What is the difference between green anarchy, (anarcho-)primitivism, and anti-civ thinking?

Question

(clearly i'm assuming there are some, but perhaps that isn't your experience.)

Answer 1

Hmmmm...Well, they all point to the same thing but I just assume green anarchy is a general term for anarchic thought from an environmental perspective. Anarcho-primitivism is a bad ideological categorization for the belief that hunter-gatherers lived the best and most free existence and everything went south starting with agriculture. Anti-civ thinking is simply anti-civ thinking as an offshoot of the other two terms we're discussing since hierarchy is absolutely crucial for civilization.

Answer 2

to me, very broadly speaking:

anti-civ is a critique of civilization (however one defines "civilization"), which may or may not come from an anarchist perspective (eg, tk). having a critique of civilization does not imply or prescribe a particular way for post-civilized humans to live.

(anarcho)primitivism adds to a critique of civilization a somewhat prescriptive element that implies a particular "correct" way for humans to live - the way humans lived prior to civilization. of course, that can only be surmised from what paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists have indicated is "how humans lived" back then. a primary conflict that non-primitivist anti-civ folks i know have with primitivist thought is precisely that prescriptive element, as well as its dependence on authorities (those scientists) and seemingly wholesale acceptance of their body of "evidence".

green anarchy is a broad tendency of anarchist thought, which takes a particular interest in the ecological/environmental impacts of modern (civilized) life, and how it creates and perpetuates institutional hierarchies and oppressions.

a decent starting point for answering this question in more detail might be:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-what-is-green-anarchy

quick edits for clarity.