Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"its only money"

Re: the second sentence thing: I know, that's why I said it usually goes with it. Not that it did in your case.

I know where you're coming from (I think); there's much of value that was lost when the industrial revolution trundled into town. I think working when you need to (for example) is a good ideal, but not currently possible given the demands made on us
 
Blagsta said:
You wouldn't be free if you were a hunter-gatherer either. You'd have to make sure you hunted and gathered enough food, you'd have to find somewhere warm and dry to sleep, find fuel to keep warm - even when you're sick and exhausted. Sounds shit to me.
You would have to satisfy your immediate needs. Once that was done, you would be at leisure. Depending on your circumstances, that leisure could be quite lengthy. In times of plenty, hunter-gatherers only need to 'work' for a few hours a week.
 
story said:
But when we compare our position, sitting here tapping away, with food in our bellies and clothes on our backs and access to health care etc. with that of those who are scrabbling about on rubbish tips for things to sell so that they can buy some food for their children... well, we're not really broke, are we.

I think without being in that position it would be foolish of any of us to try and discuss what poverty in the third world is really like.

I know what poverty is like in England though, and I think that's something that can be discussed without being patronisinig and a level of understanding.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You would have to satisfy your immediate needs. Once that was done, you would be at leisure. Depending on your circumstances, that leisure could be quite lengthy. In times of plenty, hunter-gatherers only need to 'work' for a few hours a week.

What about times of drought and scarcity? What about when you're ill?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
In times of plenty, hunter-gatherers only need to 'work' for a few hours a week.

Reference please.

I'm afraid I don't go with this misty eyed, back to our pastoral roots bollocks, as I would guess lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality etc etc would all be part of that heaven on earth...

& if it really was only a few hours a week, why the fuck did our ancestor's decide to chuck it all in for 12 hours a day on the farm..... :rolleyes:


walks away, shaking his head, muttering something about hippy bullshit..
 
Blagsta said:
What about times of drought and scarcity? What about when you're ill?
These would be times when I would no doubt long for the comfort of a world that is full of responsibilities.

When you're ill, someone else in your group does your work for you until you're better, just like now. You either get better or die, like now.
 
Jografer said:
& if it really was only a few hours a week, why the fuck did our ancestor's decide to chuck it all in for 12 hours a day on the farm..... :rolleyes:
[/SIZE]
Population pressure. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle requires more space than agriculture.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Population pressure. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle requires more space than agriculture.

20,000 years ago population pressure :eek:

You really need to get shot of those rose tinted specs.... :rolleyes:
 
Well this guy manages it doesn't he?

HughF-W-med-jan07.jpg


and him

raymears.jpg
 
littlebabyjesus said:
There is a freedom to being destitute. Having nothing means that you fear losing nothing.

To wake up each morning and begin the day's search for sustenance afresh is to free yourself from the shackles that are the price of comfort.

I don't desire the freedom of the tramp, but the freedom of the hunter-gatherer has its attractions.

Have you ever hunted and gathered? Been on a survival course for a couple of weeks living in the forest having to catch your meat and forage for your fruit and veg?
 
zenie said:
It's easy to say 'it's only money' when you have it/are used to having it....
I'm an "it's only money" person, but I never have any... maybe the two are related.

The tightest most money-centred people I know are the ones who've come from money tbh.
 
kyser_soze said:
Have you ever hunted and gathered? Been on a survival course for a couple of weeks living in the forest having to catch your meat and forage for your fruit and veg?
In a group and having grown up learning the necessary skills, you mean?
 
kyser_soze said:
No, I mean have you hunted and gathered. Pretty easy, direct question with a yes or no answer.
His experience of hunting and gathering now is going to be slightly different to the experience of someone living in a hunter-gatherer society though isn't it?
 
kyser_soze said:
No, I mean have you hunted and gathered. Pretty easy, direct question with a yes or no answer.
I was very explicit in my post that the freedom of the hunter-gatherer has its attractions. In order to enjoy such freedom you would need to have the necessary skills and to be in a group. Your question is facile.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I was very explicit in my post that the freedom of the hunter-gatherer has its attractions. In order to enjoy such freedom you would need to have the necessary skills and to be in a group. Your question is facile.

Yet you don't even have the most basic experience of how one would go about it; your entire point is based entirely on surmise, not experience or knowledge, so far from my question being facile, your complete lack of knowledge about what it's like to hunt&gather in any way shape or form renders your initial statement a nonsense, little more than someone romanticising something that know absolutely fuck all about.
 
@ Jografer:

Population pressure is the driver for many things, including migration. Without population pressure, human beings would never have left Africa.

I suggest you do a little more study before you express your opinion.
 
Thora said:
I'm an "it's only money" person, but I never have any... maybe the two are related.

The tightest most money-centred people I know are the ones who've come from money tbh.

But you've been brought up with money though haven't you?

Agree the rich get richer by not spending any.
 
zenie said:
But you've been brought up with money though haven't you?
Depends what you mean by money I suppose - we we're never in poverty, but we didn't have money for foreign holidays, new cars etc. The people I'm talking about had childhoods quite different from mine - big houses, cleaning ladies, horse riding, new car as a birthday present.
 
kyser_soze said:
OO, genuinely interested in that point...studies/papers/books/links?
There are various theories. One, based on the study of gene distributions, is that humans first left east Africa around 50,000 years ago. They left either because climate change or increased numbers had led to food shortages.

Either way, the area they were in could not support the number of humans there. In other words, there was population pressure.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
These would be times when I would no doubt long for the comfort of a world that is full of responsibilities.

When you're ill, someone else in your group does your work for you until you're better, just like now. You either get better or die, like now.

You have an absurdly romantic notion of hunter-gatherer societies I think.
 
Blagsta said:
You have an absurdly romantic notion of hunter-gatherer societies I think.
Innit. Give me the comfort of modern medicine, heated housing and clean food and water any day.
 
kyser_soze said:
So no migration based on curiousity then?

No. The behaviour of individuals may be explained in terms of motives such as curiosity, but the explanation for the behaviour of groups is to be found in economics. I'm with Marx on this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom