| 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  <1 3456>
Author
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: 02 Apr 2011 at 15:05
I don't undestand? I undertand our social problems a lot better than yourself simply because I have lived it. I was poor when I was a child and I lived in a slum. Something that you'll never understand living in a rich society like yourself.

So, please, don't say so much baloney. If you want to ask, do it, but don't try to teach what you haven't lived.


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2011 at 18:58
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It doesn't "depends"... The average people in the modern world live better than the primitives.
 
The important point that you seem to not understand, is that too many indigenous peoples are not assimilated into any average part of society but into the ranks of the poor, mostly because they have robbed of their land and property.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of diversity - bio or any other kind. Mao may have said 'Let a hundred flowers bloom' but he didn't include weeds.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 02 Apr 2011 at 19:55
What do you mean, Graham?
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Apr 2011 at 04:45
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Well, still the diet of hunter gatherers are (in suffient amount) contains a lot of nutrients and vitamins, contains less harmful fat and are often more healthy than much of the stuff it is replaced with. So a changed diet can indeed contribute to different health problems, together with other factors.

Ideally they had/have a more diverse diet, and a diverse diet is a benefit to our health. But it is not as simple as that. Hunter-gatherers could easily be lacking in a particular food stuff because they had no way of getting it, and only 100 years our farmed food diet was much healthier than it is now. Our lack of a diverse diet has more to do with communial laziness and mass production than with gathering vs farming. We at least can buy a wide range of foods if we want to - they can't.
Quote Often hunter gatherers adapt to failing food sources by moving and they also have a buffert against such problems because they use a broad spectrum of foods

Moving into someone elses territory is a good way to start a war.
If my food source fails, my shopping center imports the same food from somewhere else in the country. My buffer is vastly superior to theirs.
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: 04 Apr 2011 at 11:26
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Ideally they had/have a more diverse diet, and a diverse diet is a benefit to our health. But it is not as simple as that. Hunter-gatherers could easily be lacking in a particular food stuff because they had no way of getting it, and only 100 years our farmed food diet was much healthier than it is now. Our lack of a diverse diet has more to do with communial laziness and mass production than with gathering vs farming. We at least can buy a wide range of foods if we want to - they can't.
 
Actually there  are experts that claim that the food of hunter gatherers are actually more healthy for us than the food obtained by farming. The hunter gatherer diet is often more rich in proteins and the right kind of fatty acids and also in vitamins. Actually there is a lot of talk about that we ought to go back to some sort of stone age or paleolithic diet in order to improve our health.
 
And do remember that not everyone can buy as wide a range of food as they want because of sociao economic reasons. This one of the reasons that the health situaiton often is worse among the lower sociaoeconomic classes.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Moving into someone elses territory is a good way to start a war.
 
Well, in ancient times the chance was better that if you moved you would not stumble into other peoples territory. Now when most of the land of hunter gatherers is stolen the risk is ofcourse larger that they stumble into others land.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  If my food source fails, my shopping center imports the same food from somewhere else in the country. My buffer is vastly superior to theirs.
 
Well, in a crisis, war or similar the supply of food in your stores will end, and then you are in deep trouble.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Apr 2011 at 12:00
As your quibbling about the chances of other territory already 'belonging' to somebody else, that simply emphasises the fact that what you are advocating is wholesale extermination of humans and the total prevention of conception or new births except as prescribed by your governing autocracy.
 
And no matter how many times you say 'actually' in a sentence it doesn't make the sentence aby more true.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 04 Apr 2011 at 12:41
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

As your quibbling about the chances of other territory already 'belonging' to somebody else, that simply emphasises the fact that what you are advocating is wholesale extermination of humans and the total prevention of conception or new births except as prescribed by your governing autocracy.
 
And no matter how many times you say 'actually' in a sentence it doesn't make the sentence aby more true.
 
It seems that you just are writing a lot of posts without substance. It looks like trolling.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Apr 2011 at 14:15
Not in the least. I'm just replyong to your assertions, not making any. You never make any attempt to refute what I or pinguin or anyone else says here: why don't you explain why increasing the number of species around does not risk multiplying dangerous species?
 
Why should one of the 'new' species not be as dangerous as the AIDS virus? Or the Spanish 'flu? They are both examples of increasing biodiversity (as you defined it).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 04 Apr 2011 at 14:19
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not in the least. I'm just replyong to your assertions, not making any. You never make any attempt to refute what I or pinguin or anyone else says here: why don't you explain why increasing the number of species around does not risk multiplying dangerous species?
 
Because dangerous is a very subjective measurement. You must see the species in their ecological context, where things we sometimes percieve as dangerous or not desirable can be neccesary ingredients.
And the loss of biodiversity can in the long run be more dangerous to us than individual harmful species.
 
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: 04 Apr 2011 at 18:10
All aboard! The Train for Disconnect via the Ad Absurdum track is departing the station...please have your tickets handy so as to verify the travel documents!
 
Naturally, Carch verified his passage with the following:
 
Actually there  are experts that claim that the food of hunter gatherers are actually more healthy for us than the food obtained by farming. The hunter gatherer diet is often more rich in proteins and the right kind of fatty acids and also in vitamins. Actually there is a lot of talk about that we ought to go back to some sort of stone age or paleolithic diet in order to improve our health.
 
And do remember that not everyone can buy as wide a range of food as they want because of sociao economic reasons. This one of the reasons that the health situaiton often is worse among the lower sociaoeconomic classes.

The nonsense over the Paleo-Diet and its proponents is but an example of "junk science" in terms of nutrition and little need be said of Cordain and his manipulation of existing information other than the facts readily noted by all as summarized here:
 
 
We will not even bother discussing the nonsense typical of those whose consumption is regulated by the Fad Diet virus rather than common sense.
 
As for the closing gagaism penned by Carch over malnutrition in the "lower socio-economic classes", such glittering mackerelisms are nonsense. In 21st century society health problems as a function of diet derives from poor choices and habits and has nothing to do with the staples available.
 
Notice, the inversions at work in the leap to the Cave Man--
 
 
Welcome to the world of "educated guesses" with the guess works being premised upon which side your Bonnie lies!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Apr 2011 at 18:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Not in the least. I'm just replyong to your assertions, not making any. You never make any attempt to refute what I or pinguin or anyone else says here: why don't you explain why increasing the number of species around does not risk multiplying dangerous species?
 
Because dangerous is a very subjective measurement.
Of course it is. Choosing to live or die is a subjective choice. For most people 'dangerous' implies 'liable to harm me' and by extension 'us'. For probably all cats, not just most, 'dangerous' means potentially harmful to cats, especially me.
Quote
You must see the species in their ecological context, where things we sometimes percieve as dangerous or not desirable can be neccesary ingredients.
No you mustn't. You must see them in relationship to yourself. your family, your friends, and eventually humanity on general. If something's 'ecological niche' is 'eating people' that makes it dangerous.
 
But, once more with feeling, don't just waffle about 'sometimes'. Give us an example of something that is sometimes dangerous sometimes not. And specify 'necessary' to what?
 
You seem to be on the brink of the rather revealing argument that increasing biodiversity is good because it inscreases biodiversity, whether or not it is dangerous or harmful.
Quote
And the loss of biodiversity can in the long run be more dangerous to us than individual harmful species.
A statement is not proof of the statement itself. That's no better than someone saying that increasing biodiversity is bad because in the long run it can be more dangerous than individual harmful species.
 
In other words it is a totally pointless remark.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 04 Apr 2011 at 18:34
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 05 Apr 2011 at 01:05
How time gets away from me.

Quote 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.


Thanks for the link. The basic message that the link is advocating is obvious enough: that contact with outsiders kills natives and they need their own autonomous healthcare programs to survive.

But it doesn't address the fact that life expectancy among these peoples was already low, that infant mortality rates and prolonged suffering from preventable diseases was also high compared to people in today's world. Accidental exposure to new diseases they had very little genetic immunity to was naturally going to cause mass death. But that doesn't refute the fact that these people were already typically living short, hard lives with a limited diet and doing so while making very inefficient use of the land to support a tiny population (compared to developed cultures).

Quote 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.


How can you be so certain? That seems like an assumption to me.

Quote 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.


No they haven't. Contributing means actually doing something.

Quote 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.


No place is perfect. But the fact is that we have a more stable government and less of our people as a percentage of our population die in wars than is the case in more primitive societies. And you can be certain that when two tribes fight, the winners mistreat and discriminate against the losers. Let alone enslave them, massacre them en mass, or cannibalise them. For an example of what sorts of racism and viciousness results when tribal cultures clash, see below. British paternalism seems very mild by comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori#European_contact_and_invasion_by_Taranaki_M.C4.81ori

Quote 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.


You know, I would be inclined to agree. Not because it is their culture, but because they are a small, tight nit group. I see the same thing in my hometown of 900 people that I was born in - minimal drug and alcohol abuse, crime and no prostitution as far as I am aware. That's what happens when you have a small community where people trust eachother. That has practically nothing to do with culture, though.

Quote 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.


As has been addressed by other members, most of those problems are a result of getting old (getting old is a sign of a successful culture, instead of dying while young or middle aged). HIV, tooth problems and malnutrition can also occur without the outside world playing any role. But the developed world, unlike primitive cultures, offers real solutions in the form of condoms, modern dentistry and industrial scale agriculture and modern logistics. Primitive cultures don't have satisfactory answers to these problems.

Quote All peoples have health problems, but those can be very different depending on life style, stress, food and similar factors.


That's a fair truism. But I'm more interested in the scale and prevalence of those problems. We measure that with objective data (life expectancy, infant mortality etc).

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: 05 Apr 2011 at 11:54
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
You must see the species in their ecological context, where things we sometimes percieve as dangerous or not desirable can be neccesary ingredients.
No you mustn't. You must see them in relationship to yourself. your family, your friends, and eventually humanity on general. If something's 'ecological niche' is 'eating people' that makes it dangerous.
 
 
Better we discuss biodiversity in the biodiversity thread (even if I doubt there is much idea doing it since you many times proven your inability to understand the subject and its ramifications).
 
If you do not understand that you must see species in their ecological settings than you show that you have not even the most basic understanding about ecology or the importance of upholding biodiversity.
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: 05 Apr 2011 at 12:10

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 Thanks for the link. The basic message that the link is advocating is obvious enough: that contact with outsiders kills natives and they need their own autonomous healthcare programs to survive.

But it doesn't address the fact that life expectancy among these peoples was already low, that infant mortality rates and prolonged suffering from preventable diseases was also high compared to people in today's world. Accidental exposure to new diseases they had very little genetic immunity to was naturally going to cause mass death. But that doesn't refute the fact that these people were already typically living short, hard lives with a limited diet and doing so while making very inefficient use of the land to support a tiny population (compared to developed cultures). .

Well, it seems that their life got even shorter and more problematic when they came in contact with modern civilisation. In the end such contact is probably unavoidable, but if we intrude into their land and lives we have an obligation to not destroy the fundaments of their culture and we also have an obligation to see that their health (physical and mental) do not deteroirate. As it is today the reperesentants for modern society seem to take most interest in exploiting indigenous peoples land and resources and get rid of them by assimilating them into some slum somewhere.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 No they haven't. Contributing means actually doing something. .

Well, if you contribute by giving up your land you have contributed enough. It ought  to be an obligation of those who have stolen the land to see to that the indigenous peoples can live a good life. And indigenous people also contribute when it comes to knowledge and in many countries they also sell surplus food and similar product to parts of the modern population, some of whom are less self sufficient than the natives.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 You know, I would be inclined to agree. Not because it is their culture, but because they are a small, tight nit group. I see the same thing in my hometown of 900 people that I was born in - minimal drug and alcohol abuse, crime and no prostitution as far as I am aware. That's what happens when you have a small community where people trust eachother. That has practically nothing to do with culture, though. .

Its both about being a small, tightly knit group, but it also have to do with cultural values.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 As has been addressed by other members, most of those problems are a result of getting old (getting old is a sign of a successful culture, instead of dying while young or middle aged). HIV, tooth problems and malnutrition can also occur without the outside world playing any role. But the developed world, unlike primitive cultures, offers real solutions in the form of condoms, modern dentistry and industrial scale agriculture and modern logistics. Primitive cultures don't have satisfactory answers to these problems.

Actually when you compare these ilnesses you compare on people at the same age that are living.

And even if the modern society can adress these health issues they still continue to be a problem. Better allow people to live in a way where they do not contract such illnesses.

 

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: 06 Apr 2011 at 04:14
Quote Well, it seems that their life got even shorter and more problematic when they came in contact with modern civilisation.


How do you know their lifespan became shorter? Do you have reliable statistics on how long they lived beforehand?

I can say very confidently that among my country's own indigenous population, their lifespan has increased on average after properly integrating with modern lifestyles.

Quote In the end such contact is probably unavoidable, but if we intrude into their land and lives we have an obligation to not destroy the fundaments of their culture and we also have an obligation to see that their health (physical and mental) do not deteroirate.


Contact is unavoidable. But as part of a nation state, indigenous people must contribute to the upkeep of that state. That state provides them with military security, health services, a guarantee against famine, an outlet for international relations, roads, schools, sanitation.....

To expect to receive all of that for free while using up massive amounts of land and refusing to make any economic contribution is selfish and unfair on the rest of the citizens.

Quote As it is today the reperesentants for modern society seem to take most interest in exploiting indigenous peoples land and resources and get rid of them by assimilating them into some slum somewhere.


That is a massively unfair generalisation. It is not the case in my country today, nor in the USA, nor in many parts of Africa welcoming US and Chinese development. When a group of Australian aborigines were offered large amounts of money to give up their land to uranium miners in the Northern Territory, they took the money and gave up the land. Does it occur to you that many of these people actually crave the comforts of modern living and are not as sentimental about nature as you?

What is fair is giving indigenous people a reasonable choice in participating in a new lifestyle, rather than forcing them to continue to live in primitive and deprived conditions for the sake of wistful nostalgia.

Quote Well, if you contribute by giving up your land you have contributed enough. It ought  to be an obligation of those who have stolen the land to see to that the indigenous peoples can live a good life. And indigenous people also contribute when it comes to knowledge and in many countries they also sell surplus food and similar product to parts of the modern population, some of whom are less self sufficient than the natives.


Then by your logic, today I contributed massively to society by not going on a gun rampage. The natives didn't give up their land because they intended for it to be used to build a modern nation state, they gave it up because they were forced to or because they willingly sold it in return for money or goods.

Again, contributing actually means doing something.

Quote Its both about being a small, tightly knit group, but it also have to do with cultural values.


Oh I agree. Which is why the people in the town of 900 people I was born in don't cannibalise, kill 'witches', kill eachother in household and inter-village feuds or engage in ritual genital mutilation like tribal people do. They are also better educated, live longer and have a better quality of life than tribal people. I agree that culturally, the people living in Cleve have a lot more going for them than the Xingu do.

Quote Actually when you compare these ilnesses you compare on people at the same age that are living.


No one I know has cataracts. Tribal people do. I have never heard of a family member or a family friend dying in child birth (it happens in our society, but only very rarely). Mothers dying in child birth are a fact of life for primitive cultures. No one I have ever met has suffered from whooping cough or polio or cholera - these are killer diseases among primitive cultures.

None of these diseases above are caused by modern living. But modern living has near perfect solutions to them. Primtive cultures offer their patients little more than placebos.
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: 06 Apr 2011 at 11:22
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 How do you know their lifespan became shorter? Do you have reliable statistics on how long they lived beforehand?
 
Your lifespan would also be shorter if you were thrown out from your home and from your possibilities to sustain yourself, into a world of powerty and slums and if you were forced to change a well balanced diet to a more onesided and unhealthy one.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 I can say very confidently that among my country's own indigenous population, their lifespan has increased on average after properly integrating with modern lifestyles.
 
Perhaps, but as we discussed before there are some that still live with a lot of huntering gathering that have a better nutritional status than others who are more integrated. The thing in our modern way of life that can increase life span is proper health care and medicines. If you can combine that with some of the traits from the older society, varied food, low fat food, excersise, a meaning ful life and good relations in a tightly knit society then the life span and life quality of native people could be very good. Putting people in the slum and give them a lot of social problems will not increase their life spans or life quality.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Contact is unavoidable. But as part of a nation state, indigenous people must contribute to the upkeep of that state. That state provides them with military security, health services, a guarantee against famine, an outlet for international relations, roads, schools, sanitation...
To expect to receive all of that for free while using up massive amounts of land and refusing to make any economic contribution is selfish and unfair on the rest of the citizens.

As I said, indigenous peoples are those that have contributed most to Australia and many other countries, and they still contribute with their knowledge and also with a lot of other things. The majority society owe a lot to these peoples.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 That is a massively unfair generalisation. It is not the case in my country today, nor in the USA, nor in many parts of Africa welcoming US and Chinese development. When a group of Australian aborigines were offered large amounts of money to give up their land to uranium miners in the Northern Territory, they took the money and gave up the land. Does it occur to you that many of these people actually crave the comforts of modern living and are not as sentimental about nature as you?

It is no generalisation. This is extremely common, in Asia, in Africa, in South america and still today also in Canada and the US where reservations now and then are targeted if something valuable (minerals, uranium or similar) is found there. Often those who suffer the most from land expropriation is the ones that gain least.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Oh I agree. Which is why the people in the town of 900 people I was born in don't cannibalise, kill 'witches', kill eachother in household and inter-village feuds or engage in ritual genital mutilation like tribal people do. They are also better educated, live longer and have a better quality of life than tribal people. I agree that culturally, the people living in Cleve have a lot more going for them than the Xingu do.

Well, as if not European descendants in Australia have never killed anyone or done any harm during their history in the land? And if you see European or European descended societies in general they have stood for the most devastating wars and worst cruelties of the last century, among them two world wars. And what about all those small nice societies in the American south that had as their hobby to lynch black people?

And as I have already showed you, some of the most peaceful socieies in the world are indigenous peoples whos ideology and culture is geared to solving conflicts and uphold peace.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

No one I know has cataracts. Tribal people do. I have never heard of a family member or a family friend dying in child birth (it happens in our society, but only very rarely). Mothers dying in child birth are a fact of life for primitive cultures. No one I have ever met has suffered from whooping cough or polio or cholera - these are killer diseases among primitive cultures.
 
Well, I see a lot of young people with obesity, heart problems and diabetes, which you see very little of in tribal societies (especially not among hunter gatherers). I see young people with different forms of cancer that you do not see in many traditional tibal societies. I see a lot of young people with alcohol and drug problems (and secondary diseases), I see a lot of burnt out, very stressed young people that have been incapacitated by their problems, something you do not see much of in well functioning tribal societies. I see depressed people, and many suicides, which you do not see much in well functioning traditional tribal societies. I see eating disorders which is a common welfare disease, not seldom leading to young peoples death.
 
But, ofcourse, in the end all people die, just for different reasons.
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: 07 Apr 2011 at 00:34
You are just forgetting the culture shock. The impact that suffers people when the society they were accustumed to live changes. Immigrants to societies differents that theirs own usually suffer this impact, and also natives living in countries where the mainstream culture was changed radically, and they change theirs cultural refferences.

Blame that, for a change.
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: 07 Apr 2011 at 02:15

Quote Your lifespan would also be shorter if you were thrown out from your home and from your possibilities to sustain yourself, into a world of powerty and slums and if you were forced to change a well balanced diet to a more onesided and unhealthy one.


The problem here is that you are pushing a stereotype which is not always true: a world in which tribal people are attacked and passively have a new lifestyle forced upon them.

In doing this you fail to realise that many tribal people do exactly the opposite: they tend to recognise the benefits of a developed culture and seek to incorporate it into their lives. The Maori, for example, leapt at the chance to learn new skills and access new technologies. The people of Mexico welcomed Cortes with open arms, preferring what he had to offer to the cruelty and human sacrifice of the Aztec state.

By ignoring examples like you and trying to portray the experience of contact with the developed world as exactly like the Xingu, you are creating a false stereotype.

Quote Perhaps, but as we discussed before there are some that still live with a lot of huntering gathering that have a better nutritional status than others who are more integrated.


There you go again. I'm not interested in the word 'some', Carch. What interests me is the overall average. And the overall average shows that life in the developed world is longer and healthier than in the jungle.

Quote The thing in our modern way of life that can increase life span is proper health care and medicines.


Not just that. Modern education is needed, plus a modern political system to distribute resources and justice fairly, plus a modern industrial and scientific base to produce the wealth and research that created the medicine and healthcare in the first place. Tribal societies don't offer those things.

Quote If you can combine that with some of the traits from the older society, varied food, low fat food, excersise, a meaning ful life and good relations in a tightly knit society then the life span and life quality of native people could be very good. Putting people in the slum and give them a lot of social problems will not increase their life spans or life quality.


I have a more varied diet than any tribal person. Go to Papua New Guinea, 85% of the tribal diet is yams because it's the only thing they can farm in abundance.

If you want a low fat diet and plenty of exercise, then you have access to it. And who are you to decide I (living in a developed country) do not have a meaningful life? It is awfully presumptuous of you.

As for close knit societies, they have problems as well. Honour killings, forced marriages, lack of privacy, strict and often dysfunctional parental control, low outlets for individual creativity, insularity....

Quote As I said, indigenous peoples are those that have contributed most to Australia and many other countries, and they still contribute with their knowledge and also with a lot of other things. The majority society owe a lot to these peoples.


No, it doesn't work that way. If I own a piece of land, and I sell that land to someone, and that man then builds a palace on it; then I don't deserve a majority of the credit for the construction of that palace. The man who built it deserves that credit.

You don't get credit for building something unless you actually take part in the construction.

Quote It is no generalisation. This is extremely common, in Asia, in Africa, in South america and still today also in Canada and the US where reservations now and then are targeted if something valuable (minerals, uranium or similar) is found there. Often those who suffer the most from land expropriation is the ones that gain least.


And if one tribe wants access to another tribe's prize hunting grounds, they march over and kill the other tribe. Or they do what the Maori did to the Moriori.

Anyway, there is no problem in one person or group making an offer to buy the other person or group's land. If someone wants to buy my home so they can knock it down and build a shopping centre, they are welcome to make me an offer. I might accept the offer if I think the money is worth more than my home, or otherwise I am free to refuse the offer.

Why should tribal people be refused the same rights and privileges in pursuing wealth?

Quote Well, as if not European descendants in Australia have never killed anyone or done any harm during their history in the land?


What does this have to do with my point that modern society is less barbaric and more beneficial than primitive ones? Are you just trying to play the blame game now?

Quote And if you see European or European descended societies in general they have stood for the most devastating wars and worst cruelties of the last century, among them two world wars. And what about all those small nice societies in the American south that had as their hobby to lynch black people?


Yes, I see now. You are just trying to play the blame game. Not going to work. Stick to the topic.

BTW, a world in which the Zulu or Maori was a reality with the numbers and power of Europeans in the 19th century, would have been a far bloodier, crueler place than today. And you know it.

Quote And as I have already showed you, some of the most peaceful socieies in the world are indigenous peoples whos ideology and culture is geared to solving conflicts and uphold peace.


Quaint, unproductive societies which expect the nation state to take care of their needs while they use up unacceptably large amounts of land and make no contribution to the nation state at all. You say peaceful, I say effete and insular.

Quote Well, I see a lot of young people with obesity, heart problems and diabetes, which you see very little of in tribal societies (especially not among hunter gatherers). I see young people with different forms of cancer that you do not see in many traditional tibal societies.


Are you really going to say that because 1/4 kids are fat that that is equivalent  in severity to call the tribal mothers dying in childbirth and infants who don't survive past the age of 5? Give me a break.

Quote I see a lot of young people with alcohol and drug problems (and secondary diseases), I see a lot of burnt out, very stressed young people that have been incapacitated by their problems, something you do not see much of in well functioning tribal societies.


Teenagers in all societies get stressed out, because being an adolescent is stressful and difficult. I don't see why that should be any different for tribal teens.

Frankly, I think the picture you are painting of modern societies is very inaccurate. You make it seem like the whole of society is one mass of burnt out, alcoholic, drug addicted loners. That is not accurate. The vast majority of people in the developed world live, rich, varied, secure and happy lives. Dysfunction will occur, but on balance the developed world mode of living comes off very much in credit.

Quote But, ofcourse, in the end all people die, just for different reasons.


Of course. But living longer and not dying from easily preventable diseases is better than dying young from those same diseases.

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: 07 Apr 2011 at 13:47


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The problem here is that you are pushing a stereotype which is not always true: a world in which tribal people are attacked and passively have a new lifestyle forced upon them.

In doing this you fail to realise that many tribal people do exactly the opposite: they tend to recognise the benefits of a developed culture and seek to incorporate it into their lives. The Maori, for example, leapt at the chance to learn new skills and access new technologies. The people of Mexico welcomed Cortes with open arms, preferring what he had to offer to the cruelty and human sacrifice of the Aztec state

By ignoring examples like you and trying to portray the experience of contact with the developed world as exactly like the Xingu, you are creating a false stereotype. This is not a stereotype since the examples of this kind of negative transitions and changes are so many. .

Noone has said that indigenous peoples can not learn new things or adapt to new circumstances. Actually they have always done that, through history, in order to survive. What is important is that sometimes they are pressurized into changes that is not positive and that worsens their quality of life and their health condition.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

There you go again. I'm not interested in the word 'some', Carch. What interests me is the overall average. And the overall average shows that life in the developed world is longer and healthier than in the jungle. .


It is rather common knowledge among researchers in evolutionary medicine that hunter gatherers mostly had a more nutritional, varied and well balanced diet than agriculturalist and even more than poor people in todays third world. It is also well known that the maet from wild animals are more healthy (less dangerous fat and other factors) than their domesticated equivalents.

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Apr 2011 at 13:47
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: 07 Apr 2011 at 13:47

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Not just that. Modern education is needed, plus a modern political system to distribute resources and justice fairly, plus a modern industrial and scientific base to produce the wealth and research that created the medicine and healthcare in the first place. Tribal societies don't offer those things. .


Most people in our modern society get some kind of modern education, still too many eat bad food and live in unsound and unhealthy ways.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I have a more varied diet than any tribal person. Go to Papua New Guinea, 85% of the tribal diet is yams because it's the only thing they can farm in abundance. .

Perhaps you personally, but especially hunter gatherers eat more healthy food than ordinary people in our own society, and even more compared with poor, non indigenous people in the third world.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

As for close knit societies, they have problems as well. Honour killings, forced marriages, lack of privacy, strict and often dysfunctional parental control, low outlets for individual creativity, insularity.... .


All peoples have their problems, but especially among hunter gatherers the amount of violence is rather low. They often live during such circumstances (a nomadic life, small groups, large territiroes) that they had no means of or need for excess control of each other. The normal way of  solving internal conflicts among hunter gatherers has traditionally been separation, ie some of the group just move away.  With increasing degree of sedentarism, agriculture and civilization the degree of violence have increased, which can be seen in the archaeological record.



Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

No, it doesn't work that way. If I own a piece of land, and I sell that land to someone, and that man then builds a palace on it; then I don't deserve a majority of the credit for the construction of that palace. The man who built it deserves that credit.

You don't get credit for building something unless you actually take part in the construction. .


Well, actually the aboriginals are the true owners of the land and the rest of society ought to pay a reasonable rent to all the aboriginals to cover the value of the land stolen from them.

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: 07 Apr 2011 at 13:48

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

And if one tribe wants access to another tribe's prize hunting grounds, they march over and kill the other tribe. Or they do what the Maori did to the Moriori. .


Well, excesses have occurred also among tribal people, but the scale of those conflicts is very small compared with the destruction inflicted on hundreds, yes even thousands of tribal peoples from the so called modern civilization.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

What does this have to do with my point that modern society is less barbaric and more beneficial than primitive ones? Are you just trying to play the blame game now? .


It is a matter who it is beneficial to.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Yes, I see now. You are just trying to play the blame game. Not going to work. Stick to the topic.

BTW, a world in which the Zulu or Maori was a reality with the numbers and power of Europeans in the 19th century, would have been a far bloodier, crueler place than today.
And you know it. .


As I already said, western, modrn civilisation has had a greater impact, also when it concerns violence and destruction, than any tribal people. And I do not think that even the Zulus or Maoris could be compared to Hitlers Germany, or the colonial powers at their worst, or Stalins Russia.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quaint, unproductive societies which expect the nation state to take care of their needs while they use up unacceptably large amounts of land and make no contribution to the nation state at all. You say peaceful, I say effete and insular. .


Well, the point is that they have traditional ideology that defuse conflicts when it is possible, especially internal ones. Unfortunately nationstates and modern civilization often is the ones that have violated them and driven them into conflict.

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: 07 Apr 2011 at 13:48

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Are you really going to say that because 1/4 kids are fat that that is equivalent  in severity to call the tribal mothers dying in childbirth and infants who don't survive past the age of 5? Give me a break. .


Well, the combined death toll, and suffering from our welfare, and mental illnesses is a rather serious business.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Teenagers in all societies get stressed out, because being an adolescent is stressful and difficult. I don't see why that should be any different for tribal teens.

In hunter gatherer societies and many other traditional tribal societies there was no such teenage stress that we see in our society. Those societies had a meaningful life to offer their teenagers and natural outlets for natural stress. 


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Frankly, I think the picture you are painting of modern societies is very inaccurate. .


Actually, I also live in a modern society so I see the social problems. And still countries like US and UK had much more of them than Sweden.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Of course. But living longer and not dying from easily preventable diseases is better than dying young from those same diseases. .


Well, sometimes one can ask what is best, to live a long and meaningless life, where one is perhaps immobilized by age diseases the last ten years, or to die a few years earlier but have a rich and meaningful life? Life is not only quantity but also quality.

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: 07 Apr 2011 at 14:20
Quote Noone has said that indigenous peoples can not learn new things or adapt to new circumstances. Actually they have always done that, through history, in order to survive. What is important is that sometimes they are pressurized into changes that is not positive and that worsens their quality of life and their health condition.


Sure, but neither should they be denied the opportunity to completely change their way of life if that is what they wish.

Quote It is rather common knowledge among researchers in evolutionary medicine that hunter gatherers mostly had a more nutritional, varied and well balanced diet than agriculturalist and even more than poor people in todays third world. It is also well known that the maet from wild animals are more healthy (less dangerous fat and other factors) than their domesticated equivalents.


I doubt that very much. Take the Papuan example, their diet is terrible. Where exactly do Australian aborigines living in the outback expect to get their omega 3 from or calcium when they have no access to seafood or dairy?

Tribal people don't have access to as wide a range of nutritional products as people living in the modern world, that is a fact that is beyond dispute.

Quote

Most people in our modern society get some kind of modern education, still too many eat bad food and live in unsound and unhealthy ways.

You completely missed the point. Which is that without that academic discipline and rigour, the wealth and research that makes modern medicine possible would not exist.

Quote Perhaps you personally, but especially hunter gatherers eat more healthy food than ordinary people in our own society, and even more compared with poor, non indigenous people in the third world.

Hunter gatherers have less access to variety in foodstuffs (see what I said above) and are also more likely to starve.

The third world does have problems, unfortunately, but this is improving. Part of the reason why is that land is being put to more productive agricultural use. Something a hunter gatherer lifestyle precludes.

Quote All peoples have their problems, but especially among hunter gatherers the amount of violence is rather low. They often live during such circumstances (a nomadic life, small groups, large territiroes) that they had no means of or need for excess control of each other. The normal way of  solving internal conflicts among hunter gatherers has traditionally been separation, ie some of the group just move away.  With increasing degree of sedentarism, agriculture and civilization the degree of violence have increased, which can be seen in the archaeological record.

All peoples have their problems, but especially among hunter gatherers the amount of violence is rather high. They often live during such circumstances (authoritarian tribal hierarchy, subject to famine conditions, competition for scarce resources) that they had to be prepared to behave brutally in order to survive. The normal way of  solving internal conflicts among hunter gatherers has traditionally been to kill or subjugate competing tribespeople.  With increasing degree of sedentarism, agriculture and civilization the degree of tribal warfare has decreased, due to the rule of law and the monopoly on physical violence exercised by the modern nation state.

Quote

Well, actually the aboriginals are the true owners of the land and the rest of society ought to pay a reasonable rent to all the aboriginals to cover the value of the land stolen from them.

I disagree. If my grandmother decides to sell her home (where her family has lived for 1,000 years according to her toponymic surname), then that means I don't have any right to demand from the new owners any form of rent or compensation in years to come. The same rules that apply to my ethnic group also apply to all others, and that is only fair.

Quote Well, excesses have occurred also among tribal people, but the scale of those conflicts is very small compared with the destruction inflicted on hundreds, yes even thousands of tribal peoples from the so called modern civilization.

That's because modern civilisation supports larger populations, obviously. Presented as a percentage of the total population which dies in military conflict (a more accurate measure), tribal populations are far more violent.

Quote

As I already said, western, modrn civilisation has had a greater impact, also when it concerns violence and destruction, than any tribal people. And I do not think that even the Zulus or Maoris could be compared to Hitlers Germany, or the colonial powers at their worst, or Stalins Russia.

You are right, because the Maori wiped out a larger percentage of the Moriori population than Hitler did of Europe's Jews. Just imagine if the Maori in the 19th century had a population of 90million and state of the art weaponry.

Quote Well, the point is that they have traditional ideology that defuse conflicts when it is possible, especially internal ones. Unfortunately nationstates and modern civilization often is the ones that have violated them and driven them into conflict.

A very tenuous generalisation you have there, considering my examples of the Maori, Zulus and Papuans. And I don't see how this tenuous claim of 'peacefulness' quite makes up for all the health problems, social problems and economic problems I identified earlier.

Quote Well, the combined death toll, and suffering from our welfare, and mental illnesses is a rather serious business.

No disagreement there. I just don't think that a bunch of chubby teenagers is quite as bad as 1/5 babies dying before the age of 5.

Quote In hunter gatherer societies and many other traditional tribal societies there was no such teenage stress that we see in our society. Those societies had a meaningful life to offer their teenagers and natural outlets for natural stress. 

Sounds like a fantasy world. No awkwardness about sex and courtship? No stressing about rapid physical changes? No feeling burdened by the fact that they are taking on increasing adult responsibilities? I find that hard to believe.

If anything, I would estimate they are more stressed out than Western teenagers because, on average, they start having children earlier. So on top of being adolescents they must also stress about caring for a partner and new born children.

So there you have it, a heap of stressed out, tired teenagers who are constantly concerned with having enough to eat, not dying from easily preventable diseases, caring for newborns in a hostile and dangerous environment, and all the while under the scrutiny of the suffocatingly close relationship they have with their parents. Sounds like hell.

Quote
Actually, I also live in a modern society so I see the social problems. And still countries like US and UK had much more of them than Sweden.

I live in modern society also and I am surrounded by people who live happy, secure and fulfilled lives. I also live in a country which has many of these tribal groups you speak of, and have seen enough of the reality of living in the wild so that I know better than to romanticise it.

Quote

Well, sometimes one can ask what is best, to live a long and meaningless life, where one is perhaps immobilized by age diseases the last ten years, or to die a few years earlier but have a rich and meaningful life? Life is not only quantity but also quality.

It isn't a choice between those two. How rich and meaningful your life is depends on what you make of it and your life choices. That's up to you. How long and disease free it is depends largely on modern medicine - and there are no prizes for guessing which society have practically all of it and which society does not possess the bare essentials.



Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 15:02
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, sometimes one can ask what is best, to live a long and meaningless life, where one is perhaps immobilized by age diseases the last ten years, or to die a few years earlier but have a rich and meaningful life? Life is not only quantity but also quality.

You can ask but you won't know the answer until you're old. Try asking a number of octogenarians whether they would prefer to die tomorrow or live another ten years.
 
The odd one or two might choose oblivion (there  are always suicides) but the vast majority are going to choose to live. And the more advanced the society is (the better it looks after its people)the bigger that majority would be.
 
Not that that would matter in the society you advocate because there wouldn't be any octogenarians to ask.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 08 Apr 2011 at 00:55
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, the combined death toll, and suffering from our welfare, and mental illnesses is a rather serious business.

Life has never been easy. I wasn't easy in the prehistory, and it isn't today. The only difference is that today people live longer, because the probability to die by violence, accidents and diseases is lower than in tribal times.



Edited by pinguin - 08 Apr 2011 at 00:56
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 04:33
Wish Redneck were on this list.... just saying
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
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: 08 Apr 2011 at 11:25
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


Sure, but neither should they be denied the opportunity to completely change their way of life if that is what they wish.

 
The most important is ofcourse that they shall have the right to choose lifestyle themselves, something they are not always allowed to do.


Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I doubt that very much. Take the Papuan example, their diet is terrible. Where exactly do Australian aborigines living in the outback expect to get their omega 3 from or calcium when they have no access to seafood or dairy?

Well, they have more chanse to get all the vitamins and the right fats from wild animals, fruits, roots, insects than a hamburger eating kid from some suburb. Even a place we see as barre desert can hold a lot of wild food if you have the right knowledge of how to find and extract it.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

You completely missed the point. Which is that without that academic discipline and rigour, the wealth and research that makes modern medicine possible would not exist.
 
I do not deny that we have possibilities to eat good food in our modern society (except for some poor people in slums, which is rather common in third world countries which call themselves modern but where they can not give all of their citizens what they need).
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Hunter gatherers have less access to variety in foodstuffs (see what I said above) and are also more likely to starve.

Actually not, they have a more varied diet than many people in our modern world (especially poor people who have a very one sided, unhealthy diet).
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The third world does have problems, unfortunately, but this is improving. Part of the reason why is that land is being put to more productive agricultural use. Something a hunter gatherer lifestyle precludes.
 
Actually hunter gatherers use the land in a better way, a non destructive way. The thing that excludes such a life style is invasion from others that destroy the fundaments for such a life style.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

All peoples have their problems, but especially among hunter gatherers the amount of violence is rather high. They often live during such circumstances (authoritarian tribal hierarchy, subject to famine conditions, competition for scarce resources) that they had to be prepared to behave brutally in order to survive.
 
Well it is not so. Among the worlds most peaceful people several groups are hunter gatherers. Competition increases with a more sedentary life style or when you have cattle, land and other things to defend, something one can see in increasing agressivity in farmer societies compared with hunter gatherers. Peoples like the Baka, or the San are relatively peaceful still today.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The normal way of  solving internal conflicts among hunter gatherers has traditionally been to kill or subjugate competing tribespeople.  With increasing degree of sedentarism, agriculture and civilization the degree of tribal warfare has decreased, due to the rule of law and the monopoly on physical violence exercised by the modern nation state.

You are plainly wrong. Both the archaeological record and ethnographic studies show that farmer societies, and especially cattle herding people are more prone to violent conflicts and wars.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I disagree. If my grandmother decides to sell her home (where her family has lived for 1,000 years according to her toponymic surname), then that means I don't have any right to demand from the new owners any form of rent or compensation in years to come. The same rules that apply to my ethnic group also apply to all others, and that is only fair.

Actually many  tribal people own their land collectively so noone could just sell the land. If settlers and invaders tricked some people to sign some papers where they "sold" land rights such paers ought not to have any real value.
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


That's because modern civilisation supports larger populations, obviously. Presented as a percentage of the total population which dies in military conflict (a more accurate measure), tribal populations are far more violent.

Also it has to do with technology and expansionistic ideologies. Western society has a history of violent expansion and endless warfare.
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

You are right, because the Maori wiped out a larger percentage of the Moriori population than Hitler did of Europe's Jews. Just imagine if the Maori in the 19th century had a population of 90million and state of the art weaponry.

Well western society has viped out many more people than the Maoris, Yeh they have actually wiped out hundreds of people round the world. It is hard to compare.
 
And by the way, it was western weapons and influence that contributed in making it possible for the Maori to wipe out the Moriori.
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 A very tenuous generalisation you have there, considering my examples of the Maori, Zulus and Papuans. And I don't see how this tenuous claim of 'peacefulness' quite makes up for all the health problems, social problems and economic problems I identified earlier.

Well, as I have described and what is shown in the report I referred to much of the major health problem among tribal peoples came with their contact with modern civilisation.
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 No disagreement there. I just don't think that a bunch of chubby teenagers is quite as bad as 1/5 babies dying before the age of 5.

But heart problems, cancer, stroke, suicide, drugs are.
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Sounds like a fantasy world. No awkwardness about sex and courtship? No stressing about rapid physical changes? No feeling burdened by the fact that they are taking on increasing adult responsibilities? I find that hard to believe.

There are always awkvardness, but the depressions, feelings of meaninglessness, suicides, extreme internal violence, drugs that we see in modern society we do not see in traditional hunter gatherer societies.
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I live in modern society also and I am surrounded by people who live happy, secure and fulfilled lives. I also live in a country which has many of these tribal groups you speak of, and have seen enough of the reality of living in the wild so that I know better than to romanticise it.
 
do not forget that the tribal groups you see in your country has been affected by hundred of years of opression from the invading society so their societies are changed and they have been bereft of most of their old life ways and old qualities of life.
 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

It isn't a choice between those two. How rich and meaningful your life is depends on what you make of it and your life choices. That's up to you. How long and disease free it is depends largely on modern medicine - and there are no prizes for guessing which society have practically all of it and which society does not possess the bare essentials.

 
Unfortunately it is not so easy that it is up to you, rather its up to the society you live in. In many modern societies all people can not live rich or healthy lives even if they try because of unequality and the structures of society.
 
(see Wilkinson & Picketts book for hard facts on that)
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: 08 Apr 2011 at 11:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Life has never been easy. I wasn't easy in the prehistory, and it isn't today. The only difference is that today people live longer, because the probability to die by violence, accidents and diseases is lower than in tribal times.

 
I agree to that modern medicine can put an end to many diseases, but our modern society also creates new diseases (or at least makes a set of special illnesses more common). One example is as I mentioned different mental illnesses and drug induced diseases.
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: 08 Apr 2011 at 14:03
Quote The most important is ofcourse that they shall have the right to choose lifestyle themselves, something they are not always allowed to do.



That would be nice. It would be nice if I could choose to go live in the wild, use up excessive amounts of land and contribute nothing to society. But that, of course, would be selfish.

Quote Well, they have more chanse to get all the vitamins and the right fats from wild animals, fruits, roots, insects than a hamburger eating kid from some suburb. Even a place we see as barre desert can hold a lot of wild food if you have the right knowledge of how to find and extract it.


You're wrong.

Quote I do not deny that we have possibilities to eat good food in our modern society (except for some poor people in slums, which is rather common in third world countries which call themselves modern but where they can not give all of their citizens what they need).


People in developed cultures have better diets than tribal people. To say otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

Quote Actually not, they have a more varied diet than many people in our modern world (especially poor people who have a very one sided, unhealthy diet).


How does having a Papuan diet which is 80% yams, or an outback aboriginal diet with no omega 3s or calcium constitute a superior diet? Again, you are wrong. Do check your facts in future, rather than creating a fantasy.

Quote

Also it has to do with technology and expansionistic ideologies. Western society has a history of violent expansion and endless warfare.


So do tribal societies, which kill a larger percentage of their populations than Western societies. Nice try, but again you are wrong.

Quote
Well western society has viped out many more people than the Maoris, Yeh they have actually wiped out hundreds of people round the world. It is hard to compare.
 
And by the way, it was western weapons and influence that contributed in making it possible for the Maori to wipe out the Moriori.


Again, you are wrong. They wiped out the Moriori because they were brutal, not because of European weapons. If European weapons did it, the British would have done so earlier. What part of cannibalising and enslaving the population do you not understand?

So much for your tribal societies and their so called 'peacefulness'.

Quote Well, as I have described and what is shown in the report I referred to much of the major health problem among tribal peoples came with their contact with modern civilisation.


Again you use the word 'much'. Like the use the words 'many' and 'some' and 'a lot'. You don't have any grasp of statistics or evidence because you live in your own fantasy world where can't face the fact that in most areas of achievement the modern world is superior to your quaint and effete tribal societies.

They die younger, they live harder lives and they create nothing of anything more than ephemeral benefit for the human race.

Quote But heart problems, cancer, stroke, suicide, drugs are.


The first three are a result of getting very old, which is a great indicator that people in modern society live longer.

My great grandmother, being an impoverished working class Scot emigre to England, managed to live until the age of 92. Can you name me any Amazonian natives who have lived as long? I think not.

And even if you can, then on average there are far fewer of them than nonagenarians in the developed world.

Quote
There are always awkvardness, but the depressions, feelings of meaninglessness, suicides, extreme internal violence, drugs that we see in modern society we do not see in traditional hunter gatherer societies.


I had awkwardness and sadness as a teen. Then I got over it. Big deal. I'm still going to live to see great grandchildren born while most of these tribals will be lucky to see their grandkids arrives.

Quote do not forget that the tribal groups you see in your country has been affected by hundred of years of opression from the invading society so their societies are changed and they have been bereft of most of their old life ways and old qualities of life.


Irrelevant. They choose to live traditionally, and they still tend to die before they hit 50.

Quote Unfortunately it is not so easy that it is up to you, rather its up to the society you live in. In many modern societies all people can not live rich or healthy lives even if they try because of unequality and the structures of society.


I'll try to remember that the next time I sit with my family feasting on a banquet, or travel to the four corners of the world on business, or enjoy first class health insurance that gave me laser eye surgery so that I now have better than 20/20 vision, or look forward to most likely dying in my 90s based on family history and first class health cover, or not worry about my sister dying in childbirth, or not have to worry about starving to death during a climate induced famine, or enjoy living in a peaceful society where people obey the law and my country is not under military threat....

My future is up to me, and I am making the most of it.

People risk their lives on rickety boats crossing shark and crocadile infested waters to join the society I live in. My Prussian/Bavarian ancestors left behind everything they ever knew to come here, as did my mother. And millions of others would do the same if my nation's government did not go to such strenuous efforts to keep out anyone who was not considered socially desirable and economically useful.

How many people abandon their lives in the modern world to go live in the Amazon?
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: 08 Apr 2011 at 14:47
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 
That would be nice. It would be nice if I could choose to go live in the wild, use up excessive amounts of land and contribute nothing to society. But that, of course, would be selfish.


One can not accuse whole peoples for being selfish just because they want to go on living like they choose on their own land. If someone is selfish it is invaders who steal land and displace tohers just to enrich themselves.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 You're wrong.
 
Nope, there are actually studies doen about this.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 People in developed cultures have better diets than tribal people. To say otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

It is true in some cases but one cannot use it as a generalization. People with a limited diet (crap food) eat food that is of lowere nutritional value than most hunter gatherers. Also slum inhabitants in the third world (and too many also in the first world) eat less varied and healthy food than hunter gatherers.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 How does having a Papuan diet which is 80% yams, or an outback aboriginal diet with no omega 3s or calcium constitute a superior diet? Again, you are wrong. Do check your facts in future, rather than creating a fantasy.

Those yams growers are not representative for all tribal people, and especially not for hunter gatherers.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 

So do tribal societies, which kill a larger percentage of their populations than Western societies. Nice try, but again you are wrong.

Well, if you attack 10 persons and kill 5 of them you automatically kill a higher percentage than if you attack 1000 people and kill 5. So sometimes one cannot compare death statistics like that. But seen generally the western civilisation has ofcourse eradicated more people than all tribal people taken together in a similar timescale.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 Again, you are wrong. They wiped out the Moriori because they were brutal, not because of European weapons. If European weapons did it, the British would have done so earlier. What part of cannibalising and enslaving the population do you not understand?

So much for your tribal societies and their so called 'peacefulness'.

Technology and ideology are often intertwined. So with increased ability to kill many times ideology becomes more agressive. Also with technology ideas are spread. With guns also ideas connected with the guns spread.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 Again you use the word 'much'. Like the use the words 'many' and 'some' and 'a lot'. You don't have any grasp of statistics or evidence because you live in your own fantasy world where can't face the fact that in most areas of achievement the modern world is superior to your quaint and effete tribal societies.
They die younger, they live harder lives and they create nothing of anything more than ephemeral benefit for the human race.
 
Reread the report from Survival and see that the problems often come with modern society that forces tribal peoples into a unhealthy life style of powerty that affects their health.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 The first three are a result of getting very old, which is a great indicator that people in modern society live longer.

As I said when one study the differencies in diseases one compensates for age.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 I had awkwardness and sadness as a teen. Then I got over it. Big deal. I'm still going to live to see great grandchildren born while most of these tribals will be lucky to see their grandkids arrives..

The fact that you got over your issues does not diminish the problems in our society in general. If everyone could get over it there would not have been so much drug abuse, mental illness, depression and similar.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 Irrelevant. They choose to live traditionally, and they still tend to die before they hit 50..
 
They do not choose to be forced into powerty and loose the land that gave them their subsitence. Now they have become dependant on handouts from the modern society. Not strange if some die before they are 50.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

People risk their lives on rickety boats crossing shark and crocadile infested waters to join the society I live in. My Prussian/Bavarian ancestors left behind everything they ever knew to come here, as did my mother. And millions of others would do the same if my nation's government did not go to such strenuous efforts to keep out anyone who was not considered socially desirable and economically useful.
 
Do not forget that some people get mesmerized by western propaganda that gives a false picture of a land of milk and honey.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

How many people abandon their lives in the modern world to go live in the Amazon?
 
Well, most modern people have not the skill to live like the natives in the Amazon. But many Brazilians actually goe there to try to get parts of its richnesses.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  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 0.234 seconds.