Anarcho-Primitive General /A-PG/

>>139560004
>implying this ideology is real

>>139560004
Global warming is a hoax. And the only way you can protect the environment is a natsoc state that genocides 6 billion people. If you claim to want to protect the environment, but you oppose genocide of billions, then you don't really care about the environment.

>>139560004
And Kaczynski btfo'd your "equal rights" feminist garbage already.

>>139560004
>Unga-Bunga: the ideology
Topkek

File: 203892583095.png (640KB, 1050x517px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1050x517px

>>139560004
green fascism > all

>>139560622
Global warming is real . 99% of climate scientists agreed

>>139560928
"Climate scientists" aren't scientists.

>>139560209
>ancaps practice what they preach and don't use internet
omg, no ancaps exist
>ancaps talk about it online
omg you fucking hippocrites reeeeeeeee

Question to an prim people, what era of technology should we go back too ?

I advocate for going back to just before the industrial revolution the 1700s. This is enough to get rid of all the bad effects of modernity without sacrificing too much comfort.

>>139561477
I think the amish would be the most advanced we could go. But ideally I would like to go back to a hunter/gatherer society.

>>139561589

There definitely are benefits of a hunter/gatherer society like increased fitness due to the lifestyle. But such a society would be extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in the earth's natural changes. I think a mixed society of some hunter gatherers, some agriculturalist and some nomadic herders would be better. And prevent the future anprim society form being wiped out in an event of natural disaster.

>>139560004
what would be the punishment for using technology and who would enforce the rules against it?

>>139562878

If it were up to me. I'd ban quite a bit of technology. But certain things like bronze and iron smelting would be allowed.

>>139563615
You're gay. Are you gonna smash the state with bronze swords and rock slings?

>>139563615
What is the underlying principle being used to decide the permitted and banned technologies?

>>139564257
Feels.

>>139564003
You can institutionalize anti-technology. The Amish are a perfect example.

>>139562570
This. Read Archaeofuturutism.

File: 13592406_1636038860047524_7780460466491357996_n.png (119KB, 498x395px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 498x395px

>>139564350
Then go be fuckin' Amish. If you think it's great, go do it. No need to form some imaginary political bullshit rationalization around it.

>>139560004
Hunter-gatherer communities weren't really "anarchist". They still exhibited informal hierarchies and de facto leadership, which emerged from the relationship between members, none of whom were equal to each other with respect to ability and motivation. Given the small scale of these communities, inequalities couldn't manifest themselves as disparately as they do now. If a tribal leader showed himself to be abusive or incompetent, the members could kill him and replace him with somebody else.

Such communities also weren't diverse or "inclusive". A community would have seen a mass migration of strangers into their turf as interlopers and invaders, and they'd deal with them appropriately.

>>139564257

I would ban technology that might lead to industrialization. But i'm more of an authoritarian tribal traditionalist, rather then anprim. A combination of pol pot and unabomber.