Why the world is a better place than before

[Pekka]

I guess my main point is that the more options we have, the more freedom we have, and because of that an individual can choose to live in more ways, and technology and science is a big part of giving those opportunities.

The potential is bigger, what people choose to do with it, that's a different issue. Again, not all people have these opportunities we have, in fact the most people don't have them so much at all. But the way societies are set up and the current power structures, it is not exclusive to the possibilities of happiness, or definitely not excluding the statement that the world is a better place.

Sure, I'd like to see major changes, major changes in the realization in general public, meaning that people stop with the idea that their ideas are so much better that they can try to dictate what you're supposed to think or how you should live. This, IMO, is oppressive by the nature of it. A lot of them wouldn't understand it, because "why wouldn't people want to live like this my idea here, because it makes their lives better". Well, then you have millions of opinions about that and what idea wins is not necessarily the "best idea". I'd rather leave that up to everyone, what do you think is the best idea? I think you should have the freedom and the opportunity to pursue that as long as you don't restrict others doing their thing. To me it is surprising how many people disagrees with this, as in they want to change the world according to their own beliefs, and inherently the notion that we should be able to think for ourselves isn't just another "idea" that is by my earlier definition oppressive. That's like saying well, it is racist to point out that someone is a racist.

[Kidlicious]

Pekka,

Case is already closed. Everybody is killing themselves these days.

On the other matter, after thinking about it more, I think it went like this.

They developed a religion, culture, and tribalism. Then the made a permanent settlement. Then they started progressively using more and more agriculture. Social hierarchy developed progressively at each step.

Although most people ate better before agriculture they couldn't get back because of religious and cultural reasons and because the population had alreaded grown too much.

[Zevico]

No sentimentality, comrade. Onwards to the revolution!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zevico
No sentimentality, comrade. Onwards to the revolution!

Well said. We certainly can't just rely on technology. Social organization is very important.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why? **** just getting to work on the subway or commuter traffic is probably harder than a whole day for the bushman.

and getting food is easier

The bushman has to face off with the older cousins of lions, tigers, bears etc etc just to go kill lunch

Now once the bushman has food , he pretty much has nothing else to do that day


Oh and don't equate simpler with easier.

Also why are we using the Tukyo businessman-- Why are't we comparing him to a Calgary homeless person??

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's a fact that they didn't have to work as hard or as long. Certainly, they had a tons less stress, and they weren't ****ed up by advertising and all that crap.

Ya-- they only ever had to worry about finding and killing food and not becoming dinner themselves

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
Me, I pick the cubicle, every damn time.

-Arrian

Me too-- except it needs to be an office with a window to the outside

Any less and I am worse off than a bushman

[Arrian]

Heh, we're moving to a different building in June, whereupon I will reclaim a window seat (we moved 4 years ago and I lost a primo window cube and got stuck in the middle of the floor... no natural light reaches me).

Huzzah! Ahead of the bushman by a nose!

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
Heh, we're moving to a different building in June, whereupon I will reclaim a window seat (we moved 4 years ago and I lost a primo window cube and got stuck in the middle of the floor... no natural light reaches me).

Huzzah! Ahead of the bushman by a nose!

-Arrian

I have had a window and door for the last 15 years so I think I remain ahead of the bushman

This evening I will make my way home, driving on routes ordained by my hierarchical society and enjoy a steak and bottle of wine. Afterwards I may engage in activities that due tto modern technology will not result in a pregnancy that could possibly kill both mother and newborn and will retire to a comfortable abode with little chance of dying an awful death in the night


If I wanted to live a subsistence lifestyle, I could

[lord of the mark]

1. Its fairly well established that hunter gatherers "worked" relatively short hours.

2. Its also fairly clear, that compared to most agriculturalists, from the dawn of the neolithic, to about 300 years ago, they also were healthier, and their work was at least as interesting.

3. Whether the non-quantifiable aspects of life as a subsistence peasant exceeded those of a subsistence hunter-gatherer, is not easy to say.

4. In general agriculture was adopted as a supplement to hunter gather lifestyles, but when this allowed the population to increase, further shifts to agriculture became inevitable.

5. In the last 300 years we have, for the first time in human existence, had the ability to move more than a small elite beyond subsistence. Starting with a small number in the developed world, but increasing dramatically in the last few decades (whether that increase proves sustainable or not)

6. How we use that ability is up to us. Do we want to be the tokyo salary man? Do we want to choose differently? How much do we want to put into family? into consumer goods? into community?

7. Some of those choices may be MORE easily adaptable to the sustainability of a beyond subsistence life style, for the entire planet, than are others.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber


If I wanted to live a subsistence lifestyle, I could

A subsistence hunter gatherer?

Life as a subsistence farmer sucks. I dont think anyone disputes that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Eli


I was saying something slightly more complex. But since I spread it around a few posts I guess it's easy to misunderstand. I'll explain my stance now.

A person's capacity to live a fulfilling life is determined by the person's personality and psychology, not by his circumstances. So the archetypal shallow, SUV driving, MTV watching, stuck in the rat race, compulsive consumer who's supposedly not living a fulfilling life will not be living such a life under any other circumstances. Such a person will never use the opportunities his circumstances offer him.

And on the other side of the spectrum, a deeper person with good introspection skills, who knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff, have meaningful relations with others, etc, will always use the opportunities his environment offers to live a more fulfilling life.

As a thought experiment, imagine a person's with Aristotle's personality living in a hunter gatherer society, in Aristotle's own time and in our society.

Generally speaking, curiosity about nature is probably the main defining characteristic of our Aristotles. A satisfaction of this desire goes most of the way towards making such a person's life a fulfilling one.

The hunter gatherer Aristotle will track the stars, observe animals, analyze rock formations, try to categorize people's personalities and generally philosophize about the universe.
But he will be alone. In his tiny society, he will probably be the only one who's interested in most of these stuff and almost the only one intellectually capable of doing so. He will also be the first who does so, so he'll be doing everything from scratch. He will have no paper or parchment on which to write, significantly hampering his efforts, maybe he'll go blind early and will not be able to continue with his studies.

The classical Aristotle will do what the historical Aristotle did. But he'll have other people, similar to him. He'll have the Lyceum, he'll have access to the body of knowledge gathered by previous generations, he'll have papyrus paper.

And the modern Aristotle will have modern universities and masses of people who share his interests. He'll have the internet and easy access to millions of studies, experiment results, etc. And thanks to specialization, he'll be able to devote most of his time towards satisfying his curiosity and therefore living a more fulfilling life. A life which will also be more painless, longer and more varied.

All three Aristotles can utilize a big percentage of the opportunities the universe gives them towards living more fulfilling lives, but modern Aristotles will have more of those opportunities than earlier ones.

The mistake that you're making is taking on one hand an idealized person in a hunter gatherer society who is perfectly "attuned" to life, and the average modern human with all his shortcomings. Why don't you compare apples to apples? Take some brutish, ignorant, shallow guy you know and imagine him in a prehistorical society. Will he be different?

you think personality is not created by social environment? You think its genetic, or magic?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


A subsistence hunter gatherer?

Yes -- there is enough wild areas left in this country that its still possible

Take interior Newfoundland, Canada. The trout and salmon are abundent along with berries, rabbits moose and caribou.

If I equipped myself properly ( say a canoe load of gear ) I could construct a shelter and hunting and fishing is ample. The authorities might be a problem since I am sure I would be breaking several laws. Oh and I could plant a small garden but that might take me from the worry free hg lifestyle to the toil of a farmer-- I was just thinking that some carrots and potatoes might be nice to add to my fishy diet

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber


Yes -- there is enough wild areas left in this country that its still possible

Take interior Newfoundland, Canada. The trout and salmon are abundent along with berries, rabbits moose and caribou.

If I equipped myself properly ( say a canoe load of gear ) I could construct a shelter and hunting and fishing is ample. The authorities might be a problem since I am sure I would be breaking several laws. Oh and I could plant a small garden but that might take me from the worry free hg lifestyle to the toil of a farmer-- I was just thinking that some carrots and potatoes might be nice to add to my fishy diet

I dunno that interior Newfie is quite the ideal hunter gatherer area - too damned cold. I suspect you would have to spend more hours gathering food than the average 12000 BP HG did. Whether you could manage, and how much land youd need to do so, and if you could get enough, I dont know.

Would it be nice to start a garden - of course. Thats how it starts, ya know. First you plant something. Then more kids survive because of that. Now they CANT stop planting, cause theyve exceeded the HG carrying capacity. Soon you have to add MORE crops, and you get higher density, and before you know it, youre doing nothing but raising crops and youre kids are dying just like before.

I mean Malthus was pretty near right for preindustrial society.

Im not at all suggesting it would be feasible to go back to that en masse. It would mean mass starvation. Unlike Ludd, im not convinced mass starvation is coming anyway.

That there is such a corner in Canada, and it hasnt been filled with folks fleeing subsistence ag, is a tribute to Canadas immigrations limits. Its a little artificial garden on the planet. Maybe the whole planet can get to Canadian lifestyles - that has yet to be seen.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber

If I equipped myself properly ( say a canoe load of gear ) I could construct a shelter and hunting and fishing is ample.

Gear you could at least replace yourself (I wont insist you make it yourself, as real HGs start with a capital stock)