anti-civ.net: one year of anti-civ debate

  • Posted on: 22 April 2018
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

It's been about a year's worth of https://anti-civ.net! anti-civ.org was launched late 2016 (as far as we remember). Then the whole thing was relaunched (as the present incarnation) in March 2017. And in October it moved to https://anti-civ.net. One year ago to the day, we announced the relaunch over here on anarchistnews.org—so today seems to be as good as any day to do a little reflection.

Since March 31, 2017, there's been 1,312 posts in 246 threads, by our 147 members. More than three posts per day, with more than four replies per thread. Our most active threads have well over 20 replies each. Additionally there's been a lot of guest visitors, contributing to our most viewed threads, which have thousands of views. We can't recall the last time we noticed there being less than 10 guests per 15 minutes. And we know several people who visit the board regularly without joining or posting.

And as that indicates—despite being reasonably successful for a forum in this day and (social media) age—not everything came up roses. Only slightly more than every third poster has posted anything at all. If you adjust for the most active posters, the average poster has very few posts—sometimes only their introduction post. Finally, lots of people who routinely "lurk", never feel the desire to join up at all.

Still; an anti-civ Internet forum with an active core group of posters (and even an active IRC channel) is pretty remarkable as-is. We're genuinely surprised that the universe hasn't collapsed due to the weight of our hypocrisy—using technology to criticise technology, we must be utter mad.

For our second year, it would be nice to see our core group of posters to double. In order to accomplish this, we need to do two things well. Firstly, we need to reach new people. Secondly, and probably most importantly, we need to make sure the people who are already familiar with the site find it worthwhile. There are some measurements under way to help accomplish both of these things. But, ultimately, we're not concerned with having lots of discussion for discussion's sake, but having good discussion. As such, https://anti-civ.net is already a success to us few regulars!

We hope to see more people joining up and adding their thoughts to ours, so we can all think together. Or, you know, post anti-civ memes or whatever. Anti-civ-curious and anti-anti-civ people are welcome too! This isn't some elite community. We don't even moderate posts. (Spambots notwithstanding.)

We don't have all the answers—we just want a good discussion. So come join us!

category: 

Comments

is plenty of it to the point of saturation: the same info and points made over and over and over. It is not a hard concept to grasp. I'm not against anti-civ btw, but once the material is out there in print, online, podcasts and videos, why keep putting out regurgitated information? I don't bother looking for 'new' material anymore because I realised it has all been covered after researching it for a few years.

Have you delved into the emerging nanotechnologies, they may require the same initial blah blah div labor, petro-chem, etc but the gains outweigh the input/destruction socio-environmentally?.,.

You’re not being frank about new modes of mediation as well as a reality that is further and further facilitated.

Silly Willie Gillie and company ignore the problem of mediation which is just as bad as the organizational lift off it would require.

is it possible that others haven't read everything you've read? is it possible that people might have new things to say on the topic?

civilisation. Fire could be the start as it produced who we are today and we depend on fire (combustion) for everything. The controlled use/domestication of fire had no perceived impact for tens of thousands of years. However, as with compound interest, the impact speeds up and when this becomes noticeable, the end is never far away. Think of 2 4 16 32 64 128 256 etc. Plus, we live in debt based economics world wide system which demands expansion year on year for it to 'work.' Civilisation is fire. Civilisation is human. No other living being creates fire or is totally dependent on it.

Civilization means living in cities. Look it up

Civ = cities? Not to everyone. Tribes today are civilised except maybe any truly uncontacted. Even JZ says this.

So you’re saying you that there’s a distinction between a definition and usage? Sure, that’s true. But you didn’t ask about usage; you asked for a definition. Insisting on some subtle (or gross distinction), you and JZ (apparently) are the ones responsible for the explanation of how your specialized usage is different from — and apparently much broader than — the usual accepted meaning.

a spinning ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88 This is well worth watching the whole way through. Elon Musk needs to watch this and save his cash. Rocket science is bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88

wrote the world is NOT a spinning ball. Conditioning is always ever-present!

Existentialist anarchy: if you feel triggered by the claim that the Earth is spherical and not.the center of the universe, you have the power to make up the world to be anything you want, sweety pie!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
Q
W
e
2
B
q
b
Enter the code without spaces.