| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Endangered peoples
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Endangered peoples

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2011 at 13:03
The more we accommodate inferior cultures with nothing to offer, the worse off we are. The more we allow our societies to become divisive based on refusal to share a common culture, the less cooperative and harmonious they become. The less people adopt a common method of communication and etiquette, the greater the chance of destructive conflict. The more we accept regressive beliefs rather than promoting progressive ones, the less likely we are to move forward as a society.

It seems the case can be argued either way.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2011 at 13:14
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The more we accommodate inferior cultures with nothing to offer, the worse off we are.
 
Actually, some of the cultures you call inferior have lived through changes, catastrophes and strains for many thousands of years and still survived. Nothing says that we would be as successfull if we are exposed to some kind of catastrophic change. We should really make use of such a knowledge and adaptability instead of ignorantly dismissing it.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2011 at 13:55
Quote Actually, some of the cultures you call inferior have lived through changes, catastrophes and strains for many thousands of years and still survived.


You don't have a point, because I never made any reference to any specific culture.

Quote Nothing says that we would be as successfull if we are exposed to some kind of catastrophic change.


We might be more successful, who knows? You aren't referencing a specific example, because you are referring to something you think I was talking about but actually I wasn't.

Quote We should really make use of such a knowledge and adaptability instead of ignorantly dismissing it.


See above.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2011 at 14:30
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


You don't have a point, because I never made any reference to any specific culture.
 
Whatever. One can just ask what is meant by an inferior culture? Who shall judge what is inferior or not? What criteria shall be used?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2011 at 21:06
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


You don't have a point, because I never made any reference to any specific culture.
 
Whatever. One can just ask what is meant by an inferior culture? Who shall judge what is inferior or not? What criteria shall be used?
 
Most people will recognize a Natural History Museum when they see it...particularly if it a living diorama of the Paleolithic!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 01:36
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Actually, some of the cultures you call inferior have lived through changes, catastrophes and strains for many thousands of years and still survived. Nothing says that we would be as successfull if we are exposed to some kind of catastrophic change. We should really make use of such a knowledge and adaptability instead of ignorantly dismissing it.


Don't be ridiculous. That they survive doesn't imply they survive well. Don't forget that troglodites of the paleolythic hardly surpased the 20 years of age.

No matter all human beings are homo sapiens sapiens, you can't get to the conclusion that all cultures are the same: they aren't. Cultures go from primitive hunter gathering techniques, tam tamming and shamanism to rocket science, written music and mathematical physics.

Ignoring that difference in development is simply dogma.


Edited by pinguin - 29 Mar 2011 at 01:37
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 01:57
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


You don't have a point, because I never made any reference to any specific culture.
 
Whatever. One can just ask what is meant by an inferior culture? Who shall judge what is inferior or not? What criteria shall be used?


That's a good question and I am sure different people will have different answers based on only one thing: what they value.

If you value things such as infant mortality rates, lifespan, curing of preventable diseases, the ability to store and access durable information, good sanitation, freedom from famine, social mobility, scientific progress etc etc etc, then you would look at the countries which have excelled in those areas and say 'I prefer this, this is a superior way of doing things and it is better than the alternative'.

If someone thinks that different (though not necessarily 'better') folk art is superior in value to all those things, then that person should switch off their computer, leave their comfortable inner city apartment with its ipod and imported couches and reverse cycle heating system. And then they should go outside into nature and expose themselves to the elements with inadequate clothing, scarce food etc. Because that person is an idiot, and they need some perspective.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 11:35
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

That's a good question and I am sure different people will have different answers based on only one thing: what they value.

If you value things such as infant mortality rates, lifespan, curing of preventable diseases, the ability to store and access durable information, good sanitation, freedom from famine, social mobility, scientific progress etc etc etc, then you would look at the countries which have excelled in those areas and say 'I prefer this, this is a superior way of doing things and it is better than the alternative'.
 
Sometimes that can be true, but there are also cases where people that lacks some of the factors you described still can have a high quality of life, especially when it comes to questions of social relations, mental health, lesser stress and less psycosocial problems (drugs, criminality, prostitution, suicide and similar). Even in countries that excell in the use and accumulation of wealth and material comforts these kind of problems can be rather prominent.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

If someone thinks that different (though not necessarily 'better') folk art is superior in value to all those things, then that person should switch off their computer, leave their comfortable inner city apartment with its ipod and imported couches and reverse cycle heating system. And then they should go outside into nature and expose themselves to the elements with inadequate clothing, scarce food etc. Because that person is an idiot, and they need some perspective.
 
Well, there are people who live somewhere inbetween, who enjoy some modern technique but who still live in rural surroundings and consciously avoid to amass too much material goods or technical devices.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 12:38
Quote Sometimes that can be true, but there are also cases where people that lacks some of the factors you described still can have a high quality of life, especially when it comes to questions of social relations, mental health, lesser stress and less psycosocial problems (drugs, criminality, prostitution, suicide and similar). Even in countries that excell in the use and accumulation of wealth and material comforts these kind of problems can be rather prominent.


I'm not claiming that wealth and technology causes them to disappear, but I do think that a more progressive culture tends to curb these tendencies.

Are we really going to claim that drug use, criminality, prostitution and suicide are less common in more primitive cultures? I would like to see strong statistical evidence to prove that.

And then you have to compare it to things like the killing of witches, ritual genital mutilation, human sacrifice etc etc etc which exist in some of these societies...

Quote Well, there are people who live somewhere inbetween, who enjoy some modern technique but who still live in rural surroundings and consciously avoid to amass too much material goods or technical devices.


Give me specifics. I am not saying you are wrong, but you seem to be putting it in very vague and general terms.

For example, I have met plenty of people who grew up on hippy communes. The tale they told was fairly in sync: they were sexually abused repeatedly as children, have low literacy, have poor job prospects and have always struggled with drug and alcohol abuse as well as holding down a stable relationship - so much for getting back to nature with free love and escaping the demands of modern life.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 14:13
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


I'm not claiming that wealth and technology causes them to disappear, but I do think that a more progressive culture tends to curb these tendencies.

Are we really going to claim that drug use, criminality, prostitution and suicide are less common in more primitive cultures? I would like to see strong statistical evidence to prove that.
 
Well, that ofcourse also varies, but at least in some relatively unaffected so called primitive indigenous peoples there are less, or no such problems, and often one can see these problems emerging when their way of life changes with the contact with the majority, modern culture. One well known example is the Guarani in the Amazon of Brazil who after being diplaced from their land seen an earlier unprecedented wave of social problems and suicide. This is actually a rather common pattern.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

And then you have to compare it to things like the killing of witches, ritual genital mutilation, human sacrifice etc etc etc which exist in some of these societies...
 
Well, there are always problems when humans are involved, but not all primitive societies do these things. Actually, among the 25 most peaceful cultures the majority is indigenous peoples, including peoples like the San and the Mbuti in South and central Africa.
 
When concerns the psycosocial problems they are a plague in most modern countries. Just look at USA where such problems has taken really problematic proportions..

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Give me specifics. I am not saying you are wrong, but you seem to be putting it in very vague and general terms.
 
Even here in modern Sweden I see people who live that way. Some are old remnants from the old farming community who do not want to leave their old habits. We have also some Samis who prefer a relatively simple life with hunting and fishing. We also have some green wavers and alternatives who prefer a somewhat simpler life.
For example there is a woman on the island of Oeland who live in a house made of pet and who do not use electricity. She has a part time job to earn some cash, otherwise she tries to live on self subsistence farming and keeping sheep.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 14:57
Quote Well, that ofcourse also varies, but at least in some relatively unaffected so called primitive indigenous peoples there are less, or no such problems, and often one can see these problems emerging when their way of life changes with the contact with the majority, modern culture. One well known example is the Guarani in the Amazon of Brazil who after being diplaced from their land seen an earlier unprecedented wave of social problems and suicide. This is actually a rather common pattern.


So in other words, you can't prove to me that the above social problems are less prevalent in primitive societies than in developed ones?

Quote Well, there are always problems when humans are involved, but not all primitive societies do these things. Actually, among the 25 most peaceful cultures the majority is indigenous peoples, including peoples like the San and the Mbuti in South and central Africa.


How does one measure 'peacefulness'?
And why should peacefulness be the only thing that demonstrates cultural success? If anything, competitive spirit usually indicates a more durable and innovative society. Peacefulness can also be simply a euphemism for quaintness, conservatism and complacency.

Quote When concerns the psycosocial problems they are a plague in most modern countries. Just look at USA where such problems has taken really problematic proportions..


Are they really a plague or are you just making stuff up?
How do the social problems of the USA compare to those of every other country?
Why use the USA as the example when other countries have managed to do as well or better in providing for their people?

Quote
Even here in modern Sweden I see people who live that way. Some are old remnants from the old farming community who do not want to leave their old habits. We have also some Samis who prefer a relatively simple life with hunting and fishing. We also have some green wavers and alternatives who prefer a somewhat simpler life.
For example there is a woman on the island of Oeland who live in a house made of pet and who do not use electricity. She has a part time job to earn some cash, otherwise she tries to live on self subsistence farming and keeping sheep.


So inefficient use of land and resources, failure to expose children to the advantages of modern education, lower overall economic productivity which in return increases the nation's trade deficit.... sounds rather selfish and narrow.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 15:25

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 So in other words, you can't prove to me that the above social problems are less prevalent in primitive societies than in developed ones?

Well, study some literature on the subject for example Survivals report about both physical and mental health issues when indigenous peoples come into contact with our modern culture: Progress can Kill.

And it is rather obvious since the causes of many of those social problems are not, or have not until recently been prevalent in those societies.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

How does one measure 'peacefulness'?
And why should peacefulness be the only thing that demonstrates cultural success? If anything, competitive spirit usually indicates a more durable and innovative society. Peacefulness can also be simply a euphemism for quaintness, conservatism and complacency.

Well, just study the site Peaceful societies, there they give examples and explain some of the factors. Many of these peoples have active strategies for avoiding violent conflicts both internally and externally.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/FAQ.html

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Are they really a plague or are you just making stuff up?
How do the social problems of the USA compare to those of every other country?
Why use the USA as the example when other countries have managed to do as well or better in providing for their people?
 

Well, a good starting point for comparing social problems among the most affluent countries, including USA, and some of the causes is Wilkington and Picketts book The Spirit Level.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

So inefficient use of land and resources, failure to expose children to the advantages of modern education, lower overall economic productivity which in return increases the nation's trade deficit.... sounds rather selfish and narrow.
 

Well, there are also benefits with a freer life, excerscise, less stress and psycosocial pressure and living closer to nature.

 

And about land use, the best way to use land is perhaps to not destroy it, in opposite to what happens too often when land shall be used in a so called efficient way in our modern society.

 

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 19:22
Less stress in nature? Ask the trillions of beings that died eated in the jungle. Give me a break.

Edited by pinguin - 29 Mar 2011 at 19:22
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 20:20
YAWN! The building of Edens premised upon the vagaries asserted in this thread has now become embarrassing. Anyone who writes such drivel as
 

Well, there are also benefits [to marginal exsitence] with a freer life, excercise, less stress and psychosocial pressure and living closer to nature.

 

is doing little other than repeating the fantasies of the Noble Savage but with far less insight on the human condition than Rousseau. While "anthropologists" once loved "going native" as a means of obtaining data--and often jotted down not reality but their own imaginings--the purported claims on the absence of "stress and psychosocial pressures" can only be made out of total ignorance, not to mention a love for the euphemistics of jargon.

 


Edited by drgonzaga - 30 Mar 2011 at 04:10
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2011 at 20:30
This is the garden of Eden myth.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 02:06
Quote

Well, study some literature on the subject for example Survivals report about both physical and mental health issues when indigenous peoples come into contact with our modern culture: Progress can Kill.

And it is rather obvious since the causes of many of those social problems are not, or have not until recently been prevalent in those societies.


No, it is not obvious. Unless you can provide me with solid data to prove that problems like consumption of narcotics and suicide are more pronounced in developed nations then I cannot accept what you are saying. You are making a claim and not backing it up with evidence - wishful thinking does not amount to proof.

Quote

Well, just study the site Peaceful societies, there they give examples and explain some of the factors. Many of these peoples have active strategies for avoiding violent conflicts both internally and externally.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/FAQ.html


I took a look at the list of peaceful societies. I was unimpressed. They all live quaint existences and the only thing that allows them to live peacefully is that a national government of a society that has come to accept the grim realities of a world of conflict has formed an army to protect them. Do you really think the Amish would stand a chance surviving in the modern world without the care and protection of a United States government that is willing to engage in competitive and strategic behaviour?

Quote Well, a good starting point for comparing social problems among the most affluent countries, including USA, and some of the causes is Wilkington and Picketts book The Spirit Level.


Perhaps we should go with Luxembourg or Switzerland instead, as these nations people are wealthier on average than Americans.

Quote Well, there are also benefits with a freer life...


If I had to make the choice between freedom from working 9-5, paying taxes, choosing insurance and other such onerous modern 'burdens' and freedom from starving, likely dying in my 40s, having to obey some unelected authoritarian hereditary chieftain; then I think I know which half of the equation I would prefer freedom from.

Quote excerscise


Walk to work, join a gym, run around the park, take up a sport - it's not hard.

Quote less stress and psycosocial pressure


Lower infant mortality, a secure supply of food and shelter and a vast range of recreational activities above and beyond what primitive societies have access to do leave me less stressed and pressured than those people.

You claim that people in developed cultures have less stressful lives, but I have yet to see any proof. It sounds like another one of your assumptions.

Quote and living closer to nature.


Hay fever, allergies, snakes, flies, the smell of sh*t, wild animals, burning sun, freezing rain, lack of toilet paper, lower nutritional variety, boredom, excessive body odour, leeches.... one must wonder why so many continue living in urban areas.....

You don't like the city? Move to the country. Too easy. Personally I am happy getting out of the big city once every 3 months for a bit and then returning home.

Quote And about land use, the best way to use land is perhaps to not destroy it, in opposite to what happens too often when land shall be used in a so called efficient way in our modern society.


It's not a dichotomy, just because land is used efficiently doesn't mean it has to be destroyed. Plenty of naturalist farmers using medieval land tillage are able to wreck their farms due to salinity, erosion and over farming.

Most land that is farmed efficiently is still in perfectly good shape afterwards.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 12:36



Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

No, it is not obvious. Unless you can provide me with solid data to prove that problems like consumption of narcotics and suicide are more pronounced in developed nations then I cannot accept what you are saying. You are making a claim and not backing it up with evidence - wishful thinking does not amount to proof.

Well, read some ethnographic reports about tribal peoples that live in a relatively traditional way then you can see that suicide, drug abuse, mental health issues, alcoholism or prostitution is not very prevalent. As they state in the report I mentioned earlier such problems often come first when these peoples starts to get assimilated into modern society (did you read the report?). Also among many tribal peoples alcohol and many other drugs (except some drugs for ritual use) did not even exist before, but where introduced when they got more exposed for modern society.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I took a look at the list of peaceful societies. I was unimpressed. They all live quaint existences and the only thing that allows them to live peacefully is that a national government of a society that has come to accept the grim realities of a world of conflict has formed an army to protect them. Do you really think the Amish would stand a chance surviving in the modern world without the care and protection of a United States government that is willing to engage in competitive and strategic behaviour?

Well, we are all dependant of each other. Do you think you could uphold your life if not your government protected you? But still many of these people have an ideology that tries to prevent conflicts, both internal and external. But ofcourse they can not always avoid being invaded or attacked from the outside. Still they at least strive to defuse the worst conflicts, a thing  one cannot always say about our own modern societies and authorities.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Perhaps we should go with Luxembourg or Switzerland instead, as these nations people are wealthier on average than Americans.

Wealth is not in itself always the important factor, the distribution of wealth, the equality vs inequality in a society is many times more important when it comes to social problems and conflicts. And in the bad statistics about these kind of problems US fair worse than many other comparable countries.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

If I had to make the choice between freedom from working 9-5, paying taxes, choosing insurance and other such onerous modern 'burdens' and freedom from starving, likely dying in my 40s, having to obey some unelected authoritarian hereditary chieftain; then I think I know which half of the equation I would prefer freedom from.

All people who do not live ”modern” lives do not starve. Actually some of the people we call most primitive can have a better health statistic and status of nourishment than many members of the modern majority population.

Here is just an example:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/34/10/2229.short

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Lower infant mortality, a secure supply of food and shelter and a vast range of recreational activities above and beyond what primitive societies have access to do leave me less stressed and pressured than those people.
You claim that people in developed cultures have less stressful lives, but I have yet to see any proof. It sounds like another one of your assumptions.

Well, i can only invite you to read some ethnographic books. A starting point about health, both mental and physical is Goran Burenhults Det ofullkomliga djuret (the incomplete animal) where these questions are discussed, and examples (mostly from the Pacific, and especially from the Troriand islands) are given. He there refers to studies by Staffan Lindeberg, researcher in medicine, and others about stress related diseases, food related diseases and similar. Burenhults book Karlekens oar (the islands of love) is also to reccommend.

 

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 12:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Less stress in nature? Ask the trillions of beings that died eated in the jungle. Give me a break.
 
There is different kinds of stress. The kind of stress that gives rise to many of the stress related illnesses in our modern society is a long term stress that never get any real outlet, a constant pressure that breaks down many people physically and mentally. Do you not follow the debate about stress? Have you slept under a log the last years?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 12:52
Whatever. The world can't sustain 7 billion human beings living like troglodites. We need machinery, fertilizers and public works just for surviving! Too bad. You better go to preach population control to Africa. Good luck.

Edited by pinguin - 30 Mar 2011 at 12:53
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 12:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Whatever. The world can't sustain 7 billion human beings living like troglodites. We need machinery, fertilizers and public works just for surviving! Too bad. You better go to preach population control to Africa. Good luck.
 
Well, we could at least develop more sustainable and less destructive methods of land use and resource use. Also it is important that we preserve a lot of Earths biodiversity for the future.
 
And population control must also be an important part of future life.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 13:02
No doubt. But the natural resources aren't sacred. They must be managed if we want to preserve them. And if Indigenous people is going to preserve the forests, they must trainned!!
As the matter of  fact, some "traditional" practises, such as burning wood, and burning the land before seeding, must change.


Edited by pinguin - 30 Mar 2011 at 13:02
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 13:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

No doubt. But the natural resources aren't sacred. They must be managed if we want to preserve them. And if Indigenous people is going to preserve the forests, they must trainned!!
 
Well, they have managed the forest without destroying it for millennia, but nothing says that they can not be even better so proper training can sure be considered.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As the matter of  fact, some "traditional" practises, such as burning wood, and burning the land before seeding, must change.
 
It is about scale. In small scale such practice works, but on a larger scale it is rather destructive. And in cases like the Amazon those who burn most forest is not the indigenous peoples but the settlers and exploiters who burn large areas of land to free it for farming, ranching and similar purposes.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 13:14
Fellow, don't tell me Indigenous peoples are forest guards... That's idiotic. Only in the fantasy of Europeans like yourself appears the Noble Savage.

Small scale? Go to India and see what happens when 900 million poor burn wood at the same time.

Edited by pinguin - 30 Mar 2011 at 13:15
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2011 at 13:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Fellow, don't tell me Indigenous peoples are forest guards... That's idiotic. Only in the fantasy of Europeans like yourself appears the Noble Savage.
 
Some of them actually are. Otherwise their forest should not stand in place while their so called civilized neighbours cut down most of the vegetation in other areas.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Small scale? Go to India and see what happens when 900 million poor burn wood at the same time.
 
Yes, I just said that in large scale it is not so good to burn wood, but in small scale it does not do so much damage. The situation looks different in different places.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 00:03
Quote Well, read some ethnographic reports about tribal peoples that live in a relatively traditional way then you can see that suicide, drug abuse, mental health issues, alcoholism or prostitution is not very prevalent. As they state in the report I mentioned earlier such problems often come first when these peoples starts to get assimilated into modern society (did you read the report?). Also among many tribal peoples alcohol and many other drugs (except some drugs for ritual use) did not even exist before, but where introduced when they got more exposed for modern society.


You didn't provide me with a link to the report you are talking about, so I cannot accept that what you are saying is backed by evidence.

Drug use exists practically everywhere, including tribal societies.

Quote Well, we are all dependant of each other. Do you think you could uphold your life if not your government protected you? But still many of these people have an ideology that tries to prevent conflicts, both internal and external. But ofcourse they can not always avoid being invaded or attacked from the outside. Still they at least strive to defuse the worst conflicts, a thing  one cannot always say about our own modern societies and authorities.


No, we are not all dependent on eachother, some people are purely dependent on others without giving back anything of value in return. You saying we are all equally dependent on one another is a myth.

As for me, I more than pay my way with regards to society. I pay triple the total amount of tax from your average person because I worked hard to get a good education and build up economically useful skills - rather than being a selfish simpleton and running off into the wild so that my economic usefulness equals zero.

And who are you to say that my society does not have a way of saying that my society does not have adequate methods to prevent conflict? In the past 110 years Australia has not had a civil war or a military coup - which is doing a lot better than most tribes and primitive societies.

Quote Wealth is not in itself always the important factor, the distribution of wealth, the equality vs inequality in a society is many times more important when it comes to social problems and conflicts. And in the bad statistics about these kind of problems US fair worse than many other comparable countries.


A claim which again and again you fail to substantiate.

Also, I dislike your use of the word 'many'. Stop doing that, it is misleading. 'Most' would be a better word. Because 'most' means more than half. The USA could have worse social problems than 5 remote tribes, and you would use that to say 'but the US has worse social problems than many other societies'.

Don't give me that. Give me some strong statistics, some hard evidence, some facts. Not more of your wishy-washy daydreaming about returning to nature.

Quote

All people who do not live ”modern” lives do not starve. Actually some of the people we call most primitive can have a better health statistic and status of nourishment than many members of the modern majority population.

Here is just an example:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/34/10/2229.short


There you go again, saying 'many'. 'Many' doesn't mean anything. Unlike 'most' or '70%' or '3 times as much', 'many' doesn't have any real numeric meaning.

Many Chinese live wealthier lives than Swiss people. Therefore according to your wishful thinking view of the world, the Chinese are more affluent than the Swiss. Don't you see how useless a way of reasoning that is?

So instead of taking your one tiny example, let's get some really meaningful statistics from an impartial body that would know what it is talking about:

http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/sgreport-pdf/02_ChildMalnutrition_D7341Insert_English.pdf

Take a look at the unicef report. The countries ranked on top have some of the highest concentrations of people living tribal and traditional existences in the world.

Face it, your fantasies don't match the hard statistical realities. And even when they do, they could only be achieved by de-populating the earth so that land could be used far less efficiently. And even then, extreme weather changes that cause environmental devastation and loss of food would still mean that people starve and without mechanised agriculture to ensure a surplus there would be no form of famine relief available.

Quote Well, i can only invite you to read some ethnographic books. A starting point about health, both mental and physical is Goran Burenhults Det ofullkomliga djuret (the incomplete animal) where these questions are discussed, and examples (mostly from the Pacific, and especially from the Troriand islands) are given. He there refers to studies by Staffan Lindeberg, researcher in medicine, and others about stress related diseases, food related diseases and similar. Burenhults book Karlekens oar (the islands of love) is also to reccommend.


I understand English and Spanish. If those books are not in either language, I won't be able to understand them.

What I am looking for is hard evidence that a tribal existence is superior to one in the developed world. I want figures for life expectancy, infant and child mortality rates, blindness, deaths from preventable disease, deaths through childbirth, rates of suicide. I want all that in the form of hard statistical data that I can compare with hard statistical data from developed nations. Until you do that, the point you are making remains unconvincing.

Don't give me foggy generalisations that aren't backed up with hard evidence.


Edited by Constantine XI - 31 Mar 2011 at 00:14
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 02:31
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


You didn't provide me with a link to the report you are talking about, so I cannot accept that what you are saying is backed by evidence.

Drug use exists practically everywhere, including tribal societies.


Actually, some of the most powerfull drugs ever come from the tribal peoples of the Amazons.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Face it, your fantasies don't match the hard statistical realities. And even when they do, they could only be achieved by de-populating the earth so that land could be used far less efficiently


Actually, depopulating earth is exactly the Deep Ecology doctrine. I suspect Carcha follows that ideology.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


What I am looking for is hard evidence that a tribal existence is superior to one in the developed world. I want figures for life expectancy, infant and child mortality rates, blindness, deaths from preventable disease, deaths through childbirth, rates of suicide. I want all that in the form of hard statistical data that I can compare with hard statistical data from developed nations. Until you do that, the point you are making remains unconvincing.


Actually, those studies have been done since long time ago and show a very short life expectancy for isolated tribal peoples.


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 02:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Actually, some of the most powerfull drugs ever come from the tribal peoples of the Amazons.


Exactly right! Amerindians getting off their tits on payate cactus, Scythians getting stoned inhaling fumes in their hemp pits, boistrous Germans getting rowdy with big jugs of ale and mead - tribal and traditional peoples love warping their minds with drugs just like those who live in cities.

Quote Actually, depopulating earth is exactly the Deep Ecology doctrine. I suspect Carcha follows that ideology.


Humans are more important, always.

Quote Actually, those studies have been done since long time ago and show a very short life expectancy for isolated tribal peoples.


This makes sense. The statistics I have read show that 1/5 babies born into a tribal society don't survive past the age of 5 - and that is if they are lucky. Often the death rate is as high as 30-40%.

Life expectancy is 20 years lower in Papua New Guinea than in its neighbour Australia, and among tribal people it is even lower.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 02:43
Fortunately, New Guineans are developing fast. The same can be say of most natives peoples in South America.
In my own country, in the Aymara region, you can see many ghost towns, where only the elders keep living there, and where people only come back for the town celebration, once a year! Most of the people have moved to the cities! The young indigenous people move to the towns and then to the major cities. They want to prosper and to get the goods of modernity.
After all, they are HUMANS that have dreams and ambitions, and not employees of a jungle park for ecotourists!



Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 03:09
Addressed to Pinguin!

Here!, Here!

A very moving post!

Regards,
Ron

PS, but most modern Californians would take the jobs, as an eco-tourist guide!

They, after all, feel all of the guilt!

Regards,

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 31 Mar 2011 at 03:11
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2011 at 11:40
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

You didn't provide me with a link to the report you are talking about, so I cannot accept that what you are saying is backed by evidence.
 
Do you not have libraries where you live. And the link to report about health issues is to bee found below (even if it would have been easy to find if you had googled its name). If you are really interested in a subject you will find literature. I did.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Drug use exists practically everywhere, including tribal societies.
 
Yes use, but not the misuse followed by social exclusion and a lot of health problems and social problems that we see in modern society. At least not until a certain assimilation into modern society and modern ways have occured.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

No, we are not all dependent on eachother, some people are purely dependent on others without giving back anything of value in return. You saying we are all equally dependent on one another is a myth.
 
When it concerns indigenous people many have given up most of their land and resources to the modern society, which consists of descendants of the ones that invaded their land. So actually in places like the US, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil (and most other American countries), Andaman islands they are the ones that contributed most to society, they have contributed with the very foundation for those countries.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

And who are you to say that my society does not have a way of saying that my society does not have adequate methods to prevent conflict? In the past 110 years Australia has not had a civil war or a military coup - which is doing a lot better than most tribes and primitive societies..
 
Well, you have had a lot of racial persecution, stealing of aboriginal children and similar. So for them Australia has not been very protective, instead Australia have contributed to their demise. For them your society has been a big conflict in itself.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

A claim which again and again you fail to substantiate.

Can you not read? Read the Pickett and Wilkinsons book that I mentioned (or look it up at Youtube where you can see lectures with the authors). Must you be written everything on your nose? Can you not do any basic research or googling yourself?

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

What I am looking for is hard evidence that a tribal existence is superior to one in the developed world. I want figures for life expectancy, infant and child mortality rates, blindness, deaths from preventable disease, deaths through childbirth, rates of suicide. I want all that in the form of hard statistical data that I can compare with hard statistical data from developed nations. Until you do that, the point you are making remains unconvincing.

Most of the things (except suicide) have nothing to do with mental health which was the thing I talked most about. If you read some ethnographic records from so calleed primitive, tribal societies you see not much about suicide, drugs, prostitution, crime.

About other, physical illnesses like diabetes, obesity, heart failure, stroke, cancer and similar it is actually well known that they are not so rampant in traditional, tribal societies. Many of these health problems comes with the modern civilisation. Also veneric diseases (for example HIV), tooth problems and malnutrition can come as results of contact.
 
 
All peoples have health problems, but those can be very different depending on life style, stress, food and similar factors.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 31 Mar 2011 at 11:56
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.