Evolution of Civilization?

[TacoButt]

So let me get this straight. Humans lived in small, mobile hunter/gatherer communities, developed agriculture, then in locations like Mesopotamia developed written language, then laws, complex infrastructures, social classes and customs and after thousands of years...

we have cities such as Rome, Paris, NY, London, Sau Paulo, Cairo, Tokyo, Moscow, Seoul, Beijing, Sydney and Bangalore.

Is urban living the height of human development? Something is wrong with this picture. Happiness and health is antithetical to city dwelling.

These qualities are found in small fishing villages and sparsely populated agrarian societies.

Where did things go wrong?

[Hurricane]

Some crazy assumptions up in there.

I don't really buy the whole "Oh, we're so miserable because of modernity!" argument. I call BS. You're only worrying about it because you don't have to worry about whether or not you're going to get killed in your sleep by a saber-toothed tiger, or how you're going to get enough food to make it through the winter. You can have your small fishing village, I'll take my stable sources of food, modern health care, and indoor plumbing. Don't get me wrong, I love the outdoors and spend a lot of time doing the out-in-nature thing. But doing it 24/7/365 would get a little old.

The whole reason we're even having this conversation is because someone, thousands of years ago, thought to himself, "You know, living from handful of nuts and berries to handful of nuts and berries kind of blows." and decided to change.

[TacoButt]

You seem pretty stressed out to me. :reddevil:

[Propter W.]

So let me get this straight. Humans lived in small, mobile hunter/gatherer communities, developed agriculture, then in locations like Mesopotamia developed written language, then laws, complex infrastructures, social classes and customs and after thousands of years...

we have cities such as Rome, Paris, NY, London, Sau Paulo, Cairo, Tokyo, Moscow, Seoul, Beijing, Sydney and Bangalore.

Is urban living the height of human development? Something is wrong with this picture. Happiness and health is antithetical to city dwelling.

These qualities are found in small fishing villages and sparsely populated agrarian societies.

Where did things go wrong?

A gorilla named Ishmael attempts to answer this question in a book by Daniel Quinn. He examines our civilisation myth. It sounds like your proverbial cup of tea.

[Sano]

Actually, the whole notion that someone somewhere invented agriculture is kind of a myth - things did change, but slowly, for thousands of years. Everyone on the line from a complete hunther-gatherer to an agriculturalist thought they were doing the exact same thing their fathers and ancestors did. I find this whole debate about civilization to be problematic - sure, there's people, and there are societies - but where do you draw the line to define "civilization"?

Also, there are people who still think that somehow europeans are/were smarter than everyone else because they've conquered the world or something like that, or even, there is the more pervasive notion that agricultural societies are more "developed" or "smarter" in general than hunter-gatherer ones. When I hear something like that, I usually suggest people to read Guns, germs and steel by Jared Diamond, which is the result of many years of hard work trying to discover the underlying causes behind all of that. It really made me start thinking about human history in a completely different way.

[The Atheist]

...Happiness and health is antithetical to city dwelling.

These qualities are found in small fishing villages and sparsely populated agrarian societies...

Completely wrong, sorry.

Even the quickest scan of longevity and health statistics will show you that living standards and lifespan are the greatest they have ever been.

In urbanised countries using the best technology available.

Were they happier? Possible, but watching your kids die of diphtheria, influenza, scarlet fever and 1000 other things kids generally don't die of in 2011 would probably lessen your enjoyment.

[Propter W.]

Completely wrong, sorry.

Even the quickest scan of longevity and health statistics will show you that living standards and lifespan are the greatest they have ever been.

In urbanised countries using the best technology available.

Were they happier? Possible, but watching your kids die of diphtheria, influenza, scarlet fever and 1000 other things kids generally don't die of in 2011 would probably lessen your enjoyment.


Watching your family die of cancer isn't fun either, however. I'm not really saying it was better then, though. I think it could be a lot better now, but people in the Western world, in general, have become spoilt, ignorant and greedy brats. Totally alienated from the natural world. A disaster waiting to happen, so to speak. You (most of you actually) live in a clean country. I have to suffer the consequences of "progress" daily in the form of particulates. An estimated two hundred thousand people per year die of particular pollution in Europe. The level of particulates here is constantly too high.

[TacoButt]

It's hard to argue with the urban apologists that medical care is a great thing in modern life.

I'd hate to be a happy fisher living on a remote island away from hospitals and doctors and develop acute appendicitis.

But the long, sustained pain of living in a city makes all those years of "healthy" longevity seem dubious in value.

Once zebras are no longer being pursued by lions, their metabolic state goes back to normal, whereas the urban dweller lives in an almost constant "red alert."

But rather than arguing about which version of hell is worse, my question is...is modern urban life the inevitable logical extension of human evolution?

[The Atheist]

I think it could be a lot better now, but people in the Western world, in general, have become spoilt, ignorant and greedy brats. Totally alienated from the natural world. A disaster waiting to happen, so to speak. You (most of you actually) live in a clean country. I have to suffer the consequences of "progress" daily in the form of particulates. An estimated two hundred thousand people per year die of particular pollution in Europe. The level of particulates here is constantly too high.

Id mostly agree with you, but to return to an agrarian or hunter/gatherer lifestyle would need a reduction of something like 90% of current humans.

I'd be fine with that, but I don't have that many bullets!

:D


But rather than arguing about which version of hell is worse, my question is...is modern urban life the inevitable logical extension of human evolution?

Yes, I think it is, although I'd hesitate to use the word evolution, because evolution signifies change in the species and we haven't changed at all but have adapted the world to suit our lifestyle.

It seems that intelligence gave us the means to grow in numbers that others species cannot attain, which led us to society by default. There's no way the earth could support anything like the present population without intensive factory farming.

[jocky]

Id mostly agree with you, but to return to an agrarian or hunter/gatherer lifestyle would need a reduction of something like 90% of current humans.

I

Of course a hunter|gatherer lifestyle would be completely unattainable, given the fact there is practically nothing left to hunt or gather. So where does that leave art and science ? Remember Marx, he built a whole theory on the idea of basic needs , shelter, warmth, water, food and relaxation time which in turn left space for , you guessed it, arts and science. Of course we are quite capable of getting through any predicament, getting rid of 90% of humanity should just about see us through. The lack of food, water and energy sources are on there way, this is the reason for the 'Arab Spring' a sick metaphor for what is coming . Your faith in science is touching Atheist, pity all that billions spent on research never figured out how to feed the world. Never mind, the Hadron Collider will find the God Particle and we will all be saved.

[The Atheist]

Your faith in science is touching Atheist, pity all that billions spent on research never figured out how to feed the world.

Except it has; it's science that has enabled us to get to 7 billion people. Without genetically modified crops, pesticides and fertilisers - and the means to apply them - all given to us by science, we'd have started dying off at about 4 or 5 billion.


Never mind, the Hadron Collider will find the God Particle and we will all be saved.

:smilielol5:

Yep, that won't feed anyone, although I suppose the wages they pay puts grub on a few tables. No CERN = no truffles for dessert.

[Dodo25]

Your faith in science is touching Atheist, pity all that billions spent on research never figured out how to feed the world.

What an ignorant statement. The problem is not that we don't know how to feed the world, the problem is that people are complacent egoists, and that political leaders are too concerned about their popularity among the rich than to actually change something for the better.

One pound of meat uses up about 7'500 litres of water in its production. And about eleven times its own weight in crops is used to generate a pound of meat. Growing kilo tons of soja in third world countries and then feeding it all to the cattle, thereby increasing the prices and letting people starve, what an efficient way of food production!

If the world went vegan (which is perfectly healthy, in fact even healthier than the alternative, one just needs to take vitamin pills from time to time), then we could easily feed 10 billion people.

Edit: Not to mention that the animals in factory farms suffer horribly; if this were done to infants, which have about the same 'level of intelligence and awareness', people would freak the hell out.

[OrphanPip]

But the long, sustained pain of living in a city makes all those years of "healthy" longevity seem dubious in value.


Sustained pain? Geez, maybe you're just agoraphobic.

It's rural living that involves sustained pain, you can't even get a decent internet connection in some places.

[Propter W.]

Id mostly agree with you, but to return to an agrarian or hunter/gatherer lifestyle would need a reduction of something like 90% of current humans.

I'd be fine with that, but I don't have that many bullets!

:D

Returning to an agrarian or hunter gatherer lifestyle is definitely not an option, in my opinion, but I'm all for sustainable retreat. A retreat from technology and the modern lifestyle. Not abruptly but gradually and steadily.

[Propter W.]

What an ignorant statement. The problem is not that we don't know how to feed the world, the problem is that people are complacent egoists, and that political leaders are too concerned about their popularity among the rich than to actually change something for the better.

One pound of meat uses up about 7'500 litres of water in its production. And about eleven times its own weight in crops is used to generate a pound of meat. Growing kilo tons of soja in third world countries and then feeding it all to the cattle, thereby increasing the prices and letting people starve, what an efficient way of food production!

If the world went vegan (which is perfectly healthy, in fact even healthier than the alternative, one just needs to take vitamin pills from time to time), then we could easily feed 10 billion people.

Edit: Not to mention that the animals in factory farms suffer horribly; if this were done to infants, which have about the same 'level of intelligence and awareness', people would freak the hell out.

The world won't go vegan and we can easily feed 10 billion people right now. If you need to take pills in order to be healthy, surely that cannot be healthy? :skep:

Cattle are not human, by the way. Not that I condone cruelty to animals...

[Dodo25]

The world won't go vegan and we can easily feed 10 billion people right now. If you need to take pills in order to be healthy, surely that cannot be healthy? :skep:


What kind of argument is that? Pills are unnatural, therefore bad? Nature is always good?

The ADAF is America's largest association for nutrition scientists. Here's their stance: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357

Sumary: If planned correctly, veganism is not dangerous to anyone, and it even has several health benefits compared to the alternatives.

[Dodo25]

The world won't go vegan and we can easily feed 10 billion people right now.

Yeah, that probably won't happen.. And with smarter distribution, we could indeed feed a lot of people. I doubt 10 million is possible if we don't significantly lower the meat production though.




Cattle are not human, by the way. Not that I condone cruelty to animals...

Typical speciesist statement. Let's move this to the Vegetarianism thread, we're somewhat off topic. My fault btw, again. http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1034294#post1034294

[OrphanPip]

Returning to an agrarian or hunter gatherer lifestyle is definitely not an option, in my opinion, but I'm all for sustainable retreat. A retreat from technology and the modern lifestyle. Not abruptly but gradually and steadily.

But, why and how? Which technologies should we be retreating from? I don't want my indoor plumbing taken away. Certainly we could improve the condition of fossil fuel pollution, but this involves moving to new technologies not retreating from technology. I already live in a place where 98% of electricity is produced by hydro, and I don't drive a car.

What exactly is the modern lifestyle, why should we retreat from it, and how would we retreat from it? Retreating from consumerism causes trouble because it's at the base of our economies, and if people stop buying useless junk, we'll stop making useless junk, and then all of us not working in government or the military will be out of work.

Nothing is perfect, but talking about regressing or moving towards some sort of primitivist ideal is nonsense. Things have never been perfect. Solving problems involves identifying specifics and proposing specific solutions, railing against abstracts like "modern lifestyles" achieves nothing.

[Propter W.]

What kind of argument is that? Pills are unnatural, therefore bad? Nature is always good?

The ADAF is America's largest association for nutrition scientists. Here's their stance: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357

Sumary: If planned correctly, veganism is not dangerous to anyone, and it even has several health benefits compared to the alternatives.

Yes, and a mixed diet also has a few health benefits, namely, it provides the vitamins you need. Anyway, I've yet to see a decent study that shows vegan or vegetarian diets are healthier that a well balanced mixed diet.

[Propter W.]

Yeah, that probably won't happen.. And with smarter distribution, we could indeed feed a lot of people. I doubt 10 million is possible if we don't significantly lower the meat production though.

Believe me, it's possible even today.

[Propter W.]

But, why and how? Which technologies should we be retreating from? I don't want my indoor plumbing taken away. Certainly we could improve the condition of fossil fuel pollution, but this involves moving to new technologies not retreating from technology. I already live in a place where 98% of electricity is produced by hydro, and I don't drive a car.

What exactly is the modern lifestyle, why should we retreat from it, and how would we retreat from it? Retreating from consumerism causes trouble because it's at the base of our economies, and if people stop buying useless junk, we'll stop making useless junk, and then all of us not working in government or the military will be out of work.

Nothing is perfect, but talking about regressing or moving towards some sort of primitivist ideal is nonsense. Things have never been perfect.

Why? Because this, most of today's problems are the result of "progress."
How? Any way possible. Which technologies should we be retreating from? In my opinion, the more the better.

Retreating from consumerism causes troubles? Shall I list what kind of problems can be linked to consumerism? I don't care that people will be out of work. Perhaps they can start growing their own food then. That's one way people can retreat from technology.


Solving problems involves identifying specifics and proposing specific solutions, railing against abstracts like "modern lifestyles" achieves nothing.

Take a look at history, at the last century and see what kind of problems have been solved and consequently what kind of problems these so-called solutions caused. "Solving" problems has never achieved anything but more problems and they are getting progressively worse. Whatever we do now is too little too late. The only real solution is sustainable retreat.

[The Atheist]

The world won't go vegan and we can easily feed 10 billion people right now.

Quite right.

The amount of spoilage would feed half the increase, while the rest could easily be attained through things not using insanities like turning food into fuel and not allowing insane dictators to destroy crop-growing areas.


Nothing is perfect, but talking about regressing or moving towards some sort of primitivist ideal is nonsense.

Yes. Pol Pot tried it and as I recall, it turn out well.


Why? Because this, most of today's problems are the result of "progress."

What problems are these?

I honestly cannot point to a single problem of humankind which has been created or exacerbated by technological advances, so I'd appreciate you letting on what you mean.



How? Any way possible. Which technologies should we be retreating from? In my opinion, the more the better.

Are you old enough to remember Cambodia under Pol Pot?


Retreating from consumerism causes troubles? Shall I list what kind of problems can be linked to consumerism?

Please do!


I don't care that people will be out of work. Perhaps they can start growing their own food then. That's one way people can retreat from technology.

How do you do that in an apartment in Manhattan?

Hey, at least Paul will be fine with his allotment!


Take a look at history, at the last century and see what kind of problems have been solved and consequently what kind of problems these so-called solutions caused. "Solving" problems has never achieved anything but more problems and they are getting progressively worse. Whatever we do now is too little too late. The only real solution is sustainable retreat.

This all seems a bit naive.

In the last century, we've made the air in London breatheable, made smallpox extinct, increased the lifespan of humans by over 20% (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf) and reduced the number of fatal diseases by an enormous factor. (there are quite a few others)

Yes, some progress has resulted in other problems, but science tends to solve those problems ever faster. AIDS/HIV is a classic example. Within 30 years, HIV has gone from a certain death sentence to a lifelong dependency on medicine and most likely avoidable through vaccination in the next decade or so.

[OrphanPip]

Why? Because this, most of today's problems are the result of "progress."
How? Any way possible. Which technologies should we be retreating from? In my opinion, the more the better.

That's just silly. If we start retreating from modern agricultural practices we'll really start having trouble feeding everyone. I quite like my computer, and since you're here on the internet too, I'm sure you like it too. I like my indoor lighting. I like my TV and telephone. I like modern medical science. I like trains, planes, and automobiles (in moderation). I like synthetic materials that allow me to go out in the rain without getting soaked, and I like modern construction techniques that keep my house warm in the winter. What's not to like about technology? It alienates us from nature? Oh my, I'm sure nature will be OK on her own, she's a tough gal.



Retreating from consumerism causes troubles? Shall I list what kind of problems can be linked to consumerism? I don't care that people will be out of work. Perhaps they can start growing their own food then. That's one way people can retreat from technology.

So, what, were we better off before? People live longer and healthier lives today than they ever have before. I don't have time to grow my own food. I neither have the time or will to go through the trouble of learning proper agricultural techniques, I do not own any land. I doubt any farmer has the time or will to go through the trouble of spending years in university studying microbiology so that they can take over my job. Specialization is far more beneficial than dissemination of skills. It is better for us to be good at a few things to trade than to be mediocre at all things.

Not to mention that forcing people into growing their own food just doesn't work. The Soviet Union and China attempted the land reforms in rural areas and it caused massive famine. The fact is that large farms owned by a few people can feed more people effectively than everyone having to take time out of their day to grow enough potatoes to feed their own family. And how can everyone have the land to grow enough food for themselves, or the ability to grow a diversity of foods. This is all ridiculous talk.



Take a look at history, at the last century and see what kind of problems have been solved and consequently what kind of problems these so-called solutions caused. "Solving" problems has never achieved anything but more problems and they are getting progressively worse. Whatever we do now is too little too late. The only real solution is sustainable retreat.

Nonsense. So, when the UN set out to solve the problem of smallpox, wiping out the disease just made it worse. What is getting progressively worse? The last century has seen far less death per capita than any century before. Even the horrors of the 20th century pale in comparison to the horrors that came before. Human beings have never been good, history has never been good. Regression makes things worse and solves nothing. Returning to the land hardly worked for the Cambodians under Pol Pot.

And how are we supposed to help and support those who can not support themselves in your non-consumerist utopia? How are we going to ensure everyone can get education. How will we be able to ensure medical care for everyone if the doctors, nurses, and technicians all have to be at home working their field. Do you envision some sort of barter society? Because bartering didn't quite work all that well for everyone in history either, and ends up far more exploitative.

This is seriously ridiculous, and I'm a leftist. This is the kind of nonsensical tree-hugging anti-capitalist BS that makes progressives look bad.



Yes, some progress has resulted in other problems, but science tends to solve those problems ever faster. AIDS/HIV is a classic example. Within 30 years, HIV has gone from a certain death sentence to a lifelong dependency on medicine and most likely avoidable through vaccination in the next decade or so.

Just this morning I was reading a very promising study from this week's issue of Nature. A new SIV vaccine that provided 50% protection in Rhesus monkeys.

[Propter W.]

What problems are these?

I honestly cannot point to a single problem of humankind which has been created or exacerbated by technological advances, so I'd appreciate you letting on what you mean.
I will get to you on that. It's quite an extensive list and I don't have the time write it down now.


Are you old enough to remember Cambodia under Pol Pot?
No.


Please do!

I will. Please be patient.


How do you do that in an apartment in Manhattan?

I wouldn't.


This all seems a bit naive.
A lot seems naive to me.

[The Atheist]

I will get to you on that. It's quite an extensive list and I don't have the time write it down now.

Just a quick few will do. A long list will just get messy.



No.

Have a read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot). Interesting bloke.

[Propter W.]

Just a quick few will do. A long list will just get messy.

Oh, but I intend to make it very neat.

I know who Pol Pot is. I fail to see how he's relevant in this discussion.

[Vonny]

I think the human population should have started dying off at about 4 to 5 billion.

The idea of 10 billion people on earth is a nightmare.

I agree with what Jockey's statement, including that a lack of food, water and energy sources are on their way.

Science has created many problems along with solving some, especially with the involvement of the rogue entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about.

Propter has a different perspective on this because of his/her life experience, in whatever small country that is the dumping ground for our mess.

Yeah, Propter, people are spoiled, greedy... what was that list? I agree completely.

We're so devoted to our computers because this is what we know, and we don't know how to appreciate the things that people once did.

Dodo: "Not to mention that the animals in factory farms suffer horribly..." In my opinion, this point is relevant in any thread, anywhere.

There will be no retreat, except for in my own life, I'm figuring out how to retreat all that I can.

I have to be in a small town with access to the woods. I can't even travel past Seattle without feeling a bit queasy. If I lived in a large city, I'd be in a mental institution.

"Nature is a tough gal, she'll be okay on her own." I feel like "doing an Atheist" here, and saying... "Wrong!" Anyway, we're not leaving Her alone. We're working tirelessly night and day to destroy her.

[OrphanPip]

Oh, but I intend to make it very neat.

I know who Pol Pot is. I fail to see how he's relevant in this discussion.

Pol Pot tried to enforce some of what you proposed. Including forcing people out of the cities into the countryside to grow their own food.

He also executed everyone with any significant level of education and was anti-consumerism.

[Dodo25]

Pol Pot tried to enforce some of what you proposed. Including forcing people out of the cities into the countryside to grow their own food.

He also executed everyone with any significant level of education and was anti-consumerism.

@The Atheist,
Isn't that the classical Stalin/Hitler fallacy believers use against atheists? Not that I necessarily agree with Propter W here (though I think there are some valid points he's making regarding the cost of progress, not progress itself).

[OrphanPip]

@The Atheist,
Isn't that the classical Stalin/Hitler fallacy believers use against atheists? Not that I necessarily agree with Propter W here (though I think there are some valid points he's making regarding the cost of progress, not progress itself).

No, I firmly believe that any attempts to establish an agrarian society would result in mass death and a break down of contemporary services (like proper security and medical care). It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in China, and it happened in Cambodia. Every time it has been tried it has gone badly. It's simply not a viable option. I don't see how such a system could improve quality of life. Agrarian societies weren't even that happy when they had much more resources and space available for much less people.

Neither me or The Atheist are accusing Propter of being a mass murderer like Pol Pot, merely pointing out that the ideas they are proposing have not gone well in the past.

[Vonny]

My grandma grew up on a farm. People knew how to be happy then as well as now, even though they dealt with some overwhelming circumstances.

Children died from tuberculosis and small infections, but people coped - they were tough. Back then a case of diphtheria was equivalent to a hang nail today. Neighbors always came over to help you out because they knew that next week it could be them in need. A neighbor then was not simply someone whose dog poops on your lawn.

People had a real religion that sustained them, not the phony kind of today.

There's no going back to an agrarian society. No one needs to worry about that happening. Instead, humans are heading for a complete extinction.

[The Atheist]

I know who Pol Pot is. I fail to see how he's relevant in this discussion.

As Pip noted, he enforced exactly what you're proposing. It didn't turn out well.


I think the human population should have started dying off at about 4 to 5 billion.

The idea of 10 billion people on earth is a nightmare.

I agree with what Jockey's statement, including that a lack of food, water and energy sources are on their way.

Not about to happen yet. What is happening is spiralling costs which will stop a lot of food being eaten by the hungry, but there's no way we're going to run out.

Water might be an issue, but we have the technology to overcome it by using seawater extraction.


Science has created many problems along with solving some, especially with the involvement of the rogue entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about.

You've lost me twice here. While scientific progress has resulted in some side effects, they're usually a lot less harmful than whatever they've solved, and Aunt Shecky hasn't posted in the thread, so I have no idea where you're going here.

[QUOTE=Dodo25;1034338]@The Atheist,
Isn't that the classical Stalin/Hitler fallacy believers use against atheists? Not that I necessarily agree with Propter W here (though I think there are some valid points he's making regarding the cost of progress, not progress itself).

No, again as Pip said, it relates directly to Propter proposition, so not the same thing at all.


My grandma grew up on a farm. People knew how to be happy then as well as now, even though they dealt with some overwhelming circumstances.

Beware of rose-tinted memories. Humans have selective meories by necessity.


Children died from tuberculosis and small infections, but people coped - they were tough.

This is pure fallacy. People died from all sorts of diseases which are non-mortal nowadays. That is exactly why life expectancy has increased so much.


Back then a case of diphtheria was equivalent to a hang nail today.

That is outrageously wrong.

My auntie died of diphtheria in 1915 at age seven. It is known that it caused at least 10,000 deaths annually in USA alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphtheria#History) within the last 100 years. Diphtheria was a major killer, completely unlike hangnails.


Neighbors always came over to help you out because they knew that next week it could be them in need. A neighbor then was not simply someone whose dog poops on your lawn.

Yes indeed.

People also used to ignore little things like the neighbour's wife and children constantly covered in bruises because it was bad manners to get involved in someone else's life.

Seeing the past as a wonderful place where everyone was happy is pure fallacy.


People had a real religion that sustained them, not the phony kind of today.

So, the religions of the past were more "real" than now?

Does that mean the Salem Witch Trials were right and that the Inquisition was a good thing?

I'm probably not the best person to comment, but it seems to me that religion is at least as fake as it's ever been.


There's no going back to an agrarian society. No one needs to worry about that happening. Instead, humans are heading for a complete extinction.

That's a cast-iron certainty; no species survives forever.

When and how are still unknown, but I'd lay good odds on it not being food shortages, global warming or nuclear war/s, all of which would be survivable by enough humans to rebuild societies.

[The Atheist]

Neither me or The Atheist are accusing Propter of being a mass murderer like Pol Pot, merely pointing out that the ideas they are proposing have not gone well in the past.

Dead right!

Another one occurred to me as I was typing - Afghanistan under the Taliban was trying to do much the same as Pol Pot, but with opium growing and distribution thrown in. For the elite, anyway.

[Propter W.]

As Pip noted, he enforced exactly what you're proposing. It didn't turn out well.

When did I ever propose an authoritarian, isolationist, communist dictatorship that forces people to go back to an agrarian lifestyle?

Again, Pol Pot is irrelevant in this thread.

[Propter W.]

The Atheist and Pip,

at the very beginning of this discussion I said this:


Returning to an agrarian or hunter gatherer lifestyle is definitely not an option, in my opinion, but I'm all for sustainable retreat. A retreat from technology and the modern lifestyle. Not abruptly but gradually and steadily.

I thought this was pretty clear. Apparently, it was not. My answers were facetious or very short and not very clear because you totally miscontrued my comments.

[OrphanPip]

Well you decided to say the more technology we retreat from the better. If you want to speak in vague abstracts you should expect people to take that to the logical end of such a proposition.

What is a sustainable retreat from technology anyway? We can go right back to the beginning and you can answer which technologies we should be retreating from, and what aspects of the modern lifestyle we should be abandoning.

[Propter W.]

Well you decided to say the more technology we retreat from the better. If you want to speak in vague abstracts you should expect people to take that to the logical end of such a proposition.

What is a sustainable retreat from technology anyway? We can go right back to the beginning and you can answer which technologies we should be retreating from, and what aspects of the modern lifestyle we should be abandoning.

Yes, in my opinion a retreat from a lot of technologies is a good thing. That doesn't mean we need to retreat from all technologies and what you proposed is certainly not the logical end of such a proposition because abandoning our modern lifestyles wouldn't work if there's no alternative or in other words, it would not be sustainable. Not very logical, Pip.

What is a sustainable retreat from technology? We take a look at our highly technological society and assess what is necessary and what is not. We start abandoning unnecessary technologies. A good place to start is by asking whether the benefits of a certain product outweigh the disadvantages. Not many products will actually pass this test.

Yes, Pip, it means giving up your precious luxury but it's in mankind's best interest.

[Propter W.]

We have entire industries whose sole purpose is small, short convenience (straws, plastic bottles, styrofoam cups, cd cases, all kinds of utensils, boxes...) but whose impact on our environment is beyond huge.

Plastic stays forever. It degrades into smaller pieces, that attract toxic chemicals, they are digested by animals and eventually end up in our food chain. We already have harmful particles in our bloodstream. There are already plastic islands in our oceans, one of them being exceptionally big. We don't have an effective way of cleaning this up, meanwhile this plastic will continue to break down into smaller pieces, affecting marine life and eventually us. There are hundreds of camels dying each year due to plastic ingestion.

There's no way of safely disposing of plastic materials. We can't even effectively recycle it.

But that doesn't matter right? Who in their right mind would want to go back to a primitive world where we can't drink our favourite carbonated sugar water with a straw? :out: Utter lunacy, I know!

edit: Please read this article:
http://plasticpollutioncoalition.org/learn/common-misconceptions/

Sadly, we can't do anything about it, eh, Pip? We wouldn't want thousands of people to become unemployed because we stop buying useless stuff. Our economies are based on it, right? Right.

[JBI]

Dead right!

Another one occurred to me as I was typing - Afghanistan under the Taliban was trying to do much the same as Pol Pot, but with opium growing and distribution thrown in. For the elite, anyway.

From what I understand the Taliban were one of the few groups who managed to cut much of the opium production, whose growth escalated once they fell from power.

Not that I am in any way supporting their regime, I am not stupid.

[JBI]

It is strange also, this idea of returning to agrarian forms, since we are destroying the world - the simple answer, which is the only logical one in the world right now, and the generally accepted one, is to rather switch to an advancement of ourselves that stops to destroy and pollute, that stops, and, since technology advances, rebuilds.

[stlukesguild]

Yes, in my opinion a retreat from a lot of technologies is a good thing. That doesn't mean we need to retreat from all technologies and what you proposed is certainly not the logical end of such a proposition because abandoning our modern lifestyles wouldn't work if there's no alternative or in other words, it would not be sustainable. Not very logical, Pip.

You really don't understand the concept of taking a proposition to the logical end, do you? The fact that the consequences are not to be desired has nothing to with it. History is full of examples of idealists imposing their ideals upon society and quite often these result in unforeseen consequences... but consequences that most surely should have been predicted had they simply thought things through to the logical conclusion.

What is a sustainable retreat from technology? We take a look at our highly technological society and assess what is necessary and what is not. We start abandoning unnecessary technologies. A good place to start is by asking whether the benefits of a certain product outweigh the disadvantages. Not many products will actually pass this test.

You continue to speak in vague abstractions. Exactly which technologies do you imagine we should abandon for the betterment of society?

Yes, Pip, it means giving up your precious luxury but it's in mankind's best interest.

O gawd!:rolleyes5: Do you seriously believe this twaddle? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to surrender their wants... their "luxuries" (and who defines what is or is not a "luxury") for the sake of some vague abstraction such as "mankind"? The Western economic-military powers are not likely to give up their cars and computers and i-pods and cell phones for the sake of the whole of mankind. One might even argue that it is not the Western economic-military powers that is putting the greatest strain on the ecosystem, but the poverty-ridden nations that are producing children at a rate that is not sustainable under their current economy.

Studies of the great Black Death of the Renaissance unearthed the fact that a great deal of the deaths were caused by the fact that a large portion of the population was malnourished and more susceptible to the disease. The populations of Europe had grown rapidly during the Middle Ages often outstripping the ability to sustain this same population, A bad year or two for crops could be devastating. Following the Black Death the population grew slowly. Birth records in many of the Northern and Western countries of Europe show a decrease in family sizes. These same countries, unsurprisingly, became the wealthiest. Simple common sense tells us that if we spend almost the whole of our time in attempting to feed ourselves and meet our basic needs, there is not much time left for the development of wealth, craftsmanship, the sciences, the arts and culture, etc...

Just drawing upon US history we find that in 1790, nearly 90% of the labor force were farmers. By 1850, the percentage of farmers in the labor force had dropped to 64%. In another 20 years it had fallen to 53%. By 1900, farmers accounted for only 38%. By the time of the Second World War, farmers accounted for 18% of the labor force. Today the percentage is barely 2%

What do you think happened to that other 88%? As less individuals are needed for farming... for meeting the basic food needs of the nation... more and more individuals are employed as skilled craftsman, laborers in industry, in the arts and culture, in science, in education, etc... creating all those "unnecessary" luxuries. The creation of all these "unnecessary luxuries" is what gives these individuals the money needed to meet their basic need. When you start elimination these "luxuries" how to you propose these individual support themselves and their families? Adding to the number of unemployed in order to meet your half-thought-out fantasies of a utopian civilization seems sustainable to you?

[stlukesguild]

Sadly, we can't do anything about it, eh, Pip? We wouldn't want thousands of people to become unemployed because we stop buying useless stuff. Our economies are based on it, right? Right.

Obviously, you don't have a real job, let alone a family or any other real responsibilities. Otherwise, you'd recognize the utter stupidity of your comments. Individuals mean nothing in contrast to your half-baked fantasy ideals. Such thinking has been behind a vast majority of the greatest human-imposed tragedies in history: wars, pogroms, genocides, etc... If you really care about the proliferation of plastic, why don't you simply do something about your own usage. Just how much plastic is in that computer you are using right now? In your cell phone? In your clothes and shoes? etc...?

[Propter W.]

You really don't understand the concept of taking a proposition to the logical end, do you? The fact that the consequences are not to be desired has nothing to with it. History is full of examples of idealists imposing their ideals upon society and quite often these result in unforeseen consequences... but consequences that most surely should have been predicted had they simply thought things through to the logical conclusion.

How can you "take a proposition to the logical end" if you're dealing with "vague abstractions"?

Are you familiar with people reading and seeing whatever they want to see or read? That's what Pip did.

You continue to speak in vague abstractions. Exactly which technologies do you imagine we should abandon for the betterment of society?
I've named a few. I will work on a list.


O gawd!:rolleyes5: Do you seriously believe this twaddle?

Do I believe giving our some of our luxuries will be better for mankind? Definitely.


Do you honestly think that anyone is going to surrender their wants... their "luxuries" (and who defines what is or is not a "luxury") for the sake of some vague abstraction such as "mankind"?Nope, not even for something concrete...

Studies of the great Black Death of the Renaissance unearthed the fact that a great deal of the deaths were caused by the fact that a large portion of the population was malnourished and more susceptible to the disease. The populations of Europe had grown rapidly during the Middle Ages often outstripping the ability to sustain this same population, A bad year or two for crops could be devastating. Following the Black Death the population grew slowly. Birth records in many of the Northern and Western countries of Europe show a decrease in family sizes. These same countries, unsurprisingly, became the wealthiest. Simple common sense tells us that if we spend almost the whole of our time in attempting to feed ourselves and meet our basic needs, there is not much time left for the development of wealth, craftsmanship, the sciences, the arts and culture, etc...

What's your point? At least you didn't mention Pol Pot (yet).


Just drawing upon US history we find that in 1790, nearly 90% of the labor force were farmers. By 1850, the percentage of farmers in the labor force had dropped to 64%. In another 20 years it had fallen to 53%. By 1900, farmers accounted for only 38%. By the time of the Second World War, farmers accounted for 18% of the labor force. Today the percentage is barely 2%

What do you think happened to that other 88%? As less individuals are needed for farming... for meeting the basic food needs of the nation... more and more individuals are employed as skilled craftsman, laborers in industry, in the arts and culture, in science, in education, etc... creating all those "unnecessary" luxuries. The creation of all these "unnecessary luxuries" is what gives these individuals the money needed to meet their basic need. When you start elimination these "luxuries" how to you propose these individual support themselves and their families? Adding to the number of unemployed in order to meet your half-thought-out fantasies of a utopian civilization seems sustainable to you?

Tell me where I suggested we eliminate skilled craftsmen, laborers in industry, in the arts and culture, in science, in eduction... Or where I defined these as luxuries?

You read what you want to read.

[Propter W.]

Obviously, you don't have a real job, let alone a family or any other real responsibilities

A real job? What's a "real" job? I have a job. How can I tell whether it is a real one or not? I also have a family (a real one) and responsibilities too. Again whether, they are real or not... I wouldn't know.


Otherwise, you'd recognize the utter stupidity of your comments. Individuals mean nothing in contrast to your half-baked fantasy ideals.
I want to know whether Pip thinks anything can be done about it, since he advocates this type of irresponsible consumerism.


Such thinking has been behind a vast majority of the greatest human-imposed tragedies in history: wars, pogroms, genocides, etc...

Lucky for you I'm not power greedy or even remotely interested in governing people :thumbsup:


If you really care about the proliferation of plastic, why don't you simply do something about your own usage. Just how much plastic is in that computer you are using right now? In your cell phone? In your clothes and shoes? etc...?

Well, I have done quite a bit actually, but I'm sure you know a lot more about me and my usage of plastic than me :rolleyes:

[Hurricane]

Tell me where I suggested we eliminate skilled craftsmen, laborers in industry, in the arts and culture, in science, in eduction... Or where I defined these as luxuries?

You read what you want to read.

Have you ever worked on a farm?* It's a lot of work and takes a lot of time just to make ends meet, let alone be profitable. Though modern technology has made it a lot easier (but wait, I thought that's a bad thing...), farming is still hugely labor intensive. The point is, if you're spending the entire day out in the field, you're not going to want to come in and write poetry for a few hours before bed. You're not going to get wound up with all these airy philosophical ideas because you just want to have a stiff drink and rack out.

Technological enhancements that mean less people have to work on a farm mean that more people can be involved in labor for luxury goods, arts, or culture because their physical needs are taken care of. If it takes you forty-five minutes to make dinner rather than three hours, you have more time to do things you're interested in doing. By advocating eliminating technology, you'd also further limit the people who are involved in arts and culture because more of them would have to spend twelve hours a day shoveling manure. Make sense?

Unless you WANT to have the majority of the population forcibly engaged in mind-numbing manual labor in order to support an elite artisan class, but I'm pretty sure that's an even worse solution than what's going on today.

Also, what's a "luxury" technology and what's not? You mentioned something about "whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages," but this is completely arbitrary. What matters to one person is completely different than for someone else. Sure, I could live in a shack without electricity and poop in an outhouse, but I don't really want to, and on a grand scale that's unsanitary and unfeasible.

And you do realize the irony of complaining about the horrors of modern technology on the internet, right?


*In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't either. But my Dad was raised on a farm and then spent much of his young adulthood working on farms, so I have a little bit of knowledge here. Notably, instead of saying "Man, working a farm for seven days a week was awesome, I want that for my kids," he went on to get advanced degrees and worked so that my sister and I didn't have to get up at five to milk the cows. There's nothing "wrong" with farming, it's just that it's a tremendous amount of work and not something I want to do.

[Vonny]

We have entire industries whose sole purpose is small, short convenience (straws, plastic bottles, styrofoam cups, cd cases, all kinds of utensils, boxes...) but whose impact on our environment is beyond huge.

Plastic stays forever. It degrades into smaller pieces, that attract toxic chemicals, they are digested by animals and eventually end up in our food chain. We already have harmful particles in our bloodstream. There are already plastic islands in our oceans, one of them being exceptionally big. We don't have an effective way of cleaning this up, meanwhile this plastic will continue to break down into smaller pieces, affecting marine life and eventually us. There are hundreds of camels dying each year due to plastic ingestion.

There's no way of safely disposing of plastic materials. We can't even effectively recycle it.

But that doesn't matter right? Who in their right mind would want to go back to a primitive world where we can't drink our favourite carbonated sugar water with a straw? :out: Utter lunacy, I know!

edit: Please read this article:
http://plasticpollutioncoalition.org/learn/common-misconceptions/

Sadly, we can't do anything about it, eh, Pip? We wouldn't want thousands of people to become unemployed because we stop buying useless stuff. Our economies are based on it, right? Right.

I agree with Propter that this is sickening. Yeah, I use the computer, but we don't need this other junk. What right do we have to kill off the majority of other species from the planet? And it will come back to "bite" us too. You can't poison the planet and not have it take people down eventually, too.

A great portion of the U.S. economy is the illicit drug trade, so everyone be sure to "use" all you can and keep us strong.

[stlukesguild]

How can you "take a proposition to the logical end" if you're dealing with "vague abstractions"? Are you familiar with people reading and seeing whatever they want to see or read? That's what Pip did.

What Pip did was take your concept that we begin to retreat from technology and suggest similar examples of where just such large scale efforts have led us in the past.

You continue to speak in vague abstractions. Exactly which technologies do you imagine we should abandon for the betterment of society?

I've named a few. I will work on a list.

Plastics and Styrofoam. And what do we replace these with considering all the products that employ plastics (computers, tvs, i-pods, cell phones, cars, bikes, clothing, DVDs, CDS, buildings, insulation, etc...)? Do you have any idea as to how environmentally friendly the alternatives (glass, steel, aluminum, cardboard, paper, etc...) might be?

Do I believe giving our some of our luxuries will be better for mankind? Definitely.

Has the word naive ever come across your radar? Do you imagine that somehow by simply surrendering our standard of living the result will be an increase in the standard for everyone else? This has been the argument of our current batch of Neo-Con politicians who are going out of their way to slash the standards of living for public employees including the police, fire departments, prison guards, teachers, highway workers, water and sewer employees etc... The concept is that by forcing middle class employees to take a cut in their standard of living and consequently by slashing the quality of necessary services for all the poor will at least feel better about themselves while the wealthy pocket the savings.

The reality is that any and all of your ideas are doomed to failure unless you can effectively change human nature. While the current economic systems and the current governments and social structures may leave much to be desired, they have resulted in a far greater equity and far greater standard of living for a far greater portion of humanity than any system in your idealized past.

Studies of the great Black Death of the Renaissance unearthed the fact that a great deal of the deaths were caused by the fact that a large portion of the population was malnourished and more susceptible to the disease. The populations of Europe had grown rapidly during the Middle Ages often outstripping the ability to sustain this same population, A bad year or two for crops could be devastating. Following the Black Death the population grew slowly. Birth records in many of the Northern and Western countries of Europe show a decrease in family sizes. These same countries, unsurprisingly, became the wealthiest. Simple common sense tells us that if we spend almost the whole of our time in attempting to feed ourselves and meet our basic needs, there is not much time left for the development of wealth, craftsmanship, the sciences, the arts and culture, etc...

What's your point?

The point here is that it is not the modern industrial/technological societies that are unable to meet the needs of their populace, but rather the cultures where excessive population growth has resulted in an inability to meet the basic needs of the population resulting in an inability to move beyond the daily struggle for food and shelter. And you wish for the Western civilizations to join in this downward spiral?

Tell me where I suggested we eliminate skilled craftsmen, laborers in industry, in the arts and culture, in science, in eduction... Or where I defined these as luxuries?

Ultimately, everything is a "luxury" if one is struggling to merely exist and meet one's need for food and shelter. I hate recommending Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel because it has become such an obligatory text in the universities today... but it does go a great deal into explaining why certain cultures have not been able to advance as rapidly as others and it has little or nothing to do with the wastefulness of the most advanced technological societies.

[jocky]

I totally agree with your observations on human nature Stukes and I also concur with Atheist that science has the power to be a force for good. The problem is that scientists are rarely in control of their inventions as governments use them to promote their own narrow agendas. Human resourcefulness has in the past had the ability to deal with problems, but in my view, we are now facing the perfect storm. Serious food shortages, economic meltdown, unrest in Africa and the Middle East, dwindling energy resources and global warming. I hate to play the pessemist, but I seriously believe that the planet is in its final death throws. Any positive solutions would be more than welcome. :)

[Alexander III]

I totally agree with your observations on human nature Stukes and I also concur with Atheist that science has the power to be a force for good. The problem is that scientists are rarely in control of their inventions as governments use them to promote their own narrow agendas. Human resourcefulness has in the past had the ability to deal with problems, but in my view, we are now facing the perfect storm. Serious food shortages, economic meltdown, unrest in Africa and the Middle East, dwindling energy resources and global warming. I hate to play the pessemist, but I seriously believe that the planet is in its final death throws. Any positive solutions would be more than welcome. :)

When you say unrest in the middle-east, there is the rise of fundamentalism. But there is also the new far more powerful and mass held rise of liberty and democracy. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan are all moving towards democracy. It is much like the rise of arab national romanticism. So that surely is a positive.

[ralfyman]

Things went wrong when we started using oil, which led to major increases in mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture output but also increasing population, pollution and environmental destruction, and resource demand per capita.

Now, we face more credit crunches (started in '08) due to debt-driven economies, a drop in global oil production soon, and the long-term effects of climate change.

[TacoButt]

Things went wrong when we started using oil, which led to major increases in mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture output but also increasing population, pollution and environmental destruction, and resource demand per capita.

Now, we face more credit crunches (started in '08) due to debt-driven economies, a drop in global oil production soon, and the long-term effects of climate change.

Isn't exploitation of natural resources inevitable? Isn't it written into the human DNA? Technology and humanity go together like Fritos and tomato soup.

Humanity's best tool is the cerebral cortex.
The cerebral cortex produces imagination and reason.
Reason produces language and use of tools.
Tools and reason produce a progressive track of technology.
Technology improvement produces environmental impact.
Environmental impact produces Qoikaniskasi or however it's spelled.

ergo...man's natural state is to progress to be at odds with nature. Humanity has a built-in collision course with the environment.

or...perhaps it's not the cerebral cortex that's at fault. Perhaps it's in an over-active limbic system. Possibly the drive to procreate has overpopulated the species so that oil consumption matters on a global scale.

Even sea turtles would destroy the earth if there were enough of them, right?

[Vonny]

Isn't exploitation of natural resources inevitable? Isn't it written into the human DNA? Technology and humanity go together like Fritos and tomato soup.

Humanity's best tool is the cerebral cortex.
The cerebral cortex produces imagination and reason.
Reason produces language and use of tools.
Tools and reason produce a progressive track of technology.
Technology improvement produces environmental impact.
Environmental impact produces Qoikaniskasi or however it's spelled.

ergo...man's natural state is to progress to be at odds with nature. Humanity has a built-in collision course with the environment.

or...perhaps it's not the cerebral cortex that's at fault. Perhaps it's in an over-active limbic system. Possibly the drive to procreate has overpopulated the species so that oil consumption matters on a global scale.

Even sea turtles would destroy the earth if there were enough of them, right?

This is true, but there would never be that many sea turtles, unless some person decided he could make a profit off them.

Also, if Europeans hadn't come to the Americas, the Native Americans would be living here today in perfect harmony with nature, as they had done for thousands of years. They worshiped nature.

They also had a mythology, so that if a child died, it was a natural part of the life cycle, and not a devastating occurrence and their population didn't grow out of control. I should add that they didn't have smallpox, and all those diseases, until the Europeans brought them here and decimated the natives.

Does anyone think the Native Americans were unhappy or that they felt deprived?


Also, Ralfyman is right. There's a book, The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler that spells it out - Kunstler may not have everything correct, but the basic premise is correct.

[Dodo25]

Also, if Europeans hadn't come to the Americas, the Native Americans would be living here today in perfect harmony with nature, as they had done for thousands of years. They worshiped nature.


That's the myth of the 'noble savage'. Myth. Right after the first humans arrived in America (some 14'000 years ago or something like that), all the larger land animals went extinct. Native Americans had wars a lot of the time and a very high rate of violence in general. And they only didn't totally destroy nature because they didn't have the tools for it. Not that I don't like native Americans, I think they're pretty cool and fascinating, but evolution just happened to make human nature the way it is. And by that, I mean not in perfect harmony with the rest of nature.

Read 'The Third Chimpanzee' or 'The Blank Slate'.

[Vonny]

Okay, I know from Jane Goodall that even some chimpanzees have this nasty streak in them, which left her pretty depressed when she came to realize it. However, if the Europeans hadn't come here the lake near my house would still be pristine and not dying the way it is now from all of the huge speed boats. The natives saw the lake as a place of peace and renewal. Yes, within the native population there were those who had the nasty spirit of some of the chimps, but they had a mythology that kept a lot of that in check.

And yes they warred with other tribes.

In many thousands of years, if the Europeans hadn't come here, the more decent natives would've probably been killed off and they would have been left with profit maximizers. I know that is the basic human nature.

I think there have been plenty of humans who were not profit maximizers, but the problem is that they are not as aggressive as the profit maximizers.

I value the quality of the lake above a huge boat. That is my nature. And I don't think I'm the only one. (However, one of my brothers has a houseboat on the lake, even though he wants a healthy lake. It does get confusing.)

The main problem we have is too many people. If there were fewer people, their impact wouldn't be so great.

[Hurricane]

You lost me, bro.

[Vonny]

You lost me, bro.

Who is this for?

I don't understand people who respond in this way.

By the way, I like your signature statement.

[Vonny]

In case that remark was meant for me... And I'm experiencing many firsts, this is the first time I've been called bro. If I'm the one who lost you:

I believe that Jocky and Ralfyman are correct.

Also:

"Do you imagine that somehow by simply surrendering our standard of living the result will be an increase in the standard for everyone else? This has been the argument of our current batch of Neo-Con politicians who are going out of their way to slash the standards of living for public employees including the police, fire departments, prison guards, teachers, highway workers, water and sewer employees etc... The concept is that by forcing middle class employees to take a cut in their standard of living and consequently by slashing the quality of necessary services for all the poor will at least feel better about themselves while the wealthy pocket the savings."

This is the direction we're going in the U.S. I think the concept could spread to other countries.

If you aren't among the wealthy, which is about 1% of the population here, if you are a public-schoolteacher, for instance, then most likely you will be adapting to a lower standard of living in the future, or your children will. This is one reason I've "retreated" in my life, and I have a bike, not a car. I have zero debt and save what money I can. And I enjoy this life quite a bit. I look at all the "conservatives" with their gas guzzling speed boats on the lake, (which is all about image), and I think something is wrong with that. We could enjoy the lake, as the Native Americans did, without destroying it.

I hope it's okay for me to say this. I feel that I'll come back and see "banned" on my account.

[Propter W.]

That's the myth of the 'noble savage'. Myth. Right after the first humans arrived in America (some 14'000 years ago or something like that), all the larger land animals went extinct. Native Americans had wars a lot of the time and a very high rate of violence in general. And they only didn't totally destroy nature because they didn't have the tools for it. Not that I don't like native Americans, I think they're pretty cool and fascinating, but evolution just happened to make human nature the way it is. And by that, I mean not in perfect harmony with the rest of nature.

Read 'The Third Chimpanzee' or 'The Blank Slate'.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong and disrespectful too for that matter. This shows how little you know about Native American culture and spirituality. Native Americans certainly did live in harmony with nature. Almost all, if not all, tribes of the North American Indians had/have a concept of the Sacred Mystery (The Great Spirit, so to speak). The entire world with all its plants, creatures, rivers, mountains... is alive, sentient and part of a spiritual interconnected whole. Can you even find one tribe that didn't believe in this? Can you perhaps tell me where you got the idea that they would have given up one of the most important principles of their cultural and spiritual life if they had had the tools?

[The Atheist]

The problem is that scientists are rarely in control of their inventions as governments use them to promote their own narrow agendas.

Unfortunate but true.


I hate to play the pessemist, but I seriously believe that the planet is in its final death throws. Any positive solutions would be more than welcome. :)

I thought all Scots were pessimists by genetics?

Luckily, prophecies of the end of days have been going for some time now. I actually agree with you in part that there are things happening which will create immense upheaval - and death - for the human species, but I think we'll survive it.


Even sea turtles would destroy the earth if there were enough of them, right?

Yes!

We're pretty sure that's simply how the Canbrian Extinction happened. Too many animals, not enough oxygen, 99% of species die out.


I feel that I'll come back and see "banned" on my account.

Nah, you don't get banned for that. A quick six of the best should do it.

[Dodo25]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong and disrespectful too for that matter. This shows how little you know about Native American culture and spirituality. Native Americans certainly did live in harmony with nature. Almost all, if not all, tribes of the North American Indians had/have a concept of the Sacred Mystery (The Great Spirit, so to speak). The entire world with all its plants, creatures, rivers, mountains... is alive, sentient and part of a spiritual interconnected whole. Can you even find one tribe that didn't believe in this? Can you perhaps tell me where you got the idea that they would have given up one of the most important principles of their cultural and spiritual life if they had had the tools?

Oooh, they believed in the sacred great mysterious spirit? What was I thinking, of course that must mean they were perfect beings. How stupid of me.

Did you know Indians think cows are sacred, and for that reason they can't kill their cows in the region so they force them into death marches where they suffer even more than when they just weren't sacred to begin with? Thinking something is sacred doesn't mean you can't destroy it. Oh wait, what Indians were we talking about? Thanks Columbus, I'm always confused about that.

Serious again: Good response to my last post, Vonny, I agree.

PS: Am I 'bro'?

[Paulclem]

Did you know Indians think cows are sacred, and for that reason they can't kill their cows in the region so they force them into death marches where they suffer even more than when they just weren't sacred to begin with? Thinking something is sacred doesn't mean you can't destroy it. Oh wait, what Indians were we talking about? Thanks Columbus, I'm always confused about that.



In India, there's a sense of sharing the space with animals that you just don't get in the West. I've sat in cafes with pigs, dogs, cats and chickens running around - minding each other but not fighting or being vicious. They weren't shooed out, and you got the sense that no-one minded them at all. We certainly didn't.

You don't get that without a sense of reverence for beings - for cows as well, but all creatures. Don't get me wrong - it wasn't a luvvy duvvy hippy atmosphere, and no doubt cruelty goes on there as anywhere, but the attitude is different. More accepting.

[jocky]

I hope it's okay for me to say this. I feel that I'll come back and see "banned" on my account.

Well I'm still here. Here are a few tips in the art of survival :

A. When the pressure really mounts dissappear for a few weeks.
B. Totally ignore the moderators.
C. Keep well away from The Cold Ale Thread.
D. Always believe you are a valued member, actually you are, they need the money.
E. Say what you think and don't dwell on the criticism.
F. Stick with it Vonny.

[jocky]

When you say unrest in the middle-east, there is the rise of fundamentalism. But there is also the new far more powerful and mass held rise of liberty and democracy. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan are all moving towards democracy. It is much like the rise of arab national romanticism. So that surely is a positive.

Sorry Eck I missed your post, I take your point and see you are an optimist, I would just point out the words of Kris Kristofferson " Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose " In other words liberty is a fine and noble aspiration, but not worth a hill of beans if you are starving.

[stlukesguild]

Also, if Europeans hadn't come to the Americas, the Native Americans would be living here today in perfect harmony with nature, as they had done for thousands of years. They worshiped nature.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Yep those Incas and Aztecs... such a bunch of peaceful tree-huggers... when they weren't warring against each other or engaged in ritual sacrifice.

[Vonny]

Got it Jocky :smile5: Keep away from the Cold Ale thread :lol:

Stluke,

Human sacrifice helped to keep the human population in check. (I know, that's not a great rebuttal, but it's true.) It bothers me just as much the way meat is produced today, in Auschwitz for animals. And I think it's just as inhuman the way we let an old lady with a broken hip lie warehoused in a nursing home for 2 years, without allowing her any way out of her suffering, without her soul going to hell. And then there's the Alzheimer's patients, oh lord. Which reminds me, I'd rather die from diphtheria or an appendectomy without anesthesia than spend 12 years with Alzheimer's, or with "locked in" syndrome as in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. The Indian way was to put the old people outside in the cold and "expose" them for a few hours and they died.

But I wasn't thinking of the Aztecs. I was thinking of the Coeur d'Alene Indians who lived near Hayden Lake until they were moved to the reservation to less desirable real estate to the south. (Ack, if anyone sees me here, they'll know it's me :eek6:)

All I care about is that until two hundred years ago or so, Hayden Lake was pristine. Now with all of the mansions built on the hills around the lake with inadequate septic systems creating run off, and people not cleaning up after their dogs all around the lake, along with all kinds of other gross activities, the lake is dying. This lake is a closed system with no way for the contamination to escape, and then the giant, noisy speed boats keep it all stirred. And this lake supplies drinking water to ... I can't remember how many people... I picked up a DVD from the public library that was created solely by scientists (who speak without input from the politicians and merchants who would make them look foolish), and also some of the Indian elders who explained what the lake had meant to their people. Of course this DVD is hardly ever checked out because people don't care, they couldn't care less. They don't even care if they drink filthy water and die.

The funny thing about this is, years ago, it wasn't just the poor people who died. Queen Victoria's husband Albert died from Typhoid Fever from drinking contaminated water. And people such as Jane Austen got sick and died young. Now the trend will be towards the poorer people dying more. I think it's fine for a lot of people to start dying off at around 45 years of age, because that is a rather advanced age, but the "die-off" should be distributed among classes. It's fine if the fittest survive but the wealthy aren't necessarily the best people, the most intelligent, or anything else.

In continents such as Africa, the reason they are so dysfunctional is because their societies were tampered with by the Europeans who went there and made slave-labor of them. The Africans knew how to live within their environment. Such as, they knew the places where they could be safer from malaria. But the Europeans moved their communities and packed people close together.

In India the farmers were able to feed themselves very well. But the rice farmers were put out of business by the "big companies" who undersold them. Then the farmers had to go to work for the big companies and they couldn't afford to buy rice from them.

Also, all of these wonderful crops that the "scientists" have developed are vulnerable. The grains lack genetic diversity, and the fact that they are "engineered" makes them more vulnerable. So the grains are like the potatoes were at the time of the Irish Potato Blight, vulnerable to all going down with an attack from some new weevil or a good drought.

And then there's the honeybees. They are fragile creatures and their populations are plummeting right now, because they can't withstand pollution. Scientists don't know what to do about it. Many crops such as broccoli and blueberries require pollination.

I read The Long Emergency a few years ago and I realized so many of the problems that are emerging are beyond the scientists ability to solve, especially since they don't have enough time now and they don't have the support from the "rogue entities" that they need because the only concern is short-term profits.

Okay so there's my erudite contribution for today. :lol: Actually, I'm sure I have some non-linear thinking in there. It is rice they eat in India, isn't it?

Alexander III, I almost forgot... Is the U.S. even a democracy? Actually, I don't think it is.

[JBI]

Also, if Europeans hadn't come to the Americas, the Native Americans would be living here today in perfect harmony with nature, as they had done for thousands of years. They worshiped nature.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Yep those Incas and Aztecs... such a bunch of peaceful tree-huggers... when they weren't warring against each other or engaged in ritual sacrifice.

Oh, well, the Aztecs no doubt were a rather brutal people - which actually is why their citizens and neighbors accepted Colonial imposition so nicely, as the, then by their estimate, a great relieving force against the oppressive regime of Aztec brutality.

As for the Incas, well, from my understanding it was a rather successful example of agrarian Communism - illiteracy aside. Which is probably why it was so easy for Europeans to win against them with a couple hundred men.


As for the Northern ones, particularly Canada, well, it depends. There is generally a belief in a sense of communism, or equality and shared property, but even that is proven false by West Coast natives, the most advanced in terms of civilization before European arrivals, who lets say "matured" into a sense of property, and even into something approaching feudalism in some cases. Besides that though, it is almost clear that violence was on a small scale, in general, similar to war in early pre-historic times, which generally was more ceremonial, and ended with one party usually seizing women and children and absorbing them.

The tree hugging myth is at once true and false - in general there was a sense of masculinity, from what I understand, associated with going to war, as with hunting. I think it is safe to say, that once weapons are developed to hunt animals, it is easy to turn them on another person.

Inuit people may be the closest, but even they had a history of feuding with other groups.

That being said, none of these groups had the violence that was practiced with American expansion, which is perhaps the real brutal regime. Likewise, the big killer was not gun powder in the Americas, but disease - colonialism did not bring, from my understanding, mass violence in its first wave. The conquered, if you will, populations were rather accepting in many cases, though disease destroyed much of everything.


That being said, it's when expansion hits that things turn messy.

[Propter W.]

Plastics and Styrofoam. And what do we replace these with considering all the products that employ plastics (computers, tvs, i-pods, cell phones, cars, bikes, clothing, DVDs, CDS, buildings, insulation, etc...)? Do you have any idea as to how environmentally friendly the alternatives (glass, steel, aluminum, cardboard, paper, etc...) might be?

I'm still working on my list but I wanted to comment on this already. Next week my brother and I am going to a lecture about Recompute (http://www.sustainable-computer.com/index.php), a computer with a cardboard housing. Cardboard, unlike plastic, is biodegradable and it can also be successfully recycled and it doesn't contain carcinogens or other substances that might cause cancer.

Even though cardboard can be quite a sturdy and surprising material, I'm sure some of you will protest. Fortunately, there are other materials that don't pollute our environment and cause cancer, for instance, liquid wood.

[Alexander III]

Oh, well, the Aztecs no doubt were a rather brutal people - which actually is why their citizens and neighbors accepted Colonial imposition so nicely, as the, then by their estimate, a great relieving force against the oppressive regime of Aztec brutality.

As for the Incas, well, from my understanding it was a rather successful example of agrarian Communism - illiteracy aside. Which is probably why it was so easy for Europeans to win against them with a couple hundred men.


As for the Northern ones, particularly Canada, well, it depends. There is generally a belief in a sense of communism, or equality and shared property, but even that is proven false by West Coast natives, the most advanced in terms of civilization before European arrivals, who lets say "matured" into a sense of property, and even into something approaching feudalism in some cases. Besides that though, it is almost clear that violence was on a small scale, in general, similar to war in early pre-historic times, which generally was more ceremonial, and ended with one party usually seizing women and children and absorbing them.

The tree hugging myth is at once true and false - in general there was a sense of masculinity, from what I understand, associated with going to war, as with hunting. I think it is safe to say, that once weapons are developed to hunt animals, it is easy to turn them on another person.

Inuit people may be the closest, but even they had a history of feuding with other groups.

That being said, none of these groups had the violence that was practiced with American expansion, which is perhaps the real brutal regime. Likewise, the big killer was not gun powder in the Americas, but disease - colonialism did not bring, from my understanding, mass violence in its first wave. The conquered, if you will, populations were rather accepting in many cases, though disease destroyed much of everything.


That being said, it's when expansion hits that things turn messy.


Yea I agree with JBI, the natives definitely were by no means perfect, they had violence and war like everyone else. But their levels of violence amongst themselves were by no means close to the atrocity levels of the whites in their expansion. Let's face it what The whites did to the indians in the second half of the 19th century was identical to what the turks would later do to the armenians, the germans to the jews and the bosnians to the islamic serbs. Hitler stands out mainly because of the modernity and efficiency and cleanness of his genocide.

I forget who said it, but the golden rule of warfare is that the most barbarous civilization shall be the winner. Which is why Europe conquered the world.

[Propter W.]

Yea I agree with JBI, the natives definitely were by no means perfect, they had violence and war like everyone else. But their levels of violence amongst themselves were by no means close to the atrocity levels of the whites in their expansion. Let's face it what The whites did to the indians in the second half of the 19th century was identical to what the turks would later do to the armenias, the germans to the jews and the bosnians to the islamic serbs. Hitler stands out mainly because of the modernity and efficiency and cleanness of his genocide.

I forget who said it, but the golden rule of warfare is that the most barbarous civilization shall be the winner. Which is why Europe conquered the world.

Hitler greatly admired how the Americans handled native Americans (starvation, outnumbering them in battle, exposing them to the elements). It is more than likely that Hitler got some of his inspirition for his final solution from the American treatment of Indians. Of course, the Germans had to kick it up a notch. Like clockwork.

[Alexander III]

Hitler greatly admired how the Americans handled native Americans (starvation, outnumbering them in battle, exposing them to the elements). It is more than likely that Hitler got some of his inspirition for his final solution from the American treatment of Indians. Of course, the Germans had to kick it up a notch. Like clockwork.

I have to give it to the americans though, sending the indians blankets and supplies covered in smallpox was a stroke of genius, a marvelous modern day trojan horse.

[stlukesguild]

I forget who said it, but the golden rule of warfare is that the most barbarous civilization shall be the winner. Which is why Europe conquered the world.

Let's face it; the Europeans are no more or less brutal than any other culture. They simply had the advantage, over the long haul, of the best weaponry. This is something they were able to develop because of their advanced civilization (Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel again). The notion of a spiritual or moral high-ground is just pure naive bullsh**. An estimated 33,000,000- 36,000,000 were killed in the An Lushan Rebellion in China in the 8th century. This loss surpasses any war in the whole of known history with the exception of World War II which occurred 1200 years later employing far more sophisticated weaponry and involving a far, far greater population of combatants. Add to this 30- 60 million deaths as the result of the Mongol invasions, 25 million deaths as a result of the Quing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty in the 17th century (again in China), and 20-30 million in the Taiping Rebellion (again in China) in the 18th century. "Historians" who pander guilt complexes and embrace the notion that being the loser in a conflict bestows the "victim" status and moral superiority upon the loser have tossed about such absurdly inflated numbers as 100 million deaths as a direct result of the European conquest of the Americas. A more accepted number is closer to 2 million.

Upon European arrival in South America, the great civilizations of the Inca, Aztec, Olmec, Toltec, etc... were already in decline... many of their great cities in ruin, their population cut drastically. Their are signs of warfare between tribes... and considering the size of the populations it is quite likely that we are talking about some rather sizable atrocities. Historians also hypothesize that the civilizations were already in decline as a result of something else: an epidemic possibly along the lines of the Bubonic Plague in Europe, or an extended famine that resulted in the collapse of the great cities unable to support themselves.

The native North Americans were no less violent. They were less civilized than their South America counterparts showing little by way of domestication of animals, agriculture, or the construction of "permanent" shelters. Yes, they revered... or rather "worshiped" nature as all hunter-gather cultures, wholly dependent upon the whims of nature, have. They were no more spiritual or reverential than the Christian Europeans. Nor were they less violent toward "outsiders". North American tribes commonly referred to themselves by a term meaning essentially "human beings". Outsiders... those of other tribes were clearly not "human beings". This doesn't strike me as far removed from the Hebrew's concept of themselves as "the chosen people" or the Englishman's certainty of superiority over the Frenchman or Spaniard.

The reality, as my Native America friend has stated repeatedly whenever someone trots out the naive image of the Native America victim... the perfectly content, nature loving being whose way of life was brutally crushed by the Europeans... is that he who has the best weapons and is willing to use them tends to win. If the Sioux and Cherokee and not the English had horses and gunpowder, we'd likely be speaking some Native American dialect. Had Hitler controlled the air war and not invested the bulk of his efforts on tanks and artillery, we might be posting in German, and things would look quite bad for JBI. The fact that the scale of the losses incurred in Native American conflicts is vastly smaller than those suffered in European, Asian, and Middle-Eastern conflicts says nothing for the ethical or moral superiority of the Native Americans. It is simply the result of far smaller populations, and less destructive capabilities of their weaponry.

[OrphanPip]

The main problem with when people trot out the apologetics about America's (and Canada's to a lesser extent) treatment of the natives is that they blur the history and never seem to have a clear understanding of what the major grievances tend to be. When the Cherokee were forced on a death march they were already Christian, speaking and writing English; they were essentially a fully Westernized tributary state of the USA. The American's treatment of them is fully analogous to contemporary accounts of genocide.

On Canada's side there is the government's military crackdown on the Metis, who were French speaking Catholics.

These actions had nothing to do with conquest or the inevitability of war, they were acts of deliberate cultural and racial oppression.

[stlukesguild]

Certainly, the treatment of Native Americans by the white, conquering European-Americans was racist... but it also had as much or more to do with the desire for land. In this it was no different from the vast majority of the wars in history which have at their most basic always involved a desire to take what others have and a willingness to portray those "others" as somehow lesser beings... not really deserving of what it is they desired. The atrocities of slavery and the treatment of the Native American people is shameful... but certainly not unique. The conquest of Native lands in Canada, Central and South America, and Australia involved no less brutal and racist tactics. Nor were such unknown to Europe, Africa, or Asia. I don't think we should play down these atrocities or pretend they didn't occur, but neither do I buy into the notion of portraying any culture as peace-loving, spiritual, non-violent, and portraying a superiority of ethics and morality... especially when its based on a half-a**ed grasp of history.

[mortalterror]

Ask the Anasazi how peace-loving their neighbors were. If American Indians failed to advance it was probably because they were so hostile that they lived in a state of perpetual war that forced them to be constantly migrating in small groups. The Comanche, Apache, and Sioux weren't exactly choir boys. Just check out the history of the Indian Wars or the Comanche-Mexico war. In Africa the Zulus and Masai are warrior tribes and Shaka Zulu managed a bloodthirsty land grab the likes of Alexander the Great, Hitler, or Napoleon without the benefits of technology.

Stlukes has already mentioned the massive death count of certain Asian wars, but he left out the Conquests of Tamerlane which amounted to 15-20 million and the Taiping Rebellion which cost China 20-30 million. Europeans do not have a monopoly on violent behavior. If you read the diaries of the European explorers they all mention being attacked and losing men simply for setting foot in Native American territory. There was no "Hi" no "How you doing" no curiosity about a new people. They'd attack without provocation. Columbus left a settlement of people here when he went back to Europe the first time and the Natives butchered them to a man.

There's a documentary called Keep the River on Your Right where the anthropologist talks about how the primitive tribal people of New Guinea and the Amazon still make war upon their neighbors and practice cannibalism. The guy actually admits that in the 70s he went on one of the raiding parties and ate human flesh.

All the evidence points to the fact that living in large groups and using technology actually decreases violence and we are living in the most harmonious time in history. Check out Steven Pinker's TED lecture The Myth of Violence. There was all kinds of crazy genocide recorded in the Bible and the Assyrians were like the Nazis of the ancient world.

When it comes to the spreading of diseases, most of that wasn't intentional. It was just a side effect of two peoples meeting and trading for the first time. Europeans don't blame China for the Bubonic plague which wiped out 2/3s of them during the middle ages. European settlers don't hold a grudge for all of the white people who died in Africa because they didn't have the right antibodies to combat the sicknesses of a new climate. Who's mad at Africa for introducing the world to AIDS? That would be silly. That would be like white people getting mad at Native Americans for teaching them to smoke tobacco.

[Alexander III]

To St. Lukes and Mortal Terror -

I never denied that the native americans were not as barbarous as most other people, they were like everyone else. BUT what the whites did to them was a virtual genocide, that cannot be denied. I am sure you both are not saying this, but it sounds like the point your are making is "the natives were warlike and just as barbarous if not more than the whites, so a genocide was justified."

Oh and the whites intentionally sent supplies with smallpox to the indians, this has been proven. There was no consensus about it, but many individual generals used this form of bio-warfare.

When I said

"the golden rule of warfare is that the most barbarous civilization shall be the winner"

I referred to the europeans as we are the most well know empires on these forums, however as you have mentioned with Genghis Kahn, Alexander and other instances such as the Zulu - the rule seems to remain true. Those who are willing to set aside all morality are more likely to win.

For instance terrorism, why have al quaeda proven so impossible to defeat - because they will do what the Nato armies could never even dream of. It is a reversal of roles if you will. In the middle ages when Europe burnt more books than it made and people spent most of their days hitting each other with clubs, the Islamic world was at it's peak. In fact during the crusades the Europeans had an advantage in that they were the more barbarous, they had far less issues with morality then the islamic world at the time. Now the roles seem inverted. The islamic fundamentalists have no moral qualms while we in our war against them are restricted by those very moral dilemmas.

[stlukesguild]

What you must remember, Alex, is the very thing that Hitler forgot, and that is that the "weak" Western democracies all have a line which when crossed will result in a retaliation of unimaginable scope for it will be married to the highest and most destructive weaponry and technology. All humans... no matter how civilized... have a point at which they will revert to their most brutal nature. If the West cannot eradicate Islamic terrorism it is simply for a lack of trying. We are not seeing anything that approaches the resolve of the Western Allies against the Germans and the Japanese: carpet bombing, vast armies seizing town after town/island after island, fire bombing, nuclear warfare.

[Dodo25]

How about 'artificial evolution of civilization' for the future? Improving human nature through genetic engineering and new technologies so we don't have all the bad stuff anymore?

I mean, it seems we have reached a consensus, namely that humanity sucks. So why not change it?

[TacoButt]

How about 'artificial evolution of civilization' for the future? Improving human nature through genetic engineering and new technologies so we don't have all the bad stuff anymore?

I mean, it seems we have reached a consensus, namely that humanity sucks. So why not change it?

Here is a philosophical assumption of mine: "Bad stuff is inevitable despite any elaborate efforts to remove it."

It's kind of like those in my country who cry for an "enlightened government" to remove "greed."

Result will be greedy government every time...

[Calidore]

Dodo25 and TacoButt: Both your topics, improving human nature and improving government, have similar solutions and obstacles.

Genetic engineering of human nature through technology would be difficult, but it can easily be done socially. If jerks couldn't succeed, many/most would change. If the jerks that won't change couldn't get dates, there'd be fewer little jerks. But they can and do, because the people who enable them put the instant gratification they provide first.

If greedy dishonest politicians couldn't get elected, the world would be a better place. But people, every time, regress back to school days and elect the "popular" guy who smiles and acts if he wants to be their friend.

People could change things easily if they wanted to.

[Alexander III]

What you must remember, Alex, is the very thing that Hitler forgot, and that is that the "weak" Western democracies all have a line which when crossed will result in a retaliation of unimaginable scope for it will be married to the highest and most destructive weaponry and technology. All humans... no matter how civilized... have a point at which they will revert to their most brutal nature. If the West cannot eradicate Islamic terrorism it is simply for a lack of trying. We are not seeing anything that approaches the resolve of the Western Allies against the Germans and the Japanese: carpet bombing, vast armies seizing town after town/island after island, fire bombing, nuclear warfare.


You bring up a good point, you have definitely weakened my position. But the democracy of the 40's was different to present day democracy. In the 40's democracy in england and france was more oligarchy. The masses have only become a strong influence post WWII. But you bring up an interesting point, or rather, is democracy the best political system? Ahh darn now I will have to start a separate thread for this, where I may rant on Democracy.