People would feed themselves instead of expecting others to labor to feed them; an entitlement that arose with industrial civilization. People would be inclined to protect the forests instead of bulldozing them for the supposed convenience of industrial food production if they picked their food directly from those forests everyday.
They’d protect the forests with their very lives because they’d need the food that grows in the forests to survive without industrial farms, bakeries and factories outsourcing food production and then hiding the ecocide they cause just out of sight of the villages and their carefully manicured streets.
what a terrible solution. so individualist its almost darwinian. it is also ecocidal in itself, by creating a world in which humans compete with animals, humans will kill animals. without farming, you are now competing with deer and whatever schmuck or tribe moves faster than you. theres a reason humans would go out and kill various 'pest' animals and predators: their existence demanded it at the time, for better or worse. the only way to buck this trend is with proper technology and planning. lets also just forget how many plants you need to feed a family sustainably, and also lets forget how much modern agriculture (and breeding, which you are taking advantage of when you grow these supposedly 'natural' plants, which oftentimes cant grow without perfect soil conditions given how altered they are, fuck lets forget that many forests have a severe dearth of any native food edible to humans) multiplies the productivity of plants, this plan is inherently genocidal. there is also a mention from ziq that seems to imply that complex forest ecosystems of the past were naturally more productive than agriculture. but why, then, did humans begin to cultivate plants? for funsies?
also, people do get tied up with literal family trees and demand protections of forests, this is common in most societies that are not settler-colonial and heavily urbanized
Social darwinists seem to forget that selfish species go extinct quite frequently
Also your big bad predators. Wolves, lions, bald eagles, all endangered. Any animal can end up that way. Humans too if we fail to manage our environment correctly.
I mean, ancient forests were more productive, but it's because humans were collectively managing them, which is something we could actually do in a civilized world...
Folks don't talk about that a clusterfuck food production is. Our current population levels are based on extractive agriculture reliant on finite inputs, which is actively killing insect populations. It's killing us long term.
But the alternatives like managed forests and grasslands or agroecology can't feed the number of people currently on the planet, at least not with our current inefficient distribution where half of all food is destroyed.
We need a lower population, and i don't mean this in a eugenicist way. We need levels of development and social welfare where people don't need to have kids to survive. We need access to contraception and reproductive healthcare to the point where people people are having kids out of concious choice. We need avenues for care and community outside of the family. We need education that challenges pro-natal ideologies.
It is inherently genocidal because subsistence farming has pretty low carrying capacity, and hunting and gathering even lower. Abandoning industial agriculture means starvation for 90% of world's population.
I agree with kropotkins synopsis here for evolutionary fitness, but yeah the argument of entitlement to other people's labor is fucked, you can't say that and in the other breath claim to care for people with disabilities
People would feed themselves instead of expecting others to labor to feed them; an entitlement that arose with industrial civilization. People would be inclined to protect the forests instead of bulldozing them for the supposed convenience of industrial food production if they picked their food directly from those forests everyday.
what a terrible solution. so individualist its almost darwinian. it is also ecocidal in itself, by creating a world in which humans compete with animals, humans will kill animals. without farming, you are now competing with deer and whatever schmuck or tribe moves faster than you. theres a reason humans would go out and kill various 'pest' animals and predators: their existence demanded it at the time, for better or worse. the only way to buck this trend is with proper technology and planning. lets also just forget how many plants you need to feed a family sustainably, and also lets forget how much modern agriculture (and breeding, which you are taking advantage of when you grow these supposedly 'natural' plants, which oftentimes cant grow without perfect soil conditions given how altered they are, fuck lets forget that many forests have a severe dearth of any native food edible to humans) multiplies the productivity of plants, this plan is inherently genocidal. there is also a mention from ziq that seems to imply that complex forest ecosystems of the past were naturally more productive than agriculture. but why, then, did humans begin to cultivate plants? for funsies?
also, people do get tied up with literal family trees and demand protections of forests, this is common in most societies that are not settler-colonial and heavily urbanized
Social darwinists seem to forget that selfish species go extinct quite frequently
Also your big bad predators. Wolves, lions, bald eagles, all endangered. Any animal can end up that way. Humans too if we fail to manage our environment correctly.
Also the idea that ancient forests were more productive for humans gives off Christian brain worms vibes
Like yeah we should just get naked and eat apples forever and laugh at God for telling us not to talk to snakes. That's how this reads to me
I mean, ancient forests were more productive, but it's because humans were collectively managing them, which is something we could actually do in a civilized world...
Yeah, but the idea you can do that without farming with many billions of people is absurd.
Folks don't talk about that a clusterfuck food production is. Our current population levels are based on extractive agriculture reliant on finite inputs, which is actively killing insect populations. It's killing us long term.
But the alternatives like managed forests and grasslands or agroecology can't feed the number of people currently on the planet, at least not with our current inefficient distribution where half of all food is destroyed.
We need a lower population, and i don't mean this in a eugenicist way. We need levels of development and social welfare where people don't need to have kids to survive. We need access to contraception and reproductive healthcare to the point where people people are having kids out of concious choice. We need avenues for care and community outside of the family. We need education that challenges pro-natal ideologies.
Like, you can't just talk about food.
Why do they think we developed language instead of claws
That's obviously because those species were just all beta males and not alpha chad rugged individualists like me.
It is inherently genocidal because subsistence farming has pretty low carrying capacity, and hunting and gathering even lower. Abandoning industial agriculture means starvation for 90% of world's population.
explicitly using the same words as neoliberals, typical millennial anarchist
read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid for the truth about evolutionary fitness
I agree with kropotkins synopsis here for evolutionary fitness, but yeah the argument of entitlement to other people's labor is fucked, you can't say that and in the other breath claim to care for people with disabilities
I was going to say, I wonder if they think trans people should bootleg their own HRT. That seems wildly unsafe compared to centralized production.
deleted by creator
'Slash-and-burn agriculture'? Never heard of it.