Narz
keeping it real
We can probably drastically reduce infant mortality without fully integrating them into modern society. Medical missionaries can be sent to that end. No one wants to lose a baby/child if they don't have to.
You'd have to educate them about that too (though modern man is hardly a good role model in that regard).The question though is can their lifestyle support the increase in population from a drop in infant mortality?
I dunno, tribes are generally happy to pick up improvements from outside (metal tools for instance) without necessarily wanting to give up their homes/cultures & go live in some slum in a city. I'm sure it would make them curious though & many, especially young people, would want to go exploring in the outside world.I doubt that such an intensive intrusion would leave such cultures in their isolation. Rather I would assume that seeing the foreign "miracles" of outside society, tribe members would seek to disintegrate with their tribe pretty soon. But I agree that your approach seems to be the most considerable assuming that I might be wrong.
@Ajidica Good point, some doubts surely seem justified. Though I don't know.
Actually, the Spartans had an entire population enslaved to do all their hard work for them, so they were pretty much the grotesque epitome of what Pangur was talking about.I TOUGH A MAN GRRRRR! I BRAVE WARRIOR!!!!! AAHHH
I HEART AVATAR!!!!!!!
HUNTER GATHERER NUMBER 1111111111!!!!!!!
THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!111!! oh wait I guess the Spartans were "effeminate" farmers.
I think that you're confusing the arguments that are actually being made. What's being said is that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is preferable to agrarian poverty, not that it is the best of all possible lives. That's a very different argument, and you're not really responding to it.Meh. I'm just not all that impressed by primitive lifestyles that are endorsed by people who are sitting at their PC/Apple in their air conditioned house/apartment with a fridge chock full of food, 911 service a call away. Who more than likely have never actually went into the wilderness, fashioned a spear, used it to kill an animal, skinned and dressed it and built a fire to cook it. Don't even talk about doing it in a part of the world where they wildlife is as likely to kill you than vice-versa.
Now if there was a member of an uncontacted tribe on here who could tell us about his life maybe I'd be more inclined to pay attention. But oh wait. That wouldn't work would it? Oh well.
The American Indian Wars would certainly indicate as much.I doubt that such an intensive intrusion would leave such cultures in their isolation. Rather I would assume that seeing the foreign "miracles" of outside society, tribe members would seek to disintegrate with their tribe pretty soon. But I agree that your approach seems to be the most considerable assuming that I might be wrong.
If it was made up then it is even more amazing, since we have discovered several papuan De Niros.
The author didn't make any comparison to industrial poverty, let alone poverty in an economic front-runner, but farmer-poverty in the past and in modern still generally poor countries. And to apply his conclusion on everything except the middle class in an economic front-runner is very ridiculous and not at all supported by the article.And here's a compelling argument that unless you are in the middle class of a economic front-runner, pre-agricultural lifestyles have it better.
Hardly seems progressive to move someone from hunter-gathering success to aggro-industrial poverty.
But blah blah blah potential blah blah blah unrealistic estimation of the opportunities open to third-world slum dwellers!
It all depends on measurement. I'd be willing to bet the average civfanatic is lonelier than your average hunter-gatherer despite being in the top tier financially of "civilized" human beings.If the question is of the best hunter-gatherer societies have to offer, versus the best The Rest of the World can muster, then going to the poorest part of Delhi might not be the most charitable comparison.
Anyway, comparing hunter-gatherers to the wealthy within our society is kind of pointless because they can't choose between being a wealthy person within civilization and being a hunter-gatherer, they pretty much have to choose between being a poor person within civilization or being a hunter-gatherer (perhaps with some rare exceptions).
Why- you think that hunter-gatherers who integrate into industrial society are all going to move to Connecticut? Seems to me that the only real comparison to be made is with the prospects they actually have, and, in most cases, those aren't tremendously sunny.If the question is of the best hunter-gatherer societies have to offer, versus the best The Rest of the World can muster, then going to the poorest part of Delhi might not be the most charitable comparison.
He does, but leaves unanswered the question of why don't people choose such a wonderful lifestyle today? The intellectual arguments for it sound great on paper, but they are not strong enough to convince anyone to actually go back to an H&G lifestyle. It is too damn hard and what we have is actually better. I do like JD, but wonder if he is still living in a house and driving a car.
He does, but leaves unanswered the question of why don't people choose such a wonderful lifestyle today? The intellectual arguments for it sound great on paper, but they are not strong enough to convince anyone to actually go back to an H&G lifestyle. It is too damn hard and what we have is actually better. I do like JD, but wonder if he is still living in a house and driving a car.
Why- you think that hunter-gatherers who integrate into industrial society are all going to move to Connecticut? Seems to me that the only real comparison to be made is with the prospects they actually have, and, in most cases, those aren't tremendously sunny.