When Mike quotes these suppositions...

(question: can you use quote feature b/w threads or only within?)

1. Their survival will be more important than our survival. If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs. No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. They will assume that the first two laws apply to us.

Reading these I can't help but wonder...don't they seem pretty European to you?

Was European style aggession inevitable?

I mean, Europe's rise to dominance would hardly have seemed likely to the Byzantine's, nor to the Arab states before the Crusades...both civilizations were FAR more advanced and more peaceful. The accident of history that Jerusalem happened to be in Arab hands led to Pope to rally the Western Christian states to Crusade...capitalizing on European envy of the wealth of their Eastern neighbours and contributing directly to the collapse of Byzantines, helped the Mongols destroy the Islamic states and as they say, the rest is history...

Have the progeny of European culture been striving pathologically to defeat old ghosts ever since?

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

I guess you could say that European civilization represents a "perfect storm" of socioeconomic forces- a civilization that is warlike, technologically advanced, and has developed some form of free market capitalism. How it and its descendents will evolve in the future is a very open question.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

A - They will be coming for something we have and they want, ie: water, oxygen, lebensraum, or maybe creatures with amazing manual dexterity for slave labour.

B - They will bring disease that we have no immunity to.

C - They will have technologically superior weapons we cannot defend ourselves from.

D - They will see us as inferior beings who need to be rounded up and killed, or maybe just herded into holding areas where we can be completely marginalized.

Hey wait a minute... The aliens are already here. In fact, they landed 512 years ago.

I guess the point is moot.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: The Wizard Of Socialism ]

Especially when juxtaposed with James Carroll's article in Tomdispatch yesterday...

I'm certainly not naive about the "Noble Savages" beyond Europe's borders, but there are (I think) some important nuances...nuances so better alluded to by Carroll than I.

I'm not sure, but I conjecture that features of our society that are unique and not benign, and that this is illustrated within the context of the effects that the Crusades had on our society ***working with*** the very special nature of our scientific inquiry relearned at the Rennaissance...

This is outside my education, so I should tread carefully...

Irrespective of the human mode: aggression, would Chinese or any culture and science have led to the rapid domination and technological sophistication that are special features of our Western industrial world?

Can anyone tell me about the nature of science (or the conduct of natural philosophy) and expansionism in the pre-contact societies of the world?

[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

As to why they occured in Europe and not, say, China, I suspect that particular innovations, owing to historical accident, happened to occur in Europe (eg. the alphabet, which makes for a much simpler written language than having different characters for each word, and greatly facilitated the development of the printing press) or else close enough to Europe that Europeans could adopt the idea (eg. Arabic numerals, which facilitated the advance of both science and accounting).

I’d like to say from the outset, this is my *understanding* of the history. I set this out NOT because I think I know this is right, but rather because I admit I know very little…just enough to have an opinion and that kids is a dangerous amount of knowledge.

So please, feedback…I hope to hear from my betters in History!

Here goes:

To understand European civilizations, you must first consider the Roman Empire. The nature of the expansion of the Roman empire is important: the geologic features of the Mediterranean are accidental, yet one that was exploited by cultures who learned the early skills of navigation. Water travel allowed for risky but relatively easy and quick transportation. So the Roman Empire’s early expansion entailed encirclement and assimilation of the Med.’s coast.

The tribes of Northern Europe were far less advanced both culturally and technologically (most importantly in the technology of warfare). In that sense they would have been easy prey for the Romans, however their geographic position (only land routes from developing Rome) meant that their assimilation would only take place once the easier Med. coastal cultures had been brought under Roman Aegis.

That has significance because by the time that the Roman empire turned their aspirations northward the exponential rise in the bureaucracy of empire were beginning to act as a serious impediment to further geographic expansion. Thus Hadrian’s decision behind his Wall in the UK…this far and no further.

So the European cultures (I’d hesitate to say civilization at this point) were not really fully assimilated into the Roman Empire. Some were, but late in the Empire…the pre-collapse period of assimilation was much shorter than for Med. Cultures…at the collapse Europeans were not very civilized and retained much of their original cultural characteristics and flaws.

Eastern Mediterranean cultures; former Greek colonies and their neighbors, had internalized the Greek and Roman aspects of social development – law and philosophy…giving rise to the Byzantine Empire which I shall discuss shortly.

But first, preceding the collapse was the unexpected rise of Christianity. Its insistence on one true God was literally anathema to the belief systems of pantheonic belief system of the Roman Empire. I know very little about its rise to dominant philosophy and I’d love some input…thus far I can only ask: was the rise to dominance guaranteed or accidental?

Before the final collapse of the Roman Empire the Church had split, and the Eastern Church was definitely the stronger and more advanced in art, philosophy and diplomacy (thanks to the cultural influences of Eastern Greek colonialism). The Eastern Church was the forebear of the Byzantine empire, and again an accident of history and geography is important to Europe. Europe is a relatively small peninsula and was at some remove from the major cultures of their day - Arabic, and Chinese. The only major power nearby was one with which Europeans shared a common ancestry (and a power who had no intentions of expansion into Europe).

The power of the Byzantines acted as a military and cultural buffer to Europe. The nature of the religious schism, the depth of the European cultural collapse – and the envy which that produced - worked to prevent assimilation of Byzan. culture in Europe. Pre-Crusade Europe was a squabbling morass. But the one element which all parties in Europe shared was the Catholic Church.

And so another accident of history intervenes to allow the Church to rally European nations in their first common cause: the Crusades. The early church placed much value in the physical manifestations of faith (hence all the icons of Jesus…his shroud, grail, pieces of the Cross etc.). As such, the occupation of the physical land of Jesus by the Islamic heresy was seen by the papacy as unacceptable.

The Crusades have greatly affected the development of European society and especially our expansionism. James Carrol’s article eloquently alludes to this, as well as Karen Armstrong in her book Holy War.

But European hegemony was not the result of aggression alone. Another important element worked together with our Crusading aggression: the rapid technological advancements brought about by the re-introduction of Greek and Roman philosophy – the Renaissance. Thanks both to Arabic philosophers as well as to the monastic maintenance of our Roman heritage post Crusade European society was able to adopt the natural philosophies developed within previous, more civilized cultures.

It wasn’t just that we were aggressive (many cultures share this), it was that we were aggressive, isolated, and envious AND able to relearn the technical philosophical sophistication of a previous hegemon – this without ourselves having to go through the dev of cultural and humanistic philosophies that had provided the environment for its (ie techno) original inception.

We’ve maintained our habit of aggression and have used that in coordination with the natural philosophy of our betters to take over the world.

Our history is accident and serendipity. And not benign, nor necessarily beneficial for the future.

(Phew).

Long, but I think important to consider (if I haven’t made major mistakes) because I don’t think our dominance is natural. And in having an aggressive culture with sophisticated science that is not correlated with deeply rooted cultural development. We are a pathology, and our current burn-out economy and likely collapse into Dark Age is reflective of this.

In fact I think that the last millenium is indicative of checks and balances in systems of development. Our culture rose too fast and probably because of our internal conflicts we will crash. I doubt that alien societies would reach interstellar travel working from our own aggressive paradigm and I certainly don’t see how our own history could be considered as either inevitable or sustainable…

[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

My major concern for going through it is that I think maybe we should be thinking about the nature and roots of our own society and see if we should be learning alternatives from some of the societies whom we have crushed (or whom conflict *with us* has now converted to something less benign than before we arrived).

Totally idealistic of course, don't ask me to tell you how would get society to change its ways...

But man, we sure are in need of a swift spiritual kick to the head...in my humble opinion of course (these britches keep getting tighter and tighter!)

According to Albert Einstein in his 1940's essay,"Why Socialism?", we have to move past this predatory phase of human development. Socialism is the future. I'm with Albert on that one.

All countries are struggling with the equivalent of modern day blue bloods and an overall insect mentallity that practices upside down socialism for the elite. We need economies that serve society's needs instead of being oriented around worship of economic gods. The invisible hand was discovered to be a false economic deity. And we have to stop feeding our young to the morlocks of laissez faire capitalism being resuscitated now around the world.

[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bittersweet:
Predatory urges will not go away. They are encouraged by capitalism, but aren't entirely done away with by socialism. Repressing them is as good as pushing an inflated ball under water--the deeper it's pushed, the more violent the upward force becomes. Some avenue for the safe and even positive harnessing of this tendency has to be available until genetics catches up to morality sometime in the next millions of years. Competitive sports isn't enough.

---

I think the economic model rewards sel-interest or greed and neglects the remainder of human nature - empathy for one another, civic mindedness, a desire to work towards a greater good of society and social justice in general. Corporate goals are a poor substitute. Benign competition is devoured and monopolies win out causing more unemployment and economic spirals. Society's needs are left to the ebb and flow of business cycles. Adam Smith's human motivational model, homo economicus, was driven by self-interest alone but doesn't represent true human nature. We are more than just one dimensional prisoners of our own greed. Self-interest is transformed from being one aspect of our being and magnified as greed. The model distorts human nature as well as the outcome.

[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by britchestoobig:

Long, but I think important to consider (if I haven’t made major mistakes) because I don’t think our dominance is natural. And in having an aggressive culture with sophisticated science that is not correlated with deeply rooted cultural development. We are a pathology, and our current burn-out economy and likely collapse into Dark Age is reflective of this.

In fact I think that the last millenium is indicative of checks and balances in systems of development. Our culture rose too fast and probably because of our internal conflicts we will crash. I doubt that alien societies would reach interstellar travel working from our own aggressive paradigm and I certainly don’t see how our own history could be considered as either inevitable or sustainable…
[ 04 September 2004: Message edited by: britchestoobig ]

---

I think that aggression has dominated human society for centuries, yes. I think that it was the will and work of a relative handful of people throughout history. Roman slavery was brutal on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And in the end, long after Spartacus and his 6 000 member slave army were slaughtered and crucified for daring to embarass Rome as they did, the Roman empire fell because it was corrupt to the core. Wealthy Roman's refused to pay their taxes as slavery became less and less profitable. The barbarian hordes would return western Europe to its natural state - communal tribalism. And yes, the Church became keepers of the written word throughout the Dark Ages.

Had they actually gone ahead with either, we would almost certainly be using Chinese as the language of currency right now.

That being said, I disagree with the central premise of the thread, that any species in control of a planet will necessarily be warlike and aggressive. On the contrary, any species can be aggressive. A wolverine can be far more aggressive than a human.

To be dominant, a species needs to be able to effectively cooperate. Few species have the ability to share information and plans. Without that, we would not be in our current position.

quote:

---

Can anyone tell me about the nature of science (or the conduct of natural philosophy) and expansionism in the pre-contact societies of the world?

---

I divide the world into two parts: there's us, our culture, which extends to all corners of the globe and now encompasses 99.99% of what's left, and those that are able to live in harmony with nature; those native savages, if you will. About 10k year ago a form of totalitarian agriculture emerged in the fertile cresent, and it proved very sucessful at expanding homo sapiens sapiens as a species, albeit at the enormous expense of all other forms of life. This continues today; there was never an event which marked "the end" of the agrirevolution.

We, as a species, almost wholly regard this world as ours, to do with as we wish; we are slowly but surely "conquering" mother earth - but she exacts a terrible vengence on those that fail to follow her rules; quite simply, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the exponential growth in our population over the last few thouand years (a mere drop on the true timescale) is of course unsustainable, and will quite possibly lead to our extinction as a species if we keep it up. At the rate we're going, at best, we can look forward to a slow decay in society as our monocrop thinking and dependence on non-renewable resources starts to give way in the only way it can.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

I believe this noble savage/bad civilization dichotomy is a false one. Humans beings were greatly shaped by their nomadic existences: compare 5 000 years of civilization to at least 50 000 years of hunter/gathering existence! I think our faults are older than civilization. It just that civilization aggravated them, since our numbers are less dependent on nature…

In a sense, I think our problems are due to the fact that we aren’t civilized enough. We transferred many of our undesirable ancestral traits (traits that might have been useful for our survival in a tough, unforgiving world) to our civilization. Traits like tribalism, xenophobia, aggression, the impression that nature will always replenish itself, waste, gluttony (in a society were food is often scarce, gluttony may be a survival instinct) and selfishness, they may be archaic reminders of our past.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
[QB]The only reason why many "native savage" cultures lived "in harmony" with nature was because they weren't numerous enough to cause perceptible harm!

---

I would disagree. When we started abandoning our tribal/nomadic way of life we had been well entrenched in almost all corners of the globe for quite some time. A cursory study of native north and south american cultures shows an appreciation for the rest of life on this planet that, while not as reverent as perhaps some uninformed dreamers may think, is still well beyond the callous nature of "civilized" man.

quote:

---

Many nomad "native savages" cultures used methods of hunting that were far from ecological (burning everything to make the animals move, corralling entire herds, large traps that killed indiscriminately, etc.) In the South American jungles, a tribe stays in one place until it uses up all the available resources. Then it moves somewhere else... According to some geologists and anthropologists, it is quite possible that our noble savage ancestor were responsible for the disappearance of several large species of land mammals 10 000 years ago...

---

I would agree that it is quite possible, the extinctions you mention. Species do disappear in nature. But a handful of species over dozens of generations doesn't compare to losing a handful a day. And I'm more than skeptical about your locust-like analogy of tribal life in south america. Any armchair anthropologists have links to lifestyle habits and ecohavok (or lack thereof) wrought by indiginous peoples? I'm skeptical they did much damage. How could they? When we (the white, european settlers) arrived here on this continent the place was still teeming with trees, fish, birds, and land animals of many shapes and sizes, in addition to the funny brown skinned savages that lived here. How could that be, if the natives had been doing damage for hundreds of thousands (a couple of million, more or less, actually) of years?

quote:

---

I believe this noble savage/bad civilization dichotomy is a false one. Humans beings were greatly shaped by their nomadic existences: compare 5 000 years of civilization to at least 50 000 years of hunter/gathering existence!

---

Roughly 10k of 'civilization' and a good 2 million years of 'primitive' life, easy (more like 3, 3.5 I think) so yes, heavily influenced by the good old days of 'prehistory' ( ) Also, I'd like to point out that cilvilization is not inherently evil. Historical records, although spotty, seem to indicate several attempts at building sustainable cultures on a large scale here on this continent when we showed up. Left to their own devices the natives no doubt would have arrived at something equivalent to our own level of technology - it just might have taken a few hundred thousand years more to do so without doing the damage we've done.

quote:

---

I think our faults are older than civilization. It just that civilization aggravated them, since our numbers are less dependent on nature…

---

huh? don't quite get you; care to elaborate?

quote:

---

In a sense, I think our problems are due to the fact that we aren’t civilized enough. We transferred many of our undesirable ancestral traits (traits that might have been useful for our survival in a tough, unforgiving world) to our civilization. Traits like tribalism, xenophobia, aggression, the impression that nature will always replenish itself, waste, gluttony (in a society were food is often scarce, gluttony may be a survival instinct) and selfishness, they may be archaic reminders of our past.

---

I've heard the argument before: if man were just better things would be ok. But as I said somewhere else today, humans as a species are NOT inherently evil, any more than all the other forms of life on this planet are. Hard to digest I know, because in saying that we're no more evil as a species than any other also means that we're not better than the rest either, that we're a part of that stinking chaotic mess.

Except . . .its not that bad, really. WE are the only part of this planet right now that doesn't seem to "fit in" with everything else, and its because we've gone and tried to set ourselves up on high above the rest of life. I'd rather a close knit tribe than the disconnected and souless ennui that engulfs me and most of my peers, thanks. Nature WILL almost always repair herself. For all the raping we've given her in the past couple of thousand years, if a virus wipes humanity out tomorrow a verdant garden will be growing in every parking lot in a thousand years time.

You mentioned waste and gluttony while failing to see that you cannot have both in a natural society. These starving savages that you think of, are they really going to be wasteful with the beasts they kill? The gluttony and girth of today's society is partially a result of our bodies' evolutionary storage patterns - but a result not from imperfections in that culture, rather in our own. We simply eat too much of material that was in more limited supply in the wild, while at the same time failing to get exercise and dietary elements that keep us healthy.

Mankind has not been an endangered species on this planet for quite some time, if ever. Our ancestors got through an iceage while other species fell apart. We have no natural predators, and our omnivorous diet means dozens of other species will starve before we do.

Unfortunately we are a big group in a small world. Our diminishing resources are more likely to induce competition and war than socialism.

The European Renaissance was complicated, but I wonder if population pressure was the major motivator? Maybe it encouraged inventiveness as a way of survival. But it also had the New World to expand into.

Science fiction writers often have humankind surviving by expanding into space; but space development is taking too long and there would only be enough resouces to save a few.

We have to fall back on using ingenuity and self-control to survive on Earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
A major characteristic of native cultures in the Americas is the importance of generosity. A small group in a big world survives better if its members share. I'm not saying all is biological imperative, but it is there.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately we are a big group in a small world. Our diminishing resources are more likely to induce competition and war than socialism.

---

quote:

---

The European Renaissance was complicated, but I wonder if population pressure was the major motivator? Maybe it encouraged inventiveness as a way of survival. But it also had the New World to expand into.

---

quote:

---

Science fiction writers often have humankind surviving by expanding into space; but space development is taking too long and there would only be enough resouces to save a few.

We have to fall back on using ingenuity and self-control to survive on Earth.

---

quote:

---

Small scale human assaults on the environment had little or no lasting impact during the early Pleistocene, although local and regional impacts began to be seen in the late Pleistocene and Neolithic (Martin, 1980; Angel, 1975; Darby, 1956)

---

seems to be the norm. We still have beavers, don't we? My point is this: yes, native/tribal lifestyles had a minimal impact on the local ecosystems at times: all animals that live impact on their surroundings. But hunting large mammals to death for food is far from implementing a policy of wiping out 2nd and 3rd removed competitiors for your own food source. Species that do this will not survive because, as we're seeing with our own case, it tends to cause massive, malignant growth of the population, along with mass exterminiations of other species for the sake of your own growth.

Our culture is the problem. Not us. We live in a society that gives man license to do what he wants , because the world is ours, while at the same time letting us off the hook for the havoc we create becaues there is some undefined evil in our souls that we have no control over. Bullshit. The only problem is our culture, not a character flaw in our species that is absent in all others. The (varied) cultures in place on this continent when we arrived were, to varying extents, stable. We know this because they were here when we got here, in sizeable numbers, yes, but so was most everything else. It wasn't one massive huron population scourging the land because the huron lifestyle wasn't a terribly damaging one; NOT that it wasn't an effective one, they were here and in no danger of disappearing, its just that they weren't trying to be the ONLY form of life, as our culture seems to think we have the right to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
and cultural adaptation can proceed at a much faster rate than biological evolution.

---

What cultural adaptation? Each generation is left to its own devices, void of any real cultural history. The laws we make, the ideals we hold, do they come from 5 generations ago? No. They're made up, for lack of anything better to hold with. Native populations almost invariably have complex social mechanisms that have been handed down over generations, fine tuned to deal with problems that arise in living day to day within a close knit society. We lack such facilities, so our laws are surreptitously brought into effect - and we can see how effective our 'rules' on sex, drugs, and personal freedoms are.

eti: just found this link. While it certainly lends itself to your arguemtn that we as a species can be quite damaging, much of the damage listed comes from the incipient agriculture timeframe, and focuses on settled human populations. As stated in the abstract/thesis:

quote:

---

However, human occupation of such ecosystems often ended in failure of the ecosystem and led to the development of nomadic tribes. Over time, however, humans learnt enough about nature to begin to live in harmony with it.

---

I take issue with a few of the things in the article, it states both that "it is a mistake to think that we had the solution in our hands sometime in the past." and at the same time "Positioned between 10 000 to 7 500 years ago, the hunter-gatherers had . . . impact on the environment may be deemed to be minimal" Seems to me a good enough solution for the moment, not to destroy the earth. It does seem to have good handle on some of the points I've made (in particular some of you may need to check the points made about our generosity, and our 'lack' of food sources. Humans have never, ever, come close to starving in the numbers our current cultural and food supply methods have created)

Back to google . . .

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:
Our culture is the problem. Not us.

---

[edited to add] I just realized that by "our culture" you might have meant Europeans, not humans as a whole. Sorry if that was what you meant. But see below.

quote:

---

We live in a society that gives man license to do what he wants , because the world is ours, while at the same time letting us off the hook for the havoc we create becaues there is some undefined evil in our souls that we have no control over. Bullshit. The only problem is our culture, not a character flaw in our species that is absent in all others.

---

quote:

---

The (varied) cultures in place on this continent when we arrived were, to varying extents, stable.

---

quote:

---

We know this because they were here when we got here, in sizeable numbers, yes, but so was most everything else. It wasn't one massive huron population scourging the land because the huron lifestyle wasn't a terribly damaging one; NOT that it wasn't an effective one, they were here and in no danger of disappearing, its just that they weren't trying to be the ONLY form of life, as our culture seems to think we have the right to be.

---

quote:

---

What cultural adaptation? Each generation is left to its own devices, void of any real cultural history. The laws we make, the ideals we hold, do they come from 5 generations ago? No. They're made up, for lack of anything better to hold with. Native populations almost invariably have complex social mechanisms that have been handed down over generations, fine tuned to deal with problems that arise in living day to day within a close knit society. We lack such facilities, so our laws are surreptitously brought into effect - and we can see how effective our 'rules' on sex, drugs, and personal freedoms are.

---

The problem is, we've moved into a period whereby social change is happening faster than we've learned to manage it. Humanity now is in the situation of a teenager who's been handed the keys to a Ferrari- our power to change the world is greater at this point than our ability to manage that power. One way or another that will change- either we will wise up or fuck up. I still have hope that it will be the former.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

quote:

---

First of all, I never said it was a "character flaw in our species that is absent in all others". Call it a character flaw if you like, but part of the point I've been making is that it's not absent in all others. The major monotheistic religions do seem to be partly guided by that principle. I don't, however, think that's primary. I think it was a seemingly plausible way of interpreting the extremely complex behaviour of humans compared to other animals

---

Apologies; what I'm trying to make you see is that a culture which supposes man is 'better' than the rest of the animals on this planet ends up using the excuse of evil for lack of a better reason as to why its all getting messed up.

quote:

---

I suspect that's more because of a high death rate . . . . but it seems like the most likely explanation.

---

I agree with this bit (the bits in between as well )

quote:

---

I think the main point of difference between you and me is what was primary- the idea that we have a "right" to dominate the land, or our ability to do so. I think the ability came first, and the culture then generated "justifications" for it. If the Hurons had developed large-scale agriculture, or learned the idea from the Aztecs, their lifestyle would no doubt have changed accordingly.

---

Again, I agree 100%; I think if you'll read back over this I've already said it somewhere - that the major religions based on the idea man was king sprang up after we'd been living like it a couple of years.

quote:

---

The problem is, we've moved into a period whereby social change is happening faster than we've learned to manage it. Humanity now is in the situation of a teenager who's been handed the keys to a Ferrari- our power to change the world is greater at this point than our ability to manage that power. One way or another that will change- either we will wise up or fuck up. I still have hope that it will be the former.

---

I agree, and it follows with what I've said about the 'natural law' and population/resource constraints.

The only bone of contention between us, at this point, I think, is this one:

Originally posted by Baldfresh:
Our culture is the problem. Not us.

That doesn't make any sense. Our culture is part of us. Without it, we're just big hairless apes- for better or for worse.

Is there something shameful, then, about gorillas? About the birds or the fish? Only to a culture which supposes itself to be the end result of evolution, to have been put here by a higher power to rule this planet. We weren't. We just have the good (or bad) fortune to be the first out of the evolutionary gate to gain self-awareness. And I also deny that without our current culture we're 'nothing more than apes'. The native, tribal populations I still argue were doing little to no lasting damage to the world, and while most (somewhat mistakenly think) they are incredibly savage, they are far more than mere apes.

Check the link I posted above if you missed it as well; on a totally unrelated note, this discussion is great! In one real sense its the most important thing we can talk about, I feel.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
I just realized that by "our culture" you might have meant Europeans, not humans as a whole. Sorry if that was what you meant.

---

To try and clarify things (because I do tend to type a lot and often don't say anything; I forget that a bbs is somewhere between a live debate and an essay writing exercise, albeit in miniature. )

"Without it, we're just big hairless apes- for better or for worse."

Is, like it or not, just a watered down version of what missionaries,(in particular Christian ones, but that just owes to the religion's prevalence) have been saying to those poor 'primititve' soceiites for years: "Look, your way of life is wrong, you're living in sin, there is only one right way to live, and that way is ours" The unspoken and underlying context is often one of "submit or be annihiliated" . . .and here's the really crazy thing: many of those savages have chosen death. Their way of life, which to us was so horrific and wrong - they would rather die than leave it. And we killed off many cultures in this way.

The reason for our fanatical insistence that ours is the one holy way: it results from the agriculture practices we adopted ~ 10k ago, a method in which all other forms of life are deemed of less value than that of man. Thus was born a self serving, cancerous culture that spread like wildfire and now threatens to consume us all (if I might be so dramatic. And why not be?)

Such thinking, in a sense, is akin to eating from the proverbial tree in the garden of eden: to think that WE have the knowledge of good and evil, the wisdom of the gods over who should live and die.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

To come back to the First Nations as an example, running buffalo off a clif was incredibly wasteful.

The Iroquois hunted the beaver to extinction in their territory, and committed genocide against the Hurons, neutrals, and erie to name the ones off the top of my head, just to secure hunting grounds.

True at the time of the beaver wars European contact had been made, but European culture certainly had not supplanted or whatever we want to say, native belief and culture.

You could argue that such actions were contrary to their culture and beliefs. That they acted immorally, in which case you could still make the argument that there is something about Western culture and morals that is inherently violent and wasteful.

But I think we're going to come back to greed and the selfishness gene if you do. And we'll come back to rationalizations; Im sure the Haundensee (sp?) and Wyandot could rationalize their behaviour just as we attempt to rationalize war and enironmental destruction today.

Every society has had wars and genocide and environmental degradation. Its just a matter scale. In fact, I think you could a good argument that all three are always immoral and considered wrong, yes even today by western culture, yet happen and are justified continously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Is there something shameful, then, about gorillas? About the birds or the fish?

---

No. Note that I said "for better or for worse". I was simply pointing out that complex culture is a fundamental, inseparable part of what it is to be human. This is a very double-edged thing, as our discussion shows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

I've heard the argument before: if man were just better things would be ok. But as I said somewhere else today, humans as a species are NOT inherently evil, any more than all the other forms of life on this planet are. Hard to digest I know, because in saying that we're no more evil as a species than any other also means that we're not better than the rest either, that we're a part of that stinking chaotic mess.

---

I am not arguing that man is « evil ». I’m arguing that modern humans picked-up a lot of behaviours that made sense in one type of environmental and cultural setting that are now, in a totally different type of setting, endangering our survival. We have become too numerous and powerful to keep on behaving like our ancestors. My arguments don't involve moral categories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

You mentioned waste and gluttony while failing to see that you cannot have both in a natural society. These starving savages that you think of, are they really going to be wasteful with the beasts they kill? The gluttony and girth of today's society is partially a result of our bodies' evolutionary storage patterns - but a result not from imperfections in that culture, rather in our own. We simply eat too much of material that was in more limited supply in the wild, while at the same time failing to get exercise and dietary elements that keep us healthy.

---

But gluttony at its source is caused by scarcity! When something is rare and hard to get, you hoard it. If it’s something hard to preserve, like meat, you eat as much as you possibly can before it rots. What are the kinds of foods that people are so attracted to? Food containing a lot of sugar and fat, two things that were scarce during most of our evolutionary history. It is the limitations imposed by nature in the past that are at the source of some of our recent problems. You should note that, once again, I am not making a moral judgement. I do not think fat people are bad or lazy. I think they’re just having trouble dealing with something that is instinctive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

As to selfishness . ... a interdependant tribal society will not survive if all anyone cares about is themselves. Your attempts at blaming our culture's failings and falsehoods on some inherent evil in humanity is wrong; I deny it, and I welcome all arguments to try and convince me otherwise. I expect there to be a few because, after all, this notion that man has something wrong with him is omnipresent in our culture.

---

I agree. However, that’s not the problem. The problem is that we have trouble extending our generosity outside of our “tribes”. I have no trouble being generous to my friends and neighbours. But how many of us are capable of generosity towards a complete stranger? We know that those in our immediate surroundings can eventual helps us in a myriad of ways. Our instinctive generosity towards them is just a reflection of our "selfishness". And our instinctive distrust of strangers is a reflection of our evolutionary past.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tackaberry:
[QB]Baldfish war genocide and environmental exploitation are all much older than missionaries and Western culture.

To come back to the First Nations as an example, running buffalo off a clif was incredibly wasteful.

The Iroquois hunted the beaver to extinction in their territory, and committed genocide against the Hurons, neutrals, and erie to name the ones off the top of my head, just to secure hunting grounds.

---

I agree, to an extent. The principle difference is this: after the Iroquois wiped out all the beavers, if all the buffalo had been eradicated by the native populations - the perpetrators would have really felt this the next winter, in the near future, they would have been made explictly aware of the results of their actions, and would have been much less likely to repeat the mistakes in the future. There was never a culture that survived which had at its core the egotistical centrism that we hold so dear.

And for all the violence inherent in small scale tribal warfare, converting to full scale war/genocide is not a common feature of it: such tactics, in evolutionary terms, will not bear out in the end because they are too much of a pyrric victory. No doubt incidents have happened in the past, would continue to happen, but by and large they would be isolated and not an underlying principle of a society.

quote:

---

You could argue that such actions were contrary to their culture and beliefs. That they acted immorally, in which case you could still make the argument that there is something about Western culture and morals that is inherently violent and wasteful.

But I think we're going to come back to greed and the selfishness gene if you do. And we'll come back to rationalizations; Im sure the Haundensee (sp?) and Wyandot could rationalize their behaviour just as we attempt to rationalize war and enironmental destruction today.

Every society has had wars and genocide and environmental degradation. Its just a matter scale. In fact, I think you could a good argument that all three are always immoral and considered wrong, yes even today by western culture, yet happen and are justified continously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Haven't there been historical examples of societies and cultures 'walking away' from what we would consider progress, to return to a more 'savage' lifestyle once they realized they way they were going forward was the wrong path, ecowise?

---

I don't know. I do know that some advocate this, notably Dr. Theodore Kaczynski. And no, I'm not saying this as a way of dismissing the notion; Kaczynski does make some very interesting points, even if the means he chose to promote his ideas were, er... excessive, and he has a bee in his bonnet about leftists. His basic thesis is that even if we are able to solve the environmental problems created by industrial society, we will still be living in a world that is fundamentally at odds with our biological nature. I think he's too pessimistic, but it's an interesting idea.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

In other words, I don't think that our problems are caused by the inherently "evil" nature of European civilization. Our cultural differences are nothing but a thin veneer covering up our fundamentally similar biological needs.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
I am essentially arguing that so-called primitive societies didn’t generally cause has much harm as we are causing now simply because they weren’t numerous or technologically advanced enough to do it. Their numbers were always checked by disease, hunger and conflict. There was a natural equilibrium between humans and their environment simply because humans would die off if their population density increased. They weren’t any wiser or “better” than we are. And I believe that many of our modern problems are caused by the fact that we aren’t any wiser or “better” than them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:
I will be checking the link when I get a chance; looks interesting Mike.

I agree to a certain extent, but I suspect if we study the underlying social, cultural, and spiritual tennets of those peoples we'll still find that they are indeed 'wiser' than us, in that the idea of 'man as king' had been largely discarded as false. The reason for that perhaps stems from painful lessons to a tribe when they failed to act in relative accord with their environment, and then handed down as gospel to future generations. We've lost that, of course - and because we can 'outsource' the misery that accompanies our way of life to starving 3rd world nations we can convince ourselves that what we're doing is ok, that it is right. At least partially; most of us know either deep down or even outright that this way of life is incredibly flawed and not sustainable. However, we continue, because 'over here' life is more or less grand, and 'over there' they have the carrot of our life to strive for.

---

Yes, and the reasons why we do this are, at their bottom, connected with behaviours developed during our hunter/gatherer past. A relatively nomadic culture doesn’t need to think beyond a few years. And we have trouble thinking about the consequences of our acts in long stretches of time. A tribal culture doesn’t care much about those outside their tribal structure. Hence, we have trouble caring about people in faraway countries, unless they have something we want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
[QB]Yes, and the reasons why we do this are, at their bottom, connected with behaviours developed during our hunter/gatherer past. A relatively nomadic culture doesn’t need to think beyond a few years. And we have trouble thinking about the consequences of our acts in long stretches of time. A tribal culture doesn’t care much about those outside their tribal structure. Hence, we have trouble caring about people in faraway countries, unless they have something we want.

---

Yes, yes, I agree. The selfish gene, which we've been discussing, ended up transcending individual units to end up encompassing a group of individuals. Where it will or may end up going beyond that would be quite a matter of speculation, but interesting. Key point, again, is that we agree that there isn't anything inherently 'good' or 'right' about a tribal way of life, just that it does seem to allow for the continued existence of humans as a species by minimizing the damage to the ecosystem, correct? If partially by the crude methods of intertribal violence, disease, etc. I won't include famine here because that really doesn't occur nearly as often as we think (see the link given above; maybe I'm lazy, but a 2 1/2 day work week sounds pretty swank )

quote:

---

That’s why I’m arguing that we need more civilization, not less! We need to fight against those instincts that are causing us, and will cause us in the long term, serious arm!

---

I mean, I hate to advise technological fixes, but I think widespread availability and acceptance of birth control will deal with the problem a lot faster than getting wiser as a species will, whether genetically or in terms of a new, fundamentally wiser kind of culture.

I suspect running out of fossil fuels is likely to have an impact as well. By the way, on the pre-technological societies and ecological problems, google "Easter island ecological disaster"

I am wondering about one thing. I'm losing track a little, but is the person who considers European culture to be a major exception to the general historical trend of wiser, non-technological cultures the same as the one who said nothing sticks from generation to generation any more so we retain no wisdom and have to make everything up from scratch? If so, how do you reconcile these ideas? I mean, if we're constantly rebuilding from nada, no continuity, then the "Western" culture now is a *different culture* from the one that did all the conquering and colonizing. Indeed, there's been a new culture every generation, and you can't blame the sins of any of them on any of the others. I don't find this plausible--of course there's continuity. Legal, political, institutional, literary, yadda yadda yadda.

Finally, a question: Say you posit that non-technological cultures were (and to some extent, still are) wiser than our own, especially with regards to the environment. And say you posit that this was at least in part *because* of their very technological limitations, and because they relied more on hunting/gathering and less on agriculture.
What are we supposed to do with that insight beyond feel guilty? Dump all the technology, including by and large agriculture, so we can be wiser? First, it's not going to happen. Second, we're too numerous; if we tried that, we'd strip the landscape bare in the process of mostly dying of starvation. After which, we'd certainly be too few to really trouble the world, but the whole world would look like Easter Island by that time.

Finally, as an Atheist the whole thing looks to me an awful lot like an Eden argument. People can say they aren't thinking of all those other groups as Noble Savages until they're blue in the face, but it still looks like creating the Imaginary Indian to me. Hint: In real life, not all non-European cultures were the same. It's perfectly likely that some, given their available information, were wise as all get out, and others were not very wise at all. And when it comes to Eden, taking the fruit was the *right thing* to do. Knowledge is a Good Thing, and turning one's back on it is not wisdom but philosophical cowardice. Problems are caused by partial knowledge, and the solution is to make that knowledge more complete, not to try to go back to not having it. Making knowledge complete may involve taking on board some of the insights people from various non-"Western" cultures have had, mind you. But dumping all the ideas ecologists have had, say, because they're "Western" and so partake of the original sin of "Westernness" is just looney. Not that anyone here has suggested that, exactly--or indeed made any overt prescriptions--but this seems to be the general direction implied.
In the interests of combatting this doubtless distorted impression, perhaps someone would care to say what sort of prescriptions they think *could* flow from the "non-tech cultures are wiser" position?

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
I am wondering about one thing. I'm losing track a little, but is the person who considers European culture to be a major exception to the general historical trend of wiser, non-technological cultures the same as the one who said nothing sticks from generation to generation any more so we retain no wisdom and have to make everything up from scratch? If so, how do you reconcile these ideas? I mean, if we're constantly rebuilding from nada, no continuity, then the "Western" culture now is a *different culture* from the one that did all the conquering and colonizing. Indeed, there's been a new culture every generation, and you can't blame the sins of any of them on any of the others. I don't find this plausible--of course there's continuity. Legal, political, institutional, literary, yadda yadda yadda.

---

One and the same. The only thing which really carries over is the underlying ideology that we are made to rule this planet, that we can do as we wish and get away with it. Rules for how to deal with, say, infidelity in tribal societies, they get fine tuned over generation after generation: we're talking about microcultures that existed and evolved in fairly pressurized environments for thousands of years. The traits that resulted were ones that unquestionably worked, were effective for that particular group, because if not the group would have suffered, possibly gotten wiped out (I'm not suggesting infidelity would solely have destroyed a culture; just that laws would have invariably evolved towards what was best for the people)

Do we have that now? No, not one bit. The continuity you speak of consists largely of business enterprises, self-serving creations that propagate and exist for themselves like any other industry. Which is why our drug laws don't work. Why our prohibition of gays or prostitution don't/won't work. They have no basis or foundation in trial and error.

quote:

---

Finally, a question: Say you posit that non-technological cultures were (and to some extent, still are) wiser than our own, especially with regards to the environment. And say you posit that this was at least in part *because* of their very technological limitations, and because they relied more on hunting/gathering and less on agriculture.
What are we supposed to do with that insight beyond feel guilty?

---

No, we can't go back to the jungle, I'm not ignorant of the fact that we've paved over it and there's a parking lot there now. But the idea that this world is ours, that we can "think" our way out of this mess, that we can 'beat' mother nature, it will lead to our own destruction.

quote:

---

Hint: In real life, not all non-European cultures were the same.

---

Not exactly the same, no. I can't repeat it enough, and I don't think I've heard anyone agree with me yet: the idea that we are the lords of this planet, the end-result of evolution, is widespread and accepted in our culture. We are caught in a machine that keeps going faster and faster, our food production methods beget more people beget more food production, and untill we accept that we just aren't that smart, that we won't be able to come up with a perfect utopia without destroying the world first, then we have no chance.

quote:

---

It's perfectly likely that some, given their available information, were wise as all get out, and others were not very wise at all.

---

You mean that our culture of voracious agriculture was offered as an option to the others: "join us and farm your land, or we'll kill you and farm your land anyway"? And that those who didn't join were the "not wise" ones?

quote:

---

And when it comes to Eden, taking the fruit was the *right thing* to do. Knowledge is a Good Thing, and turning one's back on it is not wisdom but philosophical cowardice. Problems are caused by partial knowledge, and the solution is to make that knowledge more complete, not to try to go back to not having it. Making knowledge complete may involve taking on board some of the insights people from various non-"Western" cultures have had, mind you. But dumping all the ideas ecologists have had, say, because they're "Western" and so partake of the original sin of "Westernness" is just looney. Not that anyone here has suggested that, exactly--or indeed made any overt prescriptions--but this seems to be the general direction implied.

---

No, as I stated its too late to go back now. But holding with the insanely egotistical belief that homo sapiens will ever be able to have its cake and eat it, to live like gods on earth and solve all the issues, it will destroy us. Is destroying us, and much around us.

quote:

---

In the interests of combatting this doubtless distorted impression, perhaps someone would care to say what sort of prescriptions they think *could* flow from the "non-tech cultures are wiser" position?

---

I'd like to move away from the notion that the more 'primitive' cultures are inherently smarter than we are. Its just looking at it from the outside: we are, by many educated accounts, on the verge of a massive collapse, ecologically and socially. Our population has grown insanely, exponentially in the last 10k years or so. In the 3 million years or so leading up to that, homo sapiens had spread to pretty much every part of the world, but the population growth was minimal. Small amounts of ecological 'damage' may have taken place, but probably not any more than is normal when a large step forward in evolutionary advances take place. Our way has brought us to the edge - their way was carrying them along with at most a few bumps. So not by any inherent difference in their humanity, just in their culture, they were doing a helluva lot better than we are.

quote:

---

It's perfectly likely that some, given their available information, were wise as all get out, and others were not very wise at all.

---

And Baldfresh responded

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

You mean that our culture of voracious agriculture was offered as an option to the others: "join us and farm your land, or we'll kill you and farm your land anyway"? And that those who didn't join were the "not wise" ones?

---

No. Where the fuck did that come from? What I'm saying is that cultures have incredible diversity, and not all of them in the past necessarily made a ton of sense even within their setting any more than ours does. Envisioning them all as essentially at one in their perfect adaptation to their mode of existence and benevolent wisdom with respect to the natural world is not just false, it ultimately derives from paternalism. I was referring specifically to an article called "Construction of the Imaginary Indian", written by Marcia Crosby, herself a first nations woman. It points out that the fairly old tendency to envision natives as a kind of inverse to all the bad features of western culture is no more respect for them than the equally old tendency to consider them brutes lacking all the good features of western culture. In both cases what's going on is not an engagement with what's there, it's mainly projection for our own political/cultural purposes. When we denounce them as savages, it's not because they're savages but because we need to self-aggrandize. When we laud them as wise and natural, it's not because they're wise and natural, but because we want to use them to point out sins in our own culture. Ultimately self-referential in both cases. And what I'm saying is that it's actually more respectful if we acknowledge that all the other cultures really are cultures, plural, and that they are cultures in the same sense as our own: Complicated things put together fallibly and serving the purposes of various different groups within the culture, purposes often in conflict.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
No. Where the fuck did that come from?

---

Apologies for any offense. I said that because, quite literally, that IS what has happened to almost all the other cultures in the world. Despite you thinking:

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that cultures have incredible diversity, and not all of them in the past necessarily made a ton of sense even within their setting any more than ours does. Envisioning them all as essentially at one in their perfect adaptation to their mode of existence and benevolent wisdom with respect to the natural world is not just false, it ultimately derives from paternalism.

---

Still seems to me incorrect; the cultures in place for each individual tribe worked, and were right for their settings, because otherwise the tribe would have suffered and eventually fallen away due to naturally selective forces. A group living a more 'natural' lifestyle (if we must use that word, although it isn't correct to do so) will have cultural habits that work for its members, because dozens of generations of fine tuning had made it that way. Some minor flaws were no doubt still present, would always be varyingly present as forces pushed and pulled on the culture, but without most everything working properly the society itself would not survive for very many generations. A perfect mode of existence? No. A benevolent mode of existence? No. Just one that works within the confines of the rest of the environment.

Its something we sorely lack in our lifestyle. 'Modern' society can't even come up with a good argument as to whether or not women should be allowed to go topless, so please don't try and tell me that the 'laws' we have in place are anything more than arbitrarily laid out by those who have managed to seize power.

quote:

---

When we laud them as wise and natural, it's not because they're wise and natural, but because we want to use them to point out sins in our own culture.

---

Again, I will agree that its not some inherent intelligence in them that makes them 'better', but because they do allow themselves to be governed by nature's laws on population control and food procurment (I think I listed these waaay at the start somewhere) they were able to survive with little to no impact on this planet for some 2 or 3 million years. In just ten thousand anyone with any sense can see our way of living has brought us to the brink of annihilation, and indeed has already done so for many species. This is the primary difference between 'our' culture (which encompasses almost all of humanity now) and 'their' culture. Any other difference is superficial, as this key way of thinking and living has made all the difference in our existences.

quote:

---

Which means that, yeah, they too can be full of shit sometimes. There was class and class struggle in pre-contact Hawaii, the Haida raided for slaves, Easter Island got progressively denuded of nearly all vegetation for purposes of conspicuous consumption by a noble class before they ever met a European, archaeological digs in the southern US have relatively recently uncovered evidence of genocidal warfare that wiped out whole tribal federations, and let's not even think about the Aztecs (who, aside from the whole human sacrifice gig and fairly intrusive agriculture, busily subjugated various tribes, some of whom probably were closer to the fairly-peaceful, in harmony with nature ideal). Non-Europeans were human too, had human failings and dysfunctions. Some of them had some good understandings of and respect for nature and natural processes. Others were just as grab-what-you-can as we are, they just hadn't gotten as good at it yet. Trying to take on board some sort of Ur-Native ideal isn't paying attention to real other cultures, it's just New Age mysticism.[/qb]

---

Not much I can say to convice you, I guess. They managed to get along fine with the world for a couple of million years; any specific error you point out in their way of living is akin to a smoker pointing out that some non-smokers get cancer: "Look! We're not the only ones! Therefore it can't be the cigarettes!". One thing I will agree with is that, as in the instance of the Rapa Nui on Easter Island, there have been cases similar to ours where the native populations abused nature and ignored the laws she governs by. And what happened to them will happen to us unless we acknowledge the falsehood that we can ever outsmart her. I maintain, however, that there were dozens of microcultures that were getting along fine with nature before our method of agriculture came along and supplanted all else, and that these stable cultures were the majority - because if they were not stable they would not have been there for the length of time that they were.

Anyway, I've said quite a bit, I'll close with a couple of more light hearted bits:

Couldn't find the actual joke online, but it goes something like this:

A missionary goes to an island in the south pacific to try and convince all the inhabitants to give up their heathen ways and come to civilization on the mainland. He finds N'goki, a lccal tribe member, fishing on the beach one sunny day:

M: You should give up this way of life, N'goki, and come join us in the city

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can go to school, learn to read and write and get educated

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can get a career, work hard and earn money

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can retire in 30 years to a tropical paradise, and spend all day fishing on the beach . . .

H.J. Simpson: "All you do is eat and sleep and mate and roll around in your own filth and mate and eat and - where do I sign up?"

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

To grossly summarize, Europe was multply geographically lucky. Enough water so that forests would regrow after getting cut down. East west connections so that agriculture could move relatively easily. More large domesticable animals than anywhere else (providing a pool for disease, which turned out to be an advantage when confronting people whithout that experience). Broken up enough so that it could not be conquered (not even the Romans got to Scandanavia) so that you skip town if things got hot or you had an idea you wanted to try out.

That was the difference between Europe and China. Columbus wandered from court to court until he came up with financing. The Chinese emporer shut down the exploration fleet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Not much I can say to convice you, I guess. They managed to get along fine with the world for a couple of million years; any specific error you point out in their way of living is akin to a smoker pointing out that some non-smokers get cancer: "Look! We're not the only ones! Therefore it can't be the cigarettes!".

---

quote:

---

One thing I will agree with is that, as in the instance of the Rapa Nui on Easter Island, there have been cases similar to ours where the native populations abused nature and ignored the laws she governs by. And what happened to them will happen to us unless we acknowledge the falsehood that we can ever outsmart her. I maintain, however, that there were dozens of microcultures that were getting along fine with nature before our method of agriculture came along and supplanted all else, and that these stable cultures were the majority - because if they were not stable they would not have been there for the length of time that they were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Not much I can say to convice you, I guess. They managed to get along fine with the world for a couple of million years; any specific error you point out in their way of living is akin to a smoker pointing out that some non-smokers get cancer: "Look! We're not the only ones! Therefore it can't be the cigarettes!". One thing I will agree with is that, as in the instance of the Rapa Nui on Easter Island, there have been cases similar to ours where the native populations abused nature and ignored the laws she governs by. And what happened to them will happen to us unless we acknowledge the falsehood that we can ever outsmart her. I maintain, however, that there were dozens of microcultures that were getting along fine with nature before our method of agriculture came along and supplanted all else, and that these stable cultures were the majority - because if they were not stable they would not have been there for the length of time that they were.

Anyway, I've said quite a bit, I'll close with a couple of more light hearted bits:

Couldn't find the actual joke online, but it goes something like this:

A missionary goes to an island in the south pacific to try and convince all the inhabitants to give up their heathen ways and come to civilization on the mainland. He finds N'goki, a lccal tribe member, fishing on the beach one sunny day:

M: You should give up this way of life, N'goki, and come join us in the city

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can go to school, learn to read and write and get educated

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can get a career, work hard and earn money

N: Why would I do that?

M: So you can retire in 30 years to a tropical paradise, and spend all day fishing on the beach . . .

H.J. Simpson: "All you do is eat and sleep and mate and roll around in your own filth and mate and eat and - where do I sign up?"

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

---

I think you romanticise life in “equilibrium with nature”. Tropical paradises are few and far between, and they can only sustain a small, stable, population. Most places on Earth are full of disease, parasites and wild animals that can kill you. Life was often pretty brutal and short. Old people were rare, young people died in droves. Their lack of control of their lives and their environment made them feel powerless; they would therefore often fall victim to the crudest forms of mysticism. You wouldn’t last long living like this…

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

If you chase 300 bison over a cliff and only manage to process half of them before they start to rot; well there are millions of bison to replenish the herd. [Incidently, once Indians had horses, it was easier and more fun to ride right up to a running buffalo and shoot it.]

The behaviour of a small group with a small ecological footprint is not appropriate now that we are a huge group with a huge footprint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
The thing is that the way in which small native groups lived in the past was appropriate because they were small. So, when they damaged the immediate environment they could move to a different area until the damage repaired itself.

If you chase 300 bison over a cliff and only manage to process half of them before they start to rot; well there are millions of bison to replenish the herd. [Incidently, once Indians had horses, it was easier and more fun to ride right up to a running buffalo and shoot it.]

The behaviour of a small group with a small ecological footprint is not appropriate now that we are a huge group with a huge footprint.

Agriculture is a more efficient way to use land. A hunting family needs to range pretty far to feed itself, a farming family can hopefully survive while staying on its own patch of land. Therefore you can have a higher population filling up the land; and the only way for the land to support hunters again would be for most of the people to leave or die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:

Unfortunately we are a big group in a small world. Our diminishing resources are more likely to induce competition and war than socialism.

---

Exactly. Which is why this predatory nature of middle class capitalism based on consumption must go. The Yanks are less than 5% of the world's popul'n and yet produce a disproportionate
amount of global pollution. Imagine the other 95 per cent of us attempting to consume in a similar manner. I don't think it's a matter of choice at some point. We'll either revert back to some form of tribalism/communalism or socialism based on producing something other than plastic widgets, or we will perish. I think capitalism will ultimately kill the planet and reduce our non-renewable resources to dangerous levels if there isn't a major change in the way we worship false economic gods.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
I don't think any of us has denied that our lifestyle, as it exists now, is bad for the long-term well-being of our species and others. Where has anyone said that? To take your analogy further, what we're saying is, they're smoking cigarettes too, it's just that they don't have access to as many cigarettes as we do.

---

I think its time to revise our bone of contention again, back to one of my original points: that by and large the societies that existed (and to some extent still exist) almost never have as part of their ideology that man is made to rule this earth and can do as he likes, and nor do they live their lives like that; we've mentioned minor eco-damage, and I can concede that as fact as long as I get to remind you that its probably not any more than is normal when a highly versatile and effective competitior/evolutionary step forward springs up in nature. Or, in the cases where it does end up being more pronounced, the groups in question will end up wiping themselves out or at best suffering immensely because of it.

I see our religions, and as a better example today our corporations, as being founded on not necessarily greed or power hunger (though thats part of it, a self-perpetuating part) but more explicitly on the idea that we can do as we like because its why we're here. Tis notion of us as rulers came about after our cultural/agricultural style of living had us existing at the expense of all other life for a number of generations, after the old ideas of man's purpose, previously handed down over the course of thousands of years, had disappeared. It continues today, and is found like so much background noise in our entire lives.

To be more concise, its not simply a matter of us smoking more cigarettes than any other group, its us holding dear to the belief that cigarettes are what we're made to smoke.

quote:

---

It's not entirely clear how long they were around as continuous entities. Quite possibly they had their rises and falls as well. We know that at the time Europeans arrived the particular groups there were doing reasonably well. But if I'm not mistaken there's archaeological evidence of other groups that didn't do as well. Maybe Europeans just happened to run into those that had been more successful than others. In the absence of more evidence, this seems more plausible. Why should we expect that we're virtually the only group ever to go down the wrong path? The very fact that the path of extreme consumption is so tempting makes it seem likely that many other groups should run into trouble. Easter Island, and to a lesser extent New Zealand, were particularly vulnerable environments, which is why we see evidence of such things there. Maybe the indigenous peoples of the Americas were successful simply because it takes a lot longer to deplete the resources of two continents than a small island. Seems like a more plausible scenario to me, somehow.[/qb]

---

Yes! Yes! I agree 100% that there were other groups, other that may have fallen away. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest that there were, over the course of those couple of million years, dozens of groups that simply didn't make it because of any number of reasons. But the thing is, thats ok, because where one fell, there was another to take its place. If ours falls . . . then what?

Our singular way of thinking that this planet belongs to us, it doesn't allow for other cultures - there is no room for the nomad when a malignant and exponential culture needs more farmland to feed its growing population that will need more farmland that will feed more . . . in the end it doesn't even really allow for other forms of life, other than the ones we 'like'. It sets man up as God, to be frank, and quite presumpuous to assume that mankind will be the end product of evolution, that our species will go on forever and ever, that we are in essence going to trancend to godhood simply by reasoning out our problems. As I've stated, we can't even come up with a good 'reasoned' argument for very simple problems. Or more specifically, we can come up with all kinds of reasoned arguments, but due to a lack of sound board to bounce these ideas off, we make up rules and then try and force the population to conform to them.

'The big fish eat the little ones' is good, as long as there isn't just one fish left in the end, just like growth is good, as long as its not uncontrolled cancerous growth, just as its okay to be at the top of the food chain, as long as you don't try and control it.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]

Baldfresh; I think it's not ideology, it more like: "I need to feed my family and who are you to tell me I can't?"

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
[QB]I think you romanticise life in “equilibrium with nature”. Tropical paradises are few and far between, and they can only sustain a small, stable, population. Most places on Earth are full of disease, parasites and wild animals that can kill you. Life was often pretty brutal and short. Old people were rare, young people died in droves. Their lack of control of their lives and their environment made them feel powerless; they would therefore often fall victim to the crudest forms of mysticism. You wouldn’t last long living like this…

---

And I know I romanticise nothing. Spend an afternoon studying primitive sociology at the library, tell me about the levels of crime, of mental illness, of reports on 'satisfaction' with this kind of life. Oh, by all means, feel free to point out specific examples of specific problems in tribes, I know that there is at least one native population that struggles with depression (can't remember which one) But the idea that tribal life was misery, that the people felt helpless and were terrified and always running from sabre-toothed tigers is nothing more than a goddamn lie propagated by our culture. Its everywhere, and most believe it, but its still a lie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Yes! Yes! I agree 100% that there were other groups, other that may have fallen away. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest that there were, over the course of those couple of million years, dozens of groups that simply didn't make it because of any number of reasons. But the thing is, thats ok, because where one fell, there was another to take its place. If ours falls . . . then what?

---

quote:

---

Our singular way of thinking that this planet belongs to us, it doesn't allow for other cultures

---

I think the real bone of contention is your conviction that it's singular. It's a trait you'd expect to appear quite often, based on evolutionary principles, and would just be another example of evolution favouring the short term at the expense of the long. Groups that felt that they had some sort of birthright would tend to gain short term advantages over groups that didn't, and outcompete them. And I agree with Surferosad that we need more civilization, not less- that we need more constraints on our behaviour to make us plan for the long term. Incidentally, from what I recall this was Kaczynski's biggest beef with industrial society- that it forced us to give up some of our freedom and autonomy, because of the necessity of these constraints.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Baldfresh; I think it's not ideology, it more like: "I need to feed my family and who are you to tell me I can't?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
I think the real bone of contention is your conviction that it's singular. It's a trait you'd expect to appear quite often, based on evolutionary principles, and would just be another example of evolution favouring the short term at the expense of the long. Groups that felt that they had some sort of birthright would tend to gain short term advantages over groups that didn't, and outcompete them. And I agree with Surferosad that we need more civilization, not less- that we need more constraints on our behaviour to make us plan for the long term. Incidentally, from what I recall this was Kaczynski's biggest beef with industrial society- that it forced us to give up some of our freedom and autonomy, because of the necessity of these constraints.

---

But then if it was that advantageous evolutionarily speaking, it would be some other society well before us that had managed to take over the whole shoot'n'shebang, wouldn't it? Not only that, it wouldn't just be a single homo sapien species that had managed to dominate its entire niche, we would presumably see only one avian or aquatic 'champion', after all, how many milliions of years have birds and fish been around? The point is that such a route is invariably a dead end for the species. I will agree that time and again the selfish gene may try and trade of short term for long term gains, but time and again any species that does so will find itself wiped out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

But then if it was that advantageous evolutionarily speaking, it would be some other society well before us that had managed to take over the whole shoot'n'shebang, wouldn't it? Not only that, it wouldn't just be a single homo sapien species that had managed to dominate its entire niche, we would presumably see only one avian or aquatic 'champion', after all, how many milliions of years have birds and fish been around? The point is that such a route is invariably a dead end for the species.

I will agree that time and again the selfish gene may try and trade of short term for long term gains, but time and again any species that does so will find itself wiped out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
So you did make the same argument, Surferosad! The problem with these long threads is that when I work on a post I forget just what was said way back in the forest of verbiage; and I am not sure if I am thinking new thoughts or repeating someone else's. Please don't sue me.

Baldfresh; I think it's not ideology, it more like: "I need to feed my family and who are you to tell me I can't?"

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

And I know I romanticise nothing. Spend an afternoon studying primitive sociology at the library, tell me about the levels of crime, of mental illness, of reports on 'satisfaction' with this kind of life. Oh, by all means, feel free to point out specific examples of specific problems in tribes, I know that there is at least one native population that struggles with depression (can't remember which one) But the idea that tribal life was misery, that the people felt helpless and were terrified and always running from sabre-toothed tigers is nothing more than a goddamn lie propagated by our culture. Its everywhere, and most believe it, but its still a lie.

Try googling the words "original affluent society" and see what you get. Here's one example, there are quite a few more. I suggest you all take a 1/2 hour or so to read it, actually, I'm an unintelligent young pup who isn't doing much more than trying to explain to a group of very intelligent and well spoken people what he read in a book somewhere; these are hardcore anthropologists who have done in-depth studies - and come up with facts that will surprise you and go against everything you've been taught, everything that our culture has to keep telling us for the sake of its own continuation.

---

Of course tribal life wasn't misery! That’s not what I'm saying. Most people, everywhere and in most cultures, find ways to come to terms with life's difficulties. Most of the inhabitants of the western world aren’t miserable. Many are unhappy, true, but I wonder how much of this unhappiness is due to the fact that many of us are exposed to a lot of different kinds of information and influences. We know about the past (some of us do). We wonder about the future. Our horizons seem sometimes narrow, but they’re actually wider than we think. Wide enough, at least, to allow us realise that there is more than one single way to live. If you didn’t know anything about hunter/gatherers, would you still long for that way of life?

Now imagine that you live in one small tribe that rarely gets visited by someone from the outside. You live pretty much like your parents did. They live pretty much like their ancestors too. No real change usually happens, and when it does, it comes gradually. There’s no reading, no writing. There are oral stories, continually evolving to give sense to the world you live in. How can you not be happy? You don’t know anything else, and when something is amiss, you usually have time to adapt... Your life may be miserable by someone else's cultural standards. But it won't be miserable from your point of view. You have nothing to compare it to. And even if you do have some knowledge of something else, you’re so adapted to living in a certain way that you can’t possibly live in some other way without destroying your sense of self.

Look, I agree with you that if we keep going the way we are, we will probably destroy ourselves. But we can’t dump western civilization in its entirety and go back to stone age. We have to use what we know, and improve on what we already have.

Although I do put man above other living creatures (except, maybe cats ) in the sense that I believe we are more complex and capable of a greater sense of consciousness, I do not believe that other living creatures exist solely to serve us. And I do believe that we should try to live in equilibrium with nature! It is arrogant to think that we have the right to destroy and use the Earth as if it belongs to us. We’re newcomers, we should be more respectful. Also, if we don’t live in equilibrium with nature, our living conditions will deteriorate, our outlook and knowledge will narrow, and we will face extinction. If we do become extinct, the wondrous diversity of nature will be re-established in a few million years, a blink of geological time. And we’ll be forgotten.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:
...but thats still an ideology - one that puts man above all other forms of life, one that in essence says if it could save one human baby's life we would be right in wiping out an entire other species of animal X, fish Y, or bird Z. And in the end such thinking will wipe us out, along with however much else we manage to take with us.

---

I don't disagree with you on the general trend. What I mean is that it is not so much ideology, as in "save one baby's life", as it is immediacy, as in "save my baby's life." Though if you expand your idea of kinship to include all humanity, then you presumably expand your family feeling as well.

People who live as hunters or as farmers feel like a part of their environment; as our population becomes more urban, the connection becomes weaker and maybe it has to be taught more explicitly.