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: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds USA West Coast Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7974144 -

NiamhNyx said:
That's very likely. I don't mean to suggest that you haven't thought critically about it. But I encounter a LOT of people who begin and end thier thinking with "we're fucked, what's the point?" That is totally lame.


Well my "critical":tongue: thinking has lead me to the conclusion that by our nature civilization and culture are the only possible outcome of the human experiment.  In my study of human nature which includes myself I can find no alternative to what we are doing. I may not like it, I may not agree with it, but IMO it's here to stay wherever it may lead. Unfortunately I think it will lead to our destruction. Not because culture and civilization is a negative but that humanity (mostly) does not have the heart or skill  for what it takes to make it work to our ultimate advantage.


--------------------
"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: Icelander]
    #7974256 -

That's a ridiculous conclusion when you consider that our current form of social organization is relatively young compared to other forms that were the norm for the vast majority of time we've existed as a species. Also, when you study culture change and the collapse of other civilizations, such as the Mayans, it becomes clear that the linear evolution of social organization is nothing more than a foundation myth that underpins and serves as justification for the society we have now. Every culture has such myths. It's a total illusion to believe that this one in particular is true in any objective sense. It's only 'true' so much as we make it true by believing it and behaving accordingly. The linear evolution model is dated and largely rejected by contemporary anthropologists.

There are countless of examples of cultures existing on one "level" of the supposed band-tribe-chiefdom-state scale that choose, not out of necessity, but out of desire, to move "back" to a supposedly "less evolved" form of organization. The Crow, for example, broke off of another group (forgive me, I forget thier name) who were semi-sedentary horticulturalists and chose instead to develop in the direction of primarily nomadic hunting/gathering.

Your "study" of human nature, which includes you as a primary sample, is limited by the fact that the people accessible for your observations all exist within a specific context, socialized in a specific culture that percieves and relates to the world around itself in a specific way. The context in which people live shapes and largely determines thier values and behaviour. Historical process is a better means of explaining how we got here than "human nature" which is too basic and too fluid to explain the diverse ways in which people elaborate it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7977039 -

That's a ridiculous conclusion

So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more. IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture. I really don't see a major difference in primitive cultures and modern ones except in degree. They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival. Some small ones are or were more benign but are and were easily assimilated and often without violence. Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.

Hey what happened to that tribe that went backwards? I never see them on TV anymore.


--------------------
"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: Icelander]
    #7979280 -

Quote:
So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more.



The issue isn't how many cultures you or I have studied, but the validity of the patterns and theories drawn. The linear evolution model was popular in the early days of anthropology, right alongside theories of biologically determined inequality (racialism), and much of it was used as a moral justification for the theft of native land and forced assimilation. Many contemporary anthropologists have challenged that model and provided better theories that are better backed by the evidence.

Quote:
IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture.


True. What's your point? All human groupings that share a subsistence strategy, language and worldview are cultures.

Quote:
They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival.



There is a difference between status and rank. Status is based on merit, doing things that people respect and appreciate, but doesn't mean that a person with high status has any power to coercively influence the actions of others. Any influence one has associated with status is due to that person's greater knowledge or ability in a certain area. Whether or not thier advice is taken is a matter of the discretion of individuals. Rank, on the other hand, carries with it some ability to coerce others to fulfill one's wishes, and usually some repressive system of control. It's a mistake to confuse the two... although there are hazy areas where one shades into the other. For the record, there have been cultures that don't have status at all, let alone rank.

As for surival, well, uh yes-- humans get together to figure out ways of surviving (and thriving) in the particular environments in which they exist. That is what life is fundamentally about. What's your point?

Quote:
Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.


Tell that to the tribes deep in the Amazon or West Papua, or the folks on the Andaman Islands (who survived that giant tsunami because their oral tradition told them that water receding unusually far from the shore means you should immediately run to the hills.) Or hell, tell that to currently assimilated indigenous folk right here whose grandparents or ancestors fought and died to defend thier own cultures in the face of the European war machine. To omit from your analysis the degree of violence it has taken to demolish or assimilate other cultures as well as the resistance such genocide has been met with flies in the face of good evidence. It's at best simply misinformed to assert that glossy photos of refrigerators (rather than the experience or threat of violence) really swayed anyone to voluntarily jump on the dominant-culture-bandwagon.

It's probable that a more technologically advanced culture with a growth imperative (exploding population demanding more resouces) will be able to muscle smaller groups off thier landbase, or simply assimilate them as forced labor, through sheer numbers/better weapons. It doesn't follow from this that the current state of our culture is the inevitable outcome of 'human nature.' It's more of a historical domino effect. As soon as one group in a region becomes militaristic and threatening, their neighbours either have to muscle up or risk being slaughtered/enslaved. The long term and pre-historically widespread existence of cultures that don't undergo such a transformation is proof that 'human nature' isn't to blame. Yes- humans inherently have the capacity for this kind of social organization but capacity does not equate inevitability.

If you require it, I can send you endless peer reviewed anthropological and archaeological research that undermines the linear-progress model. It just doesn't hold up to the weight of informed scrutiny. :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980015 -

Was the IDEA of civilization a mistake back then? No.

Is the reality of civilization a mistake today? Yes.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7980266 -

Well, the idea of civilization may have been considered a mistake by certain elements of the population back when it got started (various times and places.) I'm sure it was percieved as a great idea by the classes that benefitted most. But remember, it's not something that is dreamt up and then brought into being in one conscious step, it's a process that spans across generations, each generation forgetting earlier ways of life and taking for granted the normalcy of the life they know.

I think the exhaustion of the environment has made quite clear the consequences of unlimited growth-- that we simply cannot afford to continue in the same direction we've committed ourselves to. This necessitates a looking back, understanding why and how we came to be where we are. It's a vital part of looking forward and deciding how to live in the present and future.

I just can't abide the attitude that there's no point in this exercise. Ideas change the world all the time. Plato, Hobbes and Locke still resound in our discourse. With climate change and the collapse of fisheries there is a popular resurgence of interest in reimagining our subsistence strategy and worldview. I think it's important to be as clear in our thinking as possible and this requires critical analysis of everything usually taken for granted. I'd really like to try to contribute to minimizing suffering when we finally exceed carrying capacity. :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980705 -

yer such a Malthus wannabe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7980711 -

I don't know how it's possible to "wannabe" someone I've never read. Nice personalism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7980806 -

Can you name any distinct connecitons between what she typed and Malthus' views?

Edited by Poid (02/04/08 11:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7980819 -

**she

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980959 -

NiamhNyx said:
I don't know how it's possible to "wannabe" someone I've never read.


You may be unconsciously projecting the archetype of Thomas Malthus.

NiamhNyx said:
Nice personalism.


Thank you. I have a soft spot for personal idealism.

Poid said:
Can you name any distinct connecitons between what she typed and Malthus' views?


Carrying capacity. Civilizations overpopulation and doom.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7981052 -

Hmm. Funny, we talked about carrying capacity today in my archaeology class and Malthus wasn't brought up. It's a simple fact that a finite system can support a limited population while continuing to renew itself. Once a population has exceeded that limit, there tends to be a process of balancing that involves a shortage of resources resulting in a die back. The limit can be raised with increasing intensification of use (such as adding a new, formerly un-utilized resources into the picture) but as the planet as a whole is a finite system, the carrying capacity is likewise finite. If a particular resource is exploited quicker than the rate at which it can replicate itself, it will eventually decline. Peak oil for example? This isn't some obscure or arcane philosophy, it's a simple fact of material reality. Malthus may have been one of the earliest to observe and articulate this, but it's pretty tangible. Common sense.

Specific people can't be archetypes. Archetypes are generalized universal symbols, like 'the hero.'

Edited by NiamhNyx (02/05/08 12:43 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7981359 -

Thomas Malthus was one of the first economists to study demographics and population. He is right up there with David Hume, Adam Smith, David Richardo, and James Mill. His most famous work is An Essay on the Principle of Population, which happens to be entirely wrong. (That is no exaggeration.) Thomas Malthus predicted that, because there was a finite amount of food in England and things such as disease and war kept the population in check, the population would remain stable.

"I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations...

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. [By geometrical ratio he means exponential growth.] Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second...

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficultymust fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

The population of humans is not stable at all, nor has it ever been. Due to technological and economic advances, it is constantly increasing. Other organisms have carrying capacities, but because of the amazingly powerful effect of our extended phenotype, there is no foreseeable carrying capacity for us. Nobody can predict where human ingenuity ends.

You can read all of An Essay on the Principle of Population (for free) here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prppl10.txt


I figured I should throw this in here too:

Quote:
The articles dealing with population growth and energy make claims that are sadly pessimistic, but fortunately wrong. Albert Bartlett takes issue with economist Julian Simon while fawning over Malthus. Readers should recall Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb (Ballantine, 1968; Buccaneer Books, 1995). Thirty years ago, Ehrlich made many of the same arguments as Paul Weisz and Bartlett. Julian Simon made a now−famous wager with Ehrlich regarding the prices of five commodities in the future. According to basic economic theory, the price of goods will increase as the available supply decreases. Ehrlich predicted severe shortages and cost increases. Simon claimed that technology and efficiency would more than make up for increased population and that prices would fall. Ehrlich was wrong; Simon was right. Today, the cost of energy in constant dollars is less, not more, than it was 20 years ago. Throughout the past three decades, it has been Malthusian theory that is in error. Calling Simon "egregious" in his correct prediction does not erase the facts about energy efficiency.


Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/05/08 02:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7981855 -

NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more.



The issue isn't how many cultures you or I have studied, but the validity of the patterns and theories drawn. The linear evolution model was popular in the early days of anthropology, right alongside theories of biologically determined inequality (racialism), and much of it was used as a moral justification for the theft of native land and forced assimilation. Many contemporary anthropologists have challenged that model and provided better theories that are better backed by the evidence.

Quote:
IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture.


True. What's your point? All human groupings that share a subsistence strategy, language and worldview are cultures.

Quote:
They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival.



There is a difference between status and rank. Status is based on merit, doing things that people respect and appreciate, but doesn't mean that a person with high status has any power to coercively influence the actions of others. Any influence one has associated with status is due to that person's greater knowledge or ability in a certain area. Whether or not thier advice is taken is a matter of the discretion of individuals. Rank, on the other hand, carries with it some ability to coerce others to fulfill one's wishes, and usually some repressive system of control. It's a mistake to confuse the two... although there are hazy areas where one shades into the other. For the record, there have been cultures that don't have status at all, let alone rank.

As for surival, well, uh yes-- humans get together to figure out ways of surviving (and thriving) in the particular environments in which they exist. That is what life is fundamentally about. What's your point?

Quote:
Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.


Tell that to the tribes deep in the Amazon or West Papua, or the folks on the Andaman Islands (who survived that giant tsunami because their oral tradition told them that water receding unusually far from the shore means you should immediately run to the hills.) Or hell, tell that to currently assimilated indigenous folk right here whose grandparents or ancestors fought and died to defend thier own cultures in the face of the European war machine. To omit from your analysis the degree of violence it has taken to demolish or assimilate other cultures as well as the resistance such genocide has been met with flies in the face of good evidence. It's at best simply misinformed to assert that glossy photos of refrigerators (rather than the experience or threat of violence) really swayed anyone to voluntarily jump on the dominant-culture-bandwagon.

It's probable that a more technologically advanced culture with a growth imperative (exploding population demanding more resouces) will be able to muscle smaller groups off thier landbase, or simply assimilate them as forced labor, through sheer numbers/better weapons. It doesn't follow from this that the current state of our culture is the inevitable outcome of 'human nature.' It's more of a historical domino effect. As soon as one group in a region becomes militaristic and threatening, their neighbours either have to muscle up or risk being slaughtered/enslaved. The long term and pre-historically widespread existence of cultures that don't undergo such a transformation is proof that 'human nature' isn't to blame. Yes- humans inherently have the capacity for this kind of social organization but capacity does not equate inevitability.

If you require it, I can send you endless peer reviewed anthropological and archaeological research that undermines the linear-progress model. It just doesn't hold up to the weight of informed scrutiny. :shrug:


You really aren't telling me things I don't realize here. My point being that civilization will continue on it's course as far as I can see and any indigenous cultures will be assimilated into it. This seems pretty obvious to me and examples are everywhere.

To think we can alter this course because a few fringe liberals think we made a mistake is continually disproved by events. If the white man disappeared tomorrow from America I really doubt that Seven Feathers Casino would close down and the tee pee would replace it.

Now of course I'm guessing as I can't know the future. But it looks like the most likely correct guess by all experiential accounts.

Usually people who question civilization and desire it to deconstruct (as I once did) are mostly just unable to accept change and chaos in the march of time. I think you will come to agree with this as you spend more years in observation and experience.


--------------------
"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]
    #7981930 -

Interesting essay, from what I read. It seems very well that civilization could be an accident, mainly due to my belief that nothing is inherent, therefore, animals may not necessarily be social creatures, maybe it just ended up that way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7984421 -

The assumption that the population of England would remain the same given finite resources didn't work out because England's resource base was practically infinite. Their project of colonial expansion broadened the scope of resources to exploit and land to ship thier extra population to. Basing my analysis on absolutely nothing but what you have said, I'm going to suggest that his flaw was in discluding these important variables and not in the principle itself. If you take an isolated population in a specific, limited area, with a specific and limited resource base, the principle of carrying capacity applies time after time. It can, of course, be raised with advances in techniques or an expansion of resources utilized. Here on the west coast, in the transition between the Paleolithic and Archaic periods, carrying capacity went from approx 2 people/km2 to 10/km2 because of a shift in subsistence strategies.

Take the example of Easter Island. They had a finite resource base that could not readily be expanded upon and because of bad choices, exploited it beyond carrying capacity. Instead of adapting when things started getting uncomfortable, they continued in the same direction and eventually wiped themselves out. Of course people do adapt most of the time, opting to change thier subsistence strategies. If we decimate our fisheries, we can always fall back on rodents and insects for good, reliable protein. :smirk:

Yes, technological advances most certainly raise the carrying capacity bar, but any finite system has limits sooner or later. I don't see how this cannot be self evident.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7984459 -

Icelander, perhaps I should clarify my point of contention with you. It's probably more a matter of nitpicking than anything else, really. I agree that, yes, we will most likely barrel along on our current course for some time into the future. My disagreement is with your assertion that this particular form of social organization is an inevitable product of 'human nature.' Perhaps what you really meant was that replicating the culture one is familiar with is something that people tend to do, is in our nature. If that's what you meant, than I misunderstood and I'd concede. edit: That point anyways. (Not any of the points I made, just thier being directed towards you.)

Edited by NiamhNyx (02/05/08 08:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7984906 -

You know what man, you sound like somebody I know. He committed mass genocide, and was a totalitarian evil mongul. Who are you? And what's more important, why and how?

Stop trying to put people down for no good reason man, that's really not cool.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7984964 -

Mushman is just mad that he lost the earlier debate he had with me, because I hunted down authoritative sources for my information and he couldn't be bothered to do the same. Ad hominem attack is a rhetorical strategy that's easy to sink to when you ain't got nothin' better in your arsenal. I'm not too phased by it, don't worry.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7985002 -

I really don't know what either of you are talking about and have not committed mass genocide in years.

Quote:
Who are you? And what's more important, why and how?


How am I? I'm fine, thanks.

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

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds USA West Coast Strains   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 3,203 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. 0 members, 76 guests and 22 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 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.