The only good thing about the article is the analysis of grain dependence. Anarcho-primitivism and its hunter-gatherer lifestyles would support less than 1% of

The only good thing about the article is the analysis of grain dependence. Anarcho-primitivism and its hunter-gatherer lifestyles would support less than 1% of current world population. "Did our hunter-gatherer ancestors have it better?" is just a myth of lost Golden Age adapted for modern audience. Civilization enables health and comfort levels that hunter-gatherers never dreamed of: their "lifestyle" options were extremely limited and grim, geared to maximize survival of tribes instead of individual happiness and comfort. Without civilization existing in its current technological level, most people will just die, the minority which will adapt will not live in a paleo paradise. There is no "abundant natural resources" of paleolithic anymore, there is no skills and knowledge of wilderness survival. In the event of civilizational collapse, people will have nothing much to harvest/hunt/gather after initial plundering(long-term impact will not be a priority). The limited resources of current Earth will not support such lifestyle. Even huntergatherers will not survive this, as they'll have to compete with armed civilization remnants searching for any resources to continue its current lifestyle. In short, civilization has one way forward and any collapse will be fatal, a state which cannot "jump start a civilization again", with all easily extracted resources gone and natural environment plundered. The forests and jungles exist only because there are legal frameworks to ensure their continued existence inside a civilization: in case of collapse they'll be stripped for firewood and collapse in a decade.