"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Welcome to Infoshop News
Monday, April 21 2014 @ 09:41 AM CDT

What level of species extinction does An Anarchist FAQ accept?

Anarchist Opinion

No doubt that workers' control of the means of production would offer a great improvement over today's society, but in An Anarchist FAQ Iain McKay has not properly considered the facts of (pre)history and the origins of hierarchy, and so 1) falls short of his own ideals, 2) lacks the necessary ecological context.

What level of species extinction does An Anarchist FAQ accept?

No doubt that workers' control of the means of production would offer a great improvement over today's society, but in An Anarchist FAQ Iain McKay has not properly considered the facts of (pre)history and the origins of hierarchy, and so 1) falls short of his own ideals, 2) lacks the necessary ecological context.

Experts consider the Holocene extinction, beginning around 10,000bc with the advent of civilization (and continuing to this day) the worst extinction event perpetrated by any single species in the history of the planet.

By any objective standard, this constitutes the most important--and most immoral-- event in the whole of human history; certainly in any general discussion of environmental destruction.

Yet McKay makes no mention of it. Or the fact that it started when we had a population of just about 5 million, with much lower production/consumption levels than any modern anarchist society could achieve. Things as basic as agriculture, roads and tree-felling sufficed to cause major habitat destruction.

Many scholars also believe that humans had a role in the (less extensive) Quaternary extinction that began with the upper paleolithic 50,000 years ago (hunting hypothesis), which would imply that we can only reach the ecological balance of other predators at even lower middle paleolithic population/production levels.

At any rate, though civilization did lead to great population/production growth, the biggest driver was the industrial revolution (hockey stick population increase)--leading up to state/corporate capitalism and our current ecological crisis.

Thus any objective person looking at the human species compared to the rest would have to conclude the following:

1-Bad: humans (mainly because of our greater potential for destruction)
2-Worse: civilization
3-Worser: Industrialism
4-Worsest: state/corporate capitalism

McKay wants to go from 4 to a self-managed 3, which would indeed constitute a great improvement. But to present this as some sort of great ecological position seems to me disingenous. Even in the highly unlikely scenario that anarchists could cut the current population number (7.2 billion) in half and make them all anarchists, does he really think that 3.6 Billion humans in an industrial society can cause fewer extinctions and habitat destruction than 5 million neolithic farmers who were already causing the Holocene extinction?

Then of course, we have the issue of the origin of hierarchy and authoritarianism. Mckay, in an effort to bypass the logic of primitivism, and without any evidence, tries to solve this question by adhering to some Reichian theory about children not having sexual freedom.

But because he cannot accept civilization and its culture as an authoritarian step in relation to nature, he misses on the explanation that makes most sense: Terror Management Theory, which has 25 years of evidence to back it up (look up the 1000s of studies on Google scholar). Since it originated from Ernest Becker's ideas, I'll quote him:

"Civilized society is a hopeful belief and protest that [art], science, money and goods make man count for more than any other animal. In this sense everything that man does is religious and heroic, and yet in danger of being fictitious and fallible... The real world is simply too terrible to admit. It tells man that he is a small trembling animal who will someday decay and die. Culture changes all of this, makes man seem important, vital to the universe. Immortal in some ways... If we were to peel away this massive disguise, the blocks of repression over human techniques for earning glory, we would arrive at the potentially most liberating question of all, the main problem of human life: How empirically true is the cultural hero system that sustains and drives men? "

The evolutionary explanation goes something like this:

++Hominids began using their emerging cognitive abilities to understand their world and meet basic needs for nutrition, mates, and other resources. But this happened before they had reached the point where significant self (and thus death) awareness arose. Death awareness thus developed as an unfortunate byproduct of prior adaptive functions--not as an adaptation selected for its advantages. Anxiety in response to the inevitability of death threatened to undermine adaptive functioning and therefore needed amelioration. Any social formation that was to be widely accepted by the masses needed to provide a means of managing this terror--which we mostly bury in the unconscious. Thus humankind used the same intellectual capacities that gave rise to this problem to fashion cultural beliefs and values that provided protection against this potential anxiety. And while the emergence of morality and mutual aid evolved to facilitate co-existence within groups, the struggle to deny the finality of death, co-opted and changed morality's more primitive function.++

Hunter-gatherers themselves had religious beliefs and a place in the tribe that granted them meaning and value, but by and large seemed to have supressed their death fear by staying busy thinking about their next meal, doing interesting, immersive, purposeful, physically demanding work and by having a kind of contextual humbleness--seeing themselves as part of the natural world instead of the human-centric world of civilization.

No industrial society, no matter how anarchist, can provide this contextual non-human-centric humbleness. Even work, which is much of anarchism's focus, poses some problems: Even if unpleasant jobs like mining could be minimized, how can one compare the purposefulness of a hunt with that of, say, a curtain designer in an anarchist society? The latter will likely have to compensate for this lack with either other surrogate activities or delusions about the importance of his job. And this is quite apart from Ted Kaczinski's notions of technology changing the social landscape too quickly for our stone age brains to adapt.

In general, if humans need a certain level of ego delusion to suppress their death anxiety, we shouldn't advocate for this delusion to take on a material form. In other words, material culture--civilization--materializes the ego delusion. It violates empirical reality by elevating humans above other animals and encouraging the pursuit of symbolic immortality--striving to become individuals of value in an illusory world of meaning. True, together with this great delusion and loss of contextual reality come small pockets of deeper understanding--some of the discoveries of science. But clearly these can't offset the delusion of a whole society.

In this sense, God creates a more powerful sense of immortality than other aspects of culture, which only provide a strong sense of symbolic immortality to those who can become individuals of value in its trumped-up world of meaning and continuity--most prominently its masters.

And so in saying No Gods, No Masters, the anarchist wants to eliminate some extremes of ego delusion in civilization--not its sociological foundations, which deny the reality of impermanence expressed by a Kalahari Bushman song:

"The day we die a soft breeze will wipe out our footprints in the sand. When the wind dies down, who will tell the timelessness that once we walked this way in the dawn of time?"

Of course, in these discussions certain more "pragmatic" considerations are always brought up , such as that (despite primitives' superior physical and mental health) modern medicine has great advantages over primitive medicine--without which child mortality would be enormous--as it was before the industrial revolution.

But unfortunately, this assumes that humans have the right to grow in number and continue the Holocene extinction. It ignores that if we use a balance scale like blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other—giving us about a 500,000 times more weight because we invented the scales—the scales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage.

And so not only does civilization encourage delusion, but morally speaking, humans don't have the right to it, or to a population above 5 million.

As the VHEM says, we should abstain from reproducing to "live long and die out", at least till we reach that number--to stop acting as a tyrannical, murderous elite over all the other species.

Context matters, even if we only want to go from 4 to 3. And even if we cannot reach the goal, we should always start with the truth.

Delusion has consequences. In this case, the Holocene extinction, which should become the general context of anarchist discussion.

Jonathan Shockley

Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Kirtsy
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Del.icio.us
  • Blogmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
What level of species extinction does An Anarchist FAQ accept? | 2 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
What level of species extinction does An Anarchist FAQ accept?
Authored by: greenred on Friday, January 31 2014 @ 12:50 PM CST

 

Good point; McKay is way too dismissive of primitivism. The problem with primitivism, of course, is that it doesn't actually offer any useful strategies for change in the here and now -- no matter what, we still live in a world with 7 billion people dependent on industry to survive. How do we organize in this context?

We organize together to fight hierarchy, domination and extermination wherever we find it. We can't know where we're going, or where we should be going -- all we know is how to get there.

What level of species extinction does An Anarchist FAQ accept?
Authored by: ISHI on Tuesday, February 04 2014 @ 02:59 PM CST

 to attempt to use the language employed in this essay, i'd say rather than avoid their anthro or humancentric conception of the universe, which places themselves at the top as the most evolved species on the planet, primitivists have pretty much completely recuperated the primitive.  Yeah, the solution is to debate what happened in the Holocene, and maybe we can bring in lawyers and excpert witnesses while we figure out whether the A-faq is right or the analyses above is.

Another way of saying this is that the problem with primitivists is they think they are the only ones with advanced consciousness---both of the (supposed) 'ecological crisis' (which they heard about in school when went to see 'an inconveniant truth), which of course deeply troubles them (so lets go rewild in the rockies for a week), and also gives them great insight into the lives of hunter gatherers and the rest of the natural world.   They think humans invented art, language, hierarchy, fashion, science, etc. while 'those lower primitives and animals   who we admire amd envy in excatly the same way many average americans admire and envy the wealthy, the gangsta rappers, sid vicious, etc.' are 'noble savages' who didnt worry about art, strive for high status in the wolf pack stetc.  

   The nioble savages and animals , according to the same scientific sources the 'primitivists' get their information from, already did all that stuff.  And 'evolution of civilization' really was just a continuation of the process of evolution---birds sing, peacocks grow tails,  chimpanzees fight for teritory for their crews and run some off who must adapt by becoming neanderthals, and then fashionista anarcho-trendies, who then return to the land once the locals are all nearly extinct and hence not a threat and civilization has provided cheap and very useful things like tents, stoves and sleeping bags.  

    As they say all humans have a religion.   I think people should be discussing evolution rather than the other ones, many of which really deserve to go extinct since they are taking up space and poisoning it---except i think instead they should be placed in zoos and preserved next to the smallpox  and AIDS virus.