Agriculture is a technology, not an innate knowledge.
I know that, and the first hints of agriculture are actually quite interesting (closely tied to religion, spiritualism, alcohol)
But I am still staying with the notion that in our scenario, we
remember what we know.
Agriculture has also developed independently of the Old World, as seen in the Inca empire terraces, but as you imply is overall less common (North America for example, but even there small scale growing existed, it does even in the jungle)
Farming isn't harmful, as long as you don't burn entire forest to fertilize the soil, but even then it's no where near as harmful as modern industry. That could just be me believing in delusion, knowledge can be easily lost, in particular our modern technology. Modern farming isn't just about farming, it's part of a complete inter-connected system which need an awful lot of peoples and investment, it's industrial chemistry, mining, engineering, logistic, petrol, genetics, and all sort of other shit, that a simple group of farmers wouldn't be able to recreate that if it falls apart, I means just look at some Chinese farmers who still use donkey, if they can make a modern European farm all by themselves.
Modern farming "only" took 5 thousand years to develop
That's like a blink of an eye in 200 000 years of modern humans, and lightning-fast compared to the evolution of
Homo
A contemporary Chinese farmer using a donkey has likely heard of modern farming, in a world that he partakes in. If he had the means, he would probably give that donkey a rest, and buy a tractor.
In a "primitivist" society we would deliberately choose away the tractor, and choose the donkey instead - regardless of means. This is what I find unlikely to ever occur - especially on a greater scale.
You like primitivism? Do you know about uncle Ted?
Haven't heard of, and I think we've both dived too deep in this particular issue
I'm at the point where I'm not entiiirely sure what we're actually discussing anymore
I guess my main point is - Humans will, by nature, choose progress - or whatever they truly consider to be progress. They will not choose away efficiency, no matter how idealistic. We might try to regulate certain aspects of our society, such as pollution, but we will not completely abandon it
untill we are presented with a
more efficient alternative.
NOW... there is of course the issue of
our perception of efficiency, that is in turn molded by our wise men and leaders, but that's too much to go into right now, it's late
Anarcho-primitivist societies are simply not considered efficient enough to sustain the dense mass of society that exists right now, and so, it is not chosen and probably won't be. Any society that naturally exists in such a state (such as tribal hunter-gatherers) will always gravitate towards efficiency whenever they are given the oportunity, while the exception is extremely rare
(not saying tribes will un-tribe immediately, but many "jungle folks" combine modern equipment with their style of life whenever they can, such as synthetic fabrics, factory-made clothes, fire-arms, etc)
