Death By Primitivism

This morning I happened upon a news article about a drought occurring in Cambodia. The Cambodian government is warning that millions of Cambodians could suffer food shortages if there is no significant rain before the end of August. In 2000 and 2001, drought claimed the lives of over 400 people in the country and cost the government over $200 million. Those in small villages in the outer provinces are the hardest hit since most of them survive almost exclusively by farming.

Having personally been to Cambodia and seen the plight of many people living there, I reflected on what a glorious existence they enjoy. How thrilling it must be to be completely at the mercy of the rain gods. How noble is their primitive lifestyle where they are afforded the privilege of toiling happily in the rice fields all day, sleeping on hammocks outdoors or in bamboo shacks, and cooking over an open fire. Sure they are at times bothered by pesky parasites and devastating diseases for which they have little or no medical treatment options. Sure they have high illiteracy and infant mortality rates and yes, many are malnourished. But this seems a small price to pay for the joy of a simple, natural life lived in harmony with mother earth and her creatures.

Hopefully the sarcasm here is plainly evident. I’m quite sure none of us would be eager to trade places with those who live under such conditions throughout the world. Of course there are many who enjoy the outdoors and who refuse to utilize available technology to some extent, but all of us are the beneficiaries of innumerable technological and scientific advances that we can scarcely imagine doing without. The benefits of modern society are so great that if given the option to return to hunting and gathering, the vast majority of us would not give it a second thought. In fact, this assertion is self-evident.

There is nothing stopping a man from wandering out into the sprawling, public wilderness and living his days in primitive bliss. The fact that so few choose to do so implies our preference for mechanical comforts. We simply do not wish to return to the harsh realities of a wild and primeval existence. But this is exactly the choice that many environmentalists and advocates of primitivism are trying to make for us.

Primitivism is a profoundly anti-human doctrine which more or less teaches that civilization is unnatural, dehumanizing and environmentally destructive. The solution to the world’s problems is to renounce modern technology, wealth and urban life and return to nature where we can once again enjoy a harmonious existence akin to that of our ancient ancestors. In practice this means that we must all join our Cambodian brethren in suffering the periodic pains of drought and starvation that are inherent in a subsistence farming society. There are varying schools of thought and differing degrees of radicalism among those who share this ideology, but almost all have one thing in common. They seek to use the state to force their ideas on others.

The primitivist threat comes in many forms but is almost always accompanied by scary statistics, frightening theories and ominous predictions concerning supposed overpopulation, depletion of resources, habitat destruction, global cooling, global warming, loss of ozone, the plight of the rain forests and the future image of a desolate planet, raped and destroyed by mankind’s greed.

In a 1995 speech delivered before the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations at Wright State University, author and educator Richard Heinberg made the following comments. “We are, it seems, killing the planet… By most estimates, the oceans are dying, the human population is expanding far beyond the long-term carrying capacity of the land, the ozone layer is disappearing, and the global climate is showing worrisome signs of instability. Unless drastic steps are taken, in fifty years the vast majority of the world's population will likely be existing in conditions such that the lifestyle of virtually any undisturbed primitive tribe would be paradise by comparison.”

According to Mr. Heinberg, like a nasty virus, humans are spreading and consuming so uncontrollably that we are killing our host. He even goes so far as to set a fifty year deadline after which life on earth will be a living hell and we will wish we could go back to wearing loin cloths and worshipping the sun. These scare tactics are common among radical environmentalists of all stripes. The world will fast come to an end and the planet will die unless we take drastic measures to turn back the clock on technology and civilization.

First of all these comments lack clear definitions of what is meant by the words “civilization” and “nature”. Mr. Heinberg attempts to define civilization in his speech but is very vague. I believe he views it as having to do with technology, the division of labor and with humans living in stationary, large settlements. He does not define nature but from his usage it would appear that by it he means anything that is naturally occurring and that is not a product or side effect of man or his tampering.

This view is entirely arbitrary. Why is it that we separate man from nature? Is man not a natural part of this world? Did he descend in an alien vessel from some unknown universe? Why does the fact that he fashions tools and builds buildings make him distinct from what we view as “nature?” If a bird builds a nest or a fox digs a den are they not altering their surroundings for their own benefit? Do ants not construct colonies and mounds where they live together and cooperate to survive? Should we also denounce this as some unnatural “civilization”?

What is technology but man creating tools to aid in survival and the enjoyment of life? Technology and the division of labor are indeed an integral part of civilization. In fact, they are an integral part of human life. While it is true that men can live in small tribal groups, roaming the earth in nomadic fashion with minimal tools and with no division of labor, this substantially limits the population the earth can hold. Before white settlers came to North America, it was able to provide sustenance for only a few hundred thousand natives. Contrast that with the current population of almost three hundred million in the U.S. alone and we can begin to see how powerful a society based on the division of labor and private property can be.

If radical primitivists had their way and we were forced to return to what they see as a more natural, primitive lifestyle, it would mean the eradication of a substantial portion of the earth’s current population. Where would the land come from for 6 billion people to return to subsistence farming? Where would the herds of wild game and the wild fields of berries come from to feed 6 billion hunter gatherers? They should try reading a few history books and they might notice that this lifestyle was used for a long time, by a far smaller population than the earth now supports, and there were still lots of people starving to death.

No doubt some would advocate a gradual return to this ancient lifestyle where none currently living would have to die but where the population would slowly shrink back to a level where primitivism is possible. This would mean draconian state controls over birth rates and a policy of selective breeding. There is no other way to achieve this goal. What a beautiful, Orwellian world that would be!

Population problems among animals and among humans are self-correcting. As people become wealthier they stop having so many kids because the costs of doing so have gone up. The wealthy nations of the world have slowly growing or declining growth patterns whereas poorer nations usually have high birth rates and high population growth. There is less opportunity in poorer countries and therefore lower costs for having kids. The problem here is not too much civilization but too little. More economic opportunity, freer markets and less government interference are the solutions. These things would raise living standards in poor countries and slow population growth down to a steadier, more stable level.

But let’s return to the main primitivist argument cited above; that civilization destroys the environment and depletes its resources. In disagreeing with this view I do not mean to imply that there are no environmental problems to be solved. There are legitimate concerns over pollution, resource depletion and other things. What I am implying is that the primitivist solution to these problems is utterly absurd. Not only does primitivism display an ignorant disregard for economic principles and private property, but the only way to implement its agenda is through massive government intervention and control over virtually everything. Individual freedom is simply not an option in the primitivist agenda. Those who believe it is are deceiving themselves.

Even if the primitivists had their way and were able to return the world to its “natural” state, what would prevent civilization from rising again? Civilization and technological advancement are spontaneous events that occur whenever men are free to act and cooperate with each other. There would have to be constant outside control (undoubtedly from some world government,) that would enforce primitivism in order to keep people from “civilizing” themselves or inventing new forms of “technology.” I hope the absurdity of all this is starting to take shape. No matter what spin is put on it the logic of primitivism inevitably leads towards tyranny and injustice.

So if primitivism isn’t the answer, just what can be done about the environmental concerns and population problems facing mankind? As far as the environment goes more private and less public property is the answer. Why are the rain forests (or any forests for that matter,) being burned down and over-harvested? No one owns them. Public ownership is by default no ownership. When no one owns a resource it will be overused. These are basic principles that can be learned in any entry level economics course.

If a company leases a logging permit from the government, they have an incentive to cut down as many trees as possible during their allotted time. If they don’t someone else will and they don’t own the actual forest so they don’t care if it gets depleted. The same problem exists with regards to the worlds oceans. Too many fish are harvested and garbage, sewage and other waste is wantonly dumped into the oceans because no one owns them. Private ownership of the oceans may sound like a strange concept but unless it happens, we can expect more of the same. No amount of government regulation will stop this epidemic. The only real solution to the common property problem is private property.

Most problems with pollution are the result of governments’ refusal or inability to properly enforce property rights. When private companies or individuals are allowed to externalize the costs of cleaning up the by-products of their production processes, you get pollution. Make these companies pay to dispose of their waste properly or dump it on their own property. When I was in Vietnam I noticed that there was garbage everywhere. The streets, the fields, even the oceans were swimming in filth. This shouldn’t be surprising considering almost all the land is owned by the state. It’s truly a marvel of collectivism where the entire country has become the trashcan of the proletariat. Contrast that with the only clean places I saw over there, peoples’ private homes and businesses, which by the way were immaculate. Case closed.

To me the most glaring flaw in the concept of primitivism is that it grossly miscalculates the ability of civilized man to solve problems. In the realm of private property and free markets, problems get solved because as they get worse the monetary incentives to fix them become enormous. Without government meddling, many of the problems primitivists cite to support their cause today would be non-issues. Despite all the truly amazing advances we have made in the fields of science and technology over the last few centuries, we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is possible. Primitivism falls into the age old trap of believing that what exists today is what will exist tomorrow and that progress has reached its pinnacle in the current era. Rather than seeking to turn back the clock we should look forward to the future and the opportunities it holds for all of us. Instead of trying to emulate starving Cambodians we should be helping them raise themselves to the highest levels of civilization.