Primitivism Discussion

[jiggeryqua]

A couple of years ago I volunteered for a living history program at a local historic site;we would do the work, for a weekend ,that we have done as a farmer in 1870.
I wish every Primitivist would have to do that. The aching muscles alone would rid them of a lot their illusions.
And this is just 1870, where you had hand tools that benefited from the Industrial revolution.What is would be like to do that with Medieval Technology, I do not even want to think about.

And yet, somehow, the people who did live under those conditions not only survived, but prospered. They'd be ashamed of you, I suspect.

 

[rwguinn]

Living History certainly rids one of a lot illusions about "The Good Old Days."
Mountain Man Group, right?

yup.

 

[dudalb]

And yet, somehow, the people who did live under those conditions not only survived, but prospered. They'd be ashamed of you, I suspect.

You want the high death rate they had back then also, with a life expectnecy of around 40?

 

[Bikewer]

I expect that living a primitive lifestyle would be a lot easier if we got rid of some billions of people who are clogging up the planet....
Nuclear survivor primitivism, anyone?

 

[Earthborn]

though evidently I do appreciate the value of computers and the interwebs.

One of the ironies of modern life is that many of our societies' greatest works are hidden, as if we are ashamed of them. The pipes delivering us fresh water, the sewage systems, all hidden underground. There are huge and incredibly complex infrastructures ordinary people can simply ignore in their daily lives.

You can live happily in your commune and think that having a computer and the internet is just a little compromise in your otherwise not so technological life. The hightech datacenters supporting it neatly hidden in non-descript buildings.

You're right - those things that purport to be 'solutions' often merely create different problems. The nature of humanity has not changed. 'Development' and 'progress' are nothing more than a change of wallpaper and a rearrangement of the furniture.

I don't quite agree. The problems solved by "progress" are immense and it is its greatest achievement that we can take it for granted that they are solved; that there is always an abundance of dirt cheap food, clean drinking water, that our bodily wastes are properly disposed of. That most of us can -- right after we are born -- expect to live another 80 years.

But all that also comes at a price. The problems caused by "progress" are many. Those problems may not be as severe as the problems it solves, but they do tend to be a lot harder to solve. Once there was barely enough food to feed everyone, and for centuries it appeared it would always be that way. Today we know that solving the food shortage problem was easy compared to the problem of getting people to stop eating too much of it.

I really wish I could hear the tone in your voice when this was said. It would help me understand whether this was a veiled shot or not. A thousand apologies that I couldn't decide if it would be more properly a social or technology issue. Likewise, if this wasn't a shot, my apologies for taking it as such.

Ah you primitivists and your reliance on non-verbal cues, despite all the scientific evidence that such things as tone of voice are often misleading in discerning meaning from what a person tries to say. I doubt my tone of voice would have helped you, as I can express myself far better in written text and my voice has been described by many as "robotically monotone".

Am I supposed to understand what "a veiled shot" means?

The problem is that we have become poor physical specimens (by and large).

Or rather, we have created a society in which poor physical specimens can live meaningful lives, and contribute to it.

 

[dudalb]

I expect that living a primitive lifestyle would be a lot easier if we got rid of some billions of people who are clogging up the planet....
Nuclear survivor primitivism, anyone?

Why does this make me want to continue my game of "Fallout:New Las Vegas" when I get home?

 

[Varanid]

Yes, my little wink was supposed to denote sarcasm!

My post was characterizing comments I have received on JREF when I have criticized aspects of modern industrial civilization. Some posters instantly accuse me of wanting to go back to the Middle Ages.


Yesterday, in one of the threads discussing the Japanese nuclear crisis, posters appeared unable to flummoxed by my suggestion that "tree huggers" could be motivated by a love of life rather than, as one poster claimed, a simple, unexplained, hatred of modernity.

Sorry for any confusion. I was not familiar with the term "Primitivism" and assumed it was derogatory. At some times of my life I have sought to tread very lightly on the Earth.

Sorry! I know that emoticons are supposed to help, but I sit here wondering:
Was that a Palin wink? A lovable uncle wink? A "gotcha" wink? A "hey are you in on the joke?" wink....

I figured that this was the case. And I personally don't take primitivist to be an insult if it is accurate. It isn't the same thing as being eco-oriented /tree hugger necessarily, even if they often do go hand in hand.

 

[Varanid]

I expect that living a primitive lifestyle would be a lot easier if we got rid of some billions of people who are clogging up the planet....
Nuclear survivor primitivism, anyone?

Well, while I am not advocating anything like this at all, the population of an organism in its habitat is a rather big deal. There are quite a few of us running around.

 

[Beerina]

When I complain about environmental degradation, what I really mean is that I want to return to the Stone Age or, at least, the Middle Ages.

That, and I just hate modernity. I don't know why. It's like Marmite. You either love it or hate it.

Interesting. I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth. Why? Because I love humanity and want to see it succeed beyond our wildest dreams, advancing technology at fantastic rates.

 

[Mr.D]

And yet, somehow, the people who did live under those conditions not only survived, but prospered. They'd be ashamed of you, I suspect.

Quite possibly, but I suspect they'd also be flummoxed by things like how few of us die from measles, polio, influenza, pneumonia and plain old bacterial infections. I imagine the women would be astonished by the idea of having careers, nevermind choosing one. And literacy? Forget it, that's for the idle rich.

How many North Americans from even just 150 years ago would even know what curry, pineapple, salsa or shiitake mushrooms are, forget having tasted them and having them available at the local market?

There's a difference between wanting a simpler lifestyle and living a more primitive one; it seems that some people (I'm speaking somewhat generally, not specifically about anyone in this thread) forget that when they talk about the former.

 

[Varanid]

Ah you primitivists and your reliance on non-verbal cues, despite all the scientific evidence that such things as tone of voice are often misleading in discerning meaning from what a person tries to say. I doubt my tone of voice would have helped you, as I can express myself far better in written text and my voice has been described by many as "robotically monotone".

My italics.
Derail, but I will look into that. I am skeptical. I don't even think it is arguable that this method of communication is more effective than in person.

Am I supposed to understand what "a veiled shot" means?

Give me a break. Moving on...wasn't trying to start a fuss, just trying to interpret your post. Partially because I *think* I enjoyed it.

Or rather, we have created a society in which poor physical specimens can live meaningful lives, and contribute to it.

Sure, I can see how that is a plus for people with profound physical challenges. I think it is a big negative for the general population. It creates an advantage (if through nothing else but a reduction in the risk) of being unhealthy. Perhaps a ratio of modernity/primitivity could be reached such that those with profound difficulties could contribute in a meaningful way, but not encourage the unhealthy lifestyle of the masses.

 

[macdoc]

I'm not fond of the term "p..ism" tho I can understand some who want to do the noble savage thing.
Good on them but it won't succeed for an industrial civilization.

I do however advocate hitech minimalist - in fact we are designing our long term place in Kuranda Australia with that in mind.

Very green , environment sensitive ( has to be since we are in a protected species corridor with strict covenants ( no cats and dogs, no lawn, no altering anything except a small house block in a largish rain forest chunk ( second growth - the original is intact a few hundred meters up the mountain in the World Heritage park.)

Hitech sustainable is where I'd like to be - and quite a few billion less to give the biome time to recover.

There is a lot that can be done with electrons that can offset some of the ills. But that infrastructure needs to be in place.

 

[rwguinn]

My italics.
Derail, but I will look into that. I am skeptical. I don't even think it is arguable that this method of communication is more effective than in person.



Give me a break. Moving on...wasn't trying to start a fuss, just trying to interpret your post. Partially because I *think* I enjoyed it.


Sure, I can see how that is a plus for people with profound physical challenges. I think it is a big negative for the general population. It creates an advantage (if through nothing else but a reduction in the risk) of being unhealthy. Perhaps a ratio of modernity/primitivity could be reached such that those with profound difficulties could contribute in a meaningful way, but not encourage the unhealthy lifestyle of the masses.

How many Hunter-gatherers do you think the planet will support?
Hell- a wolf pack can require anything from 18 km^2 to several thousand km^2-- for a dozen or so animals.
As for gathering, most of the planet doesn't grow much naturally that is edible for large portions of the year, so you have to migrate.
What are you going to do, as someone pointed out elsewhere, with the other 5.9 billion people on this ball of rock?

 

[jiggeryqua]

You want the high death rate they had back then also, with a life expectnecy of around 40?

Take your pick: 80 years of life in a tiny cell with no window, or 40 years outside? Duration is not the only measure.

 

[jiggeryqua]

One of the ironies of modern life is that many of our societies' greatest works are hidden, as if we are ashamed of them. The pipes delivering us fresh water, the sewage systems, all hidden underground. There are huge and incredibly complex infrastructures ordinary people can simply ignore in their daily lives.

You can live happily in your commune and think that having a computer and the internet is just a little compromise in your otherwise not so technological life. The hightech datacenters supporting it neatly hidden in non-descript buildings.

I "lived" on a commune ["for a while"]. Sorry to be pedantic, but I'd make more effort to reply to your post if you'd given any evidence of actually reading mine.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Quite possibly, but I suspect they'd also be flummoxed by things like how few of us die from measles, polio, influenza, pneumonia and plain old bacterial infections. I imagine the women would be astonished by the idea of having careers, nevermind choosing one. And literacy? Forget it, that's for the idle rich.

How many North Americans from even just 150 years ago would even know what curry, pineapple, salsa or shiitake mushrooms are, forget having tasted them and having them available at the local market?

There's a difference between wanting a simpler lifestyle and living a more primitive one; it seems that some people (I'm speaking somewhat generally, not specifically about anyone in this thread) forget that when they talk about the former.

Funny you should bring up North America. I'm not american myself, nor are the vast majority of human beings - something north americans seem oblivious too at times... Before europeans arrived in north america, it was largely beautiful. The parts of it still protected from modern society are still beautiful. The rest of it is ugly, littered with the products of failed experiments and beset with problems created by 'solutions'.

Funny, in a different way, that other posters should raise serious issues about modern advances, while you apparantly couldn't live without pineapples. You do also mention life and death, to be fair, but seemingly from the perspective that, if we could only get the technology right, we could live for ever. How many modern north americans die? All of them. How many modern north americans live in poverty and die 'early'? Many of them. How many are illiterate? Seriously, look that one up. How many women actually get to 'choose' a career? How many men? How many work in whatever factory sustains their town? How many join the military for lack of any other viable career? 'Choosing' a career is still something that is reserved for the relatively idle and relatively rich.

 

[Varanid]

.

I know you weren't addressing me, but I thought this was a good jumping off point.

Quite possibly, but I suspect they'd also be flummoxed by things like how few of us die from measles, polio, influenza, pneumonia and plain old bacterial infections.

I personally agree that medicine is great. When my wisdom teeth were coming in, I really thought (while curled up crying in the fetal position) that this was definitely one thing that I couldn't imagine dealing with without modern medicine.

And my version of primitivism definitely includes access to soap. It does not, however include access to anti-bacterial soap to be used 30 times a day. Just a little dab to help dislodge the hydrophobic stuff.

The trick for me, is figuring out how to incorporate medicine into some sort of a simpler lifestyle. Obviously, you need to produce instruments, and facilities, and on and on and on. That's not a problem for me. I don't think however, that we need to produce millions of plastic knick knacks for Walmart's shelves. I understand we have an economy...etc...again, it is a nuanced issue for me.

I imagine the women would be astonished by the idea of having careers, nevermind choosing one. And literacy? Forget it, that's for the idle rich.

I disagree with both characterizations as necessarily consistent with primitivism as I see it. I have no problem with education, that would be silly in my view.

How many North Americans from even just 150 years ago would even know what curry, pineapple, salsa or shiitake mushrooms are, forget having tasted them and having them available at the local market?

Valid, but personally, I am familiar with a pretty good approximation of what my "native" diet would be in my particular habitat. I live in a rather productive ecosystem, and would do pretty well.

There's a difference between wanting a simpler lifestyle and living a more primitive one; it seems that some people (I'm speaking somewhat generally, not specifically about anyone in this thread) forget that when they talk about the former.

Definitely, and I agree. Personally, there are several aspects of modernity I can't see abandoning (notably medicine). But, I do feel very strongly that the ubiquity of depression, generally poor health, anxiety and stress are likely a result of improper husbandry of Homo sapiens. Quite seriously, I have maintained a wide variety of animal species in my adult life, if any acted with the symptoms I described above, I would assume there was likely a keeper error.

 

[Varanid]

How many Hunter-gatherers do you think the planet will support?
Hell- a wolf pack can require anything from 18 km^2 to several thousand km^2-- for a dozen or so animals.
As for gathering, most of the planet doesn't grow much naturally that is edible for large portions of the year, so you have to migrate.
What are you going to do, as someone pointed out elsewhere, with the other 5.9 billion people on this ball of rock?

I really don't know, and have searched (a bit) for an answer to no avail. I doubt the answer is 6 odd billion though. I agree completely with you, there is no way to go to a completely primitive lifestyle with as many people as there are on the planet.

The wolf comparison I understand, but would counter that we are more omnivorous, and (speculation) would imagine that we would enjoy a far higher kill% (I am guessing wolves are in the 50% range?- pseudo guess). We also predate on a greater variety of animals (fish, birds, reptiles).

I am also not sure that a wolf pack could regularly take down a bison or elephant, which people could. But none the less, I see your point.

 

[Varanid]

I'm not fond of the term "p..ism" tho I can understand some who want to do the noble savage thing.
Good on them but it won't succeed for an industrial civilization.

Funny, I see no negativity in "primitivism" but plenty in "savage".

I do however advocate hitech minimalist - in fact we are designing our long term place in Kuranda Australia with that in mind.

Very green , environment sensitive ( has to be since we are in a protected species corridor with strict covenants ( no cats and dogs, no lawn, no altering anything except a small house block in a largish rain forest chunk ( second growth - the original is intact a few hundred meters up the mountain in the World Heritage park.)

Hitech sustainable is where I'd like to be - and quite a few billion less to give the biome time to recover.

There is a lot that can be done with electrons that can offset some of the ills. But that infrastructure needs to be in place.

This is a far more plausible scenario than true stone age primitivism for sure. I have to say though, I think dogs and (begrudgingly) cats can be useful components. It's not a coincidence that wolves were domesticated far earlier than any other species. Their impact needs to be weighed of course...

 

[MatildaGage]

I appreciate the warmth and thought. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Well I was going to ask the same question. What types of actions have you taken or do you advocate being taken? One, because I'm interested, and two, because sometimes when people make these recommendations, they're hoping society will change but not them. Respectfully curious here.

I think we ought to use knowledge and technology to actually simplify our lives and reduce our energy consumption.

Plus we ought to go back to basics in some respects. [Yes, me and society.]

Why do so few of us have laundry lines to dry our clothes? It's actually against my covenance. Why is clean laundry floating in the wind so detrimental to property values? We should re-examine our prejudices.

Why do we have grass to mow? There are other short plants that don't require mowing. What an enormous waste of gas and time.

Why don't more of us have gardens?

Why don't employers make it easier to work from home so there is less energy consumption?

Why is everything going electronic so we keep on using more and more electricity? What was wrong with a wind up alarm clock or old-fashioned books? Or even crank-operated car windows instead of electric windows?

If we are really in a terrible recession, why isn't everyone canning stuff when it's cheap and in season?

Those are the things I wonder about.