The post that was quoted here has been removedLeben heisst Leben.
Myths, counter-myths...it's hopeless, really.
I might just point out that for some people, eg. farm workers in India, life was better under subsistence conditions, as they could grow their own food, rather than have to buy it at extremely low wages. They are part of civilization too...
Cruelty is part and parcel of existence. It sucks that gorillas should die out, in and of itself. It's not a relative issue.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDid you watch the video?
I might just point out that for some people, eg. farm workers in India, life was better under subsistence conditions, as they could grow their own food, rather than have to buy it at extremely low wages. The are part of civilization too...
Statements like these are a myth perpetuated by the idyllic mental pictures that forget famines, violence, etc.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, there's no way to measure the extent of violence in vanished societies, is there? (The desirability of wiping them out for their own good is another issue).
By pre-civilizational, I meant hunter-gatherers.
Anyway, some interesting comments here:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006259.html
Eg. "Perhaps industrialisation has relocated the forces of interpersonal violence elsewhere: internally, through repression, resulting in vastly increased psychosomatic and mental illness; and externally, manifested in extreme violence against natural ecosystems."
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat statement was made by an Indian farmworker who had moved from one system to another and thought he was worse off than before. (Edit: Subsistence farmer vs. landless labourer - which would you choose? The quote came from an article on rethinking free trade, where losers may outnumber winners. Catfoodtim should note that the sort of child labour he mentions as evidence for grottiness of the past actually came about as a result of industrial progress; child labour abolitionists came in for the same kind of flak as environmentalists / animal rights activists etc come in for today.)
Did you watch the video?
Statements like these are a myth perpetuated by the idyllic mental pictures that forget famines, violence, etc.
Violent death was once considered extremely desirable--think of Achilles. In fact, only after World War One did the hero's death--dulce et decorum est pro patria mori--lose its appeal. Judging past violence in the light of our present concerns, or indifference, is a dubious exercise.
What's Pinker's message? Everything's OK? OK.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot at all. His message is that the idyllic myth of past is completely false.
What's Pinker's message? Everything's OK? OK.
Even your own example suffers from the fact that the subsistence farmer was one that survived. You can't ask those the most affected by famines or violence, because they are dead.
Give both an immunity ticket and I'd agree with you. The thing is that there is no suc things as an immunity ticket.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course there are no famines when you cut down all the trees which support countless different types of life (ie: food), and plant 1 or 2 types of crop in their stead? I hope that's not what you are trying to say.
Statements like these are a myth perpetuated by the idyllic mental pictures that forget famines, violence, etc.
Do you understand how biodiversity works? Are you claiming that civilised people never experience hunger due to lack of food (caused by any number of things: lack of cash, drought, flooding, etc)?
D
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakDid I claim that? No.
Do you understand how biodiversity works? Are you claiming that civilised people never experience hunger due to lack of food (caused by any number of things: lack of cash, drought, flooding, etc)?
Do you wish to claim that the number of famines has NOT reduced dramatically?
Not only that, but the evidence that Pinker presents about death at the hands of another human during hunter-gathering times is pretty clear.
But of course, you believe that people were nicer to everyone else (in general) because it fits your utopian views. Shame about the facts.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo you know that precivilised doesn't mean Industrial aged. Well done.
Refer to my post to Bosse about what I mean by pre-civilized.
The guy in the video presented no "facts" about precivilised people. I don't understand why you are so reticent to state what "facts" you think were presented. Are you referring to the percentages of violent deaths he refers to?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm reticent because I have no access to audio/video where I am now and I'm pretty sure you'll cherry-pick my words if I do not state it exactly as he does.
The guy in the video presented no "facts" about precivilised people.
He begins with findings from archeological evidence regarding the likelihood of death at the hands of another human, or something to that effect.