I disagree. They don’t see humans in general as such. They do see civilization, which is a product of humanity that has grown dependent upon technology to such a degree that humans do live as parasites, as such though.

“This is to say that primitivists perhaps fail to admit that humans are not only capable of technological innovation, but that technological innovation could very well serve in ecologically restorative projects, at the very least in the meantime, in pursuit of a completely different ontological and epistemological epoch of humans-in-nature existence.”

This sounds like “green washing” the situation and does not affect ontological concerns. Epistemologically, the limit is unchanged as well. There still is a dependence upon technology to fix things for us rather than knowing and living outside the constructs of a technologically defined existence. The ontological concern is to experience life directly without the mediations of technological apparatus. You are assuming that nature needs our technical help with “ecologically restorative projects.” This ontological approach is rubbish and epistemological stunted.

“Eco-fascism” – I’m not forcing you to live in the wild… just trying to point out the deficiencies of living within civilization which I think are plentiful. You must come to the understanding on your own. I can’t physically force you to do this and I don’t think you’ll find anarcho-primitivists who really believe it should be forced upon you and everyone else. It’s more likely they believe it will be forced upon you by the collapse of civilization than by anarcho-primitivists themselves.

“Revolution” – talk about the remnants of a failed ontological view! Although, I must say that I do appreciate you calling it a process rather than a cataclysmic event. The new fashionable term is “insurrection” which I think is more of how you mean “revolution”. The problem with much insurrectionist thought, from my viewpoint, is a problem of epistemology actually. Much vitriol is aimed at the state and capital in an effort to abolish both, but the limit of insurrectionary theory is what happens after you get rid of both. You still have a view of life that depends upon mass society and I think they fail horribly at seeing the connection between the state, capital and mass society. They are all linked, yet insurrectionists (or old-school revolutionaries) never offer much about curtailing mass society that depends upon a large state, or state like, machine to administer the operations of mass society. And due to this, I feel they don’t really offer much hope for the future.

Hadn’t come back here since October. It’s nice to be back.

-bloodyknuckles