Some thoughts on Ayn Rand, and on the value of bad literature and discredited ideas

[Syd A]

Several threads here deal with Ayn Rand and her works. Rand is one of those people who is either worshipped or reviled, and therein lies an important point about the value of ideas, and those who generate them.

Ayn rand was not philosopher. She was a mediocre writer. She was a vicious egomaniac. Her ideas were often self-contradictory and confused. She saw everything in black and white. She created a cult of maniacs who worshipped her like a goddess, and she forbade any book, thought, or discussion that might interfere with her distorted view of the world.

Nevertheless, Ayn Rand was one of the most important and influential thinkers of the twentieth century, and her contributions to economic, political, and philosophical thought are invaluable. Her legacy is one of enlightenment and reason, and the world is a far better place because of her.

How so? Rand’s greatness lies not in the soundness or originality of her ideas, but in the fact that she was a gateway thinker, a bridge that leads confused, brain-washed folk to the path of reason, individuality, and pro-liberty philosophies.

The process of learning and adopting a new philosophy is a difficult one. One often needs intermediate ideas and tools, ramshackle as they may be, to help bridge the abyss. This is true for any kind of learning, not just philosophical.

I was fifteen when I started learning English seriously. Until then, I had no interest in literature whatsoever, in any language. The first English-language book I ever read was Pat Riley’s The Winner Within, a piece of garbage by any standard. But that book taught me vocabulary, sentence structure, and idioms. I later entered a Stephen King phase. Then I discovered Edgar Allan Poe, partly due to a quotation from The Masque of the Red Death in The Shining. Today, I wouldn’t spend five minutes or two cents on a Stephen King novel, but I am grateful to his books for instilling in me the love of literature, and I’ll always cherish the feeling of finishing Needful Things.

Ayn rand did the same thing for philosophy. Reading her books made me think about things I’ve never thought of before. It made me entertain ideas that previously seemed almost sacrilegious: that big corporations do more good than harm; that governments do more harm than good; that greed is not necessarily bad; that there’s nothing wrong with egoism, and that it is distinguishable from egotism; and that capitalism is not only efficient, but moral. Then I moved on to more serious thinkers such as Murray Rothbard. Rand was an agitator, a spark that got me going. I kept questioning and exploring until I abandoned her for more logical theorists.

One last thing: a theory, whether philosophical or scientific, need not be correct to be useful. A theory or idea may be false and still bring about important insights and valuable data, or it may open doors to new vistas. Discredited ideas and their originators are worth a read, if only for the insight into the process that brought them about.

[JCamilo]

Ayn what?

[G L Wilson]

The American dream of turning something of value into a piece of garbage is alive and well.

[Rores28]

I enjoyed your post!

Fahrenheit 451 did a similar thing for me (along with Animal Farm and Of Mice and Men). While not all "great" books these short and easily digestible texts definitely drove me into more deeply philosophical and difficult literary pursuits, and so they have a lot of merit beyond the intrinsic joy I got out of them.

[prickly_pete]

How is Rand one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th Century? She's a machiavelian who tried to distort the naked use of force to control other people by putting a moral bent on it.

[BienvenuJDC]

This post sounds like someone has an ideological ax to grind. Typically when I see posts like this, it makes me ignore the rest of it. Which I will.

[Syd A]

Prickly Pete:

How is Rand one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th Century?

Influential simply means having influence; it says nothing about whether or not she was right, logical, or virtuous. Her influence is fairly easy to assess - by the number of copies she sold, by the number and type of people who follow(ed) her and her philosophy (e.g. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Fed, and Murray Rothbard, the father of modern American libertarianism), and by the number of people whose mind she changed or whose interest she piqued. There's a book titled It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand that tells the story of the American libertarian and anarchist movements. The title says it all.


She's a machiavelian who tried to distort the naked use of force to control other people by putting a moral bent on it.

I'm not even sure what this sentence means. If you have specific examples or reasoned arguments, I'd love to read them.

BienvenuJDC:


This post sounds like someone has an ideological ax to grind. Typically when I see posts like this, it makes me ignore the rest of it. Which I will.

Ha? If you read the whole post, then what is that "rest of it" which you plan to ignore? What's the point of announcing your heroic plan to ignore that rest? And what's that ax I'm trying to grind? I've presented arguments on both sides of the Rand debate, but one would have to read the post in order to know that.

[prickly_pete]

Well if her influence extends primarily to American Libertarians than there's some room for expansion there! lol

But seriously, you're confused.

What I meant was you can use morality to justify anything. If the free-marketist simply came out and said "I need to control you so that I can get rich" we'd rightly judge this as unfair and inhumane. But by bringing up morality it gives his/her position a legitimacy it otherwise wouldn't have if it were presented as the naked use of force or exploitation that it is. This talk about property "rights", and "self interested virtue," etc. is just a way of obsfucating the issue and distracting us from what the free-marketist is really aiming at is control and exploitation of other people on a massive scale.

[Syd A]

Well if her influence extends primarily to American Libertarians than there's some room for expansion there! lol

It's not that Rand appeals to those who are already libertarians. Rand, through her works, converted many into libertarians (an ironic fact, since she despised libertarians in the Rothabrd tradition).

Furthermore, Rand influenced the lives of those who are not and never will be libertarians. Alan Greenspan, for example, was one of the most influential and powerful people of the American economy when he was chairman of the Fed. The Fed's actions affect everybody. Rand influenced Greenspan, and by proxy the entire economy.


This talk about property "rights", and "self interested virtue," etc. is just a way of obsfucating the issue...

What talk precisely, and why the quotation marks? Is there no such thing as a right to property, or to anything at all? This is not serious criticism. Have you read any of Rand's books?


...the free-marketist is really aiming at is control and exploitation of other people on a massive scale.
Wild generalizations, blanket statements, unsupported claims, populist propaganda, hysteria... this is not worthy of a response.

[G L Wilson]

The free market is a danger to the whole world; and the capitalist, the robber of all truth values to his essential need. The need to control one's environment has made man comfortable, now it has made him unfit to rule the Earth. Now is the time for the Superman.

[prickly_pete]

I
Wild generalizations, blanket statements, unsupported claims, populist propaganda, hysteria... this is not worthy of a response.

You have to control human behavior to a pretty high degree to have an advanced industrial society like ours. It's not hysterical - it's just the way it is. The vast majority of people are never going to have any real say in the major decisions that effect their world. You couldn't have engineers if the state didn't make education mandatory. This is something that's imposed on us, and if you look at how most people feel about school - how many have to be medicated just to get through it - it's a very unwanted imposition.

This is merely one example of how our lives are manipulated to serve someone elses ends.

[prickly_pete]

Is there no such thing as a right to property, or to anything at all?

The idea that land can be owned by an individual to the complete exclusion of an entire community is something that's happened only in the last several hundred years. Again though, you have to put a moral bent on this conception of private property to even begin to justify it. Owning thousands of acres is far more than any man needs to survive or to even live comfortably. It's justified by notion of "right" just how the Church used to impose tithes and bleed the peasantry dry through "rights". Appeals to morality and "rights" works a whole lot better than saying "I'm trying to control you and exploit you for my own purposes."

The whole thing is shonky mate.

[Syd A]

None of that has anything to do with Rand, her ideas, or my original post. Furthermore, the statement
You couldn't have engineers if the state didn't make education mandatory.
is so shockingly false, baseless and illogical (and irrelevant to the issue at hand), that it's clear that there's no basis here for an informed debate anyway.

By the way, you conveniently ignored my question: have you read any of Rand's books?

[prickly_pete]

is so shockingly false, baseless and illogical (and irrelevant to the issue at hand), that it's clear that there's no basis here for an informed debate anyway.

Then where are the Engineers going to come from? We'd all just be doing linear algebra on our own then?

But yes, put your mind at ease - I've read Ayn Rand.

[prickly_pete]

But why can't we talk about Engineering? Why can't we talk about a system that exploits people and regulates their behavior in a strong way - a system that Ayn Rand spent most of her life defending.

[prickly_pete]

Just to be clear here I'm pro human freedom. Anti-collectivist. It's just Rand's philosophy tends to promote the idea that a free market system is conducive to human freedom when this isn't the case. Just because one finds Rand offensive doesn't mean they're a closet Communist, Fascist or populist of some kind.

[G L Wilson]

All man-made systems are systems of neurosis and control - randomness is only detrimental to the weaker members of society, the strong give not a second thought to it, while the weak are sheep in need of a shepherd. Rand was not folk but a dumb animal looking for security from the captains of industry.

[prickly_pete]

Any society exercises some control but surely we can differentiate between ones that exercise a high level of control over individual behavior versus ones that need lesser control to maintain order. We can also note the relative ability to avoid control. In advanced societies it's very difficult to avoid control even on relatively minor issues like speeding or running a red light or j-walking

[G L Wilson]

Any society exercises some control but surely we can differentiate between ones that exercise a high level of control over individual behavior versus ones that need lesser control to maintain order. We can also note the relative ability to avoid control. In advanced societies it's very difficult to avoid control even on relatively minor issues like speeding or running a red light or j-walking

Without laws there cannot be taxes.

[libernaut]

I haven't read Rand and never will. Mainly because, as you've said she is "mediocre" and basically all i've heard is negative even from the people who struggled through her works.




a theory, whether philosophical or scientific, need not be correct to be useful.

That is probably true, but what would one be using false and untrue ideas for?

Generating lies I suppose.

Or I guess you could also slash those ideas out when actually seeking truth, like some people claim to be doing.

Other than that what is it useful for?

As far as mediocre books that got you started on a path to becoming a more avid reader, congrats. Reading is important. But why comtinue to waste time when there is so little of it reading things in the end you might label "mediocre"? More of a rhetorical question than anything.

[IceM]

You have to control human behavior to a pretty high degree to have an advanced industrial society like ours. It's not hysterical - it's just the way it is. The vast majority of people are never going to have any real say in the major decisions that effect their world. You couldn't have engineers if the state didn't make education mandatory. This is something that's imposed on us, and if you look at how most people feel about school - how many have to be medicated just to get through it - it's a very unwanted imposition.

This is merely one example of how our lives are manipulated to serve someone elses ends.

When did the vast majority of people ever contribute to the majority of decisions? Even in the Greek democracy, where every male had a vote, all females were neglected, as were servants and recent immgrants; the voting group was minimal compared to the amount of people as well.

You persist that the amount of people on medication today is a valid argument for anything other than the discovery of more illnesses. More people attend school today than ever before. There are more known illnesses, more symptoms, and more ways to combat said illnesses than in prior generations. Looking at numbers, more people use medicine than ever before; looking at proportions, and taking into consideration advances in medicine and the growth of the student population, we're about the same.

Also, for someone sympathetic to the sciences and mathmatics, it suprises me that you'd quarrel about the compulsory nature of school. Anything beyond simple arithmetic or general grammar probably wouldn't be attainable without schooling. Certainly, the likes of Archimedes and Pascal did well without it; and while we don't have people of that intellect, schooling generates a greater amount of educated people than the absence of schooling. We all could agree education improves our world and living standards.


The idea that land can be owned by an individual to the complete exclusion of an entire community is something that's happened only in the last several hundred years. Again though, you have to put a moral bent on this conception of private property to even begin to justify it. Owning thousands of acres is far more than any man needs to survive or to even live comfortably. It's justified by notion of "right" just how the Church used to impose tithes and bleed the peasantry dry through "rights". Appeals to morality and "rights" works a whole lot better than saying "I'm trying to control you and exploit you for my own purposes."

The whole thing is shonky mate.

Property rights allow a person to protect his investment from misuse or vandalism. The right to deny trespassing allows me to protect against vandalism on my property. It makes legal sense; one is entitled to protection from outside forces on his property. Even though there is a moral bent on that idea, it stands as valid without it. You can separate the morality and still justify the rationale.


But why can't we talk about Engineering? Why can't we talk about a system that exploits people and regulates their behavior in a strong way - a system that Ayn Rand spent most of her life defending.

Because the original post wants to talk about something different.


Any society exercises some control but surely we can differentiate between ones that exercise a high level of control over individual behavior versus ones that need lesser control to maintain order. We can also note the relative ability to avoid control. In advanced societies it's very difficult to avoid control even on relatively minor issues like speeding or running a red light or j-walking

Your latter sentence strikes me as naive. The law is built on the fundamental concept that one is entitled to every freedom except those that may pose a threat to others. Speeding is a threat to the lives of others, as is running a red-light. J-walking can be. In these instances, the law seeks to preserve life.

Please imagine counterarguments to your own position the next time you decide to post. It saves me the trouble of having to do so.

[prickly_pete]

1) Cancer is more prevalent now because people live unhealthy lives. They don't recieve proper exercise (because they don't have to). They drink like fish (because there's no natural barriers like work preventing them from doing so). They're exposed to pollutants (because they live in an industrial society). They ingest toxins (because most foods can't be grown naturally).

The same is true of a whole host of other physical problems modern people suffer from that were virtually (or completely) unheard of in the past. The number of cancer sufferers doesn't rise because more people are graduating from medical school - come on now lol.

2) Where have I said that I'm sypathetic to math and science? They're disciplines that allow for alot more clarity than the arts is all I've said, I believe. I certainly don't think forcing chlidren to study math and science is particularly fair especially considering the vast majority of people have absolutely no interest in these subjects to begin with - even less interest sitting on their rear-ends for 6 hours a day studying them.

3) The law is not "built" on a concept. Its especially not built on a principle of being able to do anything except that which may harm others. Some things - like smoking marijuana - harm absolutely no one at all but nevertheless carry hefty fines and jail sentences if caught.

Rather, the law exists to preserve the social order and keep everything running efficiently. Virtually every human action poses potential harm to someone; carrying a steak knife the wrong way (should I be fined for this as well?). But clearly there's a difference between societies that impose great restrictions on human beings and ones that don't.

[prickly_pete]

I mean, think about that real quick player - tens of thousands of people die in car accidents each year. If the law was really for our "protection" automobile use would be banned outright. But the people in power can't have their Brave New World if we aren't driving to work so the system HAS to let people drive automobiles. On the other hand, if people were allowed complete freedom in how they drove there might be a public backlash against automobile use. The best way - for the functioning of the system anyways - is to take a middle road where alot of people get killed but not enough to cause a public uproar. The law is really indifferent to human death, misery, and suffering. It will continue to allow all three so long as there's no public backlash.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

1) Cancer is more prevalent now because people live unhealthy lives. They don't recieve proper exercise (because they don't have to). They drink like fish (because there's no natural barriers like work preventing them from doing so). They're exposed to pollutants (because they live in an industrial society). They ingest toxins (because most foods can't be grown naturally).
Where are you getting this information? How do you know cancer is more prevalent now? I would suspect it's about the same as it always has been, we just detect it better and actually know when someone dies from cancer.

Also, are there links between cancer and not exercising? Or, cancer and drinking? And I hardly think people drink more now then they used to--probably the opposite.


The same is true of a whole host of other physical problems modern people suffer from that were virtually (or completely) unheard of in the past.
Like IceM said, they were unheard of because we didn't know they existed.

The number of cancer sufferers doesn't rise because more people are graduating from medical school - come on now lol.
Where was this said?

[prickly_pete]

Where are you getting this information? How do you know cancer is more prevalent now?

Read the literature on current hunter-gatherer societies. Read the literature on current third world agricultural societies. Cancer, obeisity, depression, nervous ticks, various compulsive disorders...all either virtually or completely unheard of in these societies.

I mean, surely, you can see how inaccurate it is to say, "Well, we have modern medicine now, ergo we're going to find more diseases". I'm not even going to begin to express how fallacious this line of argument is. I trust your intelligence so I think you'll reconsider here.

Alot of the health issues people have are a result of living in a society that puts people under very unnatural conditions. Overcrowding, sedentary lifestyles, constant exposure to noise...its well known that these cause physical and psychological problems. I don't know what I'm saying here that's so inconceivable....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pete, please tell me you're not one of those people who just ignore certain points that you find difficult to refute.

Read the literature on current hunter-gatherer societies. Read the literature on current third world agricultural societies. Cancer, obeisity, depression, nervous ticks, various compulsive disorders...all either virtually or completely unheard of in these societies.
Well, now you're talking about current, different societies, and before you were talking about past societies. Which is it? And, just because they are unheard doesn't mean they don't exist.

I mean, surely, you can see how inaccurate it is to say, "Well, we have modern medicine now, ergo we're going to find more diseases". I'm not even going to begin to express how fallacious this line of argument is. I trust your intelligence so I think you'll reconsider here.
And surely you can see how innacurate it is to think that as we understand medicine medicine and human biology, we will have a better understanding of disease. Not too long ago, we didn't even know germs existed and that they were bad for us. It isn't a matter of finding more diseases, it's a matter of understanding and identifying diseases that have always existed.

Alot of the health issues people have are a result of living in a society that puts people under very unnatural conditions. Overcrowding, sedentary lifestyles, constant exposure to noise...its well known that these cause physical and psychological problems. I don't know what I'm saying here that's so inconceivable....
That isn't inconceivable. It's just some of your reasoning is a bit unclear, and could use clarification.

[OrphanPip]

Cancer is more prevalent now largely due to the fact that people live longer. If you die at 40 from diphtheria, you're not likely to develop cancer. We also have aging populations in the West, which will cause higher rates of age related illness merely by virtue of the elderly outnumbering the young.

Exposure to carcinogens plays a role, although the idea that people in the past were living free of carcinogens is a fairy tale.

[prickly_pete]

1) Admittedly, I am being a bit unclear here so sorry about that. I've used language that makes it seem as though I'm refering to a historical epoch rather than a societal type. What I MEAN to refer to are pre-industrial societies - societies that have not experienced an industrial revolution the way the West has. They could be agricultural societies, hunter-gatherer, or some other kind. My main point is that diseases that exist on a massive scale in industrial societies are absent or very rare in pre-industrial societies. This is very likely due to the fact that we (folks that live in industrial societies) live under radically different conditions from which we are adapted for (overcrowding, prolonged exposure to noise, ingesting of toxins in air and food, etc).

To be sure there is a genetic basis for some diseases - such as mental problems for instance. However, the prevelancy of depression, anxiety, and other mental/emotional issues in our society (compared with pre industrial ones) likely means that the increase in these problems can be attributed to the envrionment one lives in (since of course there's no bases for thinking that genetic inheritene of depression is anymore prevalent in our population versus another, far different, society's).

2) It is true that modern medicine can identify diseases that pre-industrial societies cannot. Nevertheless, it's fallacious to conclude that the rate of any disease or illness remains constant from society to society and that environment plays no role at all.

For instance, it is well documented that exposure to smog can bring about respitory disease. However, it would be wrong to assume that these problems can simply be written off as having a genetic basis and that the rate of respitory problems is constant from one community, one society to the next. Obviously there is a genetic basis for, say, asthma in some cases but its well documented that smog exaccerbates these pre-existing conditions as well as creating them in individuals where they were unlikely to occur at all had the individual lived in a different environment.

[prickly_pete]

Exposure to carcinogens plays a role, although the idea that people in the past were living free of carcinogens is a fairy tale.

Its true that carcinogens can be found in tea leaves, pepper, and I think also some kinds of oats, sure. But its very disingenuous to overlook the role that preservatives, pesticides, medications, etc. play in triggering the situation we have now. Very, very disingenuous.

[OrphanPip]

Its true that carcinogens can be found in tea leaves, pepper, and I think also some kinds of oats, sure. But its very disingenuous to overlook the role that preservatives, pesticides, medications, etc. play in triggering the situation we have now. Very, very disingenuous.

Ya but people in a hunter gatherer society could be bit by a 5 year old and die from sepsis because they didn't have penicillin.

People in industrialized societies live longer and generally have higher quality of life. You are ignoring the fact that most people in hunter gatherer societies suffer from malnutrition, parasitic infections, regular bouts of infectious disease, traumatic injury from constant violence, and were not likely to survive comfortably to an old age. Who says there aren't people in these societies not suffering from mental illness? I see no reason to think there wouldn't be. People are subject to all sorts of abuse and pain in all sorts of societies.

I very much doubt most medications we have are lowering our life expectancy. As to other superstitions about "unnatural" products causing us to be sick, I prefer actual empirical evidence rather than baseless worry.

[prickly_pete]

People in industrialized societies live longer and generally have higher quality of life.

1) Longer life expectancy does not mean higher quality of life. I've listed many reasons why all of which you've ignored (except cancer).

One way we can gage this is simply through deduction (overcrowding causes stress and agression disorders for instance). Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies). Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?

2) Its true that primitive people don't have the benefits of modern medicine and lived far shorter lives than we do currently. There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally. The mental and emotional disorders we experience on a massive scale simply have not been observed by anthropologists in current hunter-gatherer and pre-industrial societies. I've already mentioned how environment can trigger these problems. You apparently see this as a non-issue. I see this as deeply disturbing and view it as unfortunate that this isn't even a subject of public debate. There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West. Out of all places - on a leftist liberal arts website - I can't see how this is new information.

3) I'm not debating the effectiveness of medicine. I'm simply saying that alot of prescription medicines contain carcinogens.

[prickly_pete]

At any rate, I think a long life is just a modern valuation. I've never read anything that implied that primitive people had any desire to live far past an age that was actually worth living.

Since everything is provided to modern people (food, sheleter, medicine) with the most minimal of effort we have no concept of being useful or useless. The fact that people well into their 70's and 80's can remain employed - almost without exception by performing some petty task like flipping burgers or greeting people at WAL*MART - is evidence that most people NEVER have to expend themselves in any real way and thus have no concept of "exiting" or "time to go" or "run its course." You see these poor people desperately trying to cling to life into a ridiculously old age and can't help but think, are they holding on because they never felt free, never felt what it was like to rely on themselves?

There's probably some connection here to prolonged adolesence that goes on in modern societies. I mean, most Native Americans lived until about 40-45. Now we have people having kids - themselves still children to a large extent - at 40-45. I think much could be said about prolonged adolescence in modern societies and how this contributes to the near pathological need to continue living at any cost.

[OrphanPip]

1) Longer life expectancy does not mean higher quality of life. I've listed many reasons why all of which you've ignored (except cancer).

No, but that's why the conjunction "and" was there, because I was categorizing them separately. People in developed countries experience far less morbidity and occurrences of disability. Moreover, those who have congenital diseases or disabilities are capable of living comfortable lives that would otherwise be impossible. Also, the trend towards longer life has been accompanied with increases in "livable" years and mobility. If you think people in their 50s are not living comfortably, I just don't know what to say. My father is in his 60s and he's more physically active than I am.



One way we can gage this is simply through deduction (overcrowding causes stress and agression disorders for instance). Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies). Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?

Too simplistic a model, I am a microbiologist, I cherish evidence. The premise that overcrowding causes stress and aggression disorders is not a given. Moreover, it doesn't follow that industrial society doesn't involve a trade off where less stress from starvation and trauma. Moreover, the notion that murder is virtually unheard of in primitive societies is false. The murder rates in most industrialized countries is roughly 2 in 100,000. Which means a single murder in most tribal societies would trounce the murder rate of industrial societies. Moreover, it's not like rape and other forms of sexual violence are not happening in primitive societies. These occur in many primitive societies, and many Amazonian tribes are actually quite actively violent. Moreover, ritualized violence is a regular aspect of many so-called primitive societies, from Papua New Guinea to the Igbo of East Africa. As to assessing suicide rates, you actually have to have some sort of reliable way of gathering data to determine this. Ritual suicide is not an unheard of aspect of many societies.



2) Its true that primitive people don't have the benefits of modern medicine and lived far shorter lives than we do currently. There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally. The mental and emotional disorders we experience on a massive scale simply have not been observed by anthropologists in current hunter-gatherer and pre-industrial societies. I've already mentioned how environment can trigger these problems. You apparently see this as a non-issue. I see this as deeply disturbing and view it as unfortunate that this isn't even a subject of public debate. There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West. Out of all places - on a leftist liberal arts website - I can't see how this is new information.

Meh, like I've said before there is no actual reliable evidence that mental and emotional disorders do not occur in primitive societies. Furthermore, it is not evident that the downsides of industrialization are worse than the downsides of a hunter gatherer society. I'd rather be OCD and alive at 40.



3) I'm not debating the effectiveness of medicine. I'm simply saying that alot of prescription medicines contain carcinogens.

So do a lot of foods, but I don't think it's relevant beyond mere superstitious worry.


At any rate, I think a long life is just a modern valuation. I've never read anything that implied that primitive people had any desire to live far past an age that was actually worth living.

So, elder worship and a biological impulse to survive are mere products of modern values? I also think it is a stretch to say living into your 40s and 50s is past an age worth living.



Since everything is provided to modern people (food, sheleter, medicine) with the most minimal of effort we have no concept of being useful or useless. The fact that people well into their 70's and 80's can remain employed - almost without exception by performing some petty task like flipping burgers or greeting people at WAL*MART - is evidence that most people NEVER have to expend themselves in any real way and thus have no concept of "exiting" or "time to go" or "run its course." You see these poor people desperately trying to cling to life into a ridiculously old age and can't help but think, are they holding on because they never felt free, never felt what it was like to rely on themselves?

Meh, this is just psychobabble combined with Marxist alienation. Perhaps they cling to life because that's all there is, there is nothing after. What you want to not exist? If you think life is so bad feel free to off yourself, it's not my business. However, most people like living, even primitive people, or else they wouldn't survive very well.



There's probably some connection here to prolonged adolesence that goes on in modern societies. I mean, most Native Americans lived until about 40-45. Now we have people having kids - themselves still children to a large extent - at 40-45. I think much could be said about prolonged adolescence in modern societies and how this contributes to the near pathological need to continue living at any cost.

Prolonged adolescence is nothing more than a tag phrase, it's essentially meaningless. There is nothing adolescent about a desire to keep living.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

1) Longer life expectancy does not mean higher quality of life.
He didn't say that.

I've listed many reasons why all of which you've ignored (except cancer).
:lol:

Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies).
According to what?

Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?
How much have you read? You seem to be making more factual claims as to the behaviors of pre-industrial and current "hunter-gatherer" societies, none of which have really been substantiated by anything.

There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally.
According to?
There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West.
Where was this disputed?
on a leftist liberal arts website Nice broad generalization.

At any rate, I think a long life is just a modern valuation. I've never read anything that implied that primitive people had any desire to live far past an age that was actually worth living.
That doesn't mean they didn't. I would actually think the opposite, as it's pretty much just human nature to want to keep living.

Also, what does the phrase "an age that was actually worth living" even mean? Is there a set age, that once passed, is a point where someone should just welcome death? Who determines what it means to have a life "worth living"?

Since everything is provided to modern people (food, sheleter, medicine) with the most minimal of effort we have no concept of being useful or useless.
Generalization, and completely without substance.

The fact that people well into their 70's and 80's can remain employed - almost without exception by performing some petty task like flipping burgers or greeting people at WAL*MART - is evidence that most people NEVER have to expend themselves in any real way and thus have no concept of "exiting" or "time to go" or "run its course."
Ditto.

You see these poor people desperately trying to cling to life into a ridiculously old age and can't help but think, are they holding on because they never felt free, never felt what it was like to rely on themselves?
:lol: How can you possibly know how the whole of elderly people who are employed feel?

I think much could be said about prolonged adolescence in modern societies and how this contributes to the near pathological need to continue living at any cost.
So, the instinct to survive is "pathological need to continue living at any cost"? :lol:

[prickly_pete]

The premise that overcrowding causes stress and aggression disorders is not a given.

Just because the relationship is non-linear doesn't mean the relationship doesn't exist. Just because everyone in urban Los Angeles doesn't carry an inhaler doesn't mean there's no correlation between air quality and the respitory problems people experience. I mean, come on now. These are well accepted relationships virtually everywhere outside these boards I guess.

There is however - and this will get us right to the point without having to do a sentence-by-sentence breakdown - no correlation between material well-being and psychological well-being. This is just something you've gone ahead and assumed without providing any justification for doing so whatsoever. This I'm assuming is where you're going as you haven't provided any information that would suggest that psychological problems exist in other societies on the scale they do in ours. If there were any substance to this than prison inmates would - likely - be substantially happier than pre-industrial folks since their necessities are all provided for whereas more primitive folks actually have to work for the bare necessities. It just doesn't work like this though.

If anything I think the contrary is true. The gluttony and hedonism of the nobility was notorious in many European countries. These people don't seem to have lived very emotionally stable lives despite being very well provided for. This was largely because they were an estate that never had to exert themselves seriously in attaining food or shelter and the like. The same is true in modern societies where everything is provided with minimal effort. Depression, drug addiction, feelings of emptiness...these feelings simply aren't present in other societies, much as you seem to assume they have to be. If they do exist, then show me.

At any rate, I think there's a disconnect here. You seem to think any life is worth living. I'd rather live a shorter life with dignity than a long life with OCD, or depression, or propped up in a penthouse suite running around on my little hampster wheel and blowing coke all day long. But to each his own though I suppose lol...

[young foht]

Sorry to derail this thread by talking about the OP rather than the fascinating debate on primitive societies and the badness of cancer, but I've always wondered about the whole Ayn Rand controversy myself. A long time ago I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and got bored around page 150 or so - this may have been my fault, at the time I was a pretty impatient/bad reader - and I remember reading some essay about the superiority of the Apollonian to the Dionysian mentality, where she says that Kant was some kind of sinister mixture of the two. I don't remember the essay too well, but I think it was kind of wacky; the criticism of Kant seemed really weird. So I don't know a whole lot about her first-hand, and I don't really trust anything I hear about her, since as was said in the OP, she tends to inspire a lot of cultish following and vitriolic attack.

But what I wonder about is whether there are any equivalents to Rand from other political persuasions. Are there any mediocre communist writers that serve as a first step in engaging in serious thought about left-wing politics? Or what about traditional conservatism, as opposed to whatever kind of libertarianism Rand endorsed? It seems that if there are such novelists, they certainly do not inspire the sort of reactions Rand did, which is kind of interesting.

[stlukesguild]

One way we can gage this is simply through deduction (overcrowding causes stress and agression disorders for instance). Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies). Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?

2) Its true that primitive people don't have the benefits of modern medicine and lived far shorter lives than we do currently. There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally. The mental and emotional disorders we experience on a massive scale simply have not been observed by anthropologists in current hunter-gatherer and pre-industrial societies. I've already mentioned how environment can trigger these problems. You apparently see this as a non-issue. I see this as deeply disturbing and view it as unfortunate that this isn't even a subject of public debate. There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West.

As usual, prickly_pete is just talking out of his posterior:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

[G L Wilson]

One way we can gage this is simply through deduction (overcrowding causes stress and agression disorders for instance). Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies). Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?

2) Its true that primitive people don't have the benefits of modern medicine and lived far shorter lives than we do currently. There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally. The mental and emotional disorders we experience on a massive scale simply have not been observed by anthropologists in current hunter-gatherer and pre-industrial societies. I've already mentioned how environment can trigger these problems. You apparently see this as a non-issue. I see this as deeply disturbing and view it as unfortunate that this isn't even a subject of public debate. There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West.

As usual, prickly_pete is just talking out of his posterior.

It's you who talks ****.

[stlukesguild]

And you, as usual, can't get your nose out of prickly_pete's backside. :ciappa:

[stlukesguild]

Returning to the OP and Ayn Rand, I came across this article on an art site recently:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-trouble-with-ayn-rand

[prickly_pete]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Well, a little bit of common sense will tell you that any society that is consistently suffering a 20% mortality rate - much less 60% - from violence alone isn't going to be around for very long. It would be more in the spirit of fairness if we knew how those numbers were obtained and under what circumstances because the evidence I've seen from excavated prehistoric gravesites does not suggest anything like this. I mean, if we used 1915 as a sample year for the rate of death in France our results would probably be pretty distorted wouldn't ya think? At any rate I have trouble blindly accepting 60% as a norm. Finally, it's important to note the very strong possibility that this sample "hunter gatherer" society used here likely had and has had extensive contact with agricultural and industrial societies. And - just like an ecosystem - a society can become radically different once outside elements are introduced.

At any rate, I didn't mean to insinuate that primitive societies were non-violent. Some clearly were extremely violent (Apache) while others were extremely peaceful (Hopi). How or why these differences arise is beyond me, but at any rate I think we can agree that when violence did occur it was for some substantive reason (territory, water source, mates, self-defense). You didn't have people running into machine gun fire by the millions for quack ideologies like Nazism, Marxism, or "spreading freedom." These societies were very decentralized and it would've been virtually impossible to find yourself as a tool of exploitation in war the way folks are now.

Nevertheless, I think our society is less brutal in some ways than earlier societies. This is because the state has a complete monopoly of force. Because a very high percentage of the population is medicated and thereby excluded to a large extent from even having the free will to act violently. Because there are security cameras on virtually every street corner. Because advanced criminology techniques make it easier than ever to apprehend violators of the law. I don't think there's less violence because people are nicer. I think there's less violence because its easier to control people now than ever.

This ability to control brings tremendous risks, which, has basically been the line I've been trolling this whole time. Namely, is the security we get worth the loss of our freedom and dignity? Is it worth living a long life if that life is plagued by OCD, depression, anxiety, etc? Is it working a menial job that requires little real effort and no lasting satisfaction worth the extra lesiure time I get? Is it fair that a significant portion of people are forced to suffer physically and mentally because of the environment in which they live? I'm no expert, but I like to think that these aren't question that can be easily brushed aside with "the Aztecs had human sacrifice...end of story"...


At any rate, something tells me that if my posts had sponsored gay marriage, or race quotas, or health care reform that I would've found friends here in an instant. But the minute someone tries to step away from these trivial issues and questions why these health problems exist in the first place, or why we have the type of social problems we do, all one recieves is blank stares - "Problems? What problems?!?!?!?"

Pretty unfortunately I think. Some people have no problem turning a blind eye I guess. Meh, I have nothing to learn from you...

[prickly_pete]

And you, as usual, can't get your nose out of prickly_pete's backside. :ciappa:

Come on now...

[Ecurb]

The assumption that modern life is more replete with OCD, stress and anxiety than primitive life seems ridiculous to me. We know, for example, that the death of family members is a leading cause of stress. Doesn’t it seem likely that in societies where one has more children, but half of them die by the age of 5, there will be more stress and anxiety than in modern society? Doesn’t it seem likely that parents will be more anxious about the health of their children when half of them die young than when 1% of them do?

Of course OCD is a newly discovered disorder – so nobody wrote about it in ancient times.


I mean, most Native Americans lived until about 40-45. .

Also, prickly_pete seems to be the victim of a common delusion: that a “life expectancy” of 45 means that one will live until 45 and then die. The reason people have a lower life expectancy in primitive societies is not that human longevity changes (the oldest people in primitive societies are close to the same age as those in our society). Instead, it is that there is far greater childhood mortality, and a greater likelihood of death from disease at any age.

[G L Wilson]

Come on now...

He's mine. You're trolling, Lukey, old feller, cease and desist.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

At any rate, something tells me that if my posts had sponsored gay marriage, or race quotas, or health care reform that I would've found friends here in an instant. But the minute someone tries to step away from these trivial issues and questions why these health problems exist in the first place, or why we have the type of social problems we do, all one recieves is blank stares - "Problems? What problems?!?!?!?"
It's not your arguments that are the problem, it's your arguing. You use faulty logic; cite nothing (and then, ironically, when someone does bring in an authority, you discount it); use broad, unsubstantiated generalizations (like the above); and ignore any questions/rebuttals posed to you that you can't answer. This are all quite annoying traits. Add to it that you act as if you have every member here pegged down (continually referring to people being "leftist" and "liberal") after only being here a couple months, and people may not want to be buddy-buddy with you.


He's mine. You're trolling, Lukey, old feller, cease and desist.
Pot, meet kettle. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

Well, a little bit of common sense will tell you that any society that is consistently suffering a 20% mortality rate - much less 60% - from violence alone isn't going to be around for very long. It would be more in the spirit of fairness if we knew how those numbers were obtained and under what circumstances because the evidence I've seen from excavated prehistoric gravesites does not suggest anything like this. I mean, if we used 1915 as a sample year for the rate of death in France our results would probably be pretty distorted wouldn't ya think? At any rate I have trouble blindly accepting 60% as a norm. Finally, it's important to note the very strong possibility that this sample "hunter gatherer" society used here likely had and has had extensive contact with agricultural and industrial societies.

Obviously, you would have to research these statistics yourself to argue the point convincingly one way or the other. However, I don't overly question the notion that death by violence including warfare has declined over time. First of all, one needs to merely consider the improvements in medicine and its impact upon the casualties of war. How many who were wounded in the past would die of infections or the inability to repair certain losses in comparison with today?

Then let's simply look at the destructiveness of the wars. World war II, I am sure you will agree, was the most destructive event of the 20th century in terms of lost human lives from violence. Estimates of deaths range from 40-72 million deaths... counting the Holocaust and other genocides. The world population at the time was approximately 2.5 billion. That results in approximately a 1 in 35 chance of any individual... during that period of time... of dying in the war. That's using the highest casualty estimates... and only considering that period of time. Obviously this number is greater for some (ie. if one were Jewish and living in Poland) and less for others (if one were living in Mexico or Brazil).

If we look back at some of the more destructive wars of the past we find that the An Lushan Rebellion in China resulted in the loss of an estimated 36-million lives during the 8th century when China's total population didn't exceed 60- 100 million. China's population from the 13th to the 15th century is estimated at having falling from a high of 150 million to 65 milllion as a result of the Mongol invasions combined with the Bubonic plague.

Seriously, while you continually mock the Liberal mind-set, your embrace of the notion that things are so much worse now reminds me of the far-left guilt-trip and belief that everything about Western Culture is wrong and the so-called "primitive" societies were so much more peaceful and well-adjusted. I think most of this is an illusion owing much to (as the video suggests) our current high expectations. We hear about a couple gruesome murders on TV and assume things are getting worse because we don't really have a good idea of how bad they were in the past. It is not unlike the manner in which we get a little sore throat and run to the doctor right away, or we feel a little out of sorts and "we" assume we are mentally ill, where past generations must have always been living with the pain of rotting teeth, etc... and they had no problem in recognizing true mental illness from the "blues".

[G L Wilson]

I find, prickly_pete, that people who talk about the rules of engagement like our friend Mutatis-Mutandi have no argument.

[G L Wilson]

Well, a little bit of common sense will tell you that any society that is consistently suffering a 20% mortality rate - much less 60% - from violence alone isn't going to be around for very long. It would be more in the spirit of fairness if we knew how those numbers were obtained and under what circumstances because the evidence I've seen from excavated prehistoric gravesites does not suggest anything like this. I mean, if we used 1915 as a sample year for the rate of death in France our results would probably be pretty distorted wouldn't ya think? At any rate I have trouble blindly accepting 60% as a norm. Finally, it's important to note the very strong possibility that this sample "hunter gatherer" society used here likely had and has had extensive contact with agricultural and industrial societies.

Obviously, you would have to research these statistics yourself to argue the point convincingly one way or the other. However, I don't overly question the notion that death by violence including warfare has declined over time. First of all, one needs to merely consider the improvements in medicine and its impact upon the casualties of war. How many who were wounded in the past would die of infections or the inability to repair certain losses in comparison with today?

Then let's simply look at the destructiveness of the wars. World war II, I am sure you will agree, was the most destructive event of the 20th century in terms of lost human lives from violence. Estimates of deaths range from 40-72 million deaths... counting the Holocaust and other genocides. The world population at the time was approximately 2.5 billion. That results in approximately a 1 in 35 chance of any individual... during that period of time... of dying in the war. That's using the highest casualty estimates... and only considering that period of time. Obviously this number is greater for some (ie. if one were Jewish and living in Poland) and less for others (if one were living in Mexico or Brazil).

If we look back at some of the more destructive wars of the past we find that the An Lushan Rebellion in China resulted in the loss of an estimated 36-million lives during the 8th century when China's total population didn't exceed 60- 100 million. China's population from the 13th to the 15th century is estimated at having falling from a high of 150 million to 65 milllion as a result of the Mongol invasions combined with the Bubonic plague.

Seriously, while you continually mock the Liberal mind-set, your embrace of the notion that things are so much worse now reminds me of the far-left guilt-trip and belief that everything about Western Culture is wrong and the so-called "primitive" societies were so much more peaceful and well-adjusted. I think most of this is an illusion owing much to (as the video suggests) our current high expectations. We hear about a couple gruesome murders on TV and assume things are getting worse because we don't really have a good idea of how bad they were in the past. It is not unlike the manner in which we get a little sore throat and run to the doctor right away, or we feel a little out of sorts and "we" assume we are mentally ill, where past generations must have always been living with the pain of rotting teeth, etc... and they had no problem in recognizing true mental illness from the "blues".

Clearly Western culture is in the toilet. I suggest that you get your head out of it and have a look around at the real world.

[Ecurb]

Clearly Western culture is in the toilet. I suggest that you get your head out of it and have a look around at the real world.

I don't know if Western Culture is "in the toilet", but at least Western Culture HAS toilets, which has to be an improvement of sorts.

[OrphanPip]

I don't know where you get the idea this is a "leftist" site either. Unless you think conservatives simply don't read.

I also don't see how you think your position would somehow be offensive to self-professed liberals, most of what you're saying is in line with Marxist ideas about alienation and there is a decent splattering of Chomsky in there as well. Frankly, you sound like a text book anarcho-communist.

[G L Wilson]

I don't know where you get the idea this is a "leftist" site either. Unless you think conservatives simply don't read.

Conservatives do read but are illiterate.


I also don't see how you think your position would somehow be offensive to self-professed liberals, most of what you're saying is in line with Marxist ideas about alienation and there is a decent splattering of Chomsky in there as well. Frankly, you sound like a text book anarcho-communist.

I'm a liberal and find your accusation that prickly_pete is a communist to be offensive. Plus, there is no such thing as an anarcho-communist; you are only trying to defame a good man with such nonsense and should retract your clear slur upon his name.

[WyattGwyon]

Luke, Pip, et alia: Wake up! It's an alliance of trolls.

[Ecurb]

I'm a liberal and find your accusation that prickly_pete is a communist to be offensive. .

I'm a liberal, and find your claim that you are a liberal offensive.

[IceM]

Just because the relationship is non-linear doesn't mean the relationship doesn't exist. Just because everyone in urban Los Angeles doesn't carry an inhaler doesn't mean there's no correlation between air quality and the respitory problems people experience. I mean, come on now. These are well accepted relationships virtually everywhere outside these boards I guess.

There is however - and this will get us right to the point without having to do a sentence-by-sentence breakdown - no correlation between material well-being and psychological well-being. This is just something you've gone ahead and assumed without providing any justification for doing so whatsoever. This I'm assuming is where you're going as you haven't provided any information that would suggest that psychological problems exist in other societies on the scale they do in ours. If there were any substance to this than prison inmates would - likely - be substantially happier than pre-industrial folks since their necessities are all provided for whereas more primitive folks actually have to work for the bare necessities. It just doesn't work like this though.

If anything I think the contrary is true. The gluttony and hedonism of the nobility was notorious in many European countries. These people don't seem to have lived very emotionally stable lives despite being very well provided for. This was largely because they were an estate that never had to exert themselves seriously in attaining food or shelter and the like. The same is true in modern societies where everything is provided with minimal effort. Depression, drug addiction, feelings of emptiness...these feelings simply aren't present in other societies, much as you seem to assume they have to be. If they do exist, then show me.

At any rate, I think there's a disconnect here. You seem to think any life is worth living. I'd rather live a shorter life with dignity than a long life with OCD, or depression, or propped up in a penthouse suite running around on my little hampster wheel and blowing coke all day long. But to each his own though I suppose lol...

You insist on reducing the opposing arguments to a strawman in order to make your argument seem superior. Nobody has suggested there lies NO correlation; we ARE suggesting we would like documentation to prove your point. StLuke's has provided two links with information that has yet gone unaddressed, and Orphan is speaking from professional knowledge. You have yet to provide us with common, yet unsupported, worries that only show your fear of a polite state and nostalgia for life as it once was. I would suggest you give us evidence if your argument is to be given the due credit you wish to receive.

Notice, too, I'm not going to address this argument. Much of this post speaks from personal preference and assumption. Simply because there is little documentation of psychological stress in previous eras does not suggest it is not existent. However, your argument seeks to draw inferences where there is no documentation, making your argument appear fallacious, or you intend to do so, as we will be unable to counter your argument. Either way, your point is indefensible, unless you provide given evidence.


1) Longer life expectancy does not mean higher quality of life. I've listed many reasons why all of which you've ignored (except cancer).

One way we can gage this is simply through deduction (overcrowding causes stress and agression disorders for instance). Another way is through observing how people actually behave (murder and suicide are virtually unheard of in primitive societies). Another would be by actually reviewing the anthropological studies done on present day pre-industrial societies. Which brings me to ask a question of my own, how much have you actually read on pre-industrial societies?

2) Its true that primitive people don't have the benefits of modern medicine and lived far shorter lives than we do currently. There is also good reason to believe that they generally lived a healthier existence than we do currently both physically and mentally. The mental and emotional disorders we experience on a massive scale simply have not been observed by anthropologists in current hunter-gatherer and pre-industrial societies. I've already mentioned how environment can trigger these problems. You apparently see this as a non-issue. I see this as deeply disturbing and view it as unfortunate that this isn't even a subject of public debate. There's loads of information out there about how traditional societies have been devestated by contact with the West. Out of all places - on a leftist liberal arts website - I can't see how this is new information.

3) I'm not debating the effectiveness of medicine. I'm simply saying that alot of prescription medicines contain carcinogens.

Calling this website a leftist website does not enhance the validity of your argument.

The disorders of our industrial society are more prevalent because we have discovered them. They always existed in previous eras; we simply now have been able to discover them. Less documentation, and less people, existed in hunter-gatherer societies. Numerically, more people suffer from a wider array of known diseases. Proportionately, hunter-gather socieities suffered more (as they were smaller, and even a few people infected would engross a larger percentage of the population). Nonetheless, they suffered; there is little research that documents your point, which is perhaps why you make it.


Well, a little bit of common sense will tell you that any society that is consistently suffering a 20% mortality rate - much less 60% - from violence alone isn't going to be around for very long. It would be more in the spirit of fairness if we knew how those numbers were obtained and under what circumstances because the evidence I've seen from excavated prehistoric gravesites does not suggest anything like this. I mean, if we used 1915 as a sample year for the rate of death in France our results would probably be pretty distorted wouldn't ya think? At any rate I have trouble blindly accepting 60% as a norm. Finally, it's important to note the very strong possibility that this sample "hunter gatherer" society used here likely had and has had extensive contact with agricultural and industrial societies. And - just like an ecosystem - a society can become radically different once outside elements are introduced.

At any rate, I didn't mean to insinuate that primitive societies were non-violent. Some clearly were extremely violent (Apache) while others were extremely peaceful (Hopi). How or why these differences arise is beyond me, but at any rate I think we can agree that when violence did occur it was for some substantive reason (territory, water source, mates, self-defense). You didn't have people running into machine gun fire by the millions for quack ideologies like Nazism, Marxism, or "spreading freedom." These societies were very decentralized and it would've been virtually impossible to find yourself as a tool of exploitation in war the way folks are now.

Nevertheless, I think our society is less brutal in some ways than earlier societies. This is because the state has a complete monopoly of force. Because a very high percentage of the population is medicated and thereby excluded to a large extent from even having the free will to act violently. Because there are security cameras on virtually every street corner. Because advanced criminology techniques make it easier than ever to apprehend violators of the law. I don't think there's less violence because people are nicer. I think there's less violence because its easier to control people now than ever.

This ability to control brings tremendous risks, which, has basically been the line I've been trolling this whole time. Namely, is the security we get worth the loss of our freedom and dignity? Is it worth living a long life if that life is plagued by OCD, depression, anxiety, etc? Is it working a menial job that requires little real effort and no lasting satisfaction worth the extra lesiure time I get? Is it fair that a significant portion of people are forced to suffer physically and mentally because of the environment in which they live? I'm no expert, but I like to think that these aren't question that can be easily brushed aside with "the Aztecs had human sacrifice...end of story"...


At any rate, something tells me that if my posts had sponsored gay marriage, or race quotas, or health care reform that I would've found friends here in an instant. But the minute someone tries to step away from these trivial issues and questions why these health problems exist in the first place, or why we have the type of social problems we do, all one recieves is blank stares - "Problems? What problems?!?!?!?"


Pretty unfortunately I think. Some people have no problem turning a blind eye I guess. Meh, I have nothing to learn from you...

Your fear of a police state and your backlash against it has nothing to do with this argument or the premise of this thread and does not counter any argument given.

You insinuate as if medication is bad, as though everyone who receives medicine is fatally ill and cannot live without pills or liquids. I receive a pill for allergies, once a day for two weeks. Am I less healthy than people in previous societies? :lol:

There are a wider array of known diseases today, not because more diseases have formed, but because we have achieved the means to discover them. Naturally more medications will be formed to combat more known diseases. If you suggest living in the ignorance of pre-colonization, where the known diseases remain the same, yet the medicines to combat them are lacking, that is your preference. It is still a baseless argument.


I find, prickly_pete, that people who talk about the rules of engagement like our friend Mutatis-Mutandi have no argument.

MM's argument is that Pete provides no documentation and deserves little credit until he provides such. What is yours?


Conservatives do read but are illiterate.



I'm a liberal and find your accusation that prickly_pete is a communist to be offensive. Plus, there is no such thing as an anarcho-communist; you are only trying to defame a good man with such nonsense and should retract your clear slur upon his name.

I find your slur against conservatives offensive, but more importantly, I find that you're contributing nothing to the thread except seeking to descend our argument into ad hominem attacks, so that MAYBE the moderators will close this thread down.

I respectfully ask that you contribute to our argument, or not post here at all.

[G L Wilson]

You insist on reducing the opposing arguments to a strawman in order to make your argument seem superior. Nobody has suggested there lies NO correlation; we ARE suggesting we would like documentation to prove your point. StLuke's has provided two links with information that has yet gone unaddressed, and Orphan is speaking from professional knowledge. You have yet to provide us with common, yet unsupported, worries that only show your fear of a polite state and nostalgia for life as it once was. I would suggest you give us evidence if your argument is to be given the due credit you wish to receive.

Notice, too, I'm not going to address this argument. Much of this post speaks from personal preference and assumption. Simply because there is little documentation of psychological stress in previous eras does not suggest it is not existent. However, your argument seeks to draw inferences where there is no documentation, making your argument appear fallacious, or you intend to do so, as we will be unable to counter your argument. Either way, your point is indefensible, unless you provide given evidence.



Calling this website a leftist website does not enhance the validity of your argument.

The disorders of our industrial society are more prevalent because we have discovered them. They always existed in previous eras; we simply now have been able to discover them. Less documentation, and less people, existed in hunter-gatherer societies. Numerically, more people suffer from a wider array of known diseases. Proportionately, hunter-gather socieities suffered more (as they were smaller, and even a few people infected would engross a larger percentage of the population). Nonetheless, they suffered; there is little research that documents your point, which is perhaps why you make it.



Your fear of a police state and your backlash against it has nothing to do with this argument or the premise of this thread and does not counter any argument given.

You insinuate as if medication is bad, as though everyone who receives medicine is fatally ill and cannot live without pills or liquids. I receive a pill for allergies, once a day for two weeks. Am I less healthy than people in previous societies? :lol:

There are a wider array of known diseases today, not because more diseases have formed, but because we have achieved the means to discover them. Naturally more medications will be formed to combat more known diseases. If you suggest living in the ignorance of pre-colonization, where the known diseases remain the same, yet the medicines to combat them are lacking, that is your preference. It is still a baseless argument.



MM's argument is that Pete provides no documentation and deserves little credit until he provides such. What is yours?



I find your slur against conservatives offensive, but more importantly, I find that you're contributing nothing to the thread except seeking to descend our argument into ad hominem attacks, so that MAYBE the moderators will close this thread down.

I respectfully ask that you contribute to our argument, or not post here at all.

What's your documentation, sport? You come at us with a bluff and bully boy tactics, and expect us to drop down and worship you. You've got to be dreamin'. Also, slander is not slander if it is factually correct.

[G L Wilson]

Luke, Pip, et alia: Wake up! It's an alliance of trolls.

Would you care to repeat those words outside this Parliament or Commons? Too often witchcraft is cried in this place for it to have any effect.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please note that further off topic and/or inflammatory posts will be removed without any notice.

Those who persist in building their arguements around these will receive infraction points.

~

[IceM]

What's your documentation, sport? You come at us with a bluff and bully boy tactics, and expect us to drop down and worship you. You've got to be dreamin'. Also, slander is not slander if it is factually correct.

Thank you for asking what my documentation is.

http://www.healthmedialab.com/html/infectious/fighting.html for chronicling the development of useful vaccines in the last three centuries, also chronicling how said vaccines have countered previously fatal infections, ones that had existed but were unable to be countered before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition responds to the idea that hunter-gatherer socieities are more healthy than industrial ones. It even includes third-world and developing nations, showing how birth rates are higher in industrial nations and death rates are much lower.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330810304/abstract linking to a book on research suggesting that pre-historic growth of the Maori people pre-contact could not have expanded enough to populate New Zealand. Purchase the book for further explanation.

I respectfully request you demonstrate maturity by not continuing to descend this into ad-hominem attacks. Either contribute to discussion or respectfully leave the thread.

[G L Wilson]

Thank you for asking what my documentation is.

http://www.healthmedialab.com/html/infectious/fighting.html for chronicling the development of useful vaccines in the last three centuries, also chronicling how said vaccines have countered previously fatal infections, ones that had existed but were unable to be countered before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition responds to the idea that hunter-gatherer socieities are more healthy than industrial ones. It even includes third-world and developing nations, showing how birth rates are higher in industrial nations and death rates are much lower.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330810304/abstract linking to a book on research suggesting that pre-historic growth of the Maori people pre-contact could not have expanded enough to populate New Zealand. Purchase the book for further explanation.

I respectfully request you demonstrate maturity by not continuing to descend this into ad-hominem attacks. Either contribute to discussion or respectfully leave the thread.

With credentials like those, I must respectfully leave the thread.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I must respectfully leave the thread.
I love seeing someone concede.

Ayn Rand sure is an interesting figure, though. I haven't read her, but the sheer amount of discussion she always produces makes me want to. At least, one of her shorter works.

[phalium]

Ayn Rand is among my favorite authors.

I think too many people are jaded by her objectivist morals; thus, her novels are read as propaganda instead of wonderful works of literature.

[stlukesguild]

No... actually the writing (I can't bring myself to use the term "literature") is worse that the ideology:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-trouble-with-ayn-rand

[libernaut]

I know i said i'd probably never read ayn rand but when i went into the bookstore i almost found myself buying a copy of a book she wrote. "The Virtue of Selfishness". I myself can see why selfishness can be considered a virtue. Can anyone tell me more about this book if they've read it and if or if it is not worth reading. It seemed very slim, especially compared to some of her other works. It was in the philosophy department. Anything worth reading at all or just something to steer clear from?