Is a global primitive lifestyle possible given the destruction we have caused to the environment?

Question

Have we left ourselves enough resources to achieve such a goal or would most people just die off with only a few surviving in the woods or some other place

Comments

Too many untenable assumptions here. Who is calling for a global primitive lifestyle? Who is the "we" who's caused environmental destruction? What are "resources"? Why do you care about "most people"?

Seems like you're laboring under a vulgar humanist paradigm, as in "humans good; more humans better."

Answer 1

1. So-called 'primitivism' is neither a goal nor global. It's not a blue-print. Primitivists try to understand of indigenous peoples (and those people who've left civ), their varied ways of living in particular places, as well as their commonalities, then compare and contrast the recurring theme of civ: the will toward homogeneity, order, and domination, no matter the costs.

2. Primitivism is more of a critique, as well as the affirmation that once civilization is done totally fucking the biosphere, those who *may* survive in its wake of death, will have few choices of places to live, how to live, and what living will look like.

3. And underlying following #2, the way your question is phrased, it seems you assume primitivism, rather than Leviathan (civ), is somehow the catalyst of the all-too-possible globalized mass death of humans and non-humans. This, in itself, is worth a down-vote.