Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumKill the Economy
I want to start this with the written equivalent of a sigh. Not even a sigh, but a deep expulsion of exhaustion from the very core of my being. Usually I try to write with flowery prose, attempting to adorn logic and rationale with a tinge of poetry. Not today. My feeling as I sit here is that I shouldn’t have to be sitting here. What I’m writing shouldn’t need to be written, because it’s already been written. In fact, rather than writing this, I’d like to be able to look everyone in the eye, and say, “cut the shit.”
We are going to go extinct, and we are going to probably drag a large majority of the other species on this planet into that permanent abyss of nothingness with us if we don’t stop jerking off, and take some real action now. The die off has begun. It is not theoretical. It is not this ethereal “what if” that hovers over some distant tomorrow. Right now, it is estimated that over one hundred species are going extinct every day. Every god damn day. The Arctic sea ice is melting faster than was predicted, positive feedback loops have begun kicking in as methane is released from melting permafrost, and the oceans are rising in acidity killing off the phytoplankton which provide us with the majority of the oxygen that we breathe.
But this has all been said, and still, here we are. So the saying is not enough, because no one is believing it. Even the people who say they accept that climate change is real and that it poses a grave threat, don’t really believe it. Their actions prove that. They still get up and go to work and watch TV and upgrade their cell phones. I’ve been thinking about the economy lately. People seem to love this thing called “the economy.” No one knows why they love it or why they are so interested in preserving it or encouraging it to grow. It’s a self evident truth. One of those unquestioned premises slipped by us so early on that we kind of just assume “the economy” is a naturally occurring thing which must always be protected like some runt lamb weak from an illness at birth.
I’ve been thinking about the types of things conventional wisdom claims are good for the economy. Let’s list them, shall we? Prisons. Drug prohibition. Debt. Wall Street financial wizardry such as derivatives. Bank bailouts. Corporate welfare of many stripes. The pharmaceutical industry. The insurance industry. Unaffordable housing. The college loan racket. Mind boggling wealth disparity. Greed. Materialism. An advertising industry hell bent on making people, especially young women, hate themselves so they will buy a bunch of shit to make themselves feel better very temporarily. Environmental degradation of every kind, from deforestation to toxic waste storage, nuclear power to mountain top removal for coal, tar sands extraction and deep water drilling. Oh, and don’t forget war. Economists and politicians love telling us how good war is for the economy. You know, the mass murder of entire populations? Poisoning entire landscapes with depleted uranium. Yeah, this is all just a real shot in the arm for the “economy.”
Much, much more at the link: http://guymcpherson.com/2012/12/kill-the-economy/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The modern economy is slavery; it forces everyone to work in such a way their labor is exploited. Whether you are a farmer, a builder, a bureaucrat, or anything else, you still must be "something" with a tool in your hand, toiling away for hours and commanding energy to put food on the table (or else you die). There is never a collective goodness that is imparted to a society for your labor; the collective human condition is in growing turmoil. The main tangible benefits is that they can plug you into a wall when you reach terminal health--if you can afford it--but that is surely a "benefit" we can do without (especially in consideration of the trade-off).
The creature-comforts are shallow and empty; they offer no comparative benefit in contrasts to the increased leasiure and socialization that a non-labor exploited society enjoys. Almost all the health care advances are merely to negate the consequences of nutritional deficits, pollutants, stress and epidemics our modern economy & civilization impart on us. We are alienated from nature and from ourselves, growing so far into isolation that we can only openly communicate to each other in a virtual world.
Good riddance. Oh, and did I mention its killing the globe?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Surely, you jest.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html
Actually, jest or not, your suggestion is an insult to the truly enslaved. Perhaps you just don’t know the meaning of the word “slavery.”
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)1) Why must we have so many clothes that we wash so often? A non-consumerists, non-labor exploited society would surely deem that as a waste of resources and time. A modern economy creates the very problem (by generating demand for excess clothing) that a machine is supposed to "fix". The magic washing machine is therefore only "good" in the context of a modern economy where people own lots of clothes and spend lots of time washing them anyway, which is not necessarily a natural condition.
2) You are still working whether you are washing clothes for a few hours or working a job to pay for an inefficient washing machine, water, energy to run it, home it sits in, infrastructure to carry the water & energy to your house, etc. With the machine, not only is your labor being exploited in your modern job to pay for it, but the actual slaves in China that make the machine and mine the resources are being exploited by the machine's manufacturer.
Yes, the modern economy is slavery. That is how it operates (by exploiting labor to create surplus for owners, pubic or private). Most of its products not only take slavery to build & operate, as well as massive amounts of energy to run as pointed out in the video (which makes them less efficient in the sense of energy). One thing thing that Hans presents as a priori is the "goodness" of education & reading (from reduced washing time that is only necessary in a modern economy in the first place), when that surely just turns one into a better energy commander to grow the economy further (infinitely, without fundamental reason). Why is being a better commander of energy better than having more leisure, as a simpler society would?
The machine "fixes" a problem that only exists in a modern economy. It fixes it by necessitating more labor and infrastructure, and ultimately, energy, which is a problem itself.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)
Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Workers rescued in May from a brick kiln in Linfen, in Shanxi Province, in northern China, in what has become an unfolding labor abuse scandal.
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
Published: June 16, 2007
[font size=3]SHANGHAI, June 15 — Su Jinduo and Su Jinpeng, brother and sister, were traveling home by bus from a vacation visit to Qingdao during the Chinese New Year when they disappeared.
Cheated out of their money when they sought to buy a ticket for the final leg of the journey home, their father, Su Jianjun, said in an interview, they were taken in by a woman who provided them with warm shelter and a meal on a cold winter night. She also offered them a chance to earn enough money to pay their fare by helping her sell fruit.
The next thing they knew, however, they were being loaded onto a minibus with several other children and taken to a factory in the next province, where they were pressed into service making bricks. Several days later, the boy, 16, escaped along with another boy and managed to reach home. A few days later, Mr. Su was able to rescue his daughter, 18.
…
The children, and many adults, reportedly, have been forced to work under brutal conditions — scantily clothed, unpaid and often fed little more than water and steamed buns — in the brick kilns of Shanxi Province.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You are simply arguing the magnitude of slavery by pointing out extreme examples that feed our own level of slave-comfort. But can we really set a bar as to what level of forced labor and exploitation constitutes a derogatory term like "Slavery". And if so, isn't that bar really set individually by each society at such a level to pacify the majority members of the society and convince them that they, in fact, are not "slaves"?
We are almost all born in a labor situation not of our choosing or creation, and we are almost all having our own personal labor exploited, such that fewer people can derive surplus from it. And for some of us lucky slaves, we even get to be the beneficiaries of this process happening at more egregious levels to people out of sight and out of mind.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)[font size=3]entry into force 9 March 1927, in accordance with article 12
…
Article I
For the purpose of the present Convention, the following definitions are agreed upon:
(1) Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
(2) The slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.
…[/font][/font]
Your claim of “slavery” reminds me of how some right-wing Christians feel “persecuted,” and that their persecutions are signs of the “end-times.”
It’s hopelessly exaggerated.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Give him and iPad and tell him to get the fuck back to work, in accordance with your definition.
Its good to be free, eh?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)A slave wouldn’t have an iPad (although he might assemble them.)
Poor wages and/or working conditions doesn’t make someone a slave.
Unless an “employer” is free to treat their “employees” as property, it’s not slavery. When “employees” start being branded, get back to me.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Thats how you "free" them: give them a possession. Let them feel ownership and think they are free
But in no way does owning an iPad really make anyone any more or less "free". Frankly, the debt it requires for one to own an iPad makes them work as much, if not more productively, than putting a whip to them.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Slavery is all about possession (the possession of the slave by the master.)
I’ve known people who have gotten themselves hopelessly in debt simply because of a lack of self-control. I know that sounds judgmental. I’m sorry to say, it is.
However, I’ve known people who held the same jobs, getting the same pay, but were in very different financial situations, simply because while one saved their money, to purchase something they wanted, later, another purchased it immediately, and paid interest on that “purchase” (seemingly) for ever.
Are these people enslaved? No.
Are they embarrassed by their own poor choices? Yes.
My parents grew up during “The Depression.” They were never well off, let alone rich. We were raised simply but comfortably. They taught all of their children how to manage our money. Part of the result is that we all share an aversion to virtually any type of credit.
When I see someone use a credit card to buy a hamburger, or a candy bar, it simply boggles my mind.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are they products of a system, choices and all, or in complete control of all decisions, irregardless of the system they are born, educated and cultured within?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)John Wesley worked to combat poverty. He taught the poor simple money management, typically paraphrased, “Earn all you can; Save all you can; Give all you can.” (A classic socialist, Wesley believed that people who were financially successful should be generous to those who were not.)
He despaired that he was successful in teaching the first 2, but not as successful with the 3rd.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)[font size=4] Contemporary clinical psychology perspectives on delayed gratification[/font]
[font size=3]Self-control has been called the “master virtue” by clinical and social psychologists, suggesting that the ability to delay gratification plays a critical role in a person’s overall psychological adjustment. People with better ability to delay gratification report higher wellbeing, self-esteem and openness to experience, as well as more productive ways of responding to anger and other provocations. Early delay ability has been shown to protect against the development of a variety of emotional vulnerabilities later in life, such as aggression and features of borderline personality disorder. Meanwhile, many maladaptive coping skills that characterize mental illness entail a difficulty delaying gratification. The tendency to choose short-term rewards at the expense of longer-term benefits permeates many forms of psychopathology.
…
A growing body of research suggests that self-control is akin to a muscle that can be strengthened through practice. In other words, self-control abilities are malleable, a fact that can be a source of hope for those who struggle with this skill. In psychotherapy, treatment for impulse-control issues often involves teaching individuals to realize the downsides of acting on immediate urges and in turn to practice delaying gratification. In anxiety disorders, this process occurs through exposure to a feared situation—which is very uncomfortable at first, but eventually becomes tolerable and even trains a person’s mind and body that these situations are less threatening than originally feared. Exposure therapy is only effective if an individual can delay gratification and resist the urge to escape the situation early on. To shed insight on the tradeoff between short- and long-term gains, therapists might also help individuals construct a pro-con list of a certain behavior, with sections for short-term and long-term outcomes. For maladaptive coping behaviors such as self-injury, substance use or avoidance, there are generally no long-term pros. Meanwhile, abstinence from acting on a harmful urge (i.e., delayed gratification) generally results in long-term benefits. This realization can be a powerful impetus for change.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are you positive its not cultural? Why, it most certainly benefits our economic model. Does every country have this problem? Does every society we have ever seen?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)The desire to have something that someone else has is not new.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Like the Hadza for example, who own next to nothing without survival utility (aside from a smoking pipe)? Most societies like this (foragers, pastoral and horticultural) are entirely communal, sharing everything from tools to food among the entire tribe. It seems like their main desire is nothing aside from leisure time with their 20 hour work weeks. We spend more time working to pay for useless shit, where the simpler tribes today spend more time leisuring because they have no necessity of useless shit.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I don’t mean to be flippant, I’m sincere. Why don’t you live among the Hadza?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I would jump at the chance to live like them where I am, but my land is all "reserved" for individuals who are deemed to have produced a sufficient amount, or will promise (under debt) to do so in the future. In any case, I would still probably try if my wife would be up for it (she wouldn't enjoy the trip to Africa).
So, the only way I could engage in that behavior now is to produce enough and be rewarded a vast amount of capital for land, or to borrow the capital and purchase the land (then work till death to pay back the capital, which would preclude me from living that way). So with the means I have, I do my best and spend a good deal of time in nature and foraging, within the constraints allowed to me by my economic model (IOW, I must spend 40 hours a week to hold down a job to pay for shelter and a place to live without being shot/arrested).
No, I am not free. While I could theoretically feed a small village on a few hours of work a day, I must work from morning till mid-day just to have the right to live some where. I must do it or starve or die in the cold or be shot squatting on land. Rules our ecnomic system creates forces my hand.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Traditional Hadza, like Onwas and his camp mates, live almost entirely free of possessions. The things they own—a cooking pot, a water container, an ax—can be wrapped in a blanket and carried over a shoulder. Hadza women gather berries and baobab fruit and dig edible tubers. Men collect honey and hunt. Nighttime baboon stalking is a group affair, conducted only a handful of times each year; typically, hunting is a solo pursuit. They will eat almost anything they can kill, from birds to wildebeest to zebras to buffalo. They dine on warthog and bush pig and hyrax. They love baboon; Onwas joked to me that a Hadza man cannot marry until he has killed five baboons. The chief exception is snakes. The Hadza hate snakes.
…
It is impossible to overstate just how much Onwas—and most Hadza—love to smoke. The four possessions every Hadza man owns are a bow, some arrows, a knife, and a pipe, made from a hollowed-out, soft stone. The smoking material, tobacco or cannabis, is acquired from a neighboring group, usually the Datoga, in exchange for honey. Onwas has a small amount of tobacco, which is tied into a ball inside his shirttail. He retrieves it, stuffs it all into his pipe, and then, holding the pipe vertically, plucks an ember from the fire and places it atop his pipe. Pulsing his cheeks in and out like a bellows, he inhales the greatest quantity of smoke he possibly can. He passes the pipe to Giga.
…
There are things I envy about the Hadza—mostly, how free they appear to be. Free from possessions. Free of most social duties. Free from religious strictures. Free of many family responsibilities. Free from schedules, jobs, bosses, bills, traffic, taxes, laws, news, and money. Free from worry. Free to burp and fart without apology, to grab food and smoke and run shirtless through the thorns.
But I could never live like the Hadza. Their entire life, it appears to me, is one insanely committed camping trip. It's incredibly risky. Medical help is far away. One bad fall from a tree, one bite from a black mamba snake, one lunge from a lion, and you're dead. Women give birth in the bush, squatting. About a fifth of all babies die within their first year, and nearly half of all children do not make it to age 15. They have to cope with extreme heat and frequent thirst and swarming tsetse flies and malaria-laced mosquitoes.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I read that a while ago. I can deal with the medical issue; afterall, look what we have in exchange. Good--but expensive--medical (to fix our problems our system creates) and an impending famine from climate change. Yay technology
The interesting thing about the medical perspective is how much debt it creates; some people are simply slaves to live. Medical issues account for over half of bankruptcies, yet you think its because people are greedy.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Add to that the excesses of the police state, and I don't think the "slavery" claim can be dismissed quite so easily, though perhaps indentured servitude or wage slavery are more apt terms.
Any 99%-er who has been subject to chronic debt and a cycle of incarceration from zero-tolerance policy is at a high risk of being treated like a slave. Such people have been "captured".
Once consumerism's cornucopia has dried up and desperation becomes more than just a common psychological symptom in America, then freedom to travel, organize and express may become proffered on the back of corporate sponsorship like healthcare (and, increasingly, education) is today; more necessities to be managed like amenities within corporate fiefdoms.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)…
Any 99%-er who has been subject to chronic debt and a cycle of incarceration from zero-tolerance policy is at a high risk of being treated like a slave. Such people have been "captured".
…
Nonsense.
As I said above, poor working conditions and poor wages are not slavery.
There’s no mistake, we have a great deal of inequity. However, the 99% are not owned by the 1%. When you tell me that workers can be openly and routinely beaten by their employers, who suffer no legal consequences, get back to me.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Being born with debt ensures one will starve or meet an unkind death if they do not work perpetually. Each step through life tends to accumulate more debt in the system than less it seems, ensuring more work.
So the system grinds on in a "friendly" manner. But if all employees refused to work for any length of time, be sure that you will witness some fine beatings (its happened before. Hell, my great-grandfather--a white man--was beaten to death by his former employer after a labor dispute). We have a nice facade in America where labor is exploited in exchange for useless but distracting toys, so there isn't a need to resort to further violence 95% of the time. Does that make the masses free who are born indebted to a system that demands their productive capabilities? Not really.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Some people don’t purchase “useless but distracting toys.”
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is so much we can do without that we believe we "need" (because something taught us so)
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)No, I don’t think that’s quite it.
It’s not that our economy makes us want things. We want things, which our economy provides.
There is a tendency for people to believe that if only they had something (an iPad, money, a spouse) then they will be happy. However, once they have that, and are still not happy enough, they believe that if they only had (a new iPad, more money, a more attractive spouse) that, then, they would be truly happy.
And so, for example, the wealthiest give the smallest percentage of their incomes to charity.
Now, of course, advertisers also go out of their way to tell us what things are available for us to desire, but desire has been around a long, long, time, especially the tendency to desire what someone else has, saying, “Hey! Why can’t I have that!?”
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The cultured citizens of a consumerist society may, but those are not humans in any state that I would consider "natural".
Man has existed without the concept of material wealth far longer than with it.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)We’ve been writing about it for millennia at least.
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=222181244
[font size="1"]15[/font]And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.”[/font][/font]
Nor is it peculiar to people. Think of the reputation some birds have for collecting shiny objects:
http://www.ehow.com/info_8555028_birds-like-shiny-things.html
http://www.ehow.com/info_8595904_birds-collect-objects.html
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)So your bible is simply a product of the very culture that I am citing as unnatural. For simple proof, look at the no/low possession, communal foraging societies that still exist today, or have existed in recent times free of modern influence (Bushmen, Hadza and South American horicultural and pastoral societies).
It may surprise you that Homo Sapiens are not the greedy scumbags that one unique dominating culture (that eventually spread) produced to play an integral roll in driving it forward. Before the granary, what debt could there have been? The seed and the plow changed everything, as did the cultural & religion changes that were necessary to convince men to keep raping the earth.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)OK, so, let’s look at an attempt to abolish consumerism. That (naturally) would be “pure Communism” (or perhaps “Marxism.”)
Why do we have no countries who successfully practice pure Communism today? Well, partly, because people want to own stuff. The people on top tend to keep more of it for themselves, and the 99.99% (if you will) resent them for it.
Some years back, I was speaking to a Czech (shortly after the breakup) who said her Grandmother told her, “Communism is a wonderful system… for saints.”
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I've already mentioned viable economies, such as Foraging, Pastorial and Horticultural models.
Communism is social theory born out of the industrial revolution (from recognizing its failures). It depends on complexity that requires energy overhead and a working population. It is supposed to be a fairer, kinder way to produce goods and rape the earth. It was a contradictory cure to an already poisoned populace, promising them continued "advancement" under a friendlier flag. It is as much bullshit as capitalism.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I’m old enough to have met a few small “communes.” These people rejected consumerism, embraced nature, were into organic farming… but none of the ones I knew exist today, and new ones don’t seem to be taking their place, but, perhaps I just haven’t encountered them.
Similarly, I’ve known a number of “co-ops” over the years which have failed. Why? Well, as far as I can tell, because there was a mix of hard-working, true believers, and a bunch of people who just wanted cheap stuff.
This seems to be a general problem. In a Communist (or a Socialist) society, some will decide they don’t want to work as hard as others. Then, resentment tends to set in. “Hey! Why am I working so hard here, with no benefit!?”
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You are very cultured and stuck in this rabbit hole. Foragers don't work long and hard. They work less than 20 hours a day on average. I can seriously feed ~30 people from a single hour of foraging--why would I need anything in return if I enjoyed doing it? I already do these activities for free.
Likely, people who got involved in it didn't really understand the real flaws in the system if they were similarly replicating the flaws on at a simpler level by toiling at the soil. We are so far gone, being programmed by the 10K year accumulation of culture, that it takes a great deal to achieve freedom
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The animals aren't stealing. They would have to understand the construct of private ownership first.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)You actually believe that animals don’t have a concept of private ownership? Are you familiar with territorial behavior?
On a more personal level, do you have pets? Have you noticed how one pet may claim a toy for their own?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This does not make them all communal in nature. Im going to take a wild leap and suggest they don't have laws, courts and mortgages either.
Some humans have not learned this either; it is as alien as capitalism and agriculture to them.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I would go so far as to say that some humans may not have a natural (i.e. unlearned) concept of private ownership. However, I would not generalize this to all humans.
How many times have you heard a parent telling a child to share, because the child isn’t doing it on their own?
Similarly, some other species may lack a concept of private ownership. However, I wouldn’t generalize that to all other species. (Sorry, I’ve recently seen two kittens work out which toys were whose. Some toys are shared, and others are claimed.)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This is a pre-requisite to private ownership, for an animal must understand it is a unique entity before it could see that entity as solely having access to a specific object according to a universal law.
How many times have you heard a parent telling a child to share, because the child isn’t doing it on their own?
As far as children are concerned, it isn't private ownership that babies & toddlers are attempting; their early desires preclude anyone else from owning anything. They want to touch, taste, hold, interact, etc, with everything that interests them without the understanding that other people have a "right" (ie, private ownership) to that object. Clearly, if a baby/toddler cannot grasp other people have private rights to objects, then certainly I could not extrapolate their sole desire for objects follows any cognitive pattern that suggests they perceive a natural personal "right" to have objects; rather, it suggests that they do not recognize the necessity of having "rights" in the process of "possessing" an object (and we are assuming children even want possession as we understand it rather than holding, interacting, loving, etc. Our very observations are filtered through our conditioned lenses and we are labeling behaviors according to our guesses). In other words, they think they should have immediate access to everything simply because they want access to everything (not because its "theirs" and will forever be "theirs" alone). From these early points on, much of our organization of reality and interacting is taught from parents (who do in fact understand private ownership and try and mold the child's behavior to become cohesive with society).
Raising children is very interesting, and I quickly learned they do not naturally understand the "way of the world". They do not understand why we cannot live in every open-house we may go to, or drive any car that we see, or eat out of some else's garden (despite picking wild blackberries), or even go down to the beach on a private access path (that one really threw my 5 year old for a loop--a "private" beach?!?). These are things you have to explain once or twice, and then after that, these concepts quickly become building blocks they use construct their understanding of reality with.
By the way, I make some effort to teach primitive perspectives to my children about labor, ownership and existence, and occasionally take them foraging with me. While I do what I can with my limited white-guy world-view, they seem to very quickly and easily assimilate these concepts--much quicker than modern concepts about labor, capital, ownership and religion. Their brains soak it up like a sponge, as if animist/pantheist spirituality, communalism and foraging are hard-wired. In any case, Im just trying to offer a diversity of thoughts by presenting lots of different ideas of reality, but anecdotally, I do not find our modern ways of life as the way "natural" brains are wired to function as much as more simpler, primitive ideas. We have a very complex society; of course a child's brain would not easily grasp these concepts. Private ownership is an immensely complicated topic in itself that you take for granted (that is why its such a large part of the law). Our entire economy depends upon recognizing it. Natural? Its a tough sell
on edit: With a little more thought, I'd have to conclude that the "natural" urge (before conditioning) is to want immediate universal access to everything, without complexly answering if anyone else should have the same thing (which causes a conflict societies must resolve). Our society resolves this conflict by teaching people they must earn universal access to some things, and respect other people's ability to do the same. Communal societies resolve this by teaching people they can have near-universal access to everything, insofar as they allow other people the same by co-operatively sharing when there is a conflict. So simpler communal societies are probably closer to our natural state, by just trying to work out how two people can share the same tool. Our society must introduce concepts of earning and limited access to resources that could be better utilized if commonly shared, which is much more complex and seems to lead to conflicts or inefficient usage of resources.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)My guess is you haven’t spent much time with “animals.” (It’s been my experience that people who make statements like that, haven’t.)
“Animals” don’t try to prove their self-awareness. Human observers attempt to deduce whether or not an “animal” is self-aware.
It used to be accepted fact that “animals” (other than humans) didn’t think. Well, that’s pretty clearly false.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/how-smart-are-animals.html
It used to be accepted that “animals” (other than humans) didn’t have emotions. That’s pretty clearly false as well.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2301820722/
It used to be accepted that “animals” (other than humans) didn’t have language or grammar.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/clever-monkeys/monkeys-and-language/3948/
http://video.pbs.org/video/1778560467/
So, you believe that most “animals” (other than humans) aren’t self-aware. I suspect you’re wrong. I suspect the failure is on the part of the human observer.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/do-animals-know-who-they-are
There are degrees of self-awareness in animals
Published on July 6, 2009 by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. in Animal Emotions
[font size=3]…
In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin pondered what animals might know about themselves. He wrote: "It may be freely admitted that no animal is self-conscious, if by this term it is implied that he reflects on such points, as whence he comes or whither he will go, or what is life and death, and so forth."
Darwin also championed the notion of evolutionary continuity and believed that animals had some sense of self. In the same book, he wrote, "Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Thus, there are shades of gray and not black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive abilities. So, while animals might not ponder life and death the way humans do, they still may have some sense of self.
…
So, my take on animal selves means that David Graybeard and Jethro knew they weren't one of their buddies. Many animals know such facts as "this is my tail," "this is my territory," "this is my bone or my piece of elk," "this is my mate," and "this is my urine." Their sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness" is their sense of "self."
How do animals differentiate themselves from others? Many studies of self-awareness have used mirrors to assess how visual cues are used. They've been effective for captive primates, dolphins and elephants. Although mirror-like visual images are absent in most field situations, it's possible that individuals learn something about themselves from their reflections in water. But we also need to know more about the role of senses other than vision in studies of self-awareness because some animals for example, rodents who can distinguish among individuals don't seem to respond to visual images. Odors and sounds are very important in the worlds of many animals. Many mammals differentiate between their own and others' urine and glandular secretions, and many birds know their own and others' songs. Moving Jethro's "yellow snow" from place to place allowed me to learn that Jethro made fine discriminations between his own and others' urine ( http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200906/hidden-tales-yellow-snow-what-dogs-nose-knows-making-sense-scents ). Perhaps a sense of self relies on a composite signal that results from integrating information from different senses.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Human observers attempt to deduce whether or not an “animal” is self-aware.
Absolutely. Its difficult to do so. We can only do so in a few simple ways and have not concluded many different species have this ability beyond a handful studied.
I suspect the failure is on the part of the human observer.
Maybe. But you can guess this. And then similarly guess they all understand private ownership naturally. And similarly guess humans all naturally suck at impulse control, and only primitive cultures figure out how to control it with their limited view of psychology. And then form a world-view on guesses made from a brain conditioned by our society. And I can guess you are most likely wrong. And then there isn't much of a point in talking about the natural tendencies of Homo Sapiens (even by looking at those foragers living close to a natural state currently) outside of what we can guess.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I said that it was generally accepted in the past that “animals” (other than humans) didn’t have emotions. This is clearly false.
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/animals-news/zambia-chimpanzee-death-reaction-vin/
This is just one of several aspects of cognition which we liked to assume were unique to our species.
If an “animal” can mourn the death of another, doesn’t that imply that the “animal” has a concept of the other and (by extension) of the self? Doesn’t it require an understanding of death?
Doesn’t the understanding that individuals are different from one another imply that “animals” understand that they (themselves) are different from others.
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/ng-on-assignment/parrots-naming-kids-ngoa/
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We can simply deduce natural human behaviors by looking at humans living in very primitive/low-culture societies--past and present--but you are trying to muddy the waters by making baseless guesses about animals that we have even less knowledge of and means of gathering that knowledge.
If we are just going to guess about the nature of the universe, in such a manner that fits our pre-conceived, conditioned world-view, then we really do reach the point of futility in terms of expressing and debating ideas to others.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Or is it that you don’t believe that humans are related to other species?
If we observe an understanding of “me” and “mine” in other species, I would conclude that it is “natural” for it to exist in our species as well.
I would conclude that in some cultures, children are taught to share better than in others (not that in some cultures children are taught to be more selfish.)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You seem to be weighing guesses about other animals above sociological evidence about foraging humans (which is as close to natural as we can get). It goes beyond confirmation bias, as you are making up your own facts with the animal guessing.
In any case, we've ventured well beyond E&E in an exercise in futility (that being, you trying to convince me how much humans naturally love to accumulate things like medical debt & living expenses, thereby justifying their need to toil).
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Our economy is something we created. It is an extension of us. It is an expression of our nature.
In truth, I think that in small groups, humans naturally behave differently than they do in very large groups. I grew up in a small village, and feel alienated in even a small city.
A small group of humans living together depend more on the other members of the group than a group of thousands, let alone millions. With such interdependence, I think it is natural to see more sharing. It’s a matter of survival.
The behavior of people in large groups however is just as “natural.”
Seek out Desmond Morris’ “The Human Animal” (especially the episode “The Human Zoo.”)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Which reciprocally creates the economy, religion, etc.
It is an expression of our nature.
Unless we can pin down the origin of our economy to a single (or few) ethnic/cultural group that expanded outward via migration from a common point of origin (using accumulated surplus energy) and dominated other groups with their power and economic system. Then it isn't so much of a reflection of OUR nature, but maybe the nature of a specific dominating ethnic group from a specific geographical origin, who has enslaved mankind accordingly to their ideals by simply creating an environment where others will starve or be killed if they do not follow the rules.
Whew....I mean, its a possibility that we are all playing according to a game that was brought to us by outside influences rather than living in a common day manifestation of our natural instincts. Right?
How European Farmers Spread Agriculture Across Continent
Wouldn't it be sad if our entire conception of reality was "unnatural" and the result of a very successful bad idea from specific geographical regions that could do nothing but grow infinitely once it began to fester? What if our entire notion of the failings of humanity (our "greed", our "impulses", our "short-sightedness"
are simply cultural constructs to solve the cognitive dissonance created by living out of alignment with our natural instincts? Perhaps because we cannot feasibly shake the control of the culture, we find it more easy to solve this internal conflict by changing our conceptions of human nature (which in turn helps us resign to the notion that we are destined to destroy ourselves).
All over the world, we have seen (and continue to see) societies who do not accumulate surplus energy and wealth, and who do not destroy their environment; often, if they have anything civilization judges of value, they are destroyed or assimilated. But our only cognitive representation of mankind rests on the dominating culture, without discriminating domination through technology from nature itself.
Humans had a hundred thousand year accumulation of culture (some still do) that did not naturally manifest into a progressively complex society that consumes everything in site. We do know that in a few rare instances some specific cultures did, and expanded out destroying the others. Civilization only has about a 10K year track record, and it seems to aim at convincing people that humans didn't have another viable way to work together, think complexly, and communicate prior to its evasive existence. That is a tough pill to continually swallow.
In any case, I do not accept that cultural expansion and domination is an aggregate representation of all human nature whatsoever, but perhaps a unique few who constructed a self-reinforcing, self-sustaining, exponentially growing system (think game-theory). Hell, we know that even on a simpler level, a single individual--a genius, a virtuoso, a savant, a sociopath--can have an impact on culture that is disproportionally larger than their representation in the gene pool; basically, an improbable fluke can impact all of human history immensely. By no means can we consider our current culture any type of accurate manifestation of human nature with what we know.
Just food for thought. Thats all.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)He explores these themes in Ishmael and The Story of B. He comes at it from the position that we are not a broken species - genetically and instinctually flawed, doomed by our Achilles-heel biology to eventual extinction. Instead, we're a very flexible species that have psychologically trapped ourselves into telling mistaken cultural stories about who and what we are, and how we fit into the rest of the universe.
We're not broken, we're simply mistaken. In a sense, our nature is fine, but our nurture is busted. The good news is that while genetics can't easily be rewired, mistaken stories can be recognized and changed, sometimes very rapidly, with enormous cultural consequences.
Humanity is a DNA computer that runs cultural programs. The computer isn't broken, it's just that the programs we're running right now are really buggy. Unfortunately, the program of "Global Industrial Empire v1.0" has such a degree of control over the Matrix that it may take a power-off reset to get the system back to a state where a new program can be loaded.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)One thing we know about agriculture is that it can lead to vast surplus energy, and thereby, vast overshoot (which naturally leads to expansion). This mechanism of spreading is pretty well proven at this point. Why should we therefore believe that whatever this expansion produced (our culture) is any more "natural" than the cultures it overran?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)For me, connection is better than separation. That's why I'm such an ardent fan of the "Facebook phenomenon" - although it's utterly unnatural in many ways, it reconnects us in many new ways. Even mistaken stories don't damage us as badly when we're connected.
For me, the fundamental mistake humanity made, the place we turned aside in our storytelling, wasn't when we developed totalitarian agriculture, industrial technology, money, hierarchies or right-wing politics - those were just symptoms. Our key error was our choice to see ourselves as being separate from the world that sustains us. I'm convinced that if we can re-write that one story, we'll have a fighting chance to become truly sapient beings. Fortunately, it's a story each of us can re-write in our own individual consciousness.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I couldn't agree more. I'd like to know when that was (I think it may have been involved reciprocally though with the creation of agriculture, or otherwise we wouldn't of allowed it or pursued it). I feel that it is very important for us to re-establish that connection immediately, but I don't know if its possible; there is so much friction to the idea that humans can be anything other than what we are today.
cprise
(8,445 posts)If you haven't already, you should watch all of it...
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis-TheCenturyOfTheSelf
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)My inclination is to believe that as people acquire things, they tend to want more.
So, for example, the poor are more willing to share what little they have with others. The “Hadza” have very little, so there is little to claim as their own, although they do have private property.
Our level of technology permits us to have more than we have ever been able to have in the past, and so… we want to acquire more, especially if we perceive that others have more than we do; that upsets our basic belief in “fairness.” (“Hey! How come he has more than I do!?”)
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendence.html
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What is a better measurement for the asserted "poor impulse control" than bankruptcy, yet 62% of bankruptcies in the US are medical related. It is a proven fact that health has declined drastically since the onset of agriculture, and now we have a system to fix this which forces people to work just to be able to live in a somewhat health manner. Citizens are turned into industrial machines that grow the economy so that they do not die of the cancers that civilization has given to them. How is that entirely different than putting a gun to someone's head?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I’d love to see that “proof.” This much is clear, the neolithic farmers survived. The mesolithic hunter-gathers did not. (Surely, that must say something about their relative “fitness.”)
However, once again, you are treating something which is not alive as if it were, “the medical system” is something we created. It is an expression of ourselves.
Many of our older hospitals were created not to make a profit, but for the good of society.
Personally, I would like to see universal health care in the US. (i.e. not universal health insurance like “Obamacare”, universal health care.)
Hopefully, that will come.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It would be a fine idea, if anyone would do it. In practice it has problems, especially when its administration falls to the corrupt and venal people we elect in our "democracies".
The Canadian health care system is falling apart around us up here as we watch. My partner came back from spending 15 years in LA. She says that despite being a totally destitute green-carder, she got better health care there than she does as a citizen here in Canada. After watching her travails for the last couple of years, I agree with her.
The Canadian system is now utterly broken. And I say that as someone who has lived here all my life and has always supported the socialist party that brought it into being. The capitalist "democratic" cultural stories broke it.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Oh! You mean it involves people!?
In my observation, any large organization of people has problems. One way to attempt to cope with these problems is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy introduces problems of its own. The question is not so much how to eliminate the problems in the organization as it is how to minimize them.
In the US (particularly lately) we have a problem with maintaining large systems. Our VA health system (for example) has had some notable failures.
However, all large systems have problems, and (IMHO) a system with problems is better than no system at all.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Whether it is through technology, religion or bureaucracy, you can see this same pattern. Mankind has a problem, then comes up with a more complex solution, which has its own problems, which require further complexity. Each additional layer requires more and more energy to implement and maintain, requiring us to consistently find more and more energy to keep our civilization stumbling forward. Was our first problem intermittent scarcity via foraging, and some time ago we decided to increase complexity in our food system so we wouldn't have to have a natural population reduction (like the other animals)? And from there, the rest is history.
Check out Collapse of Complex Societies
and (IMHO) a system with problems is better than no system at all
Maybe, maybe not. If the infrastructure required to implement a system has consequences such that the human condition is worse off than without both that system and infrastructure, then probably not. That is precisely the case I am making about our medical technology in the first place, which only makes sense among a diseased population living with stress and nutritional deficiencies.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)This entertaining book is quite useful for examining and understanding “systems” in general.
The author proposes a number of principles, including:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics#Why_Systems_Behave_Poorly
[font size=5]Why Systems Behave Poorly[/font]
[font size=4]
- Complicated systems produce unexpected outcomes[/font] [font size=3](Generalized Uncertainty Principle)
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I don’t see that.
I am what my doctors call a “healthy individual” and yet, I’ve had accidents which require medical assistance. At times like those, I am glad I don’t live even 50 years ago.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What type of accidents? Things that could of happened pre-civilization like falling off a cliff? Or, like a car wreck?
Did you ever consider that if you had a more sound and rounded diet of a forager, you may have potentially healed better or that it may not have been as severe? Why I know this is a leap, there is actually a study regarding the healing of bone fractures and bone densities, etc. (not that I prefer to root around for something I read close to a decade ago, but if you wish) 
BTW, I realize that shit happens. I also think that some systems make lots more shit happen (making "fixes" more important). A gatherers life isn't all roses, but by no means is a malnourished, stressed out civilization member's life perfect either.
I myself am damaged. It might of been avoided in a different life...might not. I have universal access to health care, and I still can't "fix" it.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Foragers still exist that have not yet been over-run by civilization, which has been discussed in this thread already. Where they were replaced it isn't actually a mechanism of "natural selection" but complex social interaction and ecology; since the advent of agriculture, which genes are propagated are not really a representation of that which nature judges as "fitter".
There probably was not a lot of significant genetic variations between the two groups in general (or all humans for that matter), but rather, their health was more dependent upon ecological conditions instead of genetics. So when I'm talking about health degradations from agriculture, I'm not talking about genetic "fitness", but rather nutritional consequences from changes in diet. The evoking of "natural selection" as an explanation for the dominance of agriculturalists was based on a misunderstanding of the situation in my opinion.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)For a 2012 update on Jared Diamond, “Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” anthropology, and politics see Jared Diamond won’t beat Mitt Romney: Liberal Coffee-Table Histories vs. Real History.
[font size=3]Jared Diamond’s “Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” claimed agriculture did not deliver the splendors of civilization but was instead a highway to hell. This section examines the traditional progressivist perspective on agriculture and the sources for Diamond’s revisionism, including passages that seem plagiarized from earlier anthropological work.
Later sections examine the simplifying assumptions in Diamond’s “Worst Mistake”: Many Ways of Gathering and Hunting reveals there is not just a single form of hunting-and-gathering; Domestication of Plants and Animals Opens Relational Pathways shows how domestication is not simply humans controlling nature; Many Origins of Agriculture demonstrates agriculture is also quite varied; and finally More than Guns, Germs, and Steel returns to a critique of Diamond’s most popular work.
These subsequent sections thoroughly question the premises of “Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.” The section below defines the terms and shows the sources for Diamond’s rhetorically-overblown revisionism.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Can you cite where he used archeological records to prove agriculturalists were healthier than foragers? Anywhere?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)As for Diamond’s “name…” it appears the label “plagiarist” fits.
It’s hard for me to imagine healthy, happy hunter-gatherers looking at their short, sickly, short-lived, over-worked farmer neighbors and saying, “That’s the life for me!”
It’s hard for me to imagine an army of sickly, short-lived, brittle-boned invaders displacing a healthier, heartier, happier native population…
But, then, failures of my imagination prove nothing.
Perhaps the evidence which is used to “prove” the farmers were sickly (e.g. shorter stature) is misleading. Perhaps the farmers were simply a different (smaller) population?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/october9/archeogentics.html
[font size=5]Overlapping genetic and archeological evidence reveals human migration[/font]
[font size=3]By LINLEY ERIN HALL
For the first time, Stanford researchers have compared genetic patterns with archeological findings to discover that genetics can help predict with a high degree of accuracy the presence of certain artifacts. And they say the strength of this link adds credence to theories that prehistoric people migrated from the Middle East to Europe, taking both their ideas and their way of life with them.
…
The researchers’ analysis showed that a pair of mutations on the Y chromosome, called Eu9, predicted the presence of certain figurines from the Neolithic period with 88 percent accuracy and the presence of painted pottery with 80 percent accuracy. The study appeared in the September issue of Antiquity.
…
It is known that agriculture spread from the Middle East to Europe during the Neolithic period about 12,000 years ago, but for many years archeologists have debated how this occurred. Was it due to the movement of people or to the movement of ideas? Previous genetic analysis of people living today suggests a migration — that the people moved — but critics have questioned this view. The latest study reinforces evidence of a migration in which people brought their ideas and lifestyle with them.
…
The researchers found a strong correlation in their study between the Y-chromosome mutations and the presence of certain artifacts. Nonetheless, Underhill remains cautious. "No gene on the Y chromosome is going to program you to make pottery," he said. Instead, the Y-chromosome mutation pairs used in the study are simply population markers that in this case were compared to ceramics. The same mutations could be compared to many different types of artifacts.
…[/font][/font]
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news42161.html
[font size=4]Wednesday, 10 November 2010[/font]
[font size=3]A team of international researchers led by ancient DNA experts from the University of Adelaide has resolved the longstanding issue of the origins of the people who introduced farming to Europe some 8000 years ago.
A detailed genetic study of one of the first farming communities in Europe, from central Germany, reveals marked similarities with populations living in the Ancient Near East (modern-day Turkey, Iraq and other countries) rather than those from Europe.
Project leader Professor Alan Cooper, Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD) at the University of Adelaide, says: "This overturns current thinking, which accepts that the first European farming populations were constructed largely from existing populations of hunter-gatherers, who had either rapidly learned to farm or interbred with the invaders."
…
"We have finally resolved the question of who the first farmers in Europe were - invaders with revolutionary new ideas, rather than populations of Stone Age hunter-gatherers who already existed in the area," says lead author Dr Wolfgang Haak, Senior Research Associate with ACAD at the University of Adelaide.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That guy sure has an axe to grind. Did Diamond date his mom? Doesn't "plagiarist" just mean others agreed with him that he copied. Seems to be a terrible way to attack the veracity of someone's message
It’s hard for me to imagine an army of sickly, short-lived, brittle-boned invaders displacing a healthier, heartier, happier native population
Why? Foragers lifestyle depends on a healthy ecosystem. The agriculturalists' food system causes massive ecological damage. Foragers could either assimilate, starve or leave.
Perhaps the farmers were simply a different (smaller) population?
Yes, they were a different, migrant population. The links you posted are of the same study I posted earlier as evidence against some universal natural progression towards farming and surplus accumulation (thus, against the idea of today's reality being a manifestation of our aggregate "nature"
.
But regardless, it isn't just shorter genetics. There is profound evidence of malnutrition & disease among agriculturalists populations. Here is a quick overview I posted earlier: BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION
Larsen has done a lot of studies on this, as well as Cohen and Armelagos (Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture). Also, check out the other link I posted to huge study on maternal death rates, which bases a lot of conclusion on numerous similar studies. The bottom line is that man has been dramatically malnourished since agriculture in comparison to forager populations.
This isn't a leap or a theory. Its been established fact for decades.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Did you even look at the dates?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is a variety of genetic studies confirming this.
It simply bolsters the notion of our reality being the result of external domination and subjugation, rather than a universal natural progressive trend among all Homo Sapiens.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)If we are descended from the farmers, then their natural behaviors are our natural behaviors as well. However, we may not be descended from the farmers.
There is also genetic evidence to suggest that the earliest farmers brought their culture to Europe, where it was assimilated, and they were largely eliminated.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/aaft-eef110405.php
Contact: Natasha Pinol
scipak@aaas.org
202-326-6440
American Association for the Advancement of Science
[font size=5]Earliest European farmers left little genetic mark on modern Europe, Science study finds[/font]
[font size=4]Modern Europeans may largely be descended from 'old stone age' hunter-gatherers[/font]
[font size=3] The farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans, according to the first detailed analysis of ancient DNA extracted from skeletons of early European farmers.
The passionate debate over the origins of modern Europeans has a long history, and this work strengthens the argument that people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.
…
The researchers from Germany, the United Kingdom and Estonia extracted and analyzed DNA from the mitochondria of 24 skeletons of early farmers from 16 locations in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of these 24 skeletons contain genetic signatures that are extremely rare in modern European populations. Based on this discovery, the researchers conclude that early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations.
…
Even this conservative estimate of 8 percent stands in stark contrast to the current percentage of central Europeans who belong to the N1a lineage -- 0.2 percent. This discrepancy suggests that these early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern Central Europeans, the authors say.
…[/font][/font]
So, who “dominated” who?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We know that agriculture reduces biodiversity, which is detrimental to the viability of foraging. Even if the early migrants did not dominate genetically, they changed the "game" by instituting conditions by force that altered the ecosystem. The moment the forests recede, the foragers are faced with a question of survival. Once the rules of the system are in place, they must be followed or people will starve.
I wonder what the ecological tipping point is, such that, when foraging (as a way of life) becomes non-viable once a certain amount of agriculture & cultivation is introduced to an area.
BTW: if you are now trying to suggest that the Europeans were not a different population of shorter stature, does this mean you now understand agriculture coincided with a massive reduction to human health?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I think interpreting taller stature as a sign of better health is a bit of a… stretch.
Based on body size, which was healther? Cro-Magnon or Neaderthal?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The trend towards a decrease in adult height and a general reduction of overall health during times of subsistence change remains valid, with the majority of studies finding stature to decline as the reliance on agriculture increased.
Stature and robusticity during the agricultural transition: Evidence from the bioarchaeological record
Comparison of successive periods (e. g. by decade) in living or historically documented populations indicates that during periods of increased dietary stress and food shortages, stature of children and adults reduces (68, 231, 232, 265); with improved nutrition, stature increases
BIOLOGICAL CHANGES WITH AGRICULTURE
You cannot revise established palaeopathology just because it doesn't feel truthy enough.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Would you say that a modern “American Diet” or a traditional “Japanese Diet” is healthier?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'd assume the healthiest diet would be that which is closer to what we ate while we were subject to natural selection (under the premise our current genes once promoted the most viable humans who ate those nutritional ratios/compositions)
BTW, another large piece of the puzzle mentioned in a lot of these studies is disparity; lower-status agriculturalists never had access to great food as it was traded or accumulated by elite social members. Likewise, any society that has large amounts of disparity will probably follow the same trend. I do know that in America, there is a large amount of disparity that amounts to terrible nutrition for those with lower socio-economic status (so there really is no single "American Diet" . Though highly subsidized beef is still available to some of the lower classes.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)October 28, 1999
From Correspondent Holly Firfer
[font size=3](CNN) -- Japan enjoys the highest average life expectancy of any nation, brought about in large part by a tradition of eating a healthy diet with plenty of vegetables and fish.
…
The young population in Japan is increasingly eating like people in the United States, a trend that has alarmed researchers.
…
Researchers have already noticed some effects. Diet has changed the way Japanese look. Square jaws for chewing a diet high in roughage have been replaced by softer jaw-lines. And because less intestine is needed to digest a Western diet, experts say the Japanese torso is shrinking.
And one of the most noticeable physical changes from a Westernized diet is a taller population. Nutrition researchers say dairy products in the diet, provide extra calcium to make bones to grow longer.[/font][/font]
The “Western Diet” has brought poorer health to Japan, but greater height!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'm not sure I follow your grand conclusion. In any case, if you think Larsen, Cohen, Mummert, Armelagos, etc, are "wrong" about stature & health declining from malnutrition due to the agricultural shift, write them a dirty letter. Or better yet, a dissertation.
In the meantime, this is the science. These are the facts.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Contact: Dr. Jane Green
arenehan@picr.man.ac.uk
44-018-652-89659
Lancet
[font size=5]Height might give clue to cancer risk[/font]
[font size=3]Taller people are at increased risk of a wide range of cancers, according to an Article published Online First in The Lancet Oncology. In women the risk of cancer rises by about 16% for every 10cm (4 inches) increase in height. Previous studies have shown a link between height and cancer risk, but this research extends the findings to more cancers and for women with differing lifestyles and economic backgrounds. The results suggest that increases in the height of populations over the course of the 20th century might explain some of the changes in cancer incidence over time.
To investigate the impact of height on overall and site-specific cancer risk, Jane Green from the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK and colleagues assessed the association between height, other factors relevant for cancer, and cancer incidence in the Million Women Study, which included 1.3 million middle-aged women in the UK enrolled between 1996 and 2001. During an average follow-up time of about 10 years, 97 000 cases of cancer were identified.
The risk of total cancer increased with increasing height, as did the risk of many different types of cancer, including cancers of the breast, ovary, womb, bowel, leukaemia and malignant melanoma.
…
Jane Green, lead author of the study says: "We showed that the link between greater height and increased total cancer risk is similar across many different populations from Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. The link between height and cancer risk seems to be common to many different types of cancer and in different people; suggesting that there may be a basic common mechanism, perhaps acting early in peoples' lives, when they are growing." *
…[/font][/font]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/
[font size=5]Height, body size, and longevity: is smaller better for the human body?[/font]
…
[font size=4]FINDINGS SUGGESTING THAT SHORT STATURE IS HEALTHIER[/font]
[font size=3]During the second half of the 20th century, the people living the longest included the Japanese, Hong Kong Chinese, andGreeks2—all being shorter and weighing less than northern Europeans and North Americans. In addition, data from the California Department of Health indicate that Asians and Hispanics live more than 4 years longer than taller whites.6 Wild and associates found that East Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics in California had lower all-cause and CHD death rates, as shown in the Table.7 Heights obtained from other sources are shown for each ethnic group and indicate that shorter ethnic groups had lower death rates.
Compared with northern Europeans, shorter southern Europeans had substantially lower death rates from CHD and all causes.2 Greeks and Italians in Australia live about 4 years longer than the taller host population, and shorter Turkish migrants in Germany have an age-adjusted CHD death rate half that of taller indigenous Germans. Others have pointed out that genetics is not the primary factor here because after a few generations,Mexican and Japanese migrants approach the CHD and cancer rates of the host country.2 One of us(H E) led medical teams in studies of eight populations selected for healthy and vigorous people and found that they were also small people.8
A report on a 25-year study of Okinawans indicates that they have the greatest longevity in the world, including exceeding that of mainland Japanese.9 Okinawans are vigorous and healthy into advanced ages and continue a high level of physical activity into their 90s. They have the lowest rates of cancer and heart disease in the world and also exceed most countries in centenarians at a rate of 34 per 100,000 versus 5 to 10 per 100,000 for industrialized nations. Bone fractures were found to be substantially less than in mainland Japan and the United States. The Okinawans eat a low-calorie, high-fiber diet rich in vegetables, grains, and soy. Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (especially omega 3) are consumed in preference to saturated fats. Refined carbohydrates and animal products, except for fish, are consumed in small amounts. Tea and small amounts of alcohol are drunk daily. However, salt intake is 7 g, which is higher than the less than 1 g consumed by populations with lifelong low blood pressure.
The researchers, Willcox etal,9 did not attribute this superior health to genetics because when younger Okinawans migrate to mainland Japan, Hawaii, or the United States, they soon acquire the chronic diseases of the host population. The Okinawans are shorter and weigh less than mainland Japanese, and men aged 87 to 104 years average 145.4 cm (4ft 9 in) and 42.8 kg (94lb).2
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You can school them about their life work.
Response to NoOneMan (Reply #152)
OKIsItJustMe This message was self-deleted by its author.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Angus Deaton †
Edited by Richard A. Easterlin, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, and approved May 2, 2007 (received for review December 22, 2006)
[font size=4]Abstract[/font]
[font size=3]Adult height is determined by genetic potential and by net nutrition, the balance between food intake and the demands on it, including the demands of disease, most importantly during early childhood. Historians have made effective use of recorded heights to indicate living standards, in both health and income, for periods where there are few other data. Understanding the determinants of height is also important for understanding health; taller people earn more on average, do better on cognitive tests, and live longer. This paper investigates the environmental determinants of height across 43 developing countries. Unlike in rich countries, where adult height is well predicted by mortality in infancy, there is no consistent relationship across and within countries between adult height on the one hand and childhood mortality or living conditions on the other. In particular, adult African women are taller than is warranted by their low incomes and high childhood mortality, not to mention their mothers' educational level and reported nutrition. High childhood mortality in Africa is associated with taller adults, which suggests that mortality selection dominates scarring, the opposite of what is found in the rest of the world. The relationship between population heights and income is inconsistent and unreliable, as is the relationship between income and health more generally.
…
[font size=4]Discussion[/font]
…
My results have implications for a number of strands of current research. The relationship between income and population height, which has been much relied on by economic historians, is of limited usefulness and will be downright hazardous for making comparisons across countries or continents. As in most other contexts, the link between income and health is not reliably mechanical (10). Attempts to infer African income levels or African disease burdens from African heights would fail spectacularly, much more spectacularly even than the well known but relatively minor failures in the height to income relationship in midnineteenth century Europe and America, particularly because at least some of the latter can be accounted for by an increased burden of disease. Even within countries over time, Table 1 does not suggest there is any reliable relationship between income and height. The African results also suggest the use of extreme caution in the use of skeletal remains to infer either material living standards or the disease environment of now-remote populations, although this is not to challenge the use of skeletal information to make inferences about health (21, 22). More generally, my results reinforce the view that “extreme caution should be used in making inferences from anthropometric data regarding living standards” (ref. 18, p. 141).
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)(this is in reply to the deleted comment about taller people having specific health issues)
Do these statments really contradict eachother:
1) Taller than average individuals in a population may have increased incidence of health issues
2) The decline of the average height of an entire population is linked to malnutrition, and is an indication of declining health
Statement #1 is referring to specific individuals and statement #2 is talking about trends across entire populations.
Please actually take a moment to read the Larsen paper on this. Evidence of declining health at the onset of agriculture by studying fossil records is beyond refutable. We are getting to the point of arguing about gravity here.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)- The earliest European farmers appear to be genetically different from the hunter-gatherers.
- Height should not be used to judge the relative health of different populations.
I know it’s popular to dream of some idyllic time, “before the fall.” (People have been doing that for millennia.)
I think the living was hard for the farmers and the hunter-gatherers. However, a decision was made (over the course of millennia) that, on the balance, farming was the better path. It seems quite odd to me to suggest that over the course of millennia, humans blindly wandered down a dramatically worse path.
http://dx.doi.orgi/10.1002/ajpa.21301
…
Article first published online: 27 MAY 2010
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21301
[font size=4]Abstract[/font]
[font size=3]This study addresses changes in health which were consequential to the Neolithic transition in the southern Levant, judged on the basis of the study of specific and nonspecific stress indicators, trauma, and degenerative joint disease in 200 Natufian (hunter-gatherer) skeletons (10,500–8300 BC) and 205 Neolithic (agricultural) skeletons (8300–5500 BC) from the southern Levant. The comparison of the health profiles of pre-Neolithic (Natufian) and Neolithic populations reveals a higher prevalence of lesions indicative of infectious diseases among the Neolithic population, and an overall reduction in the prevalence of skull trauma among males. No change over time was observed in the prevalence of degenerative joint disease. These results indicate that in the southern Levant the Neolithic transition did not simply lead to an overall deterioration in health but rather resulted in a complex health profile which was shaped by 1) an increase exposure to disease agents, 2) changes in diet, 3) population aggregation in larger and denser settlements, 4) changes in activity patterns and the division of labor, and possibly 5) a higher resistant immunological system and response capacity to environmental aggressions (mainly infections). Am J Phys Anthropol 143:121–133, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
…[/font][/font]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Height should not be used to judge the relative health of different populations.
Height is not being used specifically in most of the posted studies as a judgement of health (and some of the populations are the same, especially regarding American populations), but it is instead a correlating indicator of declining health. Oral records and bone studies are what are being specifically used to determine health. It just so happens that as health declines from these measures, stature does as well (from rickets, bone growth retardation, bowing of the femurs, etc.).
Again, please checkout that Larsen link. It is very, very in depth on this topic.
If you just want to conlcude that agriculturalists are as ever so healthy as the foragers they replaced (despite contradictory fossil records), thats fine. I could give a damn at this point.
tama
(9,137 posts)In our ego hubris we tend to think we are using other species, not being used by them. But it goes both ways, and certain annual hay plants are having a blast using humans - the best horticultural species around - to create and maintain vast expands of 1st succession areas (fields) just for them and lot of genetic variety.
We have close coevolutionary relations with many species, plants, animals and shrooms, but being governed by annual coevolutionary partner gives a limited and short-sighted view. Yup, the hays can use humans to clear forests to beat the big bad trees that suffocate them, but then what?
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I rather liked Lovelock’s suggestion that we are like spacesuits for anaerobic bacteria, who had hopelessly polluted their environment with oxygen.
More to the point, it appears (for example) that, rather than humans “domesticating” canids, humans and canids may have coevolved.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/an-evolutionary-tale-about-dogs-193185.aspx
[font size=5]An evolutionary tale about dogs and humans[/font]
[font size=3]A study of the evolution of dogs has opened new and unparalleled doorways to understanding how genes and the genome produce diversity, people attending a recent symposium hosted by the UCLA Center for Society and Genetics learned.
Held Feb. 25-26, the two-day public symposium, “Made for Each Other? Dog and Human Co-evolution,” brought together geneticists, behaviorists, dog lovers and trainers, historians, cultural anthropologists, ecologists, artists and many others to discuss the genesis of dogs and explore the changing and complex relationship between dogs and humans.
Dogs and humans have essentially evolved alongside each other, migrating together across continents. Today, there are no human populations that do not have dogs as an integral part of their culture.
All dogs — those that are considered “village” animals who still roam in packs and breed at will, as well as those that are “breed” dogs who live with humans — share a common ancestor, the wolf. But there was no single wolf-to-dog event that created the dog, according to genetic analyses and the fossil record, said Robert Wayne, UCLA professor in ecology and evolutionary biology. Rather, the emergence of the dog was an ongoing, long-term, widespread process as wolf populations interacted with humans.
…[/font][/font]
And if this is the case with canines, why not other “domesticated animals?”
And if it is true of “domesticated animals” why not “domesticated plants” as well?
Of course, where does this speculation end?
If we breed a monster turkey, are we doing the turkey’s bidding?
http://science.kqed.org/quest/2012/11/19/turkey-trouble-genetics-gone-too-far/
Post on Nov 19, 2012 by Dr. Barry Starr from QUEST Northern California
We've bred these poor things to the point where they can't even reproduce anymore without our help.
[font size=3]No, this isn’t a blog about genetically modified organisms — that has been argued enough lately! Instead, in honor of Thanksgiving, I want to talk about regular old selective breeding and the monsters it can create: the industrial turkey, the main course at most dinner tables on Thursday.
What we have all conspired to do to this once noble bird is appallingly awful. In our drive for more healthy white meat, we have selected for giant versions of turkeys with grotesquely over-sized breasts. How over-sized? Their breasts are so big at this point that these poor things can’t successfully mate. Every industrial turkey was created by artificial insemination.
Not only that, but all of that extra muscle has created birds in constant pain. Their bones just can’t easily handle all of that muscle being packed on so quickly. Add the damage to their hearts and the resulting high rate of heart attacks and you have something pretty close to monstrous.
And remember, we didn’t engineer these things at all. These caricatures of wild turkeys were hidden in the turkey genome all along.
…[/font][/font]
If Monsanto produces a new GM strain of corn, are they simply doing the corn’s bidding?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That we evolved to spread genetic material, for the benefit of the genes. Our own success or failure is immaterial to them, our true owners.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Im just not sure we can state those other species "use" humans to do it. The only thing many of these species are doing is being "useful" to humans, such that humans express enough interest to "help" them. They must show traits, like the ability to be cultivated, that human (culture) has a preference for (or can gain a preference for).
It seems a bit anthropomorphic the way its worded. I'd tend to think any real action in this regard is merely the result of mechanism we would study with game theory.
tama
(9,137 posts)We show our cultural backgrounds, I'm thinking about what we call "emuu", sort of spirits/origins of various species that my fennic pagan ancestors etc. shamanic peoples negotiate with...
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I've never heard of "emuu" before.
I've always been fascinated at how varied cultures organize their realities and interactions with the system around us. But as a product of scientific, western civ I've never been able to recognize these other constructs as possible truths (aside from spending a few hours as a pantheist once while intoxicated). But I can definitely recognize them as beneficial ways to view our universe and perhaps even necessary ways if we are going to create a sustainable society with a future.
tama
(9,137 posts)Virtue = Truth. Experiences with various psychoactive species that heal and teach, among many other experiences, has taught me to consider our ancestral and generally "shamanic" possible and dynamic truth most natural.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)AlexSatan
(535 posts)I hate to break it to you but that is just as much slavery as you seem to think of it. You certainly have to work to live in that case.
Sure you don't have to get up and tend to things (and there is ALWAYS something to tend to) but then again you don't have to eat the next year, right?
I get the impression you think that corporations are bad and we would all be better off just working little plots of land. It's a lot of work and could work out. Until that storm destroys your crop. Or drought. Or insects.
And you need someone to specialize in creating things you can't grow. So you need to grow extra so you can trade with that person for the things you want/need. Do you give him everything you have? No. Do you give him enough to fully survive the entire year? Nope. You give him what you think is a reasonable amount that he will agree to.
And hauling around crops to each person you need stuff from is a pain, so you might develop something simpler like circles of metal or sheets of paper that represent a certain amount of crops. And sometimes those specialty folks have so many people who want their goods that they give stuff to other people to help them do the work to provide those goods.
And eventually you have a system with companies and workers. Sorry, that is just the reality of society.
BTW, if I decide I don't want to "work to live" will you feed, cloth and house me?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You certainly have to work to live in that case.
I agree. Im not a proponent of farming period, unless it involves the horticultural forest-garden techniques employed by indigenous American people. Our model of farming is quite ridiculous.
I get the impression you think that corporations are bad and we would all be better off just working little plots of land.
Nope, I don't think we should. But feel free to rave against that.
if I decide I don't want to "work to live" will you feed, cloth and house me
Not a chance.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)go back to the way we lived 120 years ago and enjoy your non slavery life.Buy 40 acres and plow it with a horse and plow.
Turn off your internet and electricity.Refuse all modern medicine.Grow your own and barter eschewing modern commerce.
You will be in your paradise.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Or does our economic system demand that you must command energy, accumulate surplus wealth, and grow the infinite economy before you can exchange that labor for land? There is also the option to borrow capital and do those things the rest of your life, thus negating the intended purpose. In any case, its an example of how the economy infinitely grows; in order to have any "freedom", you must either agree to be a cog or have been a cog in the industrial machine. Besides being born a Trump, there is not a lot of wiggle-room here.
140 years ago was still very wrong-headed. We need not a horse or plow to symbiotically coexist with the earth (no-till horticulture for instance).
With all that said, this is our likely future anyway. Why not get started early by choice?
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)I love how people who want to overthrow technology always maintain a very strong presence on the internet. And I bet if this person needed to have their appendix out, a wisdom tooth removed, or a leg re-set, they would not go to a shaman.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I love how anti-pollution people always breathe in lots of pollution. Clearly they are just hypocrites, so we cannot even judge the merits of their message, right?
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)the point is that rather than give a pracatical example of getting control, you simple went ahead and said "even that was bad."
If you can show how plowless agriculture can feed people, give examples;
If you want millions to starve because you want methods of solving problems you find more pleasing , be honest about it. Of course, do be prepared to deal with people who find the idea of killing millions of people a cause for alarm.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Forest farms, etc.
Google: "agroforestry calories per acre"
It is drought-resistant and can outperform corn by 30%.
Only 20% of farmed corn is currently consumed directly by humans. You could theoretically convert half of all farms to forest farms/carbon sinks over night and not a single person would starve from a lack of food before they were productive.
Of course, do be prepared to deal with people who find the idea of killing millions of people a cause for alarm.
We have mild predictions of multi-billion famine deaths by 2100 if we continue business as usual, and no one is alarmed enough to be looking for alternative models. One study (Ortiz et al) predicts US will not even be able to support staples in 4 decades. I would doubt a truly viable solution would alarm them any more.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)you used science to back up your point, that;s better, though by all means, offer us a link. I do not mean that as snark, I am interested in that, especially as I think we could use more forests for the simple air quality anyway.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is small-time forest gardens, advocated by Robert Hart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hart_(horticulturist)
Large scale agroforestry production often involves nut species like walnut and hazelnut. Here is an energy breakdown:
Woody Agriculture - On the Road to a New Paradigm
There is some government action to move toward this model. You can find information at National Agroforestry Center. They probably cover row cropping and all the ways existing farmers can start implementing these ideas.
Did you know that many American indigenous tribes were horticultural societies who would increase their local forest biodiversity by planting and culturing edible woody perennials? Its actually a very old and very successful model.
It sinks carbon, increases soil integrity, increases biodiversity, requires little capital and machinery investment, requires little, if any, external inputs.
Its utterly not good at raising food for growing armies though.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)(not necessary for life)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)IOW, my involvement with technology has no bearing upon the content of of advocacy about technology. This was a type of ad hominem attack.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)I mocked the comparison you made.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)It is in fact the most common and baseless attacks against anarcho-primitivists who use the internet (not that I am specifically in that group).
The counter example regarding air is to point out that people must interact with systems not of their choosing or even those they are trying to destroy. I am not sure why there is value in mocking that idea (which is not a parallel comparison anyway).
Carry on.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Not you.
Do you understand that you are not a comparison? You are a person.
If making fun of the comparisons, ideas and positions a person takes is the same as making fun of the person personally, then all discussion is an AHA.
And your argument is false. Yes, people must interact with the air around them. People do NOT have to interact with the Internet. In fact, people even survived before the Internet.
It is just hypocritical to use a system you want to destroy. Sure, planting malicious code is one thing (but then you aren't really using the system) is far different than using it to spread your ideas.
It's no different than Ted Haggard preaching against homosexuality.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Which is a continuation of an attack on me, not the merits of my message.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)when the merits of the message include getting rid of agriculture and medicine (which you have promoted on this thread) despite the facts that the body count needed would run in the millions, if not Billions, then of course I can see why you do not want to focus on your actual message, it is because it is a hard sell, completely contrary to the interests of everyone from rich to poor.
You keep mentioning one study that did not even use an affirmative yes or no term to say that agriculture made women die in childbirth, well, aside form the fact the study you quote never gave a clear yes or no, there are many experiments you can do to prove that study quite wrong. Go to any planned parenthood and ask the ladies if they want start offering people penny royal tea instead of surgery (an herb that was an old abortion standby), of course , when the Doctor laughs you out of there, because herbal remedies that kill the fetus have a bad habit of killing the mother. Do mention many of the old means of contraception, such as :
http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2011/10/07/herbal-contraception-in-ancient-times.htm
http://www.sisterzeus.com/HContra.htm
and they will tell you even the best of these will not work as well as the medicines. But hey, it's only those uppity modern women that have concerns; imagine if they lived in the hunter gatherer utopia, you know, the ones famous for treating like cattle, slaves and farmhands?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)IPCC based models predict wide famine by 2100 and the lost of staple crops in normal arable lands by as soon as 2050
This is with business as usual.
Changing our food system will lead to no more deaths than doing nothing. Advocating business-as-usual is advocating famine.
Forgive me for most offensively rocking your boat.
ps: I take it you didn't actually follow-up on any of the drought-resistant, low-input alternative agroforestry models I recommended?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)"Your argument makes no sense" != ad hominem attack
It is hypocritical to do A while railing against A != ad hominem attack
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Tu quoque ( /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also"
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)which I mentioned, to being on the internet? Hope you never need a wisdom tooth extracted or an appendix out.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Regardless, I understand, full well, that there are human conditions that will result in death without medical technologies.
Likewise, I also understand, full well, that the infrastructure required to develop and implement medical technologies has caused massive death and suffering (this is what I believe you are refusing to acknowledge).
Contrasting the path we're walking with the path we've walked before, I recognize only one of these approaches as ecologically sustainable up to this point in time. If we are past drastic tipping points, this conversation is moot. If we are close, then tinkering with our current system to bring it into sustainability before passing those tipping points may be unfeasible (whereas an organized decline is not, aside from its political un-feasibility).
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)OK, tell that to Women, some of whom can remember when Childbirth was a death sentence.
Or for that matter, a dentist who can remember when you could die from getting ingrown wisdom teeth.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)...by decreasing maternal stature and increasing neonatal growth and adiposity due to dietary shifts. Paleodemographic comparisons between foragers and agriculturalists suggest that foragers have considerably lower rates of perinatal mortality. In contemporary populations, maternal stature remains strongly associated with perinatal mortality in many populations. Long-term improvements in nutrition across future generations may relieve the dilemma, but in the meantime, variability in its magnitude is likely to persist.
The obstetric dilemma: An ancient game of Russian roulette, or a variable dilemma sensitive to ecology?, Wells JC, Desilva JM, Stock JT. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2012.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)Please, where is there a feminist when one is so needed, or even better, an OBGYN Feminist?, one that can remind this person of the hard cold facts, that before women had medical care, they were given the rawest end of the stick!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Male doctors thinking that pregnancy was an acute medical condition rather than a natural process and overly intervening is thought to be the source of much of the high maternal death rates in the last few hundred years. More interestingly, even with modern medical advances, it is midwifery that produces more positive birthing outcomes (and lower mortality) among patients according to recent peer-reviewed studies conducted in Washington and British Columbia.
And why, I must ask, do you believe that before there was shiny plastic stuff that women did not get "medical care" during birth? Midwifery is a very ancient practice and women were not just cast out in a field alone to sink or swim (with cultural exceptions that still exist).
I do imagine infection was probably the worst of the issues women had to face (we know enough now to minimize this), but perineal tears would be very difficult to treat (although their ocurance in "natural" births are far less common). We also know that quite a few primitive cultures do have their own natural sources of antibiotics that they use; somehow between the onset of agriculture and now, there was a large gap where people lost a lot of knowledge and there was a lot of suffering in civilized society that could of been avoided.
In any case, the study I cited makes a compelling case that nutrition played a large impact on producing better outcomes among foraging societies, but I would like to hypothesis that it may also be because they had a different view of the process and handled the birthing differently (perhaps more like modern midwifery, which stresses patience and calmness instead of invasiveness).
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)The fact that women often died in childbirth is documented, and it happened well before "modern medicine." Midwifery may have some value, but anyone will want a doctor in case it is a breach birth, or any of the hundred of complications that happen in birth.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:27 AM - Edit history (2)
1) pre-agricultural foragers experienced lower mortality during birth than post-ag populations
2) recent studies of midwife home births produce better outcomes
"Midwifery may have some value". Get over it. Midwives are well equipped, and have been for some time, to handle a plethora of complications, and seem to reduce the incidence of complications in general.
Again, in the case of birth, medical intervention and advancement seems to be fixing its own problems. Put a malnourished woman in a dirty butcher room and pull at a baby's head, then fix it centuries later, and I am supposed to be impressed?
Civilization thrives by convincing everyone how shitty their lives would be without it and all its wonderful advances (like seratonin re-uptake inhibitors so you don't notice how depressed this way of life makes you). With few exceptions, these claims are baseless. As far as those exceptions are concerned, those are probably things we could deal with contrasted to the consequences it has wrought.
Is child birth an exception? I think its a mixed-bag honestly and probably varied from foraging culture to culture, but probably not the nightmare you have been told or even comparable to what was going on in civilized areas of the 16th century (and before). In any case, there may be a more valuable perspective than thinking that before modern medicine, all women suffered miserable fates giving birth since the beginning of mankind, rendering our viability as a species an impossibility (though, that is certainly an idea that civilization/modern medicine would favor).
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)point two is useless because modern women have a CHOICE to call for the doctor if they are in trouble.
as far as this bit of info:
Civilization thrives by convincing everyone how shitty their lives would be without it and all its wonderful advances (like seratonin re-uptake inhibitors so you don't notice how depressed this way of life makes you).
I seriously hope you never needed an operation, because if you did, chances are you would be dead, indeed, are you ready to go bacjk to the cave and live your pre civlization life, just like all the others who tried and failed miserably?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)More....
The importance of stature for birth complications was
well recognized by early 20th century obstetricians, who
noted high rates of perinatal mortality in the main urban
centers of 19th century industrialization (Baird, 1949; Illsley, 1966).
Illsley identified strong north-south gradients in
both perinatal mortality, and in maternal height. Within
each geographical region, and within social classes, perinatal mortality
and maternal height remained correlated. A
large proportion of this association (e.g. 1,058 of 1,282 caesarean
sections performed in 1911) could be attributed to
rickets, which involved significant flattening of the pelvis in
response to nutritional deficiencies during early maternal
development (Dick, 1922).
Amongst the forager populations, all have low
frequencies of perinatal and infant skeletons, ranging from 0 to
6.5% of the skeletal assemblage, and combined perinatal
and infant mortality does not exceed 6.5%. In contrast,
perinatal and infant mortality among the three agricultural
groups ranges from 31.3% (Arikara) to 35.5% (Teotihuacan).
High levels of infant mortality amongst agricultural
populations are not unexpected, and may be
related to higher levels of infectious disease. The proportions
of perinatal skeletons in the Teotihuacan (31.3%)
and Dakhleh Oasis (18.2%, minimal estimate, based on
estimates provided in the text of the article) are of particular
interest, in that they might suggest high levels of
obstetric mortality.
With regard to contemporary Homo sapiens, we
suggest that the magnitude of the dilemma is sensitive to
several ecological pressures including the thermal environment,
dietary energy availability and glycemic load,
and infectious disease burden. In turn, we suggest that
these ecological stresses may each have become exacerbated
during the transition to agriculture, acting on both
maternal and fetal phenotype, such that the obstetric dilemma
may have been worse in the last few thousand
years than was the case for Pleistocene Homo.
Think about that. The studied forager populations didn't have a combined perinatal and infant mortality rate over 6.5% (not the nightmare you probably envisioned from hearing about how bad pre-modern medicine civilized society was).
On this, I think we can safely agree to disagree
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)You explain, c sections as something that COULD be blame on rickets , as opposed to simple malnutrition from poverty, if your study found a fact, they would say IS, not could, and they would address the other possible causes.
and this load of babble
With regard to contemporary Homo sapiens, we
suggest that the magnitude of the dilemma is sensitive to
several ecological pressures including the thermal environment,
dietary energy availability and glycemic load,
and infectious disease burden. In turn, we suggest that
these ecological stresses may each have become exacerbated
during the transition to agriculture,
may have due to agriculture, no proof given.
Of course, other former agricultural societies do have better births than we do, but that is because places like Cuba are socialist, and do allow more women access to both better nutrition and better medicine.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)You made it through all 60+ pages that quick? Wow.
2naSalit
(102,794 posts)'scuse me but, even though it may seem cruel or harsh but I haven't seen any mention of the conditions of natural selection that was also a mechanism in population control. It wasn't so much a human construction as a fact f nature. Not all who are conceived are, in the state of nature, meant to survive.
Now don't dump on me, I'm just bringing up a concept that seems to be a factor here.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But in terms of child-birth, the "selection" happens after the mother proves to be viable and is not dependent on the viability of the offspring. According to the study I posted, the responsible variable was most often nutrition, rather than genetics.
In some ways, our civilized society is instead selecting people who are maybe more tolerant of nutritional deficiencies or infections that are only prevalent in civilization; while these traits may sound important, in nature, they may of been widely ignored (as deficiencies and infectious bacteria was far less common) and instead the "strongest" were the fastest, smartest or hardiest of the bunch would be selected. Post-foraging man has threw natural selection in a bit of tailspin (which isn't good if we will one day head back into nature).
Other mortality rates do play important roles in selection, as well as population control among foraging groups. Another behavior of foragers that promotes population control is breast-feeding as well, which can typically reduce fertility of nursing mothers.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)....was the widespread decline in oral health, which was almost certainly tied to increased consumption of plant carbohydrates. Especially obvious is the remarkable increase in dental caries wherever and whenever the transition occurred. Dental caries is a disease process characterized by focal demineralization of dental hard tissues by organic acids produced by bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates, especially sugars (Larsen, 1997). Dental caries is manifested as pits (or cavities) in teeth, ranging in size from barely discernible discoloration of enamel to large cavitations or substantial loss of crown matter (Figure 2). Comparisons of foragers and farmers globally reveal a consistent pattern of increase in frequency of carious lesions (Larsen, 1995, and reviews cited therein). Eastern North America offers an important perspective on the impact of increased carbohydrate consumption on humans, especially because so many dental samples have been studied in this region. Figure 3 shows the comparison of prehistoric populations lacking maize (Archaic, Early Woodland), some use of maize (Middle Woodland), and dependence on maize (Late Woodland, Mississippian, Contact) for the region. The contrast between foragers and farmers is striking.
POST-PLEISTOCENE HUMAN EVOLUTION: BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION Larsen, Department of Anthropology. University of North Carolina
Im not going to continually bicker about this one. I don't think it makes a shred of difference to you, but just posting for anyone else who is curious about it. Life without modern medicine (but ancient medicine instead) wouldn't be a constant flower parade, but it wouldn't be part of the SAW franchise either. With better health and nutrition, we wouldn't need such intensive intervention aimed at fixing the faults of civilization.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)A lot of what we know about nutrition comes from modern science...Now, did the ancients know many things?, Yes, and this comes from someone that still uses herbal remedies that he learned from his mother and grandmother, which he purchases at shops for that purpose (such as Botanicas and Health food shops). However, until Science learned what caused what, much of herbal remedies were hit and miss. Until science revealed what Vitamin C was, vegetables were not considered as nutritious as meat; many nobles actually died from scurvy. Leeches were folk medicine, killing people like George Washington. No one understood what these leeches did, but it was hit or miss as to whatever effect they had. fast forward a few centuries, and science allowed people to understand how the circulatory system works, make medicine based on that, and even make leeches useful, or rather, the anti-clotting agents they make, so that it could be applied to deadly blood clots. It is the difference between blind intuition, and actually being able to make INFORMED ACTION, based on proven,reliable results.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its result-orientated medicine based on human trials over a hundred thousand year span of history, propagated via oral tradition. IOW, if little Bebo died from that mushroom 50 years ago, tell your grandkids to stay the fuck away from it.
In any case, the science you mention is only required to make these informed decisions once the ailment exists with a high enough incidence rate to study it, which only started happening post-civilization because agriculture drastically reduced human health. That goes straight back to the original point of modern medicine's justification for existence is to fix problems that are not necessary in the first place.
Yes, knowing exactly why living in high population densities and eating a non-diverse diet can increase mortality is great, but only important insofar as humans live in that manner.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)As someone who was raised in a culture that uses "primitive medicine" there is no need to lecture ME on it, unless you frequent Botanicas and herbal shops as well. However, for every Chamomile that does calm the nerves, or ginger tea that relieves sinuses, there are quack cures that can and do kill, with the full weight of tradition behind them. Also, if you think Oral tradition is enough to keep thing accurate, I suggest you ask a few atheists and agnostics how utterly awful oral tradition preserves text..i.e. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live originally meant "poisoner", and for that several thousand of the herbal medicine specialists you just praised were KILLED.
Let's examine this next bit
In any case, the science you mention is only required to make these informed decisions once the ailment exists with a high enough incidence rate to study it, which only started happening post-civilization because agriculture drastically reduced human health.
Really? so the shamans years ago did not practice Science as best they could in their day? Little bebo gets sick, give bebo Red herb, if green herb fails, give blue herb, if blue works consistently, keep using blue herb. It is the same science that got refined through the centuries. That science led to civilization, as people searched for better, more consistent ways to ensure survival. When you say "the ailment exists with a high enough incidence to study it", you ignore the fact that the only reason there were enough people TO study is because most primitives died before 30 of ten thousand other causes, not the least of which was the fact that getting pregnant was enough to kill women.
Of course, what makes that get corrupted is not the idea of cause and effect, but the cultural crap that gets loaded onto things, like "the blue herb helped because Earth Mother Goddess loves the color blue, and hates the color Red." So of course, rather than use the science, said group grows up thinking red things are bad, and woe to whatever foreign tribe wears red. Alchemy and Astrology did push Chemistry and Astronomy to develop; the observatories and beakers are still used by modern scientists as they work; all the same, horoscopes are useless, and lead does not become gold.
The point is, without science to determine what is actually TRUE, everything is blind intuition. Granted, much in civilization is also baggage from an old primitive past, but to blame Science and Tech is folly, because, right after you smash the machines and burn down the grids (making a body count of hundreds of millions) people will still need reliable information to survive, and no, the folks that trust more in traditions than what they see for themselves will NOT provide it. Simply put, Civilization is not killing this planet, but the lack thereof, where one group of countries feels that they can ignore science, and keep churning out coal plants and SUVs If we were more civilized, realizing that we are interconnected, and need to cooperate, we would stop shitting in other's people's water, because we know that it will get to our water supply sooner or later.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Again, medical science is only important if the incidence of illnesses is so high that you need medical science to reduce it, which did not happen before science and agriculture according to archaeological records. See...back to the same ol spot.
If we were more civilized, realizing that we are interconnected,
In my perspective, the more "civilized" we have become, the less we understand how interconnected our system is. Civilization is about cultivation and domination of nature, not sapience.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)"which did not happen before science and agriculture according to archaeological records. See...back to the same ol spot."
So people dying of childbirth and other things medicine could treat did not happen before archaeology? I guess all those tales of people dying in childbirth must be false, as well as the mummies which show people dying of impacted wisdom teeth.
"Civilization is about cultivation and domination of nature, not sapience."
Ah Sapience, that most ill defined term, which many insist is NOT intelligence. Funny, if all those tribes have spears and bows, does that not mean they are trying to dominate, especially since war is the one true thing that can be documented, even back to the days our Cro Magnon ancestors wiped the Neanderthal out. Civilization can be about what you say, but it can also be about applying our awareness of ourselves to solve problems, the way that new York actually produces less pollution than many rural areas, because common people realized they had a common internest in parks, trains, and sewers.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
hunter
(40,691 posts)I stay awake at night trying to figure out "how?"
I think it's some kind of socialism. People assured of food, shelter, medical care, and education will find the path.
Otherwise Nature smacks us down with her last bat.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)
You are still working. There are still products. There is still an economy. Your labor will still be more than if you were laboring in a simpler society.
For example, in a single hour, I can mildly labor and produce food for at least 30 people (not including cooking). In a complex society, I can labor and maybe feed 2-4 with the same quality of food, though my work is far more highly valued by that society. The more complex a society, the more of your labor goes towards simply maintaining the state of that society. It is no longer "worth it" to maintain such a society, if what's left from the fruit of your labor isn't enough to comfortably survive and leave room for leisure/fulfilment; this seems to be what many are quickly figuring out.
We do not even realize anymore that most of the work we do just gets eaten up by the system, since we are so removed from the concept of energy and useful work. We command vast amounts of energy compared to very simple societies, but are rewarded with far less necessary resources in exchange (that work does not just disappear, but likewise, it doesn't automatically improve the aggregate human condition of everyone--often it just solves problems the society's existence creates or is diverted to those in charge of the system).
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm not particularly angry or outraged any more. Once I was, but now I'm just fascinated, amazed, amused, bemused, curious. I attach no moral dimension to this unfolding any more, though once I did. Now there is no blame, no agonized wish to rewrite the past, no fearful visions of a shattered future.
We are what we are, we did what we did, we ended up here.
Let's see what comes next.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Evolution grinds on, testing every species. If a species destroys it's own habitat then it will not survive.
Another species will come along to take our place, and it too will be tested.
I suspect the reason we have failed to find any extraterrestrial civilizations is that very few species survive the early rounds of testing. To make it this far in a bio-competitive world we were well served by greed and the tendency to hoard in times of plenty to see us through times of need. But the behaviors that helped us survive and prosper do not serve the species in the long run.
cprise
(8,445 posts)does not quite work under these conditions, and life on the macro scale is not a test.
If we take more than 90% of the ecosystem down with us, then what is left would probably not give solace to anyone. A billion years could pass and probably not produce another life form with our capacities. The sun will have gotten too hot by then to allow complex life to develop again.
This is it-- The first and only stand of Intelligence on Earth. Stop slouching.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)somewhere else in the universe carrying on in our place.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Fixed that for you.
(Sociologically, we are evolving at a staggering pace, actually)
cprise
(8,445 posts)not sociology. The survival and death implied here is literal.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That it does not 'quite work'.
Please support that?
Edit: actually, you made a bunch of assertions, such as around the time required for complex life to evolve. You didn't support any of it. How far back do you think humanity is poised to take the earth?
3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I prefer to guide what comes next.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I don't think I (or any of us) control much of anything. I think the whole notion of humans being able to control things because we have brains the size of a planet is largely an illusion born of hubris. Certainly we can't control the side-effects, knock-on effects and unexpected fallout of our behaviour.
But what the hey, one of the things I definitely can't control is your behaviour. Fill your boots - knock yourself out being reality's parade marshal.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Relatively recently, we’ve been doing it (blindly) on a grand scale!
More recently, we’ve been making strides toward affecting it in a positive fashion, by paying attention to what we’re doing.
Trying to fix something which is already broken gives you greater freedom. If we sit idly by, and watch to see what happens next, well… we’ve got a pretty good idea of what that will be. If we try to “fix things” can we really make them all that much worse at this point?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Good question. That's one of the things I want to see.
I suspect the answer is "yes", though. Because most of our current efforts are just as blind as our previous efforts were.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I’m talking about something at a grand enough scale to make a difference.
In what ways are they making things worse?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Micro-loans make it possible for more extremely marginal people to prosper just enough to have more children, thus worsening the human burden on regions that are already overstressed.
Or for a less controversial objection, take genetic engineering. Please. Genetic engineers are relentlessly beavering away to improve (yields? hardiness? profits?) without considering the negative downstream possibilities inherent in the escape of the genome into wild ecosystems.
Or the green revolution itself - a deliberate, active, good-faith effort to improve our lot by providing more food for people. But the consequences of population growth, water pollution, soil infertility and the inherent dependency of the food supply on a limited non-renewable resource that may damage civilization with its waste CO2 - these were never considered.
I claim that our blindness is largely towards the unintended consequences of our actions. The problem is that we always focus on the immediate, first-tier consequences. If those are deemed positive then we put little further thought into the matter. That's where the blindness comes in - even today.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)The “green revolution” that was… what…? 40's to 60's? (We haven’t learned any lessons from that have we?
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/second-green-revolution-alliance-organic-farmers-and-genetic-engineers
“Genetic Engineering…” I don’t know that we’ve seen any nightmare fallout from this yet, although I will admit to feeling that it has been relatively short sighted.
“Micro-loans” allow people in poverty to prosper, and have more children? (Are you sure about this?) Generally, improving people’s living conditions tends to lead to them having fewer children. http://www.accion.org/page.aspx?pid=1876
[font face=Serif][font size=4]INVESTING IN WOMEN, AND THE FUTURE[/font]
[font size=3]Microloans for women are a forceful 1-2 punch against disempowerment and poverty. International development initiatives that give marginalized women the chance to earn income enjoy the double benefits of both raising the social status of women while having a greater impact on indicators of poverty such as family health, education and overall economic growth.
Researchers have found that women are more likely to put earned income to good use than their husbands, because they have the best perspective on the needs of the family . When women are economically empowered, children are more likely to be educated and healthy, and more money is likely to be reinvested into the family enterprise.
Furthermore, women with more decision-making power and financial resources are better able to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately, bear fewer children. The fewer children a woman bears, the more resources are available for each family member, and the better quality of life the family will have. This also has environmental implications, as human overpopulation threatens the delicate ecological balance of the earth. And so, it has been seen that empowering women to take control of their reproduction has a powerful impact on economic development and environmental sustainability.
The benefits of providing microloans for women are obvious, and many. ACCION International and its partners provide microfinance services to both genders, but with a heavier focus on women in areas such as India where gender equality lags. Through the development of a thriving commercial microfinance industry, ACCION seeks to bring economic empowerment to millions of microentrepreneurs who need it. Eventually, impoverished women will find it possible – and even commonplace – to take their livelihoods into their own hands.
…[/font][/font]
http://www.literature.org/authors/dickens-charles/christmas-carol/chapter-01.html
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. …”
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Have we learned anything from the green revolution? Not so far as I can see. Bill Gates and AGRA are still hot on the trail of Norman Borlaug's dream. Even Borlaug saw the GR as a temporary holding action until we got our shit together around population. Instead we are doing everything in our power to perpetuate it by just sanding off the rougher edges and adding some genetic engineering.
tama
(9,137 posts)just loooooove <3 <3 <3 Green Revolution. What do you think Gates, AGRA, Borlaug etc. Green Revolution Annual Hay Plant puppets eat?
Veggies, nuts etc. from food forest and road kill (etc.) game?
Iterate
(3,021 posts)It looks like the main factor with population stability is simply having two surviving children. Rosling is clueless when it comes to climate but he does know population dynamics.
That makes news like this even more worrisome:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112730109
Otherwise, before I quit for the day, I'll look for anyone who's ever beat the Red Queen game. I don't think it's ever happened.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I wonder at what point the population effect of rising birth rates triggered by growing infant mortality would be overcome by declining life expectancy among adults?
Also, there is room for major behaviour changes around infant mortality. For example in H-G tribes, when parents realize that the group's survival depends on strictly limiting population growth, infanticide becomes an part of family planning. If food supplies really do get hit hard by GW, we could see this practice make a major comeback in heavily stressed regions.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)By 2010, however, microfinance was in crisis. New studies began to challenge the promise of microfinance to bring about an unprecedented reduction in poverty. Crisis in rapidly growing microcredit industries prompted parallels with the US subprime mortgage collapse. Reports of skyrocketing interest rates and suicides among indebted borrowers in Andhra Pradesh, India, suggested a sinister side to the microcredit boom. Suddenly, the story wasn't so simple.
Critical appraisals continue to emerge, and the question of what to do about microfinance remains a debate among aid agencies and experts. In September, a further study commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DfID) advised against lending to the poorest of the poor, who are more vulnerable to the dangers of debt.
A study on microcredit in Bosnia, published on Tuesday, found a substantial increase in child labour in businesses opened through microloans, raising concerns about the unintended consequences of increasing access to credit and self-employment.
Perhaps this should be viewed as an enormous opportunity for the poor of the planet to taste at least the dark side of the American Dream...
tama
(9,137 posts)let environment affect us - "let it all in" or sumfink.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)We need to strike a balance.
The problem is, right now, we’ve gotten things terribly out of balance.
Think of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice (if you will.) Things have gotten too far out of control. (Mickey never really was in control.)
It’s all Mickey’s fault. He knows that. He wishes he had never read that spell! but:
- Fetching water himself will not solve the problem at this point.
- He cannot carry water out faster than the brooms can carry it in.
- He cannot unread the spell.
Even if we stop all emissions today (which we won’t) there’s already too much carbon in the atmosphere. We cannot now sit back and “let it all in,” as much as we might like to.
Something must be done. In Mickey’s case, the Sorcerer came to his rescue. In our case, well… we may need to resort to… science.
Mickey learned his lesson, and the “natural order” of things was restored. Hopefully, we too will learn our lesson, and the natural order will be restored.
tama
(9,137 posts)is objectivism terribly out of balance. Looking at nature and world as objects, outside, and while doing it excluding the looking subject from nature and whole of world. Science as fully instrumental.
Sure, Wheeler talks about participatory universe, others talk about transformative science instead of or to balance instrumental science, etc...
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I don’t think most scientists are such fools that they do not recognize themselves as subjects (even as they are observers.)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I don't expect us to be able to magic our way out of this with science. We need magic, and science doesn't do magic. This is why for me it all comes back to the personal.
I feel that many aspects of our unfolding reality are being driven more by impersonal external forces than by human volition. At the same time, the aspects of life that are most important and satisfying to us as individuals have always been those matters of personal choice. This reinforces my sense that all significant human-driven change in the coming years will happen at the grass roots, among individuals making personal choices for personal reasons.
Something is whispering to me that the stark juxtaposition of personal, individual choices and impersonal global forces will become the overarching narrative of the next decades. In that story-line, the institutions through which we have traditionally interacted with the world - politics, economics, science and religion to name just a few - may become (are becoming?) increasingly irrelevant.
I think humanity is out of time, but what that means in terms of specifics I haven't the foggiest idea. The universe sets the stage, while we get to write and perform the play. That's good enough for me.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Conflict allows a system to assert its power and polarize the populace, thereby reinforcing its influence. Conflict allows a system to locate weaknesses and evolve pass them via restructuring. Conflict is a system's source of evolution, and evolution does not always inherently imply linear progression, like some moral arc bending towards "good" for the human condition.
Withdrawl is the only way to oppose a system without further rewarding it or helping it grow.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That's why I've chosen John Zerzan's "politics of refusal" over Derrick Jensen's monkeywrenching.
tama
(9,137 posts)You're an very old fart who just rambles a lot, who just likes to sit at the campfire and blow your horn.
Young Braves on Warrior Path to Save the Earth, what a Sight!!!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Or I'll get my walker and come over there and tell you another story about the olden days. Why, I remember back when I was your age... 
Yeah, we all do what we gotta do - young braves and old farts all have our threads in the Grand Tapestry Of Life....
tama
(9,137 posts)ya know, like middle path and middle finger. A pair of those, for both old and young!!
When I was young, I hated being told "been there, done that" by an old guy, when I was old, I hated (and loved ) telling young how I've been there and done that. Now I'm just in the middle, in the middle of been and done and there and that. I practice standing straight and walking like snake.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts) NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That the need to be centrally involved by guiding the process is the result of the often touted human flaw of egocentricism. We accept our personal involvement as tantamount to success, while we could all fully agree that we are not individually exceptionally gifted to guide success by any means. Further, it is very unlikely that you, specifically, out of a billion people, could ever really logically guide such a massive shift that is required--yet you still seek this impossible goal as if it is a logical and rational path. Our culture continually teaches us that we must all do something always (something that usually requiring the burning of energy) yet we perpetually fail to do the very easiest thing: alter how we think about the world and our place in it. If we can't change who we are, how could we--products of a hell-bent civilization--change the very system that created us to sustain and grow it?
cprise
(8,445 posts)Not sure it would make any sense, otherwise.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Only a fool would find any significant portion of my posts as making any kind of sense.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The sense of "being in control" is central to our sense of self. That virtually guarantees that we will drive ourselves full speed off the cliff, frantically yanking the wheel this way and that, all the while reveling in our godlike sense of control...