Primitivism Discussion

[Virus]

But where they good or bad for peoples stress?

Hehe.

Primitivists fail to realize that without agriculture, animal husbandry or food storage 90% of their time will be devoted to finding enough food to survive or an animal to skin to make some shoes. Oh yeah and going to the toilet is now a chore where you have to squat over a hole you've dug. And there's no bog-roll, you have to use your hand or a leaf.

Idyllic, carefree, leisured lifestyle it was not. More like living on the knife-edge of survival.

 

[EGarrett]

That's the very thing I've been saying: Pointing at the proponent's hypocrisy is *not* evidence that an idea is irrational or invalid. It is a critique of the person, not of the idea.

I wasn't agreeing with you. If someone has a view that people *should* do something, and they can do so themselves within all reason, but they don't do it...then their worldview is either incomplete, a self-contradiction, or they don't actually believe what they are claiming. These make their claims invalid or irrational.

It's reasonable to bring this up when the person puts their worldview up for discussion. I don't know how you could discuss an idea while leaving out glaring evidence of its invalidity or irrationality. Or requiring more information to clear-up or expose what appears to be obvious contradictions.

If you go through my posts, I began by asking the OP what's stopping him from living the primitive lifestyle. He didn't answer. I responded again saying it's serious question and requesting that he answer. He didn't. I then asked WHAT his version of primitivism was that also justified use of the internet. There are not insults or personal attacks. He refused to answer so the discussion couldn't move beyond there.

That aside, though, the OP actually has mentioned a few reasons for why he doesn't want to live a (semi-)primitivist life. Without going through the entire thread again, one of his reasons was the fear that it might ruin his sex life, if I recall correctly.

He was free to tell me that he was not actually a primitivist at any point. He just ran away from the topic instead of answering clarifying questions. At that point, I just assumed he was disingenuous and did in fact, hold what he fancied to be a "primitivist" worldview but was incapable of actually examining it.

BTW, if he had asked "what do you think of primitivists" instead of implying that he was one, my reply would've ended up the same. The overwhelming majority of Primitivists tend to be dishonest, deluded, or ignorant. Much like communism, it's a naive and infantile idea that falls apart when it comes time to put it into practice. Simple questions can expose this quickly.

 

[Cavemonster]

Hehe.

Primitivists fail to realize that without agriculture, animal husbandry or food storage 90% of their time will be devoted to finding enough food to survive or an animal to skin to make some shoes. Oh yeah and going to the toilet is now a chore where you have to squat over a hole you've dug. And there's no bog-roll, you have to use your hand or a leaf.

Idyllic, carefree, leisured lifestyle it was not. More like living on the knife-edge of survival.

This is one of those myths that it pains me to see repeated so often in skeptical circles.

Although we don't have perfect knowledge, the research with the !Kung and other groups suggests that , based on these more contemporary hunter-gatherers, primitive humans only spent an average of about 20 hours a week gathering food.

So to say 90% of their time is simply false.

 

[Cavemonster]

If someone has a view that people *should* do something, and they can do so themselves within all reason, but they don't do it...then their worldview is either incomplete, a self-contradiction, or they don't actually believe what they are claiming. These make their claims invalid or irrational.

It's reasonable to bring this up when the person puts their worldview up for discussion. I don't know how you could discuss an idea while leaving out glaring evidence of its invalidity or irrationality. Or requiring more information to clear-up or expose what appears to be obvious contradictions.

If you go through my posts, I began by asking the OP what's stopping him from living the primitive lifestyle. He didn't answer.

...

He was free to tell me that he was not actually a primitivist at any point. He just ran away from the topic instead of answering clarifying questions.

He stated several times on the first page that he wasn't any kind of pure primitivist.

True, but some (such as myself) only advocate portions of the concept. I think there are aspects of life both helped and hindered by advancement. I guess this makes me a diet-primitivist / pseudo-primitivist / weak-primitivist.
I do embrace the advances in thought (yes, I do realize that most are a result of technology), medicine (ditto), and communication/art (not as much, but still).
I do not embrace the basic lifestyle, consumerism, and the types of stress that modern life entails.
For me, it is far more nuanced than "technology bad, eat dead carcass good".

And then again, he is constantly explaining his position.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6988246#post6988246

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6988064#post6988064

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6988674#post6988674

You come here and demand answers that have already been given over and over again. You treat as though he had said "Everyone must live a purely primitive lifestyle". When he has made is incredibly clear that instead he is engaged in an ongoing exploration of which elements of modern society and which of primitive culture are harmful and helpful, both for himself and generally for society. I don't see him claiming any universal prescriptions.

 

[EGarrett]

He stated several times on the first page that he wasn't any kind of pure primitivist.

...which is taken into account in my previous reply. I asked him several times to clarify what his version of primitivism was. He avoided the question.

 

[Cavemonster]

...which is taken into account in my previous reply. I asked him several times to clarify what his version of primitivism was. He avoided the question.

He directed you to the many posts where he had already addressed this.

Read any of my posts in the thread.

That's not an evasion, that's a very clear answer.

Because he had already answered it in the thread, in just about every post he made.
He stated in the OP very clearly that he'd expand on his personal view. He did so before you entered the thread, in four separate posts, a quarter of the short thread up to that point, and he continued to do so.

Between the two of you, I think you were far more obligated to read his posts than he was to repeat himself so you wouldn't have to.

This:

What's stopping you? Put the computer away and walk out to the woods.

Is not a legitimate, respectful question in the context of what he had contributed to the thread. It is a snarky dismissal, completely ignoring everything he had said.

When you behave like as ass, you do not deserve to be answered seriously.

 

[MatildaGage]

For many of the "overpopulation" gurus, people are pollution, the #1 problem of this planet. They much rather have a clean, nice planet with a lot fewer people.

Of course they only mean that billions of other people they don't know personally should die to achieve this utopia, never themselves or anyone they know.

Are these "gurus" who advocate premature death a few random nutters or the norm?

Most vocal opponents to overpopulation that I'm familiar with--and I've read quite a bit about it--advocate controlling population growth, not premature death.

And they (me included) do their part by deliberately creating a family with negative population growth.

 

[Atwill]

@EGarrett
Cavemonster has already addressed a large portion of the points I wanted to comment on, so I hope you don't mind if I only pick up on one thing.

I wasn't agreeing with you. If someone has a view that people *should* do something, and they can do so themselves within all reason, but they don't do it...then their worldview is either incomplete, a self-contradiction, or they don't actually believe what they are claiming. These make their claims invalid or irrational.

Well, once again, no, they do not. To be honest, I'm a bit at a loss here, because I don't know how much clearer I could express this point: Hypocrisy is a character flaw that does *not* invalidate an idea. If a convicted murderer proposes the idea that murder should remain illegal, then he may be an enormous hypocrite, but this does not affect the validity of his idea. Likewise, if a hardcore primitivist promotes his ideal lifestyle, while enjoying a conveniently modern life in the city, for example, then this is merely evidence of his personal inability/unwillingness to comply with his promoted ideas, but those ideas remain unaffected and have to be addressed independently from the proponent's behavior.

In an earlier post, Bez said that hypocrisy is something he *personally* considers to be a relevant thing to point out. I don't quite share this position, but at the very least I can see where he's coming from. If someone goes on preaching A, only to keep doing B, then I suppose it's fair enough to bring up their hypocritical behavior. However, your line of reasoning seems to be that hypocrisy is not only a relevant thing to bring up, but an actual, logical objection to an idea, and this is simply false.


By the way, later in your post, you mention insults and personal attacks. Just to make this clear, I wasn't accusing you (or anyone else) of actually insulting the OP. I had a problem only with this never ending, strangely accusatory back and forth regarding his hypocrisy.

 

[Belz...]

Hypocrisy is a character flaw that does *not* invalidate an idea.

True, but credibility is important when you're trying to convince someone of a principle or idea, especially when it calls for a change in Behaviour. "Everybody should do this; but not me" tends to ring alarm bells.

 

[Varanid]

Definition

Thanks to all for the discussion. I apologize for my delayed response, I spent the last two nights luring women to my modern apartment with hot water, flush toilets, and a hi-fi stereo to play dirty Nine Inch Nail songs on. But I only served them blackberries and almonds for breakfast, so...

...which is taken into account in my previous reply. I asked him several times to clarify what his version of primitivism was. He avoided the question.

Again, I have not been evading you for any reason. I sincerely apologize if that is what I have given you the impression I am doing so, but I wish you would stop insinuating that I am. I am not invested enough in a position to try to be evasive, quite the contrary I am open to being swayed by solid argument. Hence, this discussion. Is it really that rare for someone to start a thread without knowing exactly how they feel about an issue? If it is, it shouldn't be. I really don't want to bicker about it anymore.

Moving on- Here are my thoughts on the definition:

There are a number of concepts of primitivism. Some see it as a return to a pre-revolutionary lifestyle, others as a return to a pre-agricultural lifestyle. Personally, I see the pre-agricultural criteria to be more interesting for discussion.

According to my (somewhat limited) knowledge of the subject, we have undergone a drastic paradigm shift in lifestyle without a corresponding morphological change. Our bodies evolved to live in a different manner than we currently do, eating different foods, living in different habitats, dealing with different stresses. (Note that this is a factual claim, not a subjective one- either lifestyle may be better than the other. Also, my claim could be shown to be incorrect).

I do not truly understand the thinking behind the pre-revolutionary concept, and would invite further discussion on the matter from those that do.

So, I guess primitivism for me would be defined as living the lifestyle of a H/G circa 10K BC (give or take).

I do not think I could endorse adopting this lifestyle. (Which I am pretty sure I commented on, I believe I called myself a pseudo-primitivist or some such thing).

Some posters brought up the distinction between a primitivist and simply endorsing a more simple existence. I probably fit somewhere in this camp (simple lifestlye), though perhaps at the extreme fringes. Additionally, I have tried to draw distinctions between Anarcho-primitivism as typically discussed (which seems to eschew knowledge and science) and my view (whatever it turns out to be) that embraces knowledge and science.

I have mentioned medicine and basic hygiene as being things I believe have a place. I have also noted the paradox that some aspects of these require modernity. While soap, bandages, and basic first aid may not require modernity, a cat scan or epidural does require such.

So for the 45th time, I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue.

 

[Varanid]

I doubt it. The sort of stressed you're likely to encounter in a primitive lifestyle are along the lines of "are we going to find food before we starve?" or "is my husband going to return from the hunt?" or "which of my two children should I feed and which should I let starve?" or "should I kill my brother now, cleanly, or let him die slowly from infection"?

I have looked into the food issue. I am confident that the eco-region I live in could support the type of lifestyle I am trying to outline. I know this in first hand fashion as I work extensively in the habitat, and have done the back-of-the-cocktail-napkin number crunching to that effect. The ecosystem I live in is entirely productive enough.

As for infection/health/etc. I have addressed this.

There's a reason pre-modern humans didn't live very long, and it wasn't because their brief lives were so full of awesome they just couldn't handle any more.

It's pretty good when you can make someone you disagree with laugh at their own expense. Well done sir/madame.

 

[Varanid]

Apologies if I am commenting out of context, I don't think I am though.

In primitive times, before modern medicine and modern agriculture, the earth's entire arabale surface could provide food for about (at most) a billion people or so.

I can't confirm, but seems reasonable. Keep going.

Today, the population is over six billion.

Yup. Keep going.

So unfortunately we need to get rid of about five billion before we can all become happy, primitive farmers.

Uh, no? I understand that we can't do this with our present population, so the topic is either hypothetical, or only as a long-term (tens of generations or more) goal.

Since "people die" anyway, it's no big deal, I know, but, are you willing yourself to be one of the 5,000,000,000? No fair saying "people" will die -- which means you want someone else to die. I am asking you if you are willing to die.

Again, and maybe I missed where someone said this, but nobody is saying this. I'll go back and look again and retract this if I am wrong (and argue alongside you that you can't just kill 80% of the population. Does that really need to be argued?)

Now, also, in primitive times, life expectancy was, roughly, 40.

As I think has been mentioned, this is a common argument, but I think misses the point that the change in life expectancy is mostly correlated with infant mortality. If you made it to 5, you were good.

 

[Varanid]

What is desirable about going back to the primitive lifestyle?

I think part of the problem is that you can't understand any reason for wanting to adopt a primitive lifestyle. That is fine, ga'bless and all that.

I feel that some of the stresses would be preferable to some of the stresses in modern life. I would rather worry about feeding myself in my historic habitat (which I am confident could be done) than worrying about navigating the complexity of the modern world we live in. I do just fine in the modern world, but think I would prefer to live in a simpler paradigm.

 

[Varanid]

Primitivism? Stupid idea.

Yay! Virus is here.
Come on man, I know you have better than that. Help me understand why it is such a stupid idea. We've all been talking like adults, but now that you are here you can set us straight. /good natured ribbing.

Snark aside, I am serious. I have no doubt you disagree, and probably have some intelligent points on the matter. Please elaborate.

 

[Varanid]

Nah. Modern medicine is. Nothing says a lack of appreciation when you realize that we have the capability of keeping people alive that normally would have just dropped dead in the 16th century.

Context: Discussion of hot water / flush toilets being the pinnacle of modernity (or to that effect).

I would say that it all falls under the heading of science/knowledge. Just understanding basic hygiene and the nature of infection/pathology would lead us to drastically reduce a lot of the ills of primitive society. Again, in my view of the meta-subject, science/knowledge/basic medicine is absolutely part of the equation.

Hot showers are a luxury. A luxury I have lived without for extended periods of time, and survived. I also missed them and thoroughly enjoy them now, but they are a luxury. While hot water does help with hygiene, I don't feel that it is inextricably linked with it.

 

[Varanid]

HOW DARE YOU, YOU FILTHY SAND MUNCHING LEAF HUGGING FILTHY, FILTHY HIPPY! Okay, now what were we talking about?

I very much appreciate the humor, but wtf does "sand munching" mean? I have never been called that. It sounds painful. Carry on...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Like most of us on this forum, if I had been born into a "Stone age style" culture, I would be dead.
No "maybe". I'd have died aged 7.

Now , while many of you are wondering "What's the downside?", I actually quite like being alive, moderately healthy for a 56 year old ape and having a decent diet, a place to sleep and hot showers.

So I'm a woose.

You want to take this away from me and you'll learn just what it feels like to have a 185lb woose hit you with a rolled up newspaper.

 

[Varanid]

You want to take this away from me and you'll learn just what it feels like to have a 185lb woose hit you with a rolled up newspaper.

Funny, but I think accurate.

There are lots of people that just don't want to live this lifestyle. I understand it, and really don't have an argument against it. It is a subjective stance.

I think though, that much of the objection for many (not necessarily you Soapy) is misplaced fear. People are severely out of touch with nature, and I don't say this as a Starbucks-Eco-Warrior, I say it as someone who works at the human/natural world interface.

People are afraid of the natural world. To great extent this is manifest in many of our behaviors- Being drawn to "man vs. sharktopus" type programming, many approaches to hunting (conquering nature as it were), the disproportionate preoccupation with potentially dangerous creatures, and so on.

The thing is, it isn't really that bad out there. You are the big scary thing tromping through the forest.

 

[phantomb]

Hehe.

Primitivists fail to realize that without agriculture, animal husbandry or food storage 90% of their time will be devoted to finding enough food to survive or an animal to skin to make some shoes. Oh yeah and going to the toilet is now a chore where you have to squat over a hole you've dug. And there's no bog-roll, you have to use your hand or a leaf.

Idyllic, carefree, leisured lifestyle it was not. More like living on the knife-edge of survival.

As Cavemonster said, this is incorrect. I even posted peer-reviewed articles on this in post #129.

 

[MatildaGage]

If someone has a view that people *should* do something, and they can do so themselves within all reason, but they don't do it...then their worldview is either incomplete, a self-contradiction, or they don't actually believe what they are claiming. These make their claims invalid or irrational.

Asking him what's stopping him is a good method to point out why the proposition is difficult to put into action.

However, the mere self-contradiction does not invalidate the claim. People are perfectly capable of believing they are doing the wrong thing, and not taking action to correct it.