Primitivism Discussion

[Piscivore]

Come on, nobody knows what would happen if my system* were in place. I was just trying to be careful not to overstate my knowledge of the situation.

And I just wanted to caution you not to jump to any conclusions or overlook contradictiory evidence based on what you "feel" is possible.

 

[Piscivore]

While it did suck, you have to understand I would gladly deal with all of that again if it meant an end to some of the problems I find with modern culture.

Which problems?

 

[Earthborn]

I love Hans Rosling's talks (not to mention the pretty graphs).

He's definitely not a primitivist though. I bet he wants to smack everyone claiming to be a primitivist.

A recurring theme in his talks though, is that many poor people (almost the definition of 3rd world) have large families and high infant mortality.

Actually a recurring theme in his talks is that for much of what we still call the "3rd world" that is no longer true.

(This is tangentially relevant to the argument about leisure time as referenced by Mr. Rosling).

He wasn't talking about leisure time, but rather time spend more productively, on education and self-improvement, while also having fun.

I washed all of my clothes by hand for about 18 months. Not fun, but I would gladly trade that for having to sit in traffic, etc.

I don't think washing by hand or machine and having to sit in traffic are in any way related. I never have to "sit in traffic" as I walk everywhere, but I do have a washing machine. I love that thing, and everything that made it possible.

I think that basic hygiene and germ theory have probably been more helpful from a "number of lives saved" analysis than cutting edge diagnostic techniques, but your point is noted.

I quite agree. I even used this point to challenge Beerina in one of his healthcare rants in which he claims that the improvement of medical technology exponentially increases the number of lives saved. I've shown that much of the great lifesaving improvements in medicine occurred during the sixties and seventies, and that since the eighties there is only a very slow improvement in lifespan (which I suspect is mostly due to safer cars and better traffic management).

That does not however mean that I think the improvements in medical technology have been unimportant. If you suffer from a potentially lethal medical problem 1970s medical technology would probably have saved your life, but it would have diagnosed your problem very late, you would have needed to stay in the hospital for many months and get out with huge painful scars. 1990s medical technology may not save very many more lives, but the lives that it saves are going to ruined a lot less: the problem may be detected much earlier, and keyhole surgery can solve it much quicker and with less scarring. I think that's a modern achievement not a lot of people would want to trade in for a more primitive life.

Some of the improvement in life span were indeed caused by basic hygiene and germ theory, particularly the improvement in the late 1800/early 1900s when average lifespan in the West jumped above 50. It is not an argument in favour of primitivism though; the jump was caused by the construction of city wide steam powered sewage systems, drinking water systems and government hygiene campaigns. In other words: modernism.

 

[Earthborn]

As a (global) society we decide this is acceptable.

I don't think this is true. As a global society we may (reluctantly) accept that the whole world cannot change in an instant, but only if we do see improvement. There won't be many cheering for primitivists who tell us we should accept a decrease in the number of children's lives saved.

 

[jiggeryqua]

So, it's essentially duration? I recall someone saying it wasn't only duration, but then in their list of positive benefits of ...let's call it 'primitiviphobia'...the only one clearly expressed was duration. Leaving aside the 'get over yourself, you're mortal' argument, the trade off is clearly 'more time' for less...well, I'd welcome a word. Less banging sheets off rocks by a tumbling river, with kingfishers darting and the sun beating down as you sing and work with your extended family. Less fitness gained from honest toil to literally feed your family (but more time in the gym!) Less education...well, less books. No Mein Kampf, for example (No internet, so no Godwin either ). No Bible (phew, clawed that one back). Less time for intellectual masturbation. Ah. Fair enough. I'm cured.

 

[jiggeryqua]

There won't be many cheering for primitivists who tell us we should accept a decrease in the number of children's lives saved.

Only Jesus saves. Everyone else dies.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No insult taken at all, appreciate the discussion.

At the risk of sending this thread plummeting off the cliff, we already ration health care.

Not in the UK we don't.

I am sure there is a child in a 3rd world country that has died because he/she did not have access to the same care you did.

Yes, and it's both A. Disgraceful and B. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

As a (global) society we decide this is acceptable.

No we don't. What actually happens is that some countries cannot afford or cannot gain access to the healthcare based on a wide ranging combination of factors. This means that there is a significant and totally horrible imbalance between first and third world countries.

Of course, that some people can't access first rate healthcare doesn't mean that nobody should. I would rather that some can access the healthcare, rather than we the privileged (and it will only be us, because we are the only ones who can "afford" to) decide to forego the healthcare we've developed to go back to a "simpler" time. Quite frankly, I think that the idea that we rich westerners who have access to these things should abandon them is a huge slap in the face to the poor third world people who have no access. Afterall, if we stop using chemotherapy (for example) that doesn't mean that the people of Kenya will benefit.

 

[BenBurch]

... We'd likely have to cut the population by what, 80%?
...

By my numbers 99.6%.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I washed all of my clothes by hand for about 18 months. Not fun, but I would gladly trade that for having to sit in traffic, etc. Granted, I didn't have to bang them against a rock, and I was in my bathtub not a stream- but I have lived for an extended period in such a fashion.

Bully for you. Why should you condemn the rest of us to such a lifestyle?

You seem to be romanticising the past to a staggering degree, and trust me, you aren't the only one. I am reminded, strongly, of all the crap that you often hear people in the UK prattle on about when they talk about "wartime British spirit" or "British Bulldog spirit". The whole "They were poor, but my god they were happy and knew what life was about!" spiel wears thin when you think that they were not only poor, but often starving and sick. They died from diseases that we can easily cure today and they frequently went without common luxuries of the modern world, so forgive me but I'll happily take "having to sit in traffic etc." over sickness, poverty and good old fashioned unnecessary back-breaking work.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Afterall, if we stop using chemotherapy (for example) that doesn't mean that the people of Kenya will benefit.

No, we'd have to literally rewind time to before the British Empire plundered Africa so we could afford chemotherapy in the future for Kenya to benefit.

As part of my BSc I spent far too many afternoons with an oily little man in a dreadful little suit whose job it was to share with us the wisdom of 'development'. He suggested to us that the underdeveloped countries should endeavour to follow the model provided by the developed countries, which he presented as a flow-chart of headings marking some important stages in the development of the societies you and I enjoy. Unfortunately, he forgot the step where you use relatively advanced weapon technology and, in retrospect, an appalling attitude to human rights to steal the wealth of the people you now purport to be concerned about. They have no-one to steal from. But you could spend less on hi-tech scanners for you and more on seeds and wells and education for them.

 

[MatildaGage]

Simple math ..

Did you mean ' 0 ' population growth ?

Simple math...No.

My husband and I are 2 people. We have, between us, a total of 0 children.

0 population growth would mean we would have 2 children.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I'll happily take "having to sit in traffic etc." over sickness, poverty and good old fashioned unnecessary back-breaking work.

And when I want anything made from raw materials that are hewn from the earth by back-breaking work I'll count myself lucky that I'm stuck in traffic (on a road provided by back-breaking work). I thought the primitiviphobes accused us of wanting to be in the top tier of society, but the only way to truly benefit from their system is to be in that top tier. It goes that like, doesn't it...that we find our own faults in others the hardest to bear.

 

[quixotecoyote]

And when I want anything made from raw materials that are hewn from the earth by back-breaking work I'll count myself lucky that I'm stuck in traffic (on a road provided by back-breaking work). I thought the primitiviphobes accused us of wanting to be in the top tier of society, but the only way to truly benefit from their system is to be in that top tier. It goes that like, doesn't it...that we find our own faults in others the hardest to bear.

You might be able to construct an argument relying on exploitation of third worlders.

But given the amount of modern tools and equipment road crews use, I doubt they'd be on your side advocating that a return to primitive tech would make their job easier.

 

[BenBurch]

Simple math...No.

My husband and I are 2 people. We have, between us, a total of 0 children.

0 population growth would mean we would have 2 children.

No, ZPG means you have about 2.4 children as not all children live to reproduce or reproduce once adults.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You might be able to construct an argument relying on exploitation of third worlders.

But given the amount of modern tools and equipment road crews use, I doubt they'd be on your side advocating that a return to primitive tech would make their job easier.

You might be able to stop your enquiry at the point at which people operate machines. But I doubt you'd be able to build them without some backbreaking work.

ETA: more to the point, they wouldn't have that work. In your scenario, they're not building 'roads'. They're hunting wabbits, while the missus grinds some meal. No backs broken.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, ZPG means you have about 2.4 children as not all children live to reproduce or reproduce once adults.

And since she's talking about what it would mean for she and her husband as an actual couple, I'm assuming it's the .4 of a child that doesn't make it and the whole children do better.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You might be able to stop your enquiry at the point at which people operate machines. But I doubt you'd be able to build them without some backbreaking work.

I'm pretty sure constructing and assembling heavy machinery is currently less physically demanding than road construction.

 

[BenBurch]

Those .4 children are almost as pitiful as the .6 dogs.

 

[MatildaGage]

No, ZPG means you have about 2.4 children as not all children live to reproduce or reproduce once adults.

I don't know why you started out your response with "No."

2 children is "about 2.4 children".

 

[MarkCorrigan]

And when I want anything made from raw materials that are hewn from the earth by back-breaking work I'll count myself lucky that I'm stuck in traffic (on a road provided by back-breaking work). I thought the primitiviphobes accused us of wanting to be in the top tier of society, but the only way to truly benefit from their system is to be in that top tier. It goes that like, doesn't it...that we find our own faults in others the hardest to bear.

Or you could live in the real world where people are trying to make a genuine difference.

I would rather have everyone on roughly the same tier of development as the first world, but as it stands today because of the decisions of the past, we aren't in that place and that sucks. What that means however, is that we should strive to raise up those who live in disadvantaged areas, be they poverty stricken areas of the West or third world countries and push them slowly but surely towards a modern standard of living.

I think it's criminal that your average Kenyan doesn't get to benefit from much modern medicine. I see the solution to the imbalance as lifting the Kenyan to our level without denying ourselves out of a sense of martyrdom. You seem to see this as being elitist, simply because I realistically acknowledge that we are a privileged few.

Give me a reason that I should give up modern medicine, the only reason I am alive today, purely because others have no access to it. Why should I die just because they do too? Isn't it better to use it when you can and help others get it to rather than denying ourselves out of some self-righteous sense that we shouldn't be so elitist as to use what medicine we can?