Life as a Hunter-Gatherer: Nice or Nasty?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
1) yes you did you saidphildwyer said:
when talking about the hunter gatherer lifestyle, quite clearly implying that the current lifestyle was unnatural
2)What the fuck are you talking about. I pointed out that your contention was bollocks because all the ways that human beings can live are equally natural.
Gurrier's right you're a lier, a arrogant prick and far more ignorant than those who you accuse of ignorance. I can't be bothered.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
sorry but you're just talking crap now.phildwyer said:
phildwyer said:
That would make sense - we are part of nature so anything we do is natural.
Natural really isn't a very useful word here - and in political terms is normally just code for 'reactionary twaddle I can't defend in any other way'.
[Edited to add - having just read the rest of the thread I can see that seems to be what is going on here]
revol68
what, fucking what?
out of interest how can humans be outside of nature? We are part of nature, there is nothing we can do that is unatural. Unless of course you believe there is some sort of coherency to nature ala ghia bollocks. Humans are the product of evolution, our conceptual skills are just as part of nature as a sharks teeth. The fact that our conceptual tools mean we are able to actually change the natural world does not mean they are something "unatural". If i was feeling hegelian i suppouse i could claim "humanity as the negation of nature, part of it but at the same time raising it, bringing into being a higher stage, humanity as aufheben if you will", if i was feeling marxist (much more likely) i'd say "human species being is the grave digger of nature".
I'm going out to the garden right now to try it..
There is no way we can objectively say which lifestyle is better is there? Not without trying them both fully for a long, long period of time. We can estimate how we'd feel initially if we had our niceties removed , but I think we'd get over most of that pretty easily. But we could only truly appreciate an h-g life if we developed a deep relationship with the natual world (i'm talking years worth of time), AND the social context. I suspect there would be a lot that is rewarding, after all, what do you reckon you will consider important to life on your deathbed? Gadgets? Girls Aloud? Office politics? McDonalds?
I think an h-g lifestyle would involve a bit more physical pain though.
There is no way we can objectively say which lifestyle is better is there? Not without trying them both fully for a long, long period of time. We can estimate how we'd feel initially if we had our niceties removed , but I think we'd get over most of that pretty easily. But we could only truly appreciate an h-g life if we developed a deep relationship with the natual world (i'm talking years worth of time), AND the social context. I suspect there would be a lot that is rewarding, after all, what do you reckon you will consider important to life on your deathbed? Gadgets? Girls Aloud? Office politics? McDonalds?
I think an h-g lifestyle would involve a bit more physical pain though.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
If you're talking about my stuff on population and food production, I'm happy to discuss it further, either here if it's on topic or someplace else if it's not. The numbers I gave are correct to the best of my knowledge, I'm very open to good ideas about what to do about them.JoeBlack said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
Dumpster divers are modern day hunter-gatherers, aren't they?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
What is Haiti's 'natural' state: the way it was in pre-columbian times?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
I think I agree that h-g might be the 'natural' state of humanity, but that doesn't make it the preferable state.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
If they're 'uncontacted', how would we know that they're there?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
I agree with that also. We are natural beings. All of our doings are the doings of natural beings.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
Just because we're a unique animal, doesn't make us an unnatural animal.
Tigers are pretty unique.
Also, whales have language, possibly society, and who knows about self consciousness?
And don't forget about Koko and the other gorillas taught to use symbol language.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
It's not a tautology.
Do you agree that everything that ants do, are 'natural' acts?
Then why not us?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
Yep. Because Koko negates your argument.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Aha, I was wondering who would be the first to bring fucking Koko into this. I might have guessed. Actually, I *did* guess. Anyway, the whole point about Koko is that, having been taught to identify herself with the first person singular, she no longer considered herself a gorilla. She considered herself a human being, and looked on her fellow gorillas with utter contempt. The researchers who had taught her language came to regret it for that very reason, they felt that they had done a terribly cruel thing, and they were quite right. And in any case, have you actualy read what she said? Its not exactly great repartee, in fact its barely more articulate than Nino Savatte after a night on the hooch. And that is all I have to say on the subject of Koko, I'm so freaking sick of that bloody ape, you and those like you just go on about her all the time, its Koko this, Koko that, all Koko all the time. !Basta already!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
By report. Although its an interesting point: if we'd heard reports of them, they'd presumably have heard reports of us, in which case could we really call them "uncontacted?" Once you start to think about it, the apparently simple notion of "uncontacted" becomes quite complex.
For most of human history, we've lived as hunter-gatherers. Given how good humans are at adapting to the environment they find themselves in, it can't be that miserable an existence.
Accounts I've read and seen of the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies tend to describe quite emotionally healthy people. Like any society, assuming a h-g society has enough land and reosurces to supply its needs, then the health, diet, life expectancy is fairly good.
Given the diversity of human cultures, there are some h-g societies which are more attractive than others - just like there are plenty of settled societies I wouldn't want to live in. Better a Bush man than Birmingham I say.
Taking the long long term view, our oil-based society will be seen as a very temporary blip in the bigger picture of nomadic and agrarian human existence. That's what our bodies and minds have evolved for - and is probably where we're happiest. Nothing wrong with developing science and technology though - as long as we realise that it won't fundamentally make us better people, and that we've got to be mindful of whether it is undermining our resource base.
The challenge for each society is to develop appropriate technology for the environment it finds itself in. - Those which under-utilise technology will be destroyed or exploited by more advanced societies. But those which over-use it will eventually over-shoot their carrying capacities and collapse.
Accounts I've read and seen of the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies tend to describe quite emotionally healthy people. Like any society, assuming a h-g society has enough land and reosurces to supply its needs, then the health, diet, life expectancy is fairly good.
Given the diversity of human cultures, there are some h-g societies which are more attractive than others - just like there are plenty of settled societies I wouldn't want to live in. Better a Bush man than Birmingham I say.
Taking the long long term view, our oil-based society will be seen as a very temporary blip in the bigger picture of nomadic and agrarian human existence. That's what our bodies and minds have evolved for - and is probably where we're happiest. Nothing wrong with developing science and technology though - as long as we realise that it won't fundamentally make us better people, and that we've got to be mindful of whether it is undermining our resource base.
The challenge for each society is to develop appropriate technology for the environment it finds itself in. - Those which under-utilise technology will be destroyed or exploited by more advanced societies. But those which over-use it will eventually over-shoot their carrying capacities and collapse.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I saw this last week and thought it very intestesting. The most notable thing to me was the number of words missing from their language. It didn't have a future or past tense. It only had a present tense. It also had no words for "worry."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/17/60minutes/main782658.shtml
I'm usually not a proponent of some of the silly return to nature schemes I hear. Civilization has some nice aspects. I do, however, think that we are raising a next generation that is out of touch with the natural world. I've run into kids who didn't know that flour comes from wheat and who couldn't stand to have the least bit of dirt on them.
BTW: dumpster divers rule! I scored 18 cans of spagetti sauce last week.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/17/60minutes/main782658.shtml
I'm usually not a proponent of some of the silly return to nature schemes I hear. Civilization has some nice aspects. I do, however, think that we are raising a next generation that is out of touch with the natural world. I've run into kids who didn't know that flour comes from wheat and who couldn't stand to have the least bit of dirt on them.
BTW: dumpster divers rule! I scored 18 cans of spagetti sauce last week.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
Doesn't matter what she thinks she is, she's an animal that can communicate her own thoughts.
Refutes your argument.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
So, phil: do you accept that the actions of human beings are natural?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
phildwyer said:
Highrise buildings are to humans what termite mounds are to termites.
Similar threads
