nihilist commando ([info]albanachdemon) wrote in [info]anarchists,
@ 2008-02-12 23:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:the only boss worth listening to

Disclaimer: I am not a primitivist
Ok, given my enmity and doubt for a lot of the recent pro-technology posts on these boards...can someone tell me why they think we'll be better off with a neo-urban movement? Are people just so locked into the mindset of urbanization that they cannot conceive of anything else, or do you all really believe that the things inherent to a city can be produced free of domination and hierarchy? This includes domination of the land, of people, of all living things that are sentient and can feel dominated. I do not seriously think that the way to answer thousands of years of urbanization by a different kind of urbanization to be the answer to civilizations' problems. As much as I would like to believe that vertical farming and other technologies will rescue us from capitalism and empire, the way that green capitalism and "sustainable agriculture" has become recuperated argues otherwise.


What am I asking is for well-thought out responses, the kind I've been engaging in with some folks in other posts.  If all you intend to say is "green anarchy is stupid lolz" or some such, gtfo.I like my flag like I like my metal. 




(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-13 06:05 am UTC (link)
the things inherent to a city can be produced free of domination and hierarchy? This includes domination

Well, since you've defined the concept "city" to include necessarily domination, you've answered your own question, haven't you?

As much as I would like to believe that vertical farming and other technologies will rescue us from capitalism and empire

There is no rescue by tech or a socio-economic scheme or anything else. We have to do it ourselves. Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

also,

Are people just so locked into the mindset of urbanization that they cannot conceive of anything else

It's not because we can't conceive of other things, I think it's rather because we don't want to starve to death and be killed by catastrophic collapse of industrial facilities or watch our loved ones die of easily treatable disease or women enslaved to their wombs or the rest of the hell primitivist fantasies would bring.
also I'm quite keen on seeing Mars.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]anonymafenomena
2008-02-13 06:12 am UTC (link)
Easily treatable diseases have been treated easily long before modern industrial medicine got on the scene. Likewise for abortion and birth control. Further, de-industrialization does not include destroying all currently available knowledge.

Incidentally, population density (read: urbanization) increases morbidity substantially. It also drastically increases the possibility of a massive pan/epidemic.

Given the fact that we're all here, I can conclusively tell you that the lack of industrial infrastructure does not cause starvation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]albanachdemon
2008-02-13 06:33 am UTC (link)
Aye, look at how much more easily plagues, cancers and other infections move in cities as opposed to rural areas. Not to mention that most of these COME from urbanization.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 06:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonymafenomena, 2008-02-13 06:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonymafenomena, 2008-02-13 06:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonymafenomena, 2008-02-13 07:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonymafenomena, 2008-02-13 07:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 03:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-14 03:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-15 07:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 09:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 01:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 03:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kill_a_fascist, 2008-02-13 03:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 06:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kill_a_fascist, 2008-02-13 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 06:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 10:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-17 09:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-17 11:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-18 01:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-18 03:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-18 10:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-19 12:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 09:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-03-05 11:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-03-05 11:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 03:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 03:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 05:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-13 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 03:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-13 04:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]commiefag, 2008-02-13 05:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 01:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 03:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 03:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 05:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-13 06:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]odubtaig, 2008-02-13 07:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 09:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonymafenomena, 2008-02-13 07:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-13 07:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-13 04:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 08:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-14 03:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-13 07:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-14 06:20 pm UTC

[info]postrodent
2008-02-13 01:35 pm UTC (link)
Given the fact that we're all here, I can conclusively tell you that the lack of industrial infrastructure does not cause starvation.

Unfortunately, while this _was_ true, it no longer is. There is simply no way I can imagine for us as a species to move back to a pastoral or hunter-gatherer lifestyle without mass starvation. The earth can feed six billion technological humans if they play their cards just right, but it flatly cannot support six billion farmers or hunter-gatherers. If it could we would have achieved this level of population before the industrial era. We have crossed a line of no return. Several, in fact.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 04:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]postrodent, 2008-02-13 05:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 05:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-14 08:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-15 09:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-15 09:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-15 09:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-15 09:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-15 09:50 pm UTC
The Great Compramise - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-15 10:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-15 10:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-15 10:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 05:23 pm UTC

[info]daysofthegun
2008-02-13 06:08 am UTC (link)
As much as I would like to believe that vertical farming and other technologies will rescue us from capitalism and empire

Again, nothing will rescue us but ourselves. The whole purpose of pointing these technologies out is to build an anarchist perspective which understands these technologies, their potential, and their possible social effect, instead of simply bleating "technology bad" every time a new discovery is made.

answer thousands of years of urbanization by a different kind of urbanization to be the answer to civilizations' problems.

As the numbers have shown, we cannot maintain the population we have, and not be urban. Not just urban, but urban and vertical Our options are limited, so this new urbanism seeks to make the best of that situation. A die-off is not an acceptable answer to myself or my associates.

This includes domination of the land, of people, of all living things that are sentient and can feel dominated.

It is the idea that by dominating a very small percentage of the land (the ultimate ideal would be around .5% of the earth's land mass for a population of 6 billion), we can leave the rest of it alone. We are rapidly approaching that possibility.

Edited at 2008-02-13 06:09 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]albanachdemon
2008-02-13 06:19 am UTC (link)
I KNOW that nothing will rescue us but ourselves. My question is, why are we worth rescuing? Obviously I depend on technology all the time: I ride a bike, I have a laptop, etc. but I'd give it all up in a heartbeat to end civilization and all that it implies.

.5%? That sounds impossible to me. I do not have happy visions of a die-off either, it just seems that it's a foregone conclusion. Lots of species die every day, do you count them in your estimates?


"Rapidly approaching that possibility" Do you really think that most of the people on this planet are going to willingly accept this new train of thought? We see how well anarchy has done, and the way that cultures who did understand the relationship they had to the land have been dominated.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:48 am UTC
This IS nitpicking... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:04 am UTC
Re: This IS nitpicking... - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 07:06 am UTC
Re: This IS nitpicking... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:06 am UTC
Re: This IS nitpicking... - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 07:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 06:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 06:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 06:57 am UTC

[info]fearsclave
2008-02-13 02:00 pm UTC (link)
Die-offs are not acceptable? How do you propose to prevent them? I'm genuinely interested.

The problem here is feeding the urban masses. So far, we're doing it using massive petroleum inputs, and something like 2/3s of the available land surface of this planet.

Vertical agriculture has its technical issues, not the least of which is moving huge amounts of water and soil large vertical distances. Getting it, making it, and transporting it to where it needs to be would be a huge endeavour. Even with oil still available, and assuming that the owners of the real estate involved would agree to turn their property into farms.

A mass die-off may not be morally or politically acceptable, but morals and politics are subordinate to the laws of physics. If there isn't enough food anymore, because we've run out of the fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel necessary to produce and deliver it, the topsoil it needs to grow in has been depleted, and climate change is changing growing conditions, all the ideals and good intentions and manifestos in the world cannot provide the nutrition needed to make up the difference.

Before all else, schemes for feeding our civilization need to be ecologically viable, or they. will. not. work. Our current food production and distribution systems are not sustainable in the long term, both because they are ecologically unsound and eventually destroy the land they're practiced on, and because they are dependent on oil, and when that runs out, they can no longer be practiced. And so far, every single alternative I've seen put forth hasn't stood up to the slightest critical examination.

Simply put, I now think that the best way to fix the system is just to let it collapse, and make sure that you raise your children so that the world they build in its place is a better one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 03:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fearsclave, 2008-02-13 04:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 04:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fearsclave, 2008-02-13 05:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 05:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 05:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fearsclave, 2008-02-13 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 03:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fearsclave, 2008-02-13 04:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-13 05:05 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2008-02-13 07:54 pm UTC (link)
"simply bleating "technology bad" every time a new discovery is made."

Until you stop attacking strawmen, nothing good can come of this line of discussion at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Deleted post)

[info]anonymafenomena
2008-02-13 06:47 am UTC (link)
Primitivism advocates the abandonment of modern technology and civilization.

That doesn't mean it's even remotely possible to do so within the confines of current civ.

This is the radical equivalent of saying that if you don't like the United States you should get out or if you're within a given power structure you have no right to criticize it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Not to be a jerk...
[info]albanachdemon
2008-02-13 06:53 am UTC (link)
but can someone tell me how to be an anarchist who votes for obama and not be a hypocrite?

I think that as I stated above, being anti-civ does not necessarily mean being a primitivist. If I was a primitivist I would not even be using the internet let alone giving a shit about what other people did or did not do in regards to cities.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 06:58 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:00 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 05:25 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 05:00 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 05:22 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 05:33 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-13 05:35 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 05:36 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:21 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-14 03:27 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-15 07:18 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]vampire_sushi, 2008-02-13 07:23 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:32 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]vampire_sushi, 2008-02-13 07:50 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]bunglenose, 2008-02-13 07:37 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-13 07:38 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]farewellfire, 2008-02-13 08:20 am UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]pika_pik, 2008-02-13 04:58 pm UTC
Re: Not to be a jerk... - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 07:45 am UTC
Oh dear!
[info]albanachdemon
2008-02-13 07:21 am UTC (link)
I'm REALLY sorry farewellfire but I think I accidentally deleted your post.

Here is your original text:
Could someone tell me how a primitivist could respond to this without being a hypocrite?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh dear! - [info]farewellfire, 2008-02-13 08:21 am UTC

[info]sad_sick_truth
2008-02-13 07:32 pm UTC (link)
I am amused by the way in which many of you posit a false dichotomy of "urbanists" vs. "primitivists," as though there were no positions in between, outside, or above. This kind of urge to divide into warring tribes is part of the problem, not the solution. When you learn to respect one another, halt the pinning of arbitrary and usually incorrect labels on one another, and GROW UP, you might have the right to call yourselves anarchists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-13 07:50 pm UTC (link)
Only adults can be anarchists!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]pika_pik
2008-02-13 09:28 pm UTC (link)
It's easy to treat people like shit over the internet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]albanachdemon
2008-02-14 07:47 am UTC (link)
I don't need YOU to tell me when I am and am not being an anarchist. I think that everyone on this forum, regardless of their anarcho-predilections would agree with me.

One reason anarchists posit these kinds of debates is, hopefully, to learn from one another. I don't think anyone is encouraging factionalization or tribalism here. If they are, well, maybe they can bring that up themselves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kauainightdrive
2008-02-14 02:52 am UTC (link)
I am also interested in this issue. I feel like a good many of the arguments in favour of this "neo-urbanization" are much more impossible and idealistic than any primitivistic view of/plan for the future.

The vertical city version is interesting, but has many answered questions for me. I remembering learning and hearing about this sort of concept as a child. But many issues are unaddressed by this proposed "solution" for the civilization "problem". This model may address food production, and space, but it doesn't properly address city growth--there is still a limit to vertical growth, eventually if growth continued the way these supports seem to want it to, these "vertical cities" would still eventually have to expand horizontally. Not only that, what about industry?

Industry, mining, forging, "resource extraction" is not explained satisfactorily. Where do you get the metal, the concrete to build such things? or the plastic? Wood, one could argue, could be grown hydroponically, but again, that doesn't address the other materials needed.

And what about waste? Human waste, or waste from building? Human trash--packaging, old clothing, or outdated technology? Where does this go?

Ignoring these issues, imagine that somehow this works. This structure can never be free from government. By the very nature of this organized model, many people would not have the necessary skills to build or maintain this lifestyle for themselves. Look at the world today--how many people know how to make glass for instance? Ignoring Glaziers who makes windows and window frames, I mean specifically the making of glass? Tempered and untempered? What about car parts--ignoring the maintenance of such things, but go straight to the metal work--the basic molding of the parts? Who makes these? Who mines the materials to makes these things? Do these people have the same skills and knowledge of a more traditional "scholar"? So going back to this hypothetical future, the distribution of knowledge would have to be very hierarchical. The distribution of tasks would be similar. How does this play into a version of an anarchist future?

I do feel like people who support a "neo-urban" future do not address these issues.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]zer
2008-02-14 06:52 pm UTC (link)
"the distribution of knowledge would have to be very hierarchical. The distribution of tasks would be similar."

What you're talking about is specialization, not necessarily hierarchy. The idea, I think, would be to form egalitarian, horizontal, and (radical, direct) democratic social structures to deal with the organization of infrastructure.

"This structure can never be free from government."

Do you mean government as "social organization" or as "the state"? Because I agree that the proposed does require social organization, and I'd further argue that social organization of one sort or another is an inevitably human state of being (except for the odd hermit), and that anarchism can be applied toward making this social organization, again, as egalitarian, horizontal, and (radically, directly) democratic as possible. I'd even be content with close-to-anarchy rather than pure-anarchy if it meant something better than the present. (Does that make me a goddamned liberal? heh!)


Re: material & resources
The possibility may exist to grow plastic in, ahem, modified plants. Trees can be farmed, as you said. Nanoassembly and disassembly of carbon nanotubes and structural diamond looks promising, and it would allow the recycling of anything -- old landfills and suburbs, to start, and human waste, trash. If you want to get crazy.

But even without fundamentally eliminating present industrial infrastructure, the ethos of the proposal would dramatically reduce the use of all kinds of resources, human included -- the concrete that builds roads and parking lots and metal that builds cars and aircraft carriers can be used to build pleasant, green cities.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 06:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-18 03:43 pm UTC

[info]flintultrasparc
2008-02-14 08:39 pm UTC (link)
It doesn't make much sense to grow wood hydroponically in a vertical farm. Wood grows to solely. Maybe bamboo is worth experimenting with. However, the ideas we've been laying out in regards to vertical farming would see much former farmer land converted to forest.

As to other materials... let's start with steel. 97.5% of structural steel used in the U.S. in 2004 and 2005 was made from recycled steel. Recycle steel is more energy efficient; it takes four times as much energy to make steel from virgin ore. We can get that steel for recycling from a lot of places, everything from steel cans to automobiles.

The more steel used in construction, the less concrete can be used. Now, you might not like concrete but from an environmental perspective, it's one of the best materials to use to build with. "Using concrete minimizes the depletion of our natural resources. Its ingredients come directly from readily available materials: water, aggregate (sand and gravel or crushed stone), and cement. Cement is composed of 75% limestone — the most common mineral on earth. Although extracting any raw material from the earth takes a toll on the environment, extracting the raw materials for concrete has a lower impact than that of other construction materials. Because the ingredients for concrete are so plentiful, supplies are virtually inexhaustible."

More on Concrete recycling: "Recycled and recyclable

"A nearly inert material, concrete is suitable as a medium for recycling waste or industrial byproducts. Many materials that would otherwise be deposited in landfills are used in making concrete. Aggregate, for example, can contain blast furnace slag, a byproduct of steel-making. Other aggregates used to create a lightweight concrete consist of recycled polystyrene. Almost all concrete contains fly ash, a byproduct of coal-burning electric plants. Of the almost 20 million tons of fly ash produced each year, 7 million tons are used in concrete.

"The process of making cement also uses waste materials. Scrap tires have high energy content and supplement coal as fuel. And, industrial byproducts such as ash from coal combustion, fly ash from power stations, and mill scale and foundry sand from steel casting provide the silica, calcium, alumina and iron needed for making cement. Even kiln dust, a solid waste generated by cement manufacturing, is often recycled back into the kiln as a raw material.

"Old concrete that has reached the end of its service life can be recycled and reused as aggregate for new concrete mixtures. Concrete yields 45% to 80% usable coarse aggregate and can be crushed and reused in new concrete or as a base material.

"Reinforcing steel used in concrete is made from recycled steel. And, like concrete itself, old rebar is recycled into new."
Cement, Concrete and the Environment

Petroleum plastics can be replaced with bioplastics.

Waste water and sludge can be treated and used as part of the water and fertilizer for vertical farms.

Asking how we can do these things, and how we can do them better is the right questions. Primitivism doesn't ask the right questions, so it's answers are not going to be useful for the overwhelming majority of humanity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-14 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 06:32 am UTC
we can't have it all - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-18 03:17 pm UTC

[info]flintultrasparc
2008-02-14 08:40 pm UTC (link)
I disagree with you that organization requires government. Have you heard of anarchism? You bring up division of labor and different skill knowledge. I ask again, have you heard of anarchism. These questions have long been addressed by anarchists. For example, Bakunin.

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

"If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

"I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."

Bakunin, What is Authority? (1882)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 06:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-18 03:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-18 10:55 pm UTC

[info]daysofthegun
2008-02-14 08:52 pm UTC (link)
This model may address food production, and space, but it doesn't properly address city growth--there is still a limit to vertical growth, eventually if growth continued the way these supports seem to want it to, these "vertical cities" would still eventually have to expand horizontally.

I won't get too much into the material usage, because others are addressing that, although I will say that hydroponically grown bamboo coated with carbon nanotubes would be harder and more durable than diamond. In fact, to quote wikipedia: "Since carbon nanotubes have a low density for a solid of 1.3-1.4 g/cm³,[17] its specific strength of up to 48,000 kN·m/kg is the best of known materials, compared to high-carbon steel's 154 kN·m/kg."

That's over 300x stronger than steel!

But aside from that, addressing the idea of horizontal expansion... If we don't limit our population (which, since many countries have achieved zero or even negative population growth, we know this is completely possible), then we may have to expand horizontally, once we've structurally built too far up. But it will be tempered by the fact that it will probably take long enough to get to that point that the benefits will be profound.

I mean, if you're actually arguing that this model will still expand horizontally, what is the alternative? We're already living horizontally, and that's a disaster. Better to go vertical, and grow horizontally very slowly if we need to.

Edited at 2008-02-14 08:54 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 06:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-18 01:55 pm UTC

[info]kauainightdrive
2008-02-14 02:59 am UTC (link)
Oh dear! As a vegetarian i am ashamed I forgot to mention this.

We've already seen that the factory farming method is unsustainable, as well as cruel. This system makes such a structure the only possibility for getting meat. Unless the whole world goes vegetarian, of course.

This next statement is tongue in cheek, and said with a lot of sass: I think we'd have better luck convincing people to peacefully move to a hunter gather lifestyle than to voluntarily give up meat.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]zer
2008-02-14 06:39 pm UTC (link)
Vegan here, word.

"This system makes such a structure the only possibility for getting meat."

Sure - if people really insisted upon "farming meat" vertically, for some reason. But meat is an extremely inefficient "crop", so it wouldn't really be worth it, strictly speaking, though it could be done as you say.

If some people saw hunting/ranching as spiritually uplifting or some bullshit, surely they could go hunt/ranch in the new wilderness created by the elimination of suburbs and horizontal farming.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-14 06:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zer, 2008-02-14 06:57 pm UTC

[info]flintultrasparc
2008-02-14 06:48 pm UTC (link)
I'm a vegetarian.

I think you have less of chance of convincing people to move to hunter gather lifestyle, than you do having them give up meet. You may have noticed that the number of vegetarians has been increasing over the years, and hunting-gathering lifestyle is not one that many people are adopting.

However.... I have a solution!

In Vitro Meat / Cultured Meat
New Harvest
Cultivated Meat: The Dutch cultivate minced meat in a petri dish
Cultured meat commercial products by 2012

And, also... there isn't any reason you can't put a Cultured Meat factory in a 20 story building.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-15 12:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-15 06:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 07:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kauainightdrive, 2008-02-18 07:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]flintultrasparc, 2008-02-18 03:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 11:29 pm UTC

[info]daysofthegun
2008-02-14 07:24 pm UTC (link)

Unless the whole world goes vegetarian, of course.

Aside from cultured meat, I think it's pretty obvious that we're going to have to severely reduce our meat consumption. And hell, I'm a meat eater, and I'm saying this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-14 10:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daysofthegun, 2008-02-14 10:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]albanachdemon, 2008-02-15 07:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]appledexterlini, 2008-02-16 11:23 pm UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…