Primitivism Discussion

[Virus]

My understanding is that the hunter-gatherer band societies mentioned were far less affected by famine than the agriculturalists that replaced them, and I posted peer-reviewed articles in post #129 that argued to that effect. Now obviously first world countries today are almost famine-proof, but many other contemporary countries are not, and I think you're greatly overestimating famine as an issue for these primitive societies.

Hunter-gather societies didn't have to support seven billion people. That's the point. Their methods are too inefficient to support the world's current population.

 

[Belz...]

ah...that would be mental masturbation, then.

Wait... you DON'T think it's important to shoot down nonsense ?

 

[Belz...]

I misunderstood you. There are two issues that have been brought up in this thread:

1) primitivism cannot support the current population, so if we implemented primitivism tomorrow, billions of people would die

2) primitivism intentionally abandons modern medicines and technologies, so if we implemented primitivism, people would typically die from causes that a modern society might have been able to treat

I thought you were referring to (2) rather than (1). I've written about (1) twice now: nobody seems to be suggesting that we implement primitivism overnight, but rather if and only if the population has already been massively decreased by war, or disaster, or people intentionally decreasing the population over time for the purpose of implementing primitivism eventually.

Well the only reasonable way to reduce the population is to stop breeding so much. But handling our elderly properly requires modern technology...

 

[Seismosaurus]

Yes, well ideally we should try and imagine what is actually indicated by the facts. It may only be wikipedia, but is this not lucid enough for you?

It's perfectly lucid, but it's unlikely to be accurate.

My understanding is that the hunter-gatherer band societies mentioned were far less affected by famine than the agriculturalists that replaced them, and I posted peer-reviewed articles in post #129 that argued to that effect. Now obviously first world countries today are almost famine-proof, but many other contemporary countries are not, and I think you're greatly overestimating famine as an issue for these primitive societies.

As you note, some countries today are essentially famine proof. The most advanced ones, like the ones you and I live in. It's the ones who lack a big technological industrial base which still suffer famine. And frankly if it's a choice between "really not all that much famine" and none... I pick none.

No. No primitivism for me, thank you. I'll have my house, my car, my TV, my computer, and all the rest. If the primitivists don't like it, too bad.

 

[Virus]

No. No primitivism for me, thank you. I'll have my house, my car, my TV, my computer, and all the rest. If the primitivists don't like it, too bad.

You don't get any choice in the matter. It's destiny. It all happens after the religious rapture nuclear holocaust.

 

[iknownothing]

So long as it is someone else who starves, not themselves or anyone they know.

As you note, some countries today are essentially famine proof. The most advanced ones, like the ones you and I live in. It's the ones who lack a big technological industrial base which still suffer famine. And frankly if it's a choice between "really not all that much famine" and none... I pick none.

Yeah. It seems like this discussion rests on the assumption that in a future, primitivist society, people will meekly accept the occasional famine because it's better for the earth. I think that people in the midst of such a famine would be desperate to do anything they can to save their children, their friends and family, and themselves. Including obtaining food by whatever means necessary, earth-friendly or not. Including attacking the neighboring tribe who is rumored to have more food.

It's been pointed out earlier, but actual hunter-gatherer societies don't necessarily have such sustainable lifestyles anyway. They just lived in such small numbers in the past, that they were only able to destroy small areas. And the chance of a small band on the edge of survival being peaceful is low -- maybe if they life on a remote island where there just isn't the opportunity to go to war with others.

I think there's also a disconnect between this imagined mass-human-extinction event, and the idea of everyone peacefully adopting primitivism afterwards. I think after a terrifying event that kills off the vast majority of the human population, the survivors will be jumpy, paranoid, & desperate. Not to mention traumatized by their losses, and determined to save those friends and family who remain to them at all costs. And if they're always facing the possibility of death in the short term, they won't have the luxury to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. To me, that sounds like a recipe for increased xenophobia and constant warfare, since caring about "other" groups is a luxury for those who feel secure from attack. And I think such a population would be much more likely to adopt unsustainable-but-good-at-the-moment methods of obtaining food, and would be in furious pursuit of regaining any technologic knowledge they can.

A more promising path for sustainability is increased technology, not decreased. And increased urbanization, where each individual person takes up a smaller share of resources.

 

[Varanid]

Some of you don't even seem to care that you are constructing strawmen and have been called out on it.

I have advocated no genocide, mass killing, or anything of the sort.

I have said 50 times that I am looking for a way to merge the two extremes of primitivism and modernism. Contrary to one lucid thought (that I disagree with) earlier, all technology is not inextricably linked.

So far, with a few exceptions (and thank you for those), the tone of most of the "non-primitivist" side of the argument is hardly conducive to discussion.

I am looking for problems I haven't thought of. Please, if you have some things that haven't been suggested, point them out. So far, I have 2 primary points that have been suggested (ad nauseum):

Medicine, and not enough food for 7 Billion people.

Both of which I (and others) have addressed numerous times. I want to know about the things I haven't thought about. I am pretty sure I have contemplated the obvious things, but am happy to acknowledge those I haven't.

Thank you, but I don't need to be told that we wouldn't have wireless connections, McDonalds, etc. I really didn't think about that / sarcasm.

Also, for those of you who couldn't wait to put in your 2 cents without reading the thread, I have explained very clearly why I simply cannot walk into the woods, why I am on the intrawebz, etc. Of all the arguments presented in this thread, this is perhaps the most silly. It is hand waving at its finest.

Skeptic brought up a few other issues that I hadn't considered- the "outsider" /inter-village conflicts. I don't agree, as I have said, I am not advocating jetisoning logic/reason/educated minds, so I am not sure how this would play out.

The greatest problem I do see is that even if a primitive society were to be consciously implemented following some population reducing event, the pressures from those wanting to return to modernity would eventually triumph.

I think I am done with this thread, I thank those of you who did contribute in a meaningful and friendly way. At the end of the day, I guess most of you would prefer modernity (both the good and the bad aspects) over some sort of more primitive lifestyle (both the good and bad aspects). I can understand this, hell, I may even agree. But the fact that some of you cannot grasp that there are both good and bad aspects to both extremes of the spectrum is disappointing.
Personally, I despise the consumerism, rat-race, traffic congested, polluting lifestyle we have. I would be willing to trade some of the aspects of modernity to remove some of these from our culture.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Yeah. It seems like this discussion rests on the assumption that in a future, primitivist society, people will meekly accept the occasional famine because it's better for the earth. I think that people in the midst of such a famine would be desperate to do anything they can to save their children, their friends and family, and themselves. Including obtaining food by whatever means necessary, earth-friendly or not. Including attacking the neighboring tribe who is rumored to have more food.

It's been pointed out earlier, but actual hunter-gatherer societies don't necessarily have such sustainable lifestyles anyway. They just lived in such small numbers in the past, that they were only able to destroy small areas. And the chance of a small band on the edge of survival being peaceful is low -- maybe if they life on a remote island where there just isn't the opportunity to go to war with others.

I think there's also a disconnect between this imagined mass-human-extinction event, and the idea of everyone peacefully adopting primitivism afterwards. I think after a terrifying event that kills off the vast majority of the human population, the survivors will be jumpy, paranoid, & desperate. Not to mention traumatized by their losses, and determined to save those friends and family who remain to them at all costs. And if they're always facing the possibility of death in the short term, they won't have the luxury to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. To me, that sounds like a recipe for increased xenophobia and constant warfare, since caring about "other" groups is a luxury for those who feel secure from attack. And I think such a population would be much more likely to adopt unsustainable-but-good-at-the-moment methods of obtaining food, and would be in furious pursuit of regaining any technologic knowledge they can.

A more promising path for sustainability is increased technology, not decreased. And increased urbanization, where each individual person takes up a smaller share of resources.

Even if there is some great nuclear war, the idea that everybody will be living a primitive life after is wrong. There is much of the world that would be largely unaffected by nuclear war - nobody would be dropping nukes on most of South America, or most of Africa. Assuming nuclear winter comes along and is as bad as people fear an awful lot of people might starve to death, but if even a small fraction of the population of those countries survive they'd preserve their technological and industrial bases because those are the things that help people survive and thrive.

There really are no conditions under which people will adopt primitivism unless they have absolutely no other choice whatsoever. Face it, virtually nobody wants to live that way.

 

[Belz...]

I have said 50 times that I am looking for a way to merge the two extremes of primitivism and modernism.

Haven't you also been told 50 times that this is illogical ?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Haven't you also been told 50 times that this is illogical ?

It might be a little like this:

"Are you the giant?" asked Tock doubtfully.
"To be sure," he replied proudly. "I'm the smallest giant in the world. What can I do for you?"
"Are we lost?" said Milo.
"That's a difficult question," said the giant. "Why don't you go around back and ask the midget?" And he closed the door.
They walked to the rear of the house, which looked exactly like the front, and knocked at the door, whose name plate read "THE MIDGET."
"How are you?" inquired the man, who looked exactly like the giant.
"Are you the midget?" asked Tock again, with a hint of uncertainty in his voice.
"Unquestionably," he answered. "I'm the tallest midget in the world. May I help you?"

 

[Varanid]

Haven't you also been told 50 times that this is illogical ?

Congratulations, you are the first person I will actually be putting on 'ignore'. I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but you are just being an ass.

 

[phantomb]

Hunter-gather societies didn't have to support seven billion people. That's the point. Their methods are too inefficient to support the world's current population.

Nobody has denied that primitive methods cannot support the current population. Everyone has accepted this. The primitivists have addressed the issue. Can we please let this dead horse alone?

nobody seems to be suggesting that we implement primitivism overnight, but rather if and only if the population has already been massively decreased by war, or disaster, or people intentionally decreasing the population over time for the purpose of implementing primitivism eventually.

 

[phantomb]

It's perfectly lucid, but it's unlikely to be accurate.

um, why?

 

[Skeptic]

I am looking for problems I haven't thought of... [except for] medicine... not enough food... "outsider" inter village conflict...

You mean, you're looking for something modernity had done for us you haven't thought of -- that is, except for sanitation, or irrigation, or public health and roads, or baths, or public order, or the aquaduct?

Just face it, Mr. Purple -- the moderns are the only ones who could keep order in a planet like this. Despite the fact that they're bleeding our environment white, the bastards.

 

[Seismosaurus]

um, why?

Because nobody has any clue what the real effects of World War III would be. Quite apart from the fact that nobody has ever been able to study the effects of large numbers of nuclear weapons, nobody has any clue how such a war would be fought, between whom, and with what.

 

[Belz...]

Congratulations, you are the first person I will actually be putting on 'ignore'. I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but you are just being an ass.

So pointing out that you've been told repeatedly that you're wrong is being an ass ? No problem with dissenting opinion, my eye.

 

[Belz...]

You mean, you're looking for something modernity had done for us you haven't thought of -- that is, except for sanitation, or irrigation, or public health and roads, or baths, or public order, or the aquaduct?

[qimg]http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=635525006312&id=ef8799d99ee90d17c6d918d4432b796a&url=http%3a%2f%2fi.ytimg.com%2fvi%2fExWfh6sGyso%2f0.jpg[/qimg]

Just face it, Mr. Purple -- the moderns are the only ones who could keep order in a planet like this. Despite the fact that they're bleeding our environment white, the bastards.

Careful. You might just be labeled as "beign an ass" right now, and put on ignore. I'm sure that'd hurt your feelings as it did mine.

 

[phantomb]

Because nobody has any clue what the real effects of World War III would be. Quite apart from the fact that nobody has ever been able to study the effects of large numbers of nuclear weapons, nobody has any clue how such a war would be fought, between whom, and with what.

Your personal incredulity does not trump my peer-reviewed geophysics paper. If you go read that paper they consider multiple models ranging from the use of a small proportion of current nuclear stores to the use of nearly all of them. The results just plain don't look good either way.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Your personal incredulity does not trump my peer-reviewed geophysics paper.

And you're certain that their models must be accurate, even though they're modelling something nobody has experience of? Your faith is impressive.

If you go read that paper they consider multiple models ranging from the use of a small proportion of current nuclear stores to the use of nearly all of them. The results just plain don't look good either way.

I didn't suggest it would be "good", so I fail to see your point.

 

[phantomb]

And you're certain that their models must be accurate, even though they're modelling something nobody has experience of? Your faith is impressive.

When I want to know what the probable effects of nuclear winter are, I look for a good peer-reviewed paper. The one I found both explores previous models, and updates them. The consistent conclusion was that the nuclear winter effects of even a modest nuclear war would kill far more than half the population.

What evidence do you have that this information is "unlikely to be accurate" aside from the fact that you personally believe these experts cannot know much about such things?