Why the world is a better place than before

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by General Ludd
And in different organizations. I've eaten 5 to 6 meals a week at soup kitchens this past year. Generally it's all alot better food than you'd get at a cafe, and free always tastes better anyways.

Ok, some are good. I've actually eaten at some that weren't too bad. It depends on your location.

Only when "mentally ill" extends to everyone who lives outside the norm. It generally takes a certain amount of cleverness and clarity of mind to dumpster dive well, as you need to get to know what places have good food, when they close, when the garbage is collected, ect... the random russling through garbage cans on the street may be what you're thinking of. I wouldn't eat a half eaten sandwich. When I dumpster dive I'm looking for groceries.

I think some very good restaurants throw away food in the dumpsters that people eat. A lot of them have locks on them now though.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Is it just as easy for you to make one post? If so I'd prefer that, or maybe two.

I was doing other things so whenever I finished a complete thought, I posted-- I wasn't sure if I would come back in 5 minutes or 5 hours after pretty much all of the posts

PLus I find breaking things up does seem to assist you in addressing what I say as opposed to what you assume I say

Originally posted by Kidicious

I don't understand any of that.

Just a sarcastic way to say people have choices and very little is yes/no or on/off. Simply put there are few absolutes in lifestle choices, or work ethic.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Are you talking about preference to leisure vs work? In that case I think that most people have a pretty even preference between the two.

I don't understand what you are saying here. I much prefer leisure over work. I like my job but I like skiing, cycling, spending time with my children and chess--- all much more. I only rarely enjoy idle time. If I go to a beach I like to swim or snorkle or play volleyball , not lie around.

Originally posted by Kidicious

I suppose with regard to primative man he didn't have the choice to work more to aquire more wealth, however like I said, I think that most people don't really like to work as much as you do. And I'm not saying that you have an unhealthy attitude towards work, but some people do work too much, just like some people do many other things too much.

A primitive man could acquire more "wealth", up to the limits of what he could carry or store or to the extent he builds a more elaborate shelter. Or since he is a better hunter/gatherer, he ends up with a larger band/family with a greater capicity to hunt and gather.Perhaps if he has provided well for years, his band does not mind providing for him as he ages and slows and that could be considered a form of wealth?

I think I like to work and actually work much less than you think I do. Since I left private practice I typically work now about 40 hours a week (down from 55-60) and I get two Fridays off a month. I never work weekends anymore and I buy additional vacation days to get 5 weeks off (real slave to the job-- thats what I am ). I do agree that people have different views on how much they want to work and thats fine.

Originally posted by Kidicious

No, that is not what I meant. Homeless people do not get their needs met by definition. They are homeless. They can't afford a home, shoes etc...

Depends on your definition I guess. What they can "afford" is less relevant than what they can obtain. I have never seen a barefoot homeless person so obviously their lifestyle somehow provides footware. ( Most seem to be smoking cigarettes too)

Now the fact that homeless by definition do not have adequate shelter means that yes, they do not have all the things that I wish they would have. BUt since homelss do survive for years and years and years as homeless means that again by definition, they are experiencing life at LEAST at a subsistence level

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You should go back to what you were saying before that. I took it to mean that you would not like to live in an hg society because they didn't have enough work to do, and that I prefered such a society for that very reason. You should have considered my bias and been more clear. Theres only so much the reader can do.

I do think you were saying you preferred that society for the lack of work. Beyond that, a reader should try to read the words apart from their biases that they know they have.

Originally posted by Kidicious

If the life of primative man is better than all of the choices you can make for yourself in the modern world then what good are all the choices?

I reject your premise -- for me. If it is true for you than yes the HG lifestyle is better for you.

Originally posted by Kidicious



You're talking about parallels that are completely irrelevant, and you keep defending what you started. Why don't you just admit that it has no relevance.

Well since living exactly like a HG 40K years ago is impossible now, it is helpful to have a frame of reference. The closest to a HG lifestyle would be if you could get a band to go into some remote jungle in the backwaters of Brazil (if acquiring sufficient skills were possible) but I don't know that there is anywhere remote enough from modern influences that you could ever have a "true " HG lifestyle.

You could mimic elements of it in Canada or the US by living in remote areas but it would be only parts.

OH and all the "homeless' talk came up because it seemed someone was advocating 'no -responsibility' as an ideal way of life . Since no one has NO responsibilities, the closest modern examples are people that drop out of regular society in different ways -- either a hermit or a homeless person would be examples of people with lesser responsibilities.

Its all a continuum though and and you could get some elemets of what you might like about about a HG society in different ways

Lets see what might be some of the benefits?

small collegial bands?
co-operation toward common goals?
few adverse societal norms?
sufficient resources and abilities to meet basic needs?
??
??
??

I think there are ways and places to get the benefits of a HG lifestyle in the here and now ( not all of them and not all at once-- and some are impossible such as a completely unpolluted planet) BUt if HG is so very good, why don't the proponents of it itemize what they see as the benefits. Then it would be much easier to assess things

It may well be that the HG lifestyle is the very very best thing for some people. But I am curious as to what makes it the best-- Is it that all the women have sex with all the men for something to do? Is it a living with nature thing? What is it?

[General Ludd]

But I am curious as to what makes it the best

What makes it the best is that we've lived that way for 2 million years.

Ten thousand years of living this way, and we're faced with the rapid deterioration of our ecosystems and landbase (and by proxy, both our vital resources and the resources required to sustain this way of life) and are now faced with issues that are at worst the possible extinction of our species, or at best, global famine, war, and disease.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok, some are good. I've actually eaten at some that weren't too bad. It depends on your location.

I think some very good restaurants throw away food in the dumpsters that people eat. A lot of them have locks on them now though.

Our group was making lunches for homeless last Sunday. It was only sandwhiches and fruit but the meats (beef, turkey or ham) with cheese provided on the side was of the same quality as what I eat for my own lunch. These are generally provided to the working homeless since the non-working guys can make it to the shelter for their meal.

Here in Calgary we do have a large homeless problem ( because housing costs have skyrocketed) but my understanding is that no one that makes an effort to go to the shelters should ever be hungry. (Heck and a LOT of ther homeless here can have $500 bucks in their ass pocket-- They just don't want to spend it on hotels or they NEVER get enough for a deposit on an apartment

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd


What makes it the best is that we've lived that way for 2 million years.

Ten thousand years of living this way, and we're faced with the rapid deterioration of our ecosystems and landbase (and by proxy, both our vital resources and the resources required to sustain this way of life) and are now faced with issues that are at worst the possible extinction of our species, or at best, global famine, war, and disease.

A good answer. If environmental concerns are foremost in your assessment of what "makes the world a better place" there really is no counter to that.

[General Ludd]

Alot of homeless people are simply not stable. Either they are hopelessly addicted to drugs, or have a very loose grip on reality (if any at all). Homeless people who are stable usually aren't reconized as such, and are instead identified as hippies, anarachists, punks, and backpackers.

The unstable can sometimes have a hard time keeping themselves healthy or even alive, even though it's very possible to do so in their environment.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Alot of homeless people are simply not stable. Either they are hopelessly addicted to drugs, or have a very loose grip on reality (if any at all). Homeless people who are stable usually aren't reconized as such, and are instead identified as hippies, anarachists, punks, and backpackers.

The unstable can sometimes have a hard time keeping themselves healthy or even alive, even though it's very possible to do so in their environment.

All very true-- IN Canada there was a huge rise in homlessness after some court decisions made it much much much harder to detain or commit the mentally ill without their consent. The bar was raised so that anyone that could meet some pretty simplistic competence tests were allowed out into the world. Help was offered but far too often rejected by those that suffer from perennial mental health problems. Those folks are definitely a significant subset of the homeless population and a much bigger proportion of the folks that remain homeless year after year after year

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I was doing other things so whenever I finished a complete thought, I posted-- I wasn't sure if I would come back in 5 minutes or 5 hours after pretty much all of the posts

Ok

PLus I find breaking things up does seem to assist you in addressing what I say as opposed to what you assume I say

Probably no. You just need to be clearer mayber. But then I don't address some things just because I don't have any response. It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the post. I read everything.

Just a sarcastic way to say people have choices and very little is yes/no or on/off. Simply put there are few absolutes in lifestle choices, or work ethic.

But people fit into society in one certain way usually. A homeless person is homeless because he really doesn't fit in. He can't get a job because he doesn't bath or something. Now bathing he has a choice in, but he's just the type of person who doesn't bath maybe. The choice doesn't really matter cause he still stinks.

I don't understand what you are saying here. I much prefer leisure over work. I like my job but I like skiing, cycling, spending time with my children and chess--- all much more. I only rarely enjoy idle time. If I go to a beach I like to swim or snorkle or play volleyball , not lie around.

Some people like to work much more than other people. Some people want to work instead of doing all those fun things you mention. So I was thinking that you prefered a lifestyle where you could work more.
I think that I misunderstood you though.

quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious

If the life of primative man is better than all of the choices you can make for yourself in the modern world then what good are all the choices?

I reject your premise -- for me. If it is true for you than yes the HG lifestyle is better for you.

Ok, but my claim is that it is better for most people. I'm including the whole world here, not just the type of people who post on this forum.

Generally, I always talk about how things effect everyone, or most people.

OH and all the "homeless' talk came up because it seemed someone was advocating 'no -responsibility' as an ideal way of life . Since no one has NO responsibilities, the closest modern examples are people that drop out of regular society in different ways -- either a hermit or a homeless person would be examples of people with lesser responsibilities.

I don't know who said you didn't have to be responsible. I said you didn't have a boss. That's something else. Homeless people have no responsibilities yes, but primative man was responsible to his tribe as was all the other members of the tribe.

Having said that I think that they did have more freedoms. Which I guess is a contradiction in away, however it is just something very different than we have today.

......

As I've said, I don't really idealize hg society. I critisize modern society, because I want to go forward no backwards. What I was trying to do in this thread is show what has happened thoughout history to society. My main point is that things don't always get better with technology and time. Things get worse sometimes and sometimes they get better.

I also don't believe that we can go back to hg society if we wanted to. It would involve massive starvation.

And just one point. You often say things like, "if you like it so much why don't you live like that." And when you do you miss the point completely. It's not just about chosing to live a certain way, I already choose the way to live for myself just like everyone else does. It's about making the world a better place for everyone.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But people fit into society in one certain way usually. A homeless person is homeless because he really doesn't fit in. He can't get a job because he doesn't bath or something. Now bathing he has a choice in, but he's just the type of person who doesn't bath maybe. The choice doesn't really matter cause he still stinks.

I don't quite understand you here . Choices always matter and they all have consequences. If a homeless guy chooses to clean himself up, or get sober or join a counselling program whatever, he changes a number of options available to him. Those with limited abilities or competence will always have fewer choices but people always have choices.

I simply do not accept that a person has a place in society that cannot be altered.

Originally posted by Kidicious



Ok, but my claim is that it is better for most people. I'm including the whole world here, not just the type of people who post on this forum.

Obviously there would be numerous "other lives" that would be better for people that are currently on the brink of starvation, or in the middle of a warzone or experiencing a genocide.

But if you want to take the world/society of 40,000 years ago, you have to consider all of that too. Would there be bands that were facing starvation, engaged in warfare, facing genocide? Can the science establish that there were not some bands where the strongest of the group "ruled" autocratically and harshly? So you can't just pick the best bands in the most food-plenty areas to compare with ALL of the modern world.

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know who said you didn't have to be responsible. I said you didn't have a boss. That's something else. Homeless people have no responsibilities yes, but primative man was responsible to his tribe as was all the other members of the tribe.
.

Homeless people do have responsibilities -- to society at large in that they are expected to obey society's laws or face sanctions and in many cases responsibilites to their peers within their immediate circle of homeless. Many form small groups that work together .

Originally posted by Kidicious




As I've said, I don't really idealize hg society. I critisize modern society, because I want to go forward no backwards. What I was trying to do in this thread is show what has happened thoughout history to society. My main point is that things don't always get better with technology and time. Things get worse sometimes and sometimes they get better.

If thats all you are saying I can agree with that although I would say it is more complex and that things are getting better AND worse at the same time depending on the measure you are looking at.

Originally posted by Kidicious


I also don't believe that we can go back to hg society if we wanted to. It would involve massive starvation.

Well the current population could not and I think thats clear. We need agriculture to feed everyone and we need organization to distribute the resources. Loose gatherings of people can work well with small groups but breaks down as the numbers increase since decision makers are needed.

Originally posted by Kidicious


And just one point. You often say things like, "if you like it so much why don't you live like that." And when you do you miss the point completely. It's not just about chosing to live a certain way, I already choose the way to live for myself just like everyone else does. It's about making the world a better place for everyone.

I don't think I ever said that ( but I don't recall exactly so stand ready to be corrected.

But I did pose the question that if the HG lifestyle is so attractive, why do not more people seek out lifestyles that provide the things that they perceive as the benefits of a HG lifestyle. Why do people not optimize their own "happiness" or "satisfaction" within their own capability to do so.

ON an individual level you seem to like the HG lifestyle so I wonder what you like about it. While it is impossible to replicate it what things that we CAN do today would provide most of the benefits you see. IF you are correct and most people would prefer that lifestyle over modern day, what societal changes should we be making.

MY problem is that I see people flocking to the cities and toward the opposite of a HG lifestyle. People reject remote or small time life as 'boring" or unrewarding. Perhaps it is societal pressures but since people make up the society, I am unsure where you are getting the idea that most people like the idea of returning to the land.

Theere are elements of the HG lifestyle that do sound attractive . .. working collegially toward common goals with little or no stress-- But I know that the practice would never be as good as the idea

So if you are concerned about making the world a better place, then tell me what things we should do to make it a better place-- I have a sense of Ludd's view ( which seemingly would require the death of 99% of people). I expect yours would involve some version of Kid communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't quite understand you here . Choices always matter and they all have consequences. If a homeless guy chooses to clean himself up, or get sober or join a counselling program whatever, he changes a number of options available to him. Those with limited abilities or competence will always have fewer choices but people always have choices.

I simply do not accept that a person has a place in society that cannot be altered.

People have choices, but it is their nature to pick one particular choice repeatedly. Step away from the homeless person and look at a more typical person. This person could probably do everything possible to become wealthy but doesn't because it's not really his nature. While he is free to decide to do everything possible to become rich he isn't going to because that's not his nature.

Obviously there would be numerous "other lives" that would be better for people that are currently on the brink of starvation, or in the middle of a warzone or experiencing a genocide.

But if you want to take the world/society of 40,000 years ago, you have to consider all of that too. Would there be bands that were facing starvation, engaged in warfare, facing genocide? Can the science establish that there were not some bands where the strongest of the group "ruled" autocratically and harshly? So you can't just pick the best bands in the most food-plenty areas to compare with ALL of the modern world.

From what I have read they had conflicts with other tribes, but certainly the suffering is nothing compared to the suffering that people today experience in war zones.

We don't really know everything about them unfortunately but I would think that everyone would agree on certain things, like they didn't suffer from the effects of war as much. I think not near as much when you really consider how much people suffer from war.

Homeless people do have responsibilities -- to society at large in that they are expected to obey society's laws or face sanctions and in many cases responsibilites to their peers within their immediate circle of homeless. Many form small groups that work together .

Ah, this is not a good observation of homeless people in my opinion. That's really all I can say.

ON an individual level you seem to like the HG lifestyle so I wonder what you like about it. While it is impossible to replicate it what things that we CAN do today would provide most of the benefits you see. IF you are correct and most people would prefer that lifestyle over modern day, what societal changes should we be making.

I don't see that we have the will to change. If we did why would we have gotten to this point. That's not to say that we are better off in everyway. And certainly I think most people are not happier. The rulers of the world mostly determine which way society will go unfortunately and they are of course very happy with the way things are.

What we need is a revolution in everyway. We need to start over, not like it was before, but start over with what we have and the best way given our current situation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

People have choices, but it is their nature to pick one particular choice repeatedly. Step away from the homeless person and look at a more typical person. This person could probably do everything possible to become wealthy but doesn't because it's not really his nature. While he is free to decide to do everything possible to become rich he isn't going to because that's not his nature.

The fact that I always pick chocolate does not mean that vanilla and strawberry are unavailable. Newflash-- people have preferences

Originally posted by Kidicious


From what I have read they had conflicts with other tribes, but certainly the suffering is nothing compared to the suffering that people today experience in war zones.

We don't really know everything about them unfortunately but I would think that everyone would agree on certain things, like they didn't suffer from the effects of war as much. I think not near as much when you really consider how much people suffer from war.

You are probably right but then again, a relatively small conflict might wipe out a small band. On a proportional scale, if a war wipes out 30 out of 150 hunter-gatherers in a 100 square mile region, would that 20% mortality rate not be quite high?


Is that suffering the effects of war less? ( the fact of smaller numbers) or more ?

I have no idea how they ranked on savagery to their opponents .

I also assume that brutally painful illnesses and deaths were common from natural causes for which there was no (or little) medical knowledge.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ah, this is not a good observation of homeless people in my opinion. That's really all I can say.

Why not? I have observed co-operative groups of 3-4 sharing things like a tent, prime panhandling spots, tin can collection " you take the cart and I'll take the bag and meet you at 2nd street" (I heard that conversation) etc etc . You don't think those folks feel any responsibility to each other? Odd !

Originally posted by Kidicious

The rulers of the world mostly determine which way society will go unfortunately and they are of course very happy with the way things are.

Who are these leaders? Are you talking the leaders of nation states or leaders of major corporations or just 'the rich" (however you define that) ? Because I don't think you would get a consensus of satisfaction from ANY of those groups

Originally posted by Kidicious
What we need is a revolution in everyway. We need to start over, not like it was before, but start over with what we have and the best way given our current situation.

Ahh kid -- you are as long on specifics as always . Lets change everything and with gumdrops and lollipops, the world will be a better place.

I don't deny the world could be a much better place. But given the various schisms and self-interests my fear is that radical change could be mainly for the worse.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
The fact that I always pick chocolate does not mean that vanilla and strawberry are unavailable. Newflash-- people have preferences

I don't know why you responded this way, and the rest I have no comment on.

ttyl