Boomers: The Evil Generation!

Hunter-gatherer society is also resilient to environmental change in a way that our civilization is not. Our civilization has no method whatever of coping with the fact that global sea levels will be meters higher at the end of the century than they are now. Hunter-gatherers just walk inland.

And then there are already people further inland and the land does not support hunting and gathering by both groups and then one of them dies one way or the other.

Our civilization has the same method available: People will start to migrate and they will either succeed or not.
 
Personally I think it is fascinating that we use the existence of these things as any kind of measure of progress. I think that is highly dubious at best; the fact that many tech CEOs do not allow their own children to use that technology is of interest there.

These devices are designed to be addictive, on principles very similar to slot machines. I'm not sure it's anything to celebrate really.

The world isn't peaceful for millions of people in the underdeveloped world. And it isn't peaceful for billions who are exposed to the structural violence of capitalism in a way that the affluent in the global north...can't imagine. One thing that is remarkable is how the convenience of a smartphone exposes workers in the undeveloped world to poisons both directly in the manufacturing process and via the poisoning of the environment.

And all this retreat into billion-year abstractions is to sidestep the actual problem which is, simply stated: that the human civilization that exist today is rapidly destroying the conditions of its own existence, and may well be destroying the conditions of existence of the human species (passing over all the other species in silence). I think there are lots of reasons to think this is a Bad Thing, a Thing So Bad that it may well outweigh whatever improvements in living standards you want to point to.
I chose the phone as an example of an alternative way to measure progress. You can choose others. My whole point is that having a measuring stick is important. The world may not be peaceful in developing countries as it is in the west, but millions is small part of billions. The question is: are the world of poorest 20% better off now than they were 20, 50, 100 years ago? Here is a chart about food/hunger over the past 3 decades. Less hunger is one measure of progress. BTW, Capitalism is more than a one-dimensional issue.


prevalence-of-undernourishment-a847e6c96bb2640c05a8cd075949d1bb_v7_850x600.svg
 
And then there are already people further inland and the land does not support hunting and gathering by both groups and then one of them dies one way or the other.

At population densities prevailing for most of the period of hunter-gathering, that is actually pretty much not true.

Our civilization has the same method available: People will start to migrate and they will either succeed or not.

Here's to Progress, then, eh?
 
No, but the world certainly has. We’ve been over this, I resent the reframing of “has the world gotten better over time?” as “has the life experience of some people gotten better over time?”. If you want to ask that question, ask that question. But don’t ask a completely different question and then answer it like you mean something else. The world is not privileged people.
OK then. How has it gotten worse? What criteria will you choose to measure this? Are you going to use absolute numbers or percentages? We do know that fewer people are starving.
 
land lines to iPhones

I, myself, am, by personal choice, on the landline and laptop level of usage (I'm making this post on a laptop on my desk). I do not own a cell phone, and never have. If someone wants to talk to me when I'm not home, they can leave a message or find me in one of my usual haunts.
 
At population densities prevailing for most of the period of hunter-gathering, that is actually pretty much not true.
I think there's a lot of overly simplistic thinking going on in the effort to leverage ancient people to justify contemporary ideologies, rather than understanding them on their own terms. For one, ancient societies had high variance in size. It's commonly assumed groups were all Dunbar's number-sized bands with no contention, but bands could vary from dozens to thousands. Bands in turn were often part of networks of potentially tens of thousands of people. Migrations, of course, occurred often and human evolutionary history appears to be migrations and admixtures all the way down. Movements could certainly result in food resource contention and tension over issues of reproductive success. Ancient genetic evidence shows lots of migrations and these often resulted in genetic replacement (a Y haplogroup disappearing is good evidence of violent replacement). And other times peaceful admixture. Violent conflict certainly wasn't uncommon and it's very likely an important part of the human evolutionary story all the way down. And food scarcity was a substantial, if somewhat inconsistent, problem. Groups could go large stretches enjoying food abundance before periods of starvation and death. I think it's valuable to understand ancient people, but very easy to project onto them our own ideals.
 
There's a fundamental difference between voluntary charity and government enforced socialism.

Try again. That was instruction for how to organize the society the believers formed. It was as close to "go ye forth and live communally" as anything any avowed socialist ever said. It had nothing to do with charity, voluntary or otherwise.

I don't really mind if you want to pretend that socialism is something that it's not. I also couldn't care less about your lifestyle and societal choices. But if you are going to cite scripture and be totally wrong, expect to be challenged. There is plenty of room for interpretation in scripture, but when you make a sweeping statement that is obviously completely contradictory to the reality it won't pass.
 
I, myself, am, by personal choice, on the landline and laptop level of usage (I'm making this post on a laptop on my desk). I do not own a cell phone, and never have. If someone wants to talk to me when I'm not home, they can leave a message or find me in one of my usual haunts.
OK. You may not think of cell phones as progress; Valka probably agrees with you. But for many developing countries, cell phones have allowed people to skip the land line infrastructure and go directly to cell phones. They now have phone service, when there was little chance of ever getting a land line. That is progress. Having a choice of what kind of service you want is a luxury.
 
My whole point is that having a measuring stick is important.

It seems to me that your point is rather more than "having a measuring stick is important." Specifically, you seem interested in morally justifying neoliberal capitalism, or at least in constructing some sort of "long arc" view of history where moral criticisms of existing structures of power are somehow beside the point. You also seemed to get defensive about the notion - barely articulated by inthesomeday - that there is something specially noxious about racism as an ideology of domination and hierarchy.

How has it gotten worse?

One measure I've encountered relatively recently is the comparison between poverty and our ability to end it. We currently, as in right this very moment, have the ability to completely end global poverty many times over (indeed we could probably do this without noticeably decreasing living standards for anyone not currently in poverty), yet we do not. In this sense our society has morally degraded from those hunter-gatherer societies in which, it is true, communal poverty due to food or other resources scarcity was a relatively common threat, but in which individuals were essentially never exposed to food scarcity because the community distributed its resources in such a way as to preclude the possibility.
 
Last edited:
I find inthesomeday's disgust with our lack of environmental stewardship to be pretty well founded. Carboncarboncarbon, but that really isn't enough in the long haul. Now, I'm not sure about the perspective that blames the boomers primarily for this who grew up in a world with less than half its current human population and lived through a global cooling scare(was that in the 70s? dunno)... but it's hard to be super surprised that people who grow and live surrounded by notnature don't have an enormous hands-on appreciation for the expense and lifetimes of maintenance that are required to attempt to maintain natural-ish environments in a heavily populated world. Bonus double points for if the people who do sort of live that way are generally political/economic pissing contest rivals.
 
In a book I did read long time ago there was a story that when Inuit moved from their summer camp to their winter camp (or vice versa ?) they left their too old-weak people behind to die. The travelling, the extra food during travel needed, etc.

I checked what I could find on internet and this came on top:
https://nowheremag.com/2015/04/growing-old-with-the-inuit-3/



From the Canadian Arctic comes the story of Charles Francis Hall, a Cincinnati newspaper publisher who in 1860 abandoned his wife and children to explore the frozen north. On southern Baffin Island, not far from present-day Iqaluit, he visited the igloo of a dying old woman named Nukertou, only to find the community had barricaded her home with bricks of snow. Thinking it unchristian to let her die alone, Hall forced his way in. “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven did I slowly count in the intervals of her breathing,” he wrote in his journal. “At last I could count nineteen between her inspirations but her respirations were short and prolonged—irregular. At length Nukertou ceased to live.” About 60 years later, in the early 1920s, Knud Rasmussen, an explorer and anthropologist, reported senicide among the Netsilik Inuit of King William’s Land. “For our custom up here,” he noted, “is that all old people who can do no more, and whom death will not take, help death to take them.” During long winter marches between hunting grounds, elders were left behind on ice floes to die. A decade later, the French adventurer Gontran de Poncins lived among the Netsilik and described a son who abandoned his mother in a blizzard, one of the last known accounts of senicide.

There is not much material out there about how different cultures once killed their elderly, a practice called senicide, but there is some. In rural Japan, upon reaching age seventy, sons carried their mothers and fathers up a holy peak called Obasute-yama, or Granny-dump Mountain, and left them on top to die of exposure and starvation. The Bactrians, who inhabited present-day northern Afghanistan, threw the old and sick to specially trained dogs called undertakers. Streets were littered with human bones. In North Africa, Troglodyte elders no longer able to tend to their flocks asphyxiated themselves by fastening the tail of an ox around their necks. East of the Caspian Sea, the Derbiccae murdered males at age 70 and ate them. Women were merely strangled and buried. Among the Massagetae, who lived around the Aral Sea, relatives sacrificed old men and stewed them together with wild beasts, while the Iazyges of Sarmatia, who roamed lands north of the Black Sea, were slain by their children with swords.

THERE IS NOT MUCH MATERIAL OUT THERE ABOUT HOW DIFFERENT CULTURES ONCE KILLED THEIR ELDERLY.
Closer to home, on the rocky Diomede Islands in the storm-thrashed Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska, the Iñupiat ritualistically murdered elders with knives, guns and nooses. Those who wanted to die would explain their wishes to a relative, who would try to dissuade them. If minds could not be changed, the killing went forth. The person to die turned their clothing inside out, and relatives carried them on a seat of caribou skin to the destroying place at the edge of the village. The one who did the killing was called the executioner, usually the victim’s eldest son. One story, reported in a 1955 Southwestern Journal of Anthropology article, tells of a 12-year-old boy who killed his father with a large hunting knife: “He indicated the vulnerable spot over his heart, where his son should stab him. The boy plunged the knife deep, but the stroke failed to take effect. The old father suggested with dignity and resignation, ‘Try it a little higher, my son.’ The second stab was effective.”
 
The only reason we should take care of the environment is so we don't kill ourselves. Self preservation and all that. The world, the environment, doesn't have sentience or feelings. Unless you're in a M Night Shamylan movie.
 
One measure I've encountered relatively recently is the comparison between poverty and our ability to end it. We currently, as in right this very moment, have the ability to completely end global poverty many times over (indeed we could probably do this without noticeably decreasing living standards for anyone not currently in poverty), yet we do not. In this sense our society has morally degraded from those hunter-gatherer societies in which, it is true, communal poverty due to food or other resources scarcity was a relatively common threat, but in which individuals were essentially never exposed to food scarcity because the community distributed its resources in such a way as to preclude the possibility.

While this is a good argument in a totally separate issue of moral degradation it doesn't really relate to the discussion of progress from a practical standpoint. It's probably more interesting though. So...

Looking at the difference between 'communal' poverty and 'individual' poverty wouldn't you have to factor in the size of 'community'? Sure, the tribe of hunter gatherers extended a net against individual poverty over the members, but from a practical standpoint that means that as an individual member of the tribe you relied on a small handful of people to stand between you and starvation. A tribe could find that the untimely loss of its 'hunt-leader' would lead to a communal poverty that outright killed everyone. And the next tribe downstream frankly didn't give a damn, so there's a measure of 'morality' that is pretty small when this community distribution is being considered.

Compare that to the current morality. If a reliable media outlet runs a properly sourced story of hungry kids in...I dunno...Hungrytown, Mississippi...we might very well gripe about piss poor red state governments, but by and large there are millions of people who would intervene. There is hardly anyone who is going to look at a genuinely starving person and say "not my tribe, tough luck." So, has this "moral degradation" of which you speak actually happened?
 
The only reason we should take care of the environment is so we don't kill ourselves. Self preservation and all that. The world, the environment, doesn't have sentience or feelings. Unless you're in a M Night Shamylan movie.

Parts of it do, and it is our home. There is value to not ****ing up your living room even if it only bothers you, the wife, the dog, and not the carpet.
 
While this is a good argument in a totally separate issue of moral degradation it doesn't really relate to the discussion of progress from a practical standpoint. It's probably more interesting though. So...

Well, I see the question of progress as inseparable from moral concerns. Anyone making an argument for progress to me, should be prepared to convince me that the progress actually matters in some moral sense.

I suppose that may be a foundational difference between how I approach this question and how other people are doing so.

A tribe could find that the untimely loss of its 'hunt-leader' would lead to a communal poverty that outright killed everyone.

Highly unlikely. I don't think the marginal contributions of people in hunter-gatherer society to the material wellbeing differ all that much, one from another.

So, has this "moral degradation" of which you speak actually happened?

Yes. Moral degradation is perhaps not the best way to frame it - perhaps it would be better to say that the moral problem posed by poverty, insofar as that is a measure of poverty vs. our means of ending it, has increased in magnitude.
 
One measure I've encountered relatively recently is the comparison between poverty and our ability to end it. We currently, as in right this very moment, have the ability to completely end global poverty many times over (indeed we could probably do this without noticeably decreasing living standards for anyone not currently in poverty), yet we do not. In this sense our society has morally degraded from those hunter-gatherer societies in which, it is true, communal poverty due to food or other resources scarcity was a relatively common threat, but in which individuals were essentially never exposed to food scarcity because the community distributed its resources in such a way as to preclude the possibility.

So that attitude of humanity has gotten worse since hunter-gatherer days, but has it since gotten worse since Medeivalistic feudal/caste societies, where such inequity was institutional to societies and people's lots in life were usually stated as Divinely mandated by some scheme or another?
 
Yes. Moral degradation is perhaps not the best way to frame it - perhaps it would be better to say that the moral problem posed by poverty, insofar as that is a measure of poverty vs. our means of ending it, has increased in magnitude.

Just the use of "our" here undermines your argument. The hunter gatherer is insulated by lack of means, thus not responsible for morality? I get it, a band of hunter gatherers along the shores of the Potomac have absolutely no means to resolve poverty in the Australian Outback, or even any way to know it exists, so we can't expect their morality to drive them to action. Their communal concern is of extremely limited scope, where mine may well extend to billions of people. Does greater effectiveness within their limited scope than I have in my much larger scope make them more moral, or does my larger scope make me more moral?

In short, my "our" is much bigger.
 
Just the use of "our" here undermines your argument. The hunter gatherer is insulated by lack of means, thus not responsible for morality? I get it, a band of hunter gatherers along the shores of the Potomac have absolutely no means to resolve poverty in the Australian Outback, or even any way to know it exists, so we can't expect their morality to drive them to action. Their communal concern is of extremely limited scope, where mine may well extend to billions of people. Does greater effectiveness within their limited scope than I have in my much larger scope make them more moral, or does my larger scope make me more moral?

In short, my "our" is much bigger.

You have been "World Vision" 'd! :p

Queue "So This is Christmas," and graphic scenes of starvation.
 
The analysis works for the level of a single society. I am defining global civilization as it exists today as a single society, whereas each hunter-gatherer band is a society unto itself.

You could claim that this larger concept of society represents moral progress, but it's more a consequence of capital accumulation than moral development imo.
 
It seems to me that your point is rather more than "having a measuring stick is important." Specifically, you seem interested in morally justifying neoliberal capitalism, or at least in constructing some sort of "long arc" view of history where moral criticisms of existing structures of power are somehow beside the point. You also seemed to get defensive about the notion - barely articulated by inthesomeday - that there is something specially noxious about racism as an ideology of domination and hierarchy.
Well, you are wrong on both counts.
When trying to measure things over time, make sense of trends and decide how to act, I do think that a longer perspective is more valuable. To use an analogy you probably won't like, you can look at daily stock market data and decide things or you can look at 60 day moving averages, 200 day moving overages or even 3, 5 and 10 year data. In the same way you can look at employment data for the past month, year, 5 years and 10 years and decide whether or not the government is doing a good job at keeping people employed. If you are using information to make decisions it is important to understand how the data you choose will influence your choices. If you compare Austin to Detroit you will get very different perspectives. Which is correct if you are deciding about how to fix city problems?

The facts of the past are there for all to see and interpret as they see fit. I see little point in being critical of what people did 200 years ago. They did what they did for their reasons. And most of those reasons are tied to very human desires that acted within the cultural structure of the day. You do the same. We all do the same. We act for personal reasons to satisfy personal desires within the cultural framework of now. Some of us act narrowly and others more broadly. The fact that racism was part of colonialism and empire building is a "so what" issue for me. Why does it matter what the motivations of those long dead were? One can study such things and use them to understand why things happened in the past, but that is just an intellectual exercise. I think it is a misuse of the past to bring forward the now bad behavior of those long dead and use it to condemn people today. If you want to condemn people/systems who/which are active today, look at what they are doing and why. Of course, if your goal is just to find ways to condemn capitalism for all its evil ways, have at it. But you should make it clear that that is your goal.

One measure I've encountered relatively recently is the comparison between poverty and our ability to end it. We currently, as in right this very moment, have the ability to completely end global poverty many times over (indeed we could probably do this without noticeably decreasing living standards for anyone not currently in poverty), yet we do not. In this sense our society has morally degraded from those hunter-gatherer societies in which, it is true, communal poverty due to food or other resources scarcity was a relatively common threat, but in which individuals were essentially never exposed to food scarcity because the community distributed its resources in such a way as to preclude the possibility.
We choose not to end poverty because powerful people don't want to and they don't want to because doing so will interfere with their acquisition of more money, fame, power, status, etc. It is a people problem and not a structure problem. If you want to end poverty, motivate more people to participate and drive change. And, BTW, the way you end poverty is getting people jobs that pay more than what they get for free. In the US that means a job $35k a year. that is a tall order and difficult to do given the skill levels of the poor.

H-G rarely scaled to the point where poverty was an issue. Prior to 1492 Native Americans were always kind to their horses. Yeah, they didn't have any. :p and a H-G lifestyle is a terrible one. Nobody who has the option to give it up says no. Native Americans who fought hard to keep their hunting grounds readily accepted, horses, guns, metal pots, matches, clothes and blankets. They did so because those things made life easier. had they been left alone, they would have gladly accepted the new toys and kept to their primitive way for some years, but over time they would have assimilated. The US tried to speed up that process through annihilation and forced integration, so it went badly. The Mongols swept across Asia on their horses and decided that city living was a whole lot better.
 
Back
Top Bottom