8 ms·

Right now, somewhere in that island is a child that wished she could live to be older than 30, while we culturally sensitive outsiders do not dare disturb her w

by gonmf 10y ago

Right now, somewhere in that island is a child that wished she could live to be older than 30, while we culturally sensitive outsiders do not dare disturb her way of life.

taway_1212 10y ago
Is life expectancy that low in such communities? I know it was around 30 in medieval Europe, but it had worse climate, epidemics carried over across the continent, overpopulation, constant wars and kings/lords/church robbing people of a big part of their food.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  There's a myth (perpetuated by Paleo diet people and others) that hunter gatherers were in ideal health and agriculture ruined it. The opposite is in fact true, hunter gatherers were short lived and agriculture is what gave humans the first great advance in longevity.
  - cgh 10y ago
    That is incorrect. Once you account for infant mortality, life expectancy at birth dropped with the advent of agriculture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That said, diet probably isn't as crucial to longevity as we'd like to think. Hunter/gatherer populations got (and get) a lot of exercise and lead relatively low-stress lives. For example, the Tsimane of Bolivia eat animals and starch and have practically no heart disease. They walk around a lot and are generally a happy bunch. Probably the only thing that would increase life expectancies more would be actual medical care, particularly regarding parasites.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Drop of infant mortality (particularly, through having enough food) is what the advent of agriculture achieved, so this is like saying "people died younger, except those who didn't".
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        No, it's like saying that people who survived past infancy lived long lives.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deelowe 10y ago
        What does modern agriculture have to do with infant mortality? It makes sense to exclude infants, because the reduction of those deaths are likely due to improvements in modern medicine and personal hygiene.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        The thread above was not about modern agriculture; it was about the pre-historic time when agriculture was adopted and the availability of more food enabled more children to survive.
        deelowe 10y ago
        I dont but that at all. Infants dont eat anything that comes from a farm unless we're arguing that formula is somehow part of all this.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        Infants eat breast milk, and if the mother does not have enough to eat, there is not enough milk. Sufficient and stable nutrition for mother is important to avoid child mortality. In context of ancient world, nutrition of the family also had other mechanisms that impact the survival of children (strength to build housing, or strength to defend against hostile people, etc).
        deelowe 10y ago
        And your hypothesis is that insufficient breast milk production affects the mortality rates more so than modern medicine?
  - UhUhUhUh 10y ago
    And that is also incorrect in assuming a strict hunter-gatherer mode of production. Husbandry and some agriculture were part of the late hunter-gatherer people's life, as seen in Scandinavia for example, and this does not necessarily mean that this was a mere transition to full-fledged farming either. The debate is still wide open.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  Keep in mind that the average lifespans were so low only because of high childhood mortality. If someone made it past the age of six or so, they had a good chance of making it in to their 60's, even millennia ago.
Mikeb85 10y ago
So should we force our way of life on them because we think we know better? This is the same argument used in so many failed regime change operations/invasions. If they're as isolated as we assume, that child wouldn't know what she's 'missing'.
- gonmf 10y ago
  Yes, we should. We think we know better. We have senses and can measure ways in which the quality of life of man and animals can be ascertained, and we can conclude that these people will live much shorter, worse, unfulfilling lives, than those of people born elsewhere on average. If not the first generation, at least the following. It is because we are culturally timid and racist that we still hold to the idea of the noble savage [1], and condemn their children to their wretched lives. A child not knowing what it's missing is no excuse to let her suffer, when we are in position to help. Regime change operations and invasions have little to do with this unless they come from the sincere effort to improve their people's lives. And when the intention is sincere and the execution well planned, it works, and you can tell by the quality of life of countries like Japan and South Korea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    This completely leaves out the element of choice on their behalf. Based on what is known it's entirely possible they choose not to have any part in "our world". Previous contact had some of their people kidnapped and some died so I'm sure that and similar events are the reason for hostility towards visitors. The fact that you even talk about them living an unfulfilling life is entirely ethnocentric, what is a fulfilled life anyways? I'd love to learn more about them, and ideally we could learn from each other.
    - gonmf 10y ago
      1) They currently do not have an element of choice. And it would actually be very difficult or impossible to proportionate them a full choice since they would have to know what their lives would be like if outside the island, or with a modernized island. 2) Human beings fear the unknown (quite rightly so, often). 3) You can make the relativity argument all day. I personally believe that a person that is confined to an island in pre-agricultural civilization does not live a life as fulfilling as one that can access vast amounts of information on the internet, can read thousands of texts written over a span of 3 millenia on every topic imagined, can hear Antonio Vivaldi [1], almost void of unnecessary or unusual suffering and privation, for over twice the lifetime. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39KxbbtCC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39KxbbtCC0
vkou 10y ago
Right now, millions of Americans are suffering, because Communism has not been brought to them. I wonder how you'd take to being liberated of your current lifestyle.

by gonmf 10y ago

Right now, somewhere in that island is a child that wished she could live to be older than 30, while we culturally sensitive outsiders do not dare disturb her way of life.

taway_1212 10y ago

Is life expectancy that low in such communities? I know it was around 30 in medieval Europe, but it had worse climate, epidemics carried over across the continent, overpopulation, constant wars and kings/lords/church robbing people of a big part of their food.

Mikeb85 10y ago
There's a myth (perpetuated by Paleo diet people and others) that hunter gatherers were in ideal health and agriculture ruined it. The opposite is in fact true, hunter gatherers were short lived and agriculture is what gave humans the first great advance in longevity.
- cgh 10y ago
  That is incorrect. Once you account for infant mortality, life expectancy at birth dropped with the advent of agriculture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That said, diet probably isn't as crucial to longevity as we'd like to think. Hunter/gatherer populations got (and get) a lot of exercise and lead relatively low-stress lives. For example, the Tsimane of Bolivia eat animals and starch and have practically no heart disease. They walk around a lot and are generally a happy bunch. Probably the only thing that would increase life expectancies more would be actual medical care, particularly regarding parasites.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Drop of infant mortality (particularly, through having enough food) is what the advent of agriculture achieved, so this is like saying "people died younger, except those who didn't".
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      No, it's like saying that people who survived past infancy lived long lives.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deelowe 10y ago
      What does modern agriculture have to do with infant mortality? It makes sense to exclude infants, because the reduction of those deaths are likely due to improvements in modern medicine and personal hygiene.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        The thread above was not about modern agriculture; it was about the pre-historic time when agriculture was adopted and the availability of more food enabled more children to survive.
        deelowe 10y ago
        I dont but that at all. Infants dont eat anything that comes from a farm unless we're arguing that formula is somehow part of all this.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        Infants eat breast milk, and if the mother does not have enough to eat, there is not enough milk. Sufficient and stable nutrition for mother is important to avoid child mortality. In context of ancient world, nutrition of the family also had other mechanisms that impact the survival of children (strength to build housing, or strength to defend against hostile people, etc).
        deelowe 10y ago
        And your hypothesis is that insufficient breast milk production affects the mortality rates more so than modern medicine?
- UhUhUhUh 10y ago
  And that is also incorrect in assuming a strict hunter-gatherer mode of production. Husbandry and some agriculture were part of the late hunter-gatherer people's life, as seen in Scandinavia for example, and this does not necessarily mean that this was a mere transition to full-fledged farming either. The debate is still wide open.
Baeocystin 10y ago
Keep in mind that the average lifespans were so low only because of high childhood mortality. If someone made it past the age of six or so, they had a good chance of making it in to their 60's, even millennia ago.

Mikeb85 10y ago

So should we force our way of life on them because we think we know better? This is the same argument used in so many failed regime change operations/invasions. If they're as isolated as we assume, that child wouldn't know what she's 'missing'.

gonmf 10y ago
Yes, we should. We think we know better. We have senses and can measure ways in which the quality of life of man and animals can be ascertained, and we can conclude that these people will live much shorter, worse, unfulfilling lives, than those of people born elsewhere on average. If not the first generation, at least the following. It is because we are culturally timid and racist that we still hold to the idea of the noble savage [1], and condemn their children to their wretched lives. A child not knowing what it's missing is no excuse to let her suffer, when we are in position to help. Regime change operations and invasions have little to do with this unless they come from the sincere effort to improve their people's lives. And when the intention is sincere and the execution well planned, it works, and you can tell by the quality of life of countries like Japan and South Korea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  This completely leaves out the element of choice on their behalf. Based on what is known it's entirely possible they choose not to have any part in "our world". Previous contact had some of their people kidnapped and some died so I'm sure that and similar events are the reason for hostility towards visitors. The fact that you even talk about them living an unfulfilling life is entirely ethnocentric, what is a fulfilled life anyways? I'd love to learn more about them, and ideally we could learn from each other.
  - gonmf 10y ago
    1) They currently do not have an element of choice. And it would actually be very difficult or impossible to proportionate them a full choice since they would have to know what their lives would be like if outside the island, or with a modernized island. 2) Human beings fear the unknown (quite rightly so, often). 3) You can make the relativity argument all day. I personally believe that a person that is confined to an island in pre-agricultural civilization does not live a life as fulfilling as one that can access vast amounts of information on the internet, can read thousands of texts written over a span of 3 millenia on every topic imagined, can hear Antonio Vivaldi [1], almost void of unnecessary or unusual suffering and privation, for over twice the lifetime. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39KxbbtCC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39KxbbtCC0

vkou 10y ago

Right now, millions of Americans are suffering, because Communism has not been brought to them. I wonder how you'd take to being liberated of your current lifestyle.