Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Was civilization a mistake?
    #7953823 -

This article is a really interesting and well argued critique of civilization and an exploration of where we might be headed in the immediate future. It brings up some really good points and I'd like to discuss it with anyone inclined to read it. It's broken into relatively short and easily digested chunks, so fear not!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7953919 -

In the book Ishmael, the narrator says there are two types of people on Earth; givers, and takers. The narrator says that agriculture was the start of the culture of Takers and that the story of Cain and Abel in the bible is actually a story about the conflict between nomadic shepherds and settled farmers. Fascinating.

Civilization is the story of the Takers, and that story could seen be ending as we see the train about to drive right off the cliff... unless a new story begins.

By the way, Cain, said to be the first murderer in and of mankind, was said to be the first person who created evil. Fascinating.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7953935 -

Quote:
At its base, economics is about how people relate with the land and with one another in the process of fulfilling their material wants and needs. In the most primitive societies, these relations are direct and straightforward. Land, shelter, and food are free. Everything is shared, there are no rich people or poor people, and happiness has little to do with accumulating material possessions. The primitive lives in relative abundance (all needs and wants are easily met) and has plenty of leisure time.


Wow...

Quote:
Probably as a result, many foraging peoples are relatively peaceful (anthropologist Richard Lee found that "the !Kung [Bushmen of southern Africa] hate fighting, and think anybody who fought would be stupid").


The myth of the "Noble Savage" has been debunked a thousand times. As a counter-example to the !Kung, I would like to present the Yanomami.

Quote:
as civilization approaches a crisis precipitated by overpopulation


Huh? Malthus? What crisis, exactly?

Quote:
In terms of health and quality of life, civilization has been a mitigated disaster. S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., et al., argued in The Paleolithic Prescription (1988) that pre agricultural peoples enjoyed a generally healthy way of life, and that cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, emphysema, hypertension, and cirrhosis--which together lead to 75 percent of all mortality in industrialized nations--are caused by our civilized lifestyles. In terms of diet and exercise, preagricultural lifestyles showed a clear superiority to those of agricultural and civilized peoples.


It is easy to calculate the nutritional value of past populations by examining their height. The taller they are, the better nutrition they had. As skeletal records show, human beings have been getting taller and taller ever since the rise of civilization. Age of death has been steadily increasing, too. The diet of pre-agricultural people was limited to whatever they could catch. Our modern diet is much more diversified, consistent, and balanced.

Cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, emphysema, hypertension, and cirrhosis are either diseases of old age or related to tobacco and alcohol (or both.) Of course pre-agricultural people did not die of cancer... they didn't live long enough to get cancer!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7954025 -

The !Kung live in one of the most marginal environments in the world, yet thier diet is incredibly rich, varied and extremely healthy. I think it's more than a little ridiculous for you to assert that the diet of civilized peoples is generally healther or more varied than that of your average hunter gatherer. Ridiculous. The diets of agricultural peoples tend to focus on one or two staple crops with a few secondary additions. Sure, we now have the option of eating a wide variety of foods from all over the world, but the average diet of the average north american is still based rather heavily on processed wheat, corn and sugar. It is widely accepted by anthropologists that the average hunter gatherer lifestyle requires somewhere around 20 hours per week of 'work' while and the rest is leisure time. Food is there for the pickings if you know where and when to get it. Again, the !Kung live in an extremely marginal environment, yet they don't have to work that hard. Hunting is an unnecessary luxury as thier protein requirements are more than fulfilled by the Mongongo nut which grows in abundance. I'd use more examples than the !Kung, but unfortunately they are the prototypical example, and I know more about them than others.

Heinberg is hardly perpetuating the myth of the noble savage. His anthropology is quite reasonable for the most part, although I agree that he probably should have steered clear of the generalization about non-violence.

They didn't live long enough to get cancer? Puhleeease. Most cancer is caused by environmental pollutants. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that without the incredible array of chemicals we come in contact with on a daily basis, we'd probably get cancer a lot less too. :rolleyes:

Edited by NiamhNyx (01/30/08 12:14 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7954176 -

Quote:
They didn't live long enough to get cancer? Puhleeease. Most cancer is caused by environmental pollutants. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that without the incredible array of chemicals we come in contact with on a daily basis, we'd probably get cancer a lot less too.


That is nonsense. Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication. Age is the best predictor of cancer. I don't know why you assume primitive tribes wouldn't come into contact with toxins. Many potent carcinogens come from phytotoxins and other naturally occurring chemicals, such as aflatoxin.

If more "civilized people" got up off their asses and moved around a bit, they probably wouldn't all be dieing of heart diseases.

Quote:
The !Kung live in one of the most marginal environments in the world, yet thier diet is incredibly rich, varied and extremely healthy.


Besides the lack of water, how is their environment marginal? The Mongongo nut is available in massive quantities in every season. They also have access to wild game.

Quote:
The diets of agricultural peoples tend to focus on one or two staple crops with a few secondary additions. Sure, we now have the option of eating a wide variety of foods from all over the world, but the average diet of the average north american is still based rather heavily on processed wheat, corn and sugar.


Most hunter-gather societies also have a few staple foods. For example, Australian aborigines rely mostly on millet, Papua New Guineans rely almost exclusively on sago palms, native hunter-gatherers in California ate almost nothing but acorns, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7954882 -

So I skimmed the article. I agree with much of what I saw.

The question is moot as far as change goes IMO. We have chosen a path and because of our natures it will play itself out. I believe that no cultural breakdown will effect change from picking up the path again. I now believe humanity is another dead end so to speak. Maybe it's meant to be this way.

The life I prefer is a pipe dream of a disturbed sleeper.:sad:

Or as George Castanza sez:(to paraphrase) "This is the world I would create if I was a different person".:tongue:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7955228 -

Quote:
That is nonsense. Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication. Age is the best predictor of cancer. I don't know why you assume primitive tribes wouldn't come into contact with toxins. Many potent carcinogens come from phytotoxins and other naturally occurring chemicals, such as aflatoxin.



I'm not saying that they never got cancer. Of course, chances are that someone would get it sooner or later as there is the genetic element. The issue here is the compararitive rates.
Quote:
Medical anthropologists have found little cancer in their studies of technologically primitive people, and paleopathologists believe that the prevalence of malignancy was low in the past, even when differences in population age structure are taken into account (Rowling, 1961; Hildes and Schaefer, 1984; Micozzi, 1991).

Eaton et al. [1994] also analyzed the factors involved in women's reproductive cancers and developed a model that indicates that up to the age of 60, the risk of breast cancer in Western women is 100 times the risk level for preagricultural (e.g., hunter-gatherer) women.



Quote:
If more "civilized people" got up off their asses and moved around a bit, they probably wouldn't all be dieing of heart diseases.


You're probably right. But diet is also a definite factor. Wild meat tends to be much leaner than farmed meat.

Quote:
Besides the lack of water, how is their environment marginal? The Mongongo nut is available in massive quantities in every season. They also have access to wild game.


“...extreme isolation and a marginal environment have been responsible for the persistence of this form” (Lee 1969:50)

Quote:
Most hunter-gather societies also have a few staple foods. For example, Australian aborigines rely mostly on millet, Papua New Guineans rely almost exclusively on sago palms, native hunter-gatherers in California ate almost nothing but acorns, etc.


Most hunter gatherers have staple foods, but there is also a much greater diversity of other foods to eat as well. Nearly all hunter gatherers pick and choose what to gather based on preference, and are aware of a great number of less desirable food options that are generally only resorted to during shortages.

Quote:
Eighty-five plant species and 54 animal species were listed by the !Kung as edible.

!Kung ranked their 85 edible plants on basis of taste, nutritional value, abundance, and ease of collecting; mongongo is number one ranked plant food.

Given the tethering effect of water, the !Kung prefer to collect and eat the highest ranked foods that are available at the least distance from permanent water.

During dry season, the !Kung establish more-or-less permanent camps at permanent water and “eat their way out of it.”

(SEE COST CURVE, p. 60).

When roundtrip distance exceeds 12 miles (threshold of overnight trip), the !Kung begin to add less desirable, but closer resources (such as bitter melon, acacia gum, and heart of ivory palm.

During wet season, they move camp once the 6-mile-round-trip threshold, never having to add the less desirable resources.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7960129 -

I'd like to take this discussion in another direction, because, frankly, I don't have enough information to give this topic much justice.

I really don't see much of an argument against civilization per se in Heinberg's article. For instance, he mentions pollution, but I can imagine a civilization that produces no pollution, such as many Native American tribes. Environmental destruction is not inherit in civilization. It has more to do with the expansion of our economy and technology. He actually addresses this point, but fails to account for why it isn't just economics and technology. As technology keeps progressing, civilization may reach a point where its technology is so advanced that it produces absolutely no waste. (The Earthship house is a good example of a nearly waste-free environmentally friendly technology.)

Quote:
Meanwhile, as civilization approaches a crisis precipitated by overpopulation and the destruction of the ecological integrity of the planet, primitivism has enjoyed a popular resurgence, by way of increasing interest in shamanism, tribal customs, herbalism, radical environmentalism, and natural foods. There is a widespread (though by no means universally shared) sentiment that civilization has gone too far in its domination of nature, and that in order to survive--or, at least, to live with satisfaction--we must regain some of the spontaneity and naturalness of our early ancestors.


Again, I think it is easy to imagine a civilized society that embraces shamanism, tribal customs (isn't that what all our holidays are? funerals? weddings? etc?), environmentalism, and natural foods. Living in a city does not prevent any of this, but economic and technological factors do. Did Virginians colonists in the sixteenth century plant almost nothing but tobacco because of civilization or because of economics? If you do not have the means to grow or trade for a variety of foods, then your diet is not going to be varied, regardless of whether you are civilized or primitive.

Quote:
Anthropological and psychological research converge to suggest that many of civilized people's emotional ills come from our culture's abandonment of natural childrearing methods and initiatory rites and its systematic substitution of alienating pedagogical practices from crib through university.


I'd really love to see some research that supports this position.

Quote:
At its base, economics is about how people relate with the land and with one another in the process of fulfilling their material wants and needs. In the most primitive societies, these relations are direct and straightforward. Land, shelter, and food are free. Everything is shared, there are no rich people or poor people, and happiness has little to do with accumulating material possessions. The primitive lives in relative abundance (all needs and wants are easily met) and has plenty of leisure time.


This just seems false. There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Just because you don't have currency doesn't mean everything is free!) The Yanomami have an extremely stratified society and are also extremely uncivilized.

Quote:
The market gives us a numerical answer based on scarcity and demand. To the degree that we believe that such values have meaning, we live in a world that is desacralized and desensitized, without heart or spirit.


(I'm pretty sure desacralized is not a real word...)

Seventeenth century economics...The dismal science rears its ugly head! Supply and demand is a descriptive theory of economics which applies to both "primitive" and "civilized" society.

I don't think there is a great distinction between "primitive" and "civilized." What Heinberg seems to have done is taken every negative aspect of modern Western society and label it as "civilization." Meanwhile, he groups up all the positive aspects of hunter-gather societies and calls it "primitive." Never does he address pre-agricultural societies that are without a doubt undesirable to most people on this planet, such as the extremely violent lifestyle of the Yanomami. Nor does he address the extremely positive sides of civilization. Using his definitions, it is almost impossible to argue against him, because he defines civilization as something inherently bad and "primitivism" as something inherently good.

To me, the only difference between a "primitive" society and a "civilized" one is that the primitive society's economy is structured so that it lacks any entrepots. Without an entrepot, a city is very unlikely to develop, perhaps this development is even impossible. Other than that, I think the differences between societies has more do with their environment, culture, economics, level of technology, and relation to surrounding societies than whether or not they live in cities.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7962430 -

Quote:
Desacralize
to divest of sacred qualities or status


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/desacralized

:grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962477 -

You stole the honours, Veritas. I was gonna do the same when I got around to stepping up to the plate with a full response. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7962503 -

Well, I have to make my 15 minutes a day count!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962675 -

You are the queen of beating me to the punch.:tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7962800 -

I really enjoyed reading that article. Thank you for posting it.

I agree with most of what is written. However, I can picture my ideal when it comes to society and it draws from both the "primitive" and "civilized" as far as Heinberg defines the words. It is practically impossible to revert to that type of society without many people dying.

The way I see things: We as a species are going to continue on a path that separates us from where we originated. We're trying to get to a point where we no longer rely on nature, but we need natural resources to do so. Hypothetically that point may exist, but it seems unlikely that we will reach it before our population peaks and our resources run out.

I also don't think Heinberg takes into consideration that our modern behavioral changes may be advantageous, accustoming ourselves to the new world we are creating. His is an argument of aesthetics and I share his opinion that not relying on technology is more appealing.

Somethings to add to yours and mushman's exchanges...

It's inaccurate to state that cancer is caused by one thing. I'm sure both of you know this despite what you wrote in your earlier posts. Old age is a good predictor, but in the past 50 years there have been a great deal of novel carcinogens for us to enjoy (dioxin, asbestos, acrylimide, etc.) Furthermore, the genetic/heritable basis of cancer has to do with the hindrance of natural mechanisms that correct DNA damage and initiate programmed cell death. Over time, these mechanisms just can't keep up in a sense. Point being: We're seeing higher cancer rates today because of the increase in toxins, shitty food, lack of exercise, and old age.


--------------------
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God has died, and those sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful sin, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962901 -

Veritas said:
Quote:
Desacralize
to divest of sacred qualities or status


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/desacralized

:grin:


Pfft. It has only existed since 1911! Hardly a word at all!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7963109 -

Ever read Technopoly by Neil Postman?

This book blew my mind. It is an argument against itself.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Edited by Tchan909 (02/01/08 12:54 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ubermensch]
    #7963248 -

Ubermensch, I appreciate your post. I should probably qualify this thread with one point: I am not a primitivist. I find a critique of civilization incredibly valuable, but it does not inevitably lead me to the conclusion that the only true solution is for everyone to revert to a hunter gatherer way of life. In large part because this just isn't gonna fuckin' happen. At least not for a damn long time. Heinberg is not arguing in favor of 'going back' to a so called 'primitive' form of social organization, either. He is articulating a valid and important critique that ought to be factored into our thinking about what our options and desires are when it comes to responding to the ecological crisis currently plaguing the planet.

Quote:
The point of a primitivist critique of civilization is not necessarily to insist on an absolute rejection of every aspect of modern life, but to assist in clarifying issues so that we can better understand the tradeoffs we are making now, deepen the process of renegotiating our personal bargains with nature, and thereby contribute to the reframing of our society's collective covenants.


This is a pretty good place to start. It seems ludicrous to be to reject a line of critical analysis because one is averse to what one (perhaps naively) percieves as its sole inevitable conclusion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ubermensch]
    #7963252 -

Ubermensch said:
It is practically impossible to revert to that type of society without many people dying.




This is pretty much the reason I'm not a primitivist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7963778 -

Quote:
Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication.


This is the equivalent of saying that running is caused by the motion of your legs.  :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7964314 -

We have already been over this.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7499153#7499153

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7964567 -

I know we have. As I said in that thread:

Quote:
What I posted is that the genetic damage caused by lifestyle and environment IS within our control, and that it is inaccurate to claim that cancer is just "random mutation" as had been posted by several misinformed parties. If we inherit a damaged p53 gene, we are predisposed to developing cancer (unchecked random mutation). If we damage our DNA through the many carcinogenic factors present in the Westernized lifestyle, we are predisposed to developing cancer (unchecked random mutation).

The factor which is within our control is lifestyle. Study after study has shown carcinogenic effects of diet, exposure to toxins and radiation, sedentary lifestyle, stress, and so on. Why do you (and others on this thread) insist upon viewing cancer as something that just happens? There is no such thing as a "drive-by cancering."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution, Civilization and Jesus Unagipie 2,020 16 10/31/05 02:24 PM
by dr0mni
* Free Association Writing/Environment Thread Evan_1107 1,795 14 07/10/06 11:51 PM
by Evan_1107
* Body Art and the Rise and Fall of Civilization
( 1 2 3 all )		 Frog 3,204 48 12/30/04 11:42 AM
by silversoul7
* The Magic of Mistakes SkorpivoMusterion 733 2 07/25/04 12:11 AM
by Anonymous
* War and an alien civilization. Droz 1,680 15 08/22/06 03:51 AM
by Xanthas
* Mistakes Sinbad 881 9 01/16/05 08:50 AM
by Sinbad
* Learning from your mistakes SpecialEd 798 3 01/03/04 06:07 PM
by trendal
* Civilization silversoul7 1,352 16 01/30/04 08:55 AM
by kaiowas

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,277 topic views. 2 members, 93 guests and 34 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.