An Anarchist steampunk anti-civ essay

[auroraglacialis]

I think this article is very interesting. It is very critical about civilization and the concepts that make it so ugly, but it has a twist on it. In the wake of trying to make a soft landing, to prevent "millions of deaths" it argues that people should salvage from the current way of life what can be salvaged. Basically concepts like permaculture and some technologies that can be used without keeping the whole system running.

Here is an excerpt:
via Take What You Need And Compost The Rest

This civilization is, from its foundation, unsustainable. It probably cannot be salvaged, and what’s more, it would be undesirable to do so.
[...]
Civilization is destroying all life on earth. It’s unsustainable: growth-based economies and societies always are.
[...]
Derrick Jensen, an anti-civilization theorist (but not a post-civilized one), has proposed another useful definition of civilization: “a culture — that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts — that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state).”
[...]
We hate civilization
[...]
Primitivists reject technology. We just reject the inappropriate use of technology. Now, to be fair, that’s almost all of the uses of technology we see in the civilized world.
[...]
It is therefore desirable to imagine and enact a post-civilized culture. This is something we can do here and now in the thrashing endgame of civilization.
[...]We’re talking about the steampunks over here perfecting solar distilleries by use of Fresnel lenses while another group of bike enthusiasts over there spends their time racing, doing courier work for other groups, and forging bicycles out of found pipe. A semi-nomadic clique of teenagers will move out into the wilds of the abandoned suburbs and herd goats, while a hermit whiles her time growing potatoes in stacked tires and recording classical piano onto wax cylinders.[...]
And the critics will say this can’t work forever, and they’ll look confused when we nod our heads in agreement. Because we’ll adapt with the shifting landscape, because what works in one time or place may not work elsewhere or elsewhen.

My thought on it are, that these ideas are very noteable.
While it argues that civilization has to be done away with, it adresses what happens to all the trash that would be around after civilization is gone and paints a picture of a free society though not a utopia. I have not yet a definite opinion about this, but having a certain attachment to "steampunk" as a form of critique of industrialism, I find it a very interesting read. What do you think?