Noam Chomsky on Anarcho-primitivism

Source: • Video

[@potatomahonman5008]

The obvious solution is mail bombs

[@icantseethe7680]

Good ol Uncle Ted

[@fellowgoyimwhite7630]

Check your mail box,pal.

[@Rh-sl2kt]

Literally.

[@thecoolbyzantine24]

based

[@sackboylover6493]

When you look up but get stoned for inventing astrology

[@user-ot4mr6xe8u]

I think you mean astronomy....

[@baksuz171717]

When you get stoned for inventing stoning

[@skelworthvods984]

@@baksuz171717 and when you get stoned for stoning the guy who invented stoning

[@baksuz171717]

@@skelworthvods984 the cycle goes on and on

[@sterlingmorse5409]

@@baksuz171717 WTF JrEg reference

[@jwildman95bamf]

fine, then we're lost. Awesome

[@park1059]

+Jared Wildberger If we continue down our current course, then we will be lost. Hopefully governments will start to put regulations in place which inhibit corporations from engaging in industries which destroy the environment. However this needs to happen asap, so I understand your scepticism-if you were serious.

[@FuckTruckPluck]

Relying on governments will take too long. Let's dismantle corporations and create a socialist revolution ;) "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." - John Dewey

[@karenskinner9044]

+FuckTruckPluck Amen!

[@verossimioespagnado2579]

Too late for that, folks. We already destroyed this planet beyond repair, enjoy what little time is left S2 S2 S2.

[@borilboyanov5544]

Awesome? You're just an overconsuming western individual with blunt senses that's why "the awesome" attitude. If you're put under more economic pressure like the rest of us, you will cry as well. fuck off.

[@danielgibson8799]

black hole sun, black hole sun, won't you come?

[@jordandenny6875]

Wash away the rain

[@nowhereman6019]

All the an-prims are all like "I want to destroy society and be a hunter gatherer so we can save the world", but then they're all "genocide bad". This post was brought to you by Khmer Rouge.

[@aldoushuxley5953]

Hey, I don't take advice from a guy, whoose last name is boob

[@Solaire_of_Astora13]

An-prims are the dumbest MFs on Earth.

[@AnonEMoose-mr8jm]

I've spoken to an-prims and asked them to explain their shitty ideology and why its good. Essentially its return to monke. There's no good arguments or sound philosophy behind it. Its every bit as smelly as the pseudo-intellectuals that adhere to it.

[@davidashbourn6342]

@@AnonEMoose-mr8jm oh really? Why don't you try me? Because from what I've seen, the only "arguments" I've seen were always from butthurt pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't refrain from using the tired old "then you should go live in nature 'cause you using internets" tu quoque fallacy. You couldn't handle me.

[@Matt-xc6sp]

Industrial society has been real quiet since this dropped

[@TribuneAquila]

Ayiyiyiyah No way to prevent this Ayiyiyiyah Very sad very sad

[@Macromacroxxx]

No wonder your name is Chad

[@paulustrucenus]

Insert captain america saying "I got that reference" Yes I'm 3 years late what about it

[@contrafatual]

The only thing this little video achieves to inform us is that Chomsky never heard of primitivism.

[@adriancastillo2799]

I see this same comment on every video of him talking about anything 😂 he thinks everything that he disagrees with is genocide

[@SheevPalpatine66420]

No, in order to achieve Anarcho primitivism you have to do several things. 1 eliminate all electronic life support 2 eliminate all pharmaceutical manufacturing centers since they run on a fuck ton of electricity. And the people who need life saving medicine will die. As well as those who take insulin or any hormones because they have to be refrigerated. So no estrogen, insulin, testosterone, blood thinners, pain relievers, anesthetics, antibiotics, anti inflammatories, SSRIs, or any other modern and effective medicine. Since a philosophy provides intent, the mass killing of those people, who statistically includes you too would die, would be called genocide. The deliberate mass slaughter of a population is the definition of genocide. Please educate yourself.

[@bulldogmadhav5762]

posadism is my ideology

[@paterfamiliasgeminusiv4623]

TIL that this is a thing. I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but that it is not something you would expect to exist.

[@fasisztabrigad8985]

Hungarism is my ideology

[@Joe-bj4wm]

Are you joking? I’m not judging but like I’ve never seen an actual posadist

[@bulldogmadhav5762]

@@Joe-bj4wm I am joking; still yet to find some one who is not.

[@Echani3007]

@@bulldogmadhav5762 There's a few Posadists we have caught in the International Left discord server. They ban them though.

[@zeromustafa401]

This is Chomsky's response to anything he doesn't believe in.

[@Knaeben]

You mean he gives a verbal response?

[@davidashbourn6342]

@@Knaeben no, he says it's going to lead to mass genocide, because he's a doomer degenerate wackjob.

[@Skoda130]

@@davidashbourn6342 no, he says that because the earth can't sustain its current population, with pre-modern ways off living. That's just a simple fact.

[@davidashbourn6342]

@@Skoda130 prove it! Because that's simply not true.

[@Skoda130]

@@davidashbourn6342 why do I need to prove the obvious, since population exploded no earlier than the industrial revolution?

[@Macromacroxxx]

Not more then 10 people? Noam there is a subreddit dedicated to anarcho primitivism with 6k follower, who knows how more Jreg fans would convert to Anarcho primitivism given right conditions. Uga booga for tribe

[@Knaeben]

99.9% of those are coffee-house, latte-drinking posers who would cry, scream and grip their pearls if they ever saw a deer liver...

[@nathanrupley]

What if we used regenerative systems to transition over generations to a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy?

[@nathanrupley]

@Wretch Gunk What? You can disagree with Primitivists, but saying that they don't care about the environment is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

[@scruffthemagicdragon]

Regenerative systems are already in place everywhere on Earth; if you just take out the destructive influence - civilization - regeneration will take place without any human intention or action whatsoever. The longer civilization remains in place, the more destruction will occur and the more regenerative processes will be delayed.

[@sophiaschier-hanson4163]

Decently thought out response and I love your channel, dude. I’m in grad school for ag right now and I think you’re (sort of) onto something. The line between a well-managed, long term stable socialist-flavoured agrarian society and a hunter gatherer one is very, very thin and largely subjective. That said, my primary concern would be the fact that with our best MODERN strategies combined (only possible to do because of globalization and long. distance communications), organic no-till / permaculture only reliably gets 70% the yield of regular organic, which gets iirc 50% the yield of conventional (not that conventional will even be a feasible option much longer- in many ways it already isn’t!). Put that together and you get 21% of current yield or about 1/5. Even assuming PERFECT distribution that means you need 4/5 less people if you’re going to feed everybody. So in a perfect communist society, you could support a 1940s-size global population that way… with no margin of error. And WITHOUT massive structural change WITHIN our current system first you can’t even manage numbers that good. Thoughts? :)

[@alejandrosolis4566]

​@@sophiaschier-hanson4163Sounds like enough World population to me. Interesting. (I'm in Ag grad school too!)

[@dominiclloyd6651]

It's hard to believe that Noam could be so wrong. A move to rewilding, to permaculture and a new tribism has no need of genocide. We live on a planet of extraordinary diversity and abundance that can easily support us all, it is only the mythological imperative of capitalism that says we live in a world of scarcity.

[@francinocasieri5073]

could'nt agree more

[@wiskasIO]

Dominic Lloyd You are right and he is right too. I don't think we need to kill billions of of people to accomplish a Balanced Society with Nature but I believe many would die in the process of adapting to this kind of system. Plus many would refuse to give up their stupid stuff and status for a better world.

[@jupiter895]

I'm not 100% opposed to anarcho-primitivism. However, there are millions of people depending on modern technology, medicine etc to survive. A genocide is inevitable if we where to pursue that kind of society.

[@jupiter895]

Then again... Humanity as a whole will fall if we keep going in the direction we're currently heading.

[@FaceFeeder]

Nature and humanity itself will eventually lead to genocide. (As it looks now) But why would it be such a sad loss? Life comes and goes and we can never beat the laws of the universe.

[@badasunicorn6870]

That was... Short.

[@cannedfrootloops7803]

I love seeing Anarcho-primitivists... on the internet. Yeah yeah yeah. Blah blah. You're not "getting the message out". You watch KZbin for fun and occasionally comment your views.

[@PINGUNOOTFAN]

This isn't the argument you think it is

[@cannedfrootloops7803]

@@PINGUNOOTFAN Enlighten me

[@PINGUNOOTFAN]

@@cannedfrootloops7803 you can criticize society while still living in it

[@richardbaldwin4895]

Lot more memes in these comments then I'm used to in Chomsky videos. Any other Jreg viewers around here?

[@Stalin99]

Jreg viewers please commit hang rope

[@schr4nz]

Sure, but I was interested in Anarcho primitivism way before I encountered jreg

[@alexdavies7447]

The agricultural trap was well described in Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens. I can't think of a single good reason why we'd try it anyway.

[@SheevPalpatine66420]

Because we are a physically weak species and our big brains developed agriculture in order to group more of our species together for food and self preservation against any wild animals or rivals that threatened our tribe. And every tribe that participated in agriculture did it for the same reasons. Food and protection. Wow easy answer.

[@Ruktiet]

because you're too stupid to grasp how hard life is for hunter-gatherers, especially in the north. Agriculture was the obvious right step to take; look at how succesful our species has become because of it. Compare our population numbers compared to that of hunter-gatherer humans; there's almost none left.

[@wrednax8594]

Yes!

[@joeylaflamme8527]

For the same reasons adults buy houses and cars (examples Yuval uses himself.), because you think it's gonna make your life better, but really, you end up having to keep a job you hate, for longer you planned to in the first place, so you pay off your debts.

[@kervennic]

There is plenty of good land for the hard worker that undertsands ecology and ecosystems building.

[@basedgod6016]

@Wretch Gunk Most unironic anprims don't want to instantly destroy all technology, they want to gradually desindustrialise. Also what does any of that have to do with white people and colonialism? You can buy land without it being colonialism

[@Knaeben]

Teach me, please

[@basiliimakedonas1109]

The longer industrialism is on earth the hardest it becomes to get rid of it.

[@velvetcroc9827]

The reverse is probably the case. As civilization becomes more complex and interdependent, it naturally becomes more vulnerable.

[@WokeandProud]

Good, we aren't getting rid of it science is the future cope.

[@basiliimakedonas1109]

@@WokeandProud the way industrialism is going the "future" is 200 years at most before the earth becomes a dead zone

[@WokeandProud]

@@basiliimakedonas1109 That's presuming we don't switch to cleaner technologies (nuclear hydro fusion etc) and more efficient means of production or space travel and mining doesn't become a thing.

[@basiliimakedonas1109]

@@WokeandProud I base my beliefs on the experience so far and how technology is generally progressing. Your beliefs are assumptions that this new more efficient energy source will be less detrimental to the world assuming that it will be discovered and also assuming that it will be discovered soon enough.

[@aminlakzian]

what does he mean we're lost?

[@Tesla_Death_Ray]

+Hachimachi Doomed.

[@aminlakzian]

+butterflycaught900 It took a meteor crash for dinosaurs to become extinct, it seems we can achieve that goal without any exterior help

[@aminlakzian]

+games_with_planets I think industrial society continues but with catastrophic consequences for environment as a result population shrinks drastically, the remaining population get a chance for trying something less industrial and more environment friendly.

[@OscarGeronimo]

+Hachimachi He means that if that claim (which he calls a factual claim, meaning a claim proposed that considers something a fact that just hasn't been proven yet, otherwise it would be called something else, theory or fact perhaps) is proven to be true, THEN it means that mass death would naturally occur as a result of the circumstances (the ones that would prove the claim correct) if mass murder is not implemente. Either way, a massive amount of deaths would be the result. And that would be a defeat for humanity as it might help extinguish it (permanent loss) or, if it survives in some way, it would leave a moral stain that would take many generations to overcome, destroying the principles that took so long to establish, like the value of human life, the pursuit of justice and equity in a society, therefore the defense of the weak and less adapted, therefore the shift of population from intelectual/artistic/curiosity-based concerns to self-defense and related, stalling the level of education in population and the possibility of creating the next line of thinkers that would solve the problems of the future. And you can keep extrapolating conclusions from that on....

[@aminlakzian]

+Oscar Geronimo I understand what you say, It's a claim, but it's very likely to happen. because the world as it is now will continue to emit green house gases to the last drop of oil probably in an ever-increasing rate. There are several scenarios: 1.The world stay as it is and the earth gets warmer. 2.The world stay as it is but somehow miraculously the global warming paces down or halts. 3.The world realises that it must change, I don't say a regression to agricultural society but It is possible to be more primitive and do less harm to nature. If you can add more scenarios I'm happy to hear. I don't understated what he means by It's not proven? There are also people who say global warming is a claim. When we talk about future it's always a claim unless we are talking about something which has been experienced before and we know all the facts about it and we have formulated it with exact mathematical logic.

[@elainegetchell6555]

It has nothing to do with genocide, this is a straw argument. People need to voluntarily come together and recognize the problem and choose to limit our reproduction and choose adoption over conception. We went from a half billion to 7 billion within a few decades from births and if we can do that then we can reverse it in the reverse way.

[@dog-n2b]

we will have to scale the population down even if technological civilization is to survive, so I guess genocide is inevitable to chomsky.

[@nex7886]

Why should we be lost to a state of existence which prooved to be sustainable for different human species over million of years?

[@smuganimegirl769]

R O B O A R M S C A T G I R L S

[@Romeo-le2ez]

Thank you smug anime girl

[@aryamanachanta]

I am going to send you a mail bomb

[@jamespardee8534]

Perhaps we are lost, since the obvious needs to be stated! The question is whether we can sustain our increasingly technology dependent way of life without sudden economic or environmental disasters, resource wars, or political retrogression ruining quality of life for generations!

[@Teh_Zig]

Gnome Chomsky over here straight up saying six billion people aint hard enough to make it pre-agrarian like that's a me problem or something.

[@michaelnice93]

he says its not a prescription for action. hes wrong that is all it is, it is just one idea expressed in two words go back, that is a proposal for a activity. weather someone is serious depends upon if they themselves are doing it. The best arguments against it are that it is difficult, lonely, and will not change society. A metaphysical argument may be that even though you are not in the matrix you are still in the matrix just one level removed.

[@RM-so7op]

So, Crake from Margaret Atwood's Maddaddam trilogy was an Anarco-Primitivist?

[@e.moonbound2420]

I don't think there's a single non ironic anarcho primitivist tbh

[@davidc.9933]

He just proved that they are doing a mass genocide.

[@NewtonFinn]

No, don't just leave it a that! Why would you just leave it at that?!

[@utvm6748]

Thats the point the 10 people is the bottom start its not about everyone is now anarcho monkey This can be somehow more useful with agrarian life styles and socialism and so on or a green anarchism

[@youarenotmadenough655]

OOOOO AHAGBA BUNGAOOAF JALOLOUNGA

[@simonb8078]

noam chomsky be like: source?? 🤓

[@bio_5467]

HAHA WE HAVE RETURNED TO THE STONE AG-*dies of a cut*

[@dangerousideas5356]

lol look out guys the anprim understander has entered the chat

[@megakeenbeen]

Original video deleted. Any idea where to find it?

[@kedricktheheadtripMusic]

Chomsky knows better, he just won't admit it. He's only pretending to be this ignorant. I'm not buying this at all.

[@Echani3007]

Mental Gymnastics.

[@kervennic]

Noam Chomsky is wrong. We can thrive in a preindustrial society. Industry has been a tool for capital accumulation and fast demographic expansion; It is absolutely unecessary to sustain life for a stable population. I grow all my vegetable for three people in center of France with 300 m2, and would love to cultivate more for other. The thing is i can do with manual work 3 rotations a year and have dense packing. New estimate by the french national state agronomy institute (Inra) is that permaculture with hand tools is 2 to three time more productive per acre.

[@RYSEAmato]

while it can work in smaller groups, I'm not sure it can for 7 billion people currently on the planet, most of which don't know how to grow food. We've become so dependent on large industrial agriculture systems and exports. Tough to imagine everyone moving out of cities and onto farmland voluntarily.

[@xxxxxx-kk7mh]

@@RYSEAmato true but damn it would be nice if some of us could

[@RYSEAmato]

@@xxxxxx-kk7mh some do in parts of the US today. small communes

[@xxxxxx-kk7mh]

@@RYSEAmato thats good but i wonder how long they work. Work is slavery but if its just hunter gather its not bad

[@RYSEAmato]

@@xxxxxx-kk7mh I guess until a majority of the people leave and the group falls apart of they can no longer grow their own food. As climate change gets worse, it will be increasingly harder for people to reliably grow their own food without technology, forcing them even more into already crowded cities.

[@tylerjungbauer9886]

I don't know if it's fair to categorize what, speaking very generally, most anarchy-primitivsts propose as 'deindustrialization' to be equivalent to 'mass genocide.' For one thing, it is a connotation (if not perhaps also a denotation) of genocide that the act of KILLING is intentional, not by accident. If individuals die due to their lack of ability to adapt to a different environment or changed environment, which would most definitely characterize the shift from an industrial society to a primitive society, and if we define these casualties as being 'genocidal,' then I don't think there is anything keeping us from defining acts of drowning, acts of starvation, acts of hypothermia, etc., as being genocidal when these occur in cases where individuals are not prepared for the tasks that they choose to undertake. And this, especially for Noam Chomsky, seems rather absurd.

[@velvetcroc9827]

Dude, intentionally destroying civilization is tantamount to genocide and the "genos" referred to here is the human genos since virtually the entirety of our species today depend everywhere on technology for their survival.

[@Nemo_Anom]

@@velvetcroc9827 Two points one ironic and one serious: 1) can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and 2) the current trend of "technological civilization" will implode. And then everybody will die. Let's be proactive, shall we? We can transition to an actual sustainable world where we live in balance with the rest of the ecosystem, or we can be dragged, kicking and screaming by the pubes, held in thrall to the system we created, to our collective deaths. And when we die, we take down the ecosystem with us. What's the more sane option?

[@velvetcroc9827]

@@Nemo_Anom It's true that modern civilization is way more vulnerable than most people would imagine but it's silly to think that a small group of eccentrics could bring it down as Ted seems to believe. Any attempt to do that will swiftly result in the fate of Ted or worse. There are very good reasons to believe that this century will be marked by extreme resource scarcity and fierce international competition for what's left. We are already in the early stages of this process and as it matures will lead to history's worst trainwreck. So we only need to sit back and wait it out.

[@sophiaschier-hanson4163]

If that’s the case there’s nothing wrong with keeping our CURRENT economic system where people starve or freeze on the streets all the time and other wildlife dies due to human impact, as long as it’s INDIRECT human impact. In which case why not just go be a centrist?

[@soakupthenoise]

Noam Chomsky not tribe leader, why ask Noam Chomsky what sun god and moon god say when he no talk to sun god OR moon god??

[@rajahjain5559]

I'm sure there is another answer to come to the same conclusion then just mass genocide.

[@jlee8611]

Im pretty certain Anarcho primitivist wouldnt advocate for a mass genocide. Simply that its the only way humans can live sustainably indefinitely. Mass genocide can only be done by a centralized government much like the US governments war against the natives, and hitlers slaughter of the jews.

[@jlee8611]

Following our current path will lead to mass suicide more likely than mass genocide. One way or another nature will reestablish equilibrium and we just need to have a clear mind and be able to survive her methods of re-achieving equilibrium. Even with preparations our chances look pretty slim.

[@rajahjain5559]

@@jlee8611 and now the unvaccinated against the vaccinated.

[@rajahjain5559]

@@jlee8611 Ya I agree however if the most unhealthy physically and mentally continue to have the power to take away my ability to not become like them it be great to just have some wealthy on the unvaccinated side to start a new civilization based in values they share.

[@MattFoleysGhost]

Who does she mention _______ and Derrick Jensen

[@nimeshchaulagain7401]

John Zerzan

[@spin6668]

Every revolution must have the blood of the parasite, in this case it is glasses wearers. I am a proud member of the losing side of history, hail da woods.

[@spin6668]

The beast or monster is man's natural state. We must become monsters.

[@rossh7186]

So I'm guessing you are looking forward to your future without glasses, and without avatars of cartoons. If you think we are going to fail, and see it as a destiny, we will fail. But if we fight, we might preserve more of it.

[@spin6668]

@@rossh7186 dude it was 2018 anprim was the meme

[@CapnSnackbeard]

I guess we are lost. Look outside, its the industry we all need so bad that is killing us. This response from Chomsky leaves me a little dry. Anarchism is never about imposing, are the primitivsts different?

[@Hecklemysheckel]

Anprims are no different than people wanting g to be kids again because they were happy on Christmas morning

[@Siphakid]

I mean modern societies appeal more to childish instinct like video game, screen addiction, substance abuse, etc... but ok.

[@Hecklemysheckel]

@@Siphakid ngl I won’t lie, looking back it was a dumb comment. But I still don’t much care for anprims, ludditism is cool though

[@nomad9338]

How can anyone remotely sane want to live without modern medical and technological advances is beyond me.

[@edwarddumbleton7484]

@Justin Boyd please provide and instance where tribes or primitive areas were able to not only be healthier in terms of less severe and overall less disease but also living longer in life span.

[@comicsans3845]

It's beyond your comprehension of reality

[@comicsans3845]

@@edwarddumbleton7484 There's plenty of info out there, you're just lazy

[@edwarddumbleton7484]

@@comicsans3845 I'm not staking any claim, the onus isn't on me

[@yoda1037]

Ok technophile

[@TonyAndAmelia]

I'm interested in using this clip for a video I'm making. If someone could get back to me, that would make my day!

[@venceremosallende422]

Pol Pot was anprim

[@michaelnice93]

no he was not, do your homework

[@Blackhawk211]

@@michaelnice93 Charles Manson was AnPrim though

[@japo8757]

@@Blackhawk211 Nah probably "eco"fascist.

[@thesecretkey9845]

Pol Pot needed an industrial supply line and (historically speaking) high levels of tech to do what he did.

[@kedricktheheadtripMusic]

Chomsky knows better, he just won't admit it. He's not this ignorant. I doubt it.

[@TheOneAndOnlyZeno]

Agreed. Just too old to be bothered to tell the truth anymore - he is ready to die very soon, and become irrelevant.

[@thesecretkey9845]

No he doesn't lol, he's part of the Church. Universities are now just the back-end churches for justifying policy that leads directly to corporate domination of freedoms. His real masters (Biden, Harris, McConnell, Pelosi, etc.) will never allow him to accomplish anything against worker compliance, just sit in his church office and complain until he dies, never having made a dent in the systems that he hates and in fact being made to aid them.

[@DragonSkull4312]

@@thesecretkey9845 What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some?

[@snowfalleon7629]

To accuse people who want to get rid of guns and bombs of wanting genocide is absurd. We want a cleaner and actually sustainable world. Of course he thinks it’s absurd because he’s got disproportionately more money then 99% of people, maybe that’s influencing his opinion I don’t know.

[@johnnymavin]

Lol! 😂 Climate Change caused by global capitalism itself is causing a mass genocide already.

[@primaryendo]

This shit is insane

[@alalmalal]

It's correct, it's right, but not ethically or morally right

[@alalmalal]

If we are talking about improving our evolution faster than slow mental improvement that we have today we need some sort of organized free for all.

[@moribundmurdoch]

What is the cooler way to say the same thing? Is Anarcho-primitivism or Green Anarchism cooler? Wait are they the same thing? Could Green anarchism be anarchism with the ecocentric soft power thingo promoted whilst Anarcho-primitivism is rid us of polluting tech whatnot. Notice that I'm an ultracrepidarian who doesn't know what he is talking about. I'm mostly talking through my hat.

[@PCGameNerd917]

My ideology is anarcho-transhumanism, the opposite of anarcho-primitivism.

[@christinearmington]

Yes. WASF. CORRECT.

[@imperishableneet]

Who would win? A mighty anarcho primitivist tribal band, or the next big asteroid heading for Earth?

[@Neon-ws8er]

gnome chompski

[@aztro.99]

rip kaczynski, ur building cabins in the big forest in the sky

[@Lach0h]

0:36 does this guy know what genocide is? It's not genocide.

[@tracefleemangarcia8816]

Someone tell grandpa to calm down

[@timelessadventurer]

This video had little substance, thumbs down 👎

[@PitchBlackForge]

Chomsky is utterly useless.

[@AnonEMoose-mr8jm]

Noam Chomsky is a linguist. Him and these other so-called intellectuals need to stay in their lane.

[@skullthunder3181]

Hes also been very politically active since he was a kid and has published a ton of well recieved political books

[@WokeandProud]

Cry more l0ser he's one hundred percent spot on here going back to hunter gatherer societies would lead to mass death by the billions you anti intellectual scum need to stay in yours.

[@cannedfrootloops7803]

You can have... multiple professions.

[@Henry-em6pb]

oh my good teacher, but you can get 10 people to listen to you