in Anarchy Radio w/ John Zerzan fb page

Image may contain: one or more people and people standing
*** I love this
*** “Until I realized that there was no ethical consumption in capitalism, I was opposed to pressure against nonhuman animals, womens, children, natives and nature. I am not now.” That’s just rubbish
*** Ki roto i te ipupara. Into the rubbish bin. Such a silly meme.
*** There are valid issues that chronically go under the radar. This particular issue is just divisive. Why should animals sacrifice their lives to you because of the invention of capitalism?
***Anarchy radio did you censor me?
Ria Del Montana to understand the lack of logic, try this: I ate meat until I realised there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Ria Del Montana the only edit i can think of to make it logical: i consumed until i realized there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Ria Del Montana veganism =/= consumerism any more than eating meat does
Ria Del Montana consumerism is bad, so criticize veganism instead of this
Image may contain: 1 person


***Let me call out the most daring thing here. Don’t censor me again btw. “This jacket has petroleum products in it.”
*** that’s like “I drove a compact car until I realized there is no ethical transportation under capitalism, so now I drive a hummer”
Ria Del Montana McAnprims smashing hummers is like fascists smashing bank windows
Ria Del Montana so many lonely anprims. how long will it take for anprims to drop the feminist backlash? “Even the term ‘hunter-gatherer’ has rightly been criticised by feminist archaeologists who in the 1970s and 1980s argued that ‘gatherer-hunter’ would be a more appropriate nomen given that in most groups women provided the majority of food that sustained them. ”…

Ria Del Montana doesn’t it make more sense for McAnprims to redirect their critique to more sensible, guilty targets?

Image may contain: text, outdoor and nature

Before humans entered the picture,

Before humans entered the picture, North America had an impressive assortment of large mammals and birds. The herbivores of this megafauna included 3 species of elephants (woolly mammoths, giant mammoths, and mastodons), horses, camels, giant bison, giant ground sloths, giant armadillos, tapirs, giant beaver, giant tortoises (roughly the size of Volkswagon bugs), and a peccary as large as the wild boars of Europe. An entire guild of now extinct mega-predators existed to feed on these large herbivores, including cheetahs, saber-toothed tigers, giant wolves, and two species of lion (one larger than the modern lions of Africa). There also existed a truly fearsome short-nosed bear, about twice the size of a modern grizzly bear, which ran its prey down like modern wolves do. Jaguars lived far north of their current tropical latitudes, into the boreal forests of Canada, as did many of the New World cats now restricted to Central and South America. There also existed a guild of large meat-eating birds, the largest of which were the teratorns, scavengers with wingspans up to five meters. The endangered California condor is the last remnant of these giant scavenger birds. There was even a giant vampire bat adapted to feeding off the blood of these enormous beasts.

The fate of all these species has been the topic of much scientific debate, but the majority of the evidence supports the hypothesis of “Pleistocene Overkill” (Martin and Wright 1967, Flannery 2001). This hypothesis suggests that as humans spread across the two continents, they preyed upon the large herbivores, such as mammoths, ground sloths, and horses, and wiped them out. Such large animals are more vulnerable to extinction than smaller ones because they cannot hide as easily, and because their lower reproductive rates cannot compensate for the losses due to hunting. They also may have had a fearlessness of humans, somewhat like the dodo bird, because these animals evolved with out human presence. When the large herbivores disappeared, their natural predators, such as saber-toothed tigers and short-nosed bears, became extinct as well. The large scavenger bird species, adapted to eating the remains of large animals, then followed into extinction. The California condor may have held on because it had access to the carcasses of marine mammals, which did not suffer high extinction rates at this time. The loss of the megafauna also impacted the diversity of smaller animals. Because large abundant animals (such as mammoths) alter plant communities by their intense grazing practices, their disappearance caused a major shift in the plant communities (e.g., from prairie to forest) resulting in the extinction of many smaller species that depended on the habitats maintained by the large grazers. In fact, there existed a grassland ecosystem in Alaska called the mammoth steppe that disappeared entirely once the woolly mammoth went extinct in that region, which is attributed the change in ecosystem processes that occurred when this keystone herbivore was lost (Flannery 2001).

9 Brutally real reasons why millennials refuse to have kids

September 01, 2016 By Isabelle Kohn

When faced with the question, “Do you want kids?” many millennials are shrugging and lackadaisically saying “NOPE.”


After all, long gone are the days when sex was reproductive; where the natural progression after marriage is 2.5 thankless spawn and a white picket fence in suburban hell.

Today’s copulating post-youths are much more interested in their careers and life goals than they are in raising from a larval stage a human money suck, and as a result, our nation’s birth rates are declining.

According to data from the Urban Institute, birth rates among women in their 20s have declined 15 percent between 2007 and 2012, and research from Pew uncovered a longer-term trend of people skirting parenthood — the number of blissfully child-less couples has doubled since 1970, with only about half of women ages 15-44 squeezing some out.

This decline in baby blobs worries some people, like your grandma, in part because there’s still a undying taboo around with people (particularly women) who chose not to procreate. Ladies who choose not to violently blast forth from their uteri a living person have been referred to as “shallow” and “self-absorbed cat ladies,” and even the cool pope has said the decision not to reproduce is fundamentally “selfish.”

Too bad millennials don’t give a flying shit what the cool pope says, even if he did release a rap album.

So, to find out why so many of us are saying “piss off” to parenthood, we sought out some opinions from our readers and friends. The responses are from people of all walks of life, and reveal that there’s quite a plentiful grab-bag of reasons why none of us want little poop machines anymore.

1. The world kinda sucks now.

Sometimes the decision to not be a parent is as simple as wanting to spare a child from having to live in a world of jerks and terrorism and disease and our increasingly shitty ways of communication. There are many times that we ourselves regret being born into the time we were, and we don’t really see the global situation improving enough to want to raise our kids in it. For all we know, there’s going to be some sort of I Am Legend zombie apocalypse any day now and we’ll all have to make suicide pacts with our loved ones to avoid an even gorier death so … no kids allowed.

“Have you watched the news lately? That’s exactly why I don’t want kids.” – Taylor, 23

“As I grow up myself, I realize more and more the kinds of shitty things people are capable of. Kidnapping and rape and bullying and terror and stalking and identity theft and … I could go on. Having experienced a couple of these things myself, it would break my heart knowing I was bringing an innocent child into a world where all that was possible. I feel like I’d have a really hard time not sheltering them or not being overprotective.” – Cammie, 26

“One word: Trump. If that dude wins, I have a really hard time not picturing America as a smoldering nuclear wasteland. That’s no place to raise a child.” – Manuel, 28

2. We’re poor as hell.

In case you haven’t noticed, you have no money.

That would be because millennials are the highest-educated, worst-paid generation ever. We can’t even crawl, bruised and bloody, out of our student debt holes, so how are we supposed to afford the lifetime of cash hemorrhaging having children entails? We could make diapers out of our old vintage band tees maybe … but … no. We love that Devo tee.

In fact, many people we talked to specifically named their student loans as a reason for not being able to afford kids — a trend that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, if the total student debt of the Class of 2015 is to be believed.

“When a kid leaves your body, it costs a pretty $20-30K. I’ve got $52K in student loans to look forward to. That’s negative money I have to feed and clothe and educate a kid. Not trying to bring up a dirt baby.” – Seth, 25

“I’m lesbian, so unless my girlfriend grows a dick and balls, paying for a surrogate or artificial insemination would be a huge medical bill. Dogs are cheaper.” – Drea, 27

“I can’t even live off my pathetic salary, so how can I give a child the life they deserve?” – Micah, 23

Continue reading “9 Brutally real reasons why millennials refuse to have kids”

We are causing a sixth Great Extinction

Curtis Marean, professor and associate director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, Scientific American, 2015: As we moved out of Africa about 70,000 years ago and colonized the planet, “everywhere Homo sapiens went, massive ecological changes followed. The archaic humans they encountered went extinct, as did vast numbers of animal species.”

This was especially true of large mammals.  Ecography: “Our world has lost most of the large terrestrial animals present 100,000 years ago.” …“human colonization was the dominant driver of megafaunal extinction across the world.”


Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology

Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology – Barbara Noske (1988). Noske on “The Animal Question in Feminism” part I.
[W]ith the rise of modern science and the subject-object approach towards nature, women increasingly came to be associated with nature and natural processes, whereas men were associated with culture, the conquest of nature and with civilization processes. Well before this time Western humanity had already begun to value culture above nature, so that in the end women came to be regarded as inferior to men.
On the basis of those activities which they share with (female) animals, women became the personification of animal-human continuity. Men, on the other hand, came to represent the separation or discontinuity between humans and animals. While it cannot have gone unnoticed that male activities too have their parallels in the animal world, these tended (and tend) to be played down. Thus, in the best of humanist traditions, even someone like Simone de Beauvoir pointed out that man-animal continuity is only ostensibly a continuity: the human male is a free agent, his life activities involve a project and are aimed at remodelling nature and moulding the future. Man’s activity is not to repeat himself in time in the way that animals do but to make of existence itself a value.
It is precisely this subject-object attitude to the natural world which has devaluated both nature and woman. Nevertheless De Beauvoir seems to agree with male chauvinists on at least one point, namely, that woman’s animality is more manifest than man’s. She appears to consider an activity specifically human only if there exists no parallel for it in the animal world. In her eyes women’s activities are not really human as long as they are natural and resemble animal actions such as giving birth and suckling. If in her view man-animal continuity is false, woman-animal continuity is certainly real. And only in so far as woman succeeds in cutting her ties with the animal world, will she truly become human and achieve equality with man.
Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology –Barbara Noske (1988). Noske discusses how critical Marxist views can be applied to animal exploitation in agriculture. Part II: Alienation from home, life as exploitation.
Animals nowadays are increasingly made to produce in huge buildings, in systems ranging from moderate to total confinement. The surrounding physical environment is completely human-made and human-controlled; no open air, no feel of earth, artificial temperatures, artificial daylight or darkness, wire-mesh, concrete or metal-slat floors and so forth. Confinement systems serve a twofold purpose: to crowd as many animals as possible in one spot and to manipulate them toward ever greater productivity. […]
In the course of capitalist production humans have virtually robbed the animals of their own subsistence cycles: control over life-supporting activities has passed from the animals themselves to machines and managers. As it is, a power failure or a minor mistake can quickly cause the death of a very large number of animals.
We have seen that the human (male) worker surrendered control over the production and labour processes to the management but maintained control over the sphere of reproduction: his home. Karl Marx wrote: “Thus the worker only feels at home outside his work and in his work he feels a stranger. He is at home when he is not working and when he works he is not at home.“
Marx concentrated on the male worker, ignoring the specific position of the female worker, who, whether or not working in the sphere of production, is required also to work in the sphere of reproduction: the home. Contrary to the male worker, the female worker is not free from work even in the home. She must reproduce labour power by attending to the day-to-day needs of her husband and children (if existing) as well as to her own needs. For her there exists no clear distinction between home and work. Indeed, female workers are first and foremost workers in the home, which to them is hardly a place of leisure.
Thus, while for the male home and work are separate, and for the female work is in the home as well, animal `workers’ cannot `go home’ at all. The modern animal industry does not allow them to `go home’ – they are exploited 24 hours a day. In the case of animals the `home’ itself has been brought under factory control. There is to be hardly a spontaneous movement and no free association with other members of the species. Indeed, it is often precisely the sphere of reproduction (mating, breeding, the laying of eggs) which the capitalist seeks to exploit. The animal’s life-time has truly been converted into `working-time’: into round-the-clock production.

Continue reading “Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology”