowing it at first, which of course people tell themselves is safer (even though snorting is a much easier and quicker way to OD because you can't control your dose very closely.)

once you've been hooked, though, and manage to get off completely, it really only takes one dose to get you back on. every time you relapse you do more and more and more. i was doing a bundle (10 dime bags at $70)/day for over a year...my boyfriend sometimes twice that...

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 04:04 PM
Sod that, in the 50s you could walk down to your neighbourhood pharmacy and buy all the speed you wanted OTC!

sure could-- my grandma was a nurse and she says doctors used to hand out amphetamines on the night shift!

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 04:07 PM
the problem with not having a dependency though (of course minor compared to the daily ordeal and eventual horror of addiction), is that each time i do it i feel sick and throw up for 20 minutes before the beautiful drone settles in

oh yeah everytime i go back on i vomit morningly for about a month till i adjust to the insane dose i'm giving myself...good shit will make you throw up if you snort a quarter of a dime the first time

i think this conversation has gone far enough

noel emits
07-12-2007, 02:21 PM
OK - first step is to build massive solar powered generators in space that can beam down energy to earth - I think the major problems with having permanent cables running into orbit have been more or less solved now in theory using nano construction of massively long carbon molecules - anyway, there must be a way to do it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7131617.stm

Immryr
07-12-2007, 03:57 PM
the future is upon us!

noel emits
07-12-2007, 07:58 PM
It's not clear how they plan on getting the energy back down to Earth.

Mr. Tea
08-12-2007, 07:14 PM
It's not clear how they plan on getting the energy back down to Earth.

People are getting pretty close to the wireless transmission of electricity, although at the moment I think they're only talking about a few metres at a pop, to power laptops and stuff. Still, once that's in the bag we need only perfect a working DEATH RAY for Tesla's vision of the future to be realised. Bring it on! :D

Gavin
08-12-2007, 07:55 PM
Like in SimCity 2000 when the waves of energy beamed to your microwave power plant could miss and incinerate entire blocks.

hundredmillionlifetimes
09-12-2007, 10:47 PM
Like in SimCity 2000 when the waves of energy beamed to your microwave power plant could miss and incinerate entire blocks.


... we need only perfect a working DEATH RAY for Tesla's vision of the future to be realised.

No need, it's already happening (the US MIC predictably taking its 'ideas' from assorted SF B-movies), and developed by a company called ... Raytheon! And currently being tested in ... Iraq (with a ready mass-market of 'cooperative' guinea pigs).

A heat-wave gun developed by Raytheon - euphemistically termed an Active Denial System by the US military, who have been working on the idea for a decade - is presently being tested in Iraq and is expected to be 'approved' by the Pentagon for deployment next year.


The heatwave weapon can, by contrast, target troublemakers from 750 metres. It works by dispatching high-powered radio waves from a vehicle antenna, similar to a satellite television dish, causing the molecules in a target's skin to vibrate violently, creating a burning sensation.

"We are pretty good at shouting and intimidating people and we have been perfecting the art of lethal warfare since Cain and Abel," he said. "But in places like Iraq we are re-learning that we need a response in the spectrum between shouting and shooting. The ADS provides this."

But he added: "This is not something we want to roll out and deploy and surprise people. We know we need to educate the public."

In fact the development of the weapon only became public after the Sunshine Project - a Texas-based group that campaigns against biological and chemical weapons - pushed for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/18/wdenial118.jpg

From Pioneering 'heat wave' gun may be used in Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/18/wdenial118.xml)

The spectrum between 'shouting and shooting'? Very catchy. Though I'm sure the Iraqis will quickly take to protecting themselves with tin-foil-covered cardboard boxes (I suppose Raytheon makes kitchen foil too, all markets covered) to avoid being microwaved in the spectrum between humanity's darkness and light ... Maybe that's what the military mean, above, by 'the need to educate the public.' One glance at those two psychofucks is more than sufficient to burn anyone up ...