The dinosaurs, a meteor, and us: a thought experiment.

[an anarchist]

The generally accepted scientific hypothesis is this:

Millions of years before humans were a thing, dinosaurs ruled the earth. They were here for hundreds of millions of years.

But one day, 65 million years ago, a big ol meteor came and hit the earth, practically wiping out the dinosaurs.

The dinosaur lover in me wishes that this never happened, but if the meteor didn't happen, then the sequence of events that led to Homo Sapiens dominance would have never occured.

So, thanks to a meteor wiping out the dominant lifeform on earth, the way was cleared for us.

Now, to the thought experiment.

Suppose that humanity were to be wiped out, by let's say a meteor or nuclear fire. Lets work with the assumption that not all life on earth would be wiped out, similarly to what happened when the meteor hit. Let's suppose that the food chain gets shifted, however.

Now suppose the choice is yours. You have your finger on the nuclear trigger. What do you do?

Personally, I would have one criteria that would decide it for me. If I were to see that statism were to remain prevalent, and an anarchist commonwealth is unlikely or impossible, as it has been throughout all of recorded history, then I would do a hard reset on life on earth.

I see statism as a cancer. If the host dies, the cancer dies as well. So it's a draw.

The destruction of earth and her species can be directly attributed to statism. This isn't a thread to debate political theory. i'm just explaining my personal position in this thought experiment.

So, I would eradicate humanity to clear up the way for a more enlightened species.

What about you? Would you keep giving humanity a shot? I don't think we deserve it and it would ultimatley be better if we died off as a species. We are not Earth's caretakers, rather, her greatest menace.

 

[an anarchist]

oh i suppose i better go more in depth and tie this into spirituality as i put it in interfaith. i have it here though because Im interested in religious thought applied to.this thought experiment.

I'll post more below

 

[an anarchist]

When I was aspiring to start a new religious movement aka be a cult leader, I was thinking on how I can create religious justification for the eradication of humanity. It would be Plan B, of course. Plan A would be redeeming humanity through the removal of statism. This course of action would be preferable if possible as the ultimate goal is the eradication of individual and collective suffering, "the collective enlightenment" perhaps better understood as a literal manifestation of a heaven on earth. Redeeming humanity rather than eradicating humanity would simply be quicker.

Humans can either manifest the collective enlightenment, or they can delay or ultimatley deny it for all conscious beings.

That is the barebone theology of my thoughts.

 

[icehorse]

Did you mean to use nukes as the method of our demise? that approach would also wipe out a lot of other species.

I think that the most humane thing that can happen is that some virus or disease shows up and renders 90-95% of humans sterile for a generation or two. Perhaps if we did a restart with about 500 million people, we'd do better than this time?

 

[an anarchist]

Did you mean to use nukes as the method of our demise? that approach would also wipe out a lot of other species.

Yes that is what I mean. Yes, all species would be affected, but for the thought experiment we are assuming that a new species will eventually pull through, adapt, evolve, and become the new leader of the food chain. This is what happened for humans.

I think that the most humane thing that can happen is that some virus or disease shows up and renders 90-95% of humans sterile for a generation or two.

Hmm. a human specefic disease instead of nuclear fire. I haven't thought of that. That would spare the current animals and a new dominant species would emerge rather quickly. But as it stands, nuclear fire is a realistic possibilty. not saying disease isnt, but nuclear fire would be a surefire way to reset. And perhaps realistically possible to achieve.

 

[an anarchist]

Perhaps if we did a restart with about 500 million people, we'd do better than this time?

If that group's first instinct and course of action is to form a government, then I wouldn't think so.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Not being a deity, I'm pretty sure my limited knowledge and comprehension would not allow me to make a truly informed choice in this scenario. That said, I'm sympathetic to both using and not using nukes to reduce the size and impact of humanity...but I'm sure that it shows my ignorance more than anything else...

I'm not sure I agree that 'statism' is a natural consequence of human society. While we are currently living in an era of many and well-define (politically, economically, legally, etc.) states, I also see a constant undermining and collapse of said states...there are many areas of the world where 'states' are much more on paper than in practice...Even here in the US, there is a strong current to dissolve the nation-state as it currently exists and impose a more chaotic arrangement on society...History and even current events suggests that warlords are by far a more constant aspect of human society that 'states' are...

All of course in my opinion, and others' mileage may vary...

 

[an anarchist]

Not being a deity, I'm pretty sure my limited knowledge and comprehension would not allow me to make a truly informed choice in this scenario. That said, I'm sympathetic to both using and not using nukes to reduce the size and impact of humanity...but I'm sure that it shows my ignorance more than anything else...

I'm not sure I agree that 'statism' is a natural consequence of human society. While we are currently living in an era of many and well-define (politically, economically, legally, etc.) states, I also see a constant undermining and collapse of said states...there are many areas of the world where 'states' are much more on paper than in practice...Even here in the US, there is a strong current to dissolve the nation-state as it currently exists and impose a more chaotic arrangement on society...History and even current events suggests that warlords are by far a more constant aspect of human society that 'states' are...

All of course in my opinion, and others' mileage may vary...

I added an "unsure" option.

I equate warlords to states and states to warlords, but my fundamental political lens in which I see ths world, as an anarchist, I am sure is vastly different than most.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I added an "unsure" option.

I equate warlords to states and states to warlords, but my fundamental political lens in which I see ths world, as an anarchist, I am sure is vastly different than most.

Where do syndicalism and communalism fall on the spectrum of statist solutions?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If that group's first instinct and course of action is to form a government, then I wouldn't think so.

As a social group, I can't imagine that some sort of governance system wouldn't immediately develop. Every social group develops some sort of answer to "Who gets what, when, where, why, and how?" What distinguishes between state and non-state answers to that political question?

Thanks in advance for your response!

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have no interest in playing god. I'm just here to play.

 

[an anarchist]

Where do syndicalism and communalism fall on the spectrum of statist solutions?

I think I am understanding your post correctly, but if my response is irrelavant then let me know.

Oh i better specify what kind of anarchist I am. I believe in anarcho-capitalism. I am not neccesarily in agreement with syndicalism or communalism. I see privatization as key and king.

Those who call themseleves anarchists are part of a niche politcal community. Those who call themseleves anarcho-capitalists are part of a niche within the anarchist community.

Self proclaimed anarchists argue amongst themselves over what is "state" and who is the real anarchist. Most anarchists, such as syndicalists if I'm not mistaken (@Heyo ???), see private property and corportations as a type of state. I do not.

My point is, proposed solutions to statism vary among anarchists. I am an ancap, so that's my pov.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, I would eradicate humanity to clear up the way for a more enlightened species.

Unlike you, I cannot suppose myself to be omniscient. I would have no idea what may follow your desperate action -- more enlightened? More savage? Simple brutal life-forms for millions more years until....what?

How much hatred you must have for your own species, that you would eradicate them all with such complete equanimity.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think I am understanding your post correctly, but if my response is irrelavant then let me know.

Oh i better specify what kind of anarchist I am. I believe in anarcho-capitalism. I am not neccesarily in agreement with syndicalism or communalism. I see privatization as key and king.

Those who call themseleves anarchists are part of a niche politcal community. Those who call themseleves anarcho-capitalists are part of a niche within the anarchist community.

Self proclaimed anarchists argue amongst themselves over what is "state" and who is the real anarchist. Most anarchists, such as syndicalists if I'm not mistaken (@Heyo ???), see private property and corportations as a type of state. I do not.

My point is, proposed solutions to statism vary among anarchists. I am an ancap, so that's my pov.

Interesting! Thanks for your expansion!

How do you propose that anarcho-capitalism will be implemented to prevent the development of state?

 

[an anarchist]

As a social group, I can't imagine that some sort of governance system wouldn't immediately develop. Every social group develops some sort of answer to "Who gets what, when, where, why, and how?" What distinguishes between state and non-state answers to that political question?

Thanks in advance for your response!

Among anarchist thought is the idea of freedom of association. i will be explaining the ancap POV.

State, or government, is coercion by an individual or group of individuals.

In Ancapistan, all that would exist is private property. No collective property. There is a governing force, and that govrerning force is the free market that spontaneously ebbs and flows in accordance with supply and demand.

Now, the theory of how privatized law would work is hypothetical, as we have not had such as soceity. Exploring the concept of privatized law and enforcement in the context of Ancapistan is beyond the scope of this thread and tbh beyond the scope of my knowledge.

In the end, though, the system that is set up is based on freedom of association. The only coercion there is is ths fact that you need to survive therefore you gotta work or do something. Some call this wage slavery, but ancaps disagrew with that concept.

To answer your question in short, a state imposes itself on you. Ancapistan would impose nothing on you. It would be mother nature alone which imposes survival on you that you have to worry about.

 

[an anarchist]

How much hatred you must have for your own species, that you would eradicate them all with such complete equanimity.

I think it's more narcissism than hate. Though hate and anger does play a part.

I'm sure I'll get to the bottom of it in therapy.

My thoughts scare me. Such as the OP. Hence the therapy. But yes, equanimty is a good word to use.

 

[Little Dragon]

What about you? Would you keep giving humanity a shot? I don't think we deserve it and it would ultimatley be better if we died off as a species. We are not Earth's caretakers, rather, her greatest menace.

I don't think humanity has to be a threat to global bio diversity, although I agree that it is, and a major threat at that.
If I had the power to wipe humankind out, as tempting as it might be, I can't see me doing it.
I think humans will work it out for themselves. Cause and effect will eventually force them to face certain facts about the finite nature of the bio sphere they depend on, like any other multicellular animal on Earth.
If they fail to stop undermining their own life support system, then they will be wiped out anyway.

Nature is self correcting.

 

[Little Dragon]

I think it's more narcissism than hate.

Kill the ego, smash it's face in.

 

[Little Dragon]

In Ancapistan, all that would exist is private property. No collective property. There is a governing force, and that govrerning force is the free market that spontaneously ebbs and flows in accordance with supply and demand.

The free market is indifferent to human suffering, and an unregulated free market is quickly dominated by cartels and monopolies, by those with the greatest amount of capital.

I would not wish to live in such an inequitable and imbalanced economic system.

Comrade.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Among anarchist thought is the idea of freedom of association. i will be explaining the ancap POV.

State, or government, is coercion by an individual or group of individuals.

In Ancapistan, all that would exist is private property. No collective property. There is a governing force, and that govrerning force is the free market that spontaneously ebbs and flows in accordance with supply and demand.

Now, the theory of how privatized law would work is hypothetical, as we have not had such as soceity. Exploring the concept of privatized law and enforcement in the context of Ancapistan is beyond the scope of this thread and tbh beyond the scope of my knowledge.

In the end, though, the system that is set up is based on freedom of association. The only coercion there is is ths fact that you need to survive therefore you gotta work or do something. Some call this wage slavery, but ancaps disagrew with that concept.

To answer your question in short, a state imposes itself on you. Ancapistan would impose nothing on you. It would be mother nature alone which imposes survival on you that you have to worry about.

thank you!

I foresee a number of practical problems, among the first of which would be the problem that freedom of association contains freedom of dissociation. which some might be inclined to practice on a basis other than the free marketplace. How such a market-based society could deal with such non-market-based behaviors is a good question. But that's perhaps a discussion for a different time or place.