7 ms·

> But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. He is only really convinced when he finds that everything pr

> But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. He is only really convinced when he finds that everything proves it. And the more converging reasons he finds pointing to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up. Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spur of the moment, "Why do you prefer civilisation to savagery?" he would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, "Why, there is that bookcase ... and the coals in the coal-scuttle ... and pianos ... and policemen." The whole case for civilisation is that the case for it is complex. It has done so many things. But that very multiplicity of proof which ought to make reply overwhelming makes reply impossible. - G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

WalterBright 9y ago
Geez. I prefer civilization because I can sit in my warm office and work on projects I like, I have good food to eat, etc. Under savagery I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter, and would have little hope of living past 40. I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor, and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight. I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen. I'd have to train with weapons constantly, and live in fear of the next tribe over attacking me and my family at any moment. No thanks.
- goatlover 9y ago
  Well, we evolved to live in the warm African climate, not the Northern hemisphere, so you may or may not be shivering in the winter. Also, they did have fire, clothing and shelter. I think the evidence suggest hunter/gatherers lived longer than civilized people prior to modern medicine and sanitary practices, had more exercise, ate better, and didn't catch the same diseases (domesticated animals were a big source of disease). That's not saying it's preferable. I have no way of knowing, having grown up with all the advantages of modern life. I do notice the large amount of overweight people, the preponderance of mental illness, and the various complaints about abuses from governments and corporations, the environmental impact of 7.x billion people, and the large number still living in abject poverty. Also the history of institutional slavery, war and genocide. So it's not all roses. If I were forced to pick between medieval life in London or hunter/gather, I would pick the latter, unless I was nobility.
- ambrosite 9y ago
  > Under savagery I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter A long time ago I saw a television documentary about a tribe of nomads living on the steppe in western Mongolia. They were supposedly distant descendants of the ancient Scythians, and living very much the same lifestyle their ancestors had for centuries -- a small tight-knit community, growing up on horseback, being highly skilled at archery, and so on. During one particularly bad winter the tribe entered a Mongolian city at the edge of the steppe to seek shelter, and they never left. The filmmakers found the old women of the tribe working in an office building, sitting in cubicles and typing on computers. The only connection they had to the old ways was a horse archery show and competition they held in the streets of the city. The filmmakers asked the old women why the tribe had done this. Didn't they miss their traditional way of life? They told him, of course we miss some aspects of our old life, and the freedom of living on the steppe, but what we don't miss is being cold and hungry all the time.
- krapp 9y ago
  Yeah, but no taxes.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Right, whoever had the weapons just took what they could. Theft is the first labor-saving innovation.
    - srtjstjsj 9y ago
      Now whoever has the weapons passes laws to take what they could...
- labster 9y ago
  Meh, tell that to the California Indians who worked less than four hours a day, lived ten years longer than Europeans did, and had a society mostly free of violence. Thanks a lot for introducing civilization, Father Serra.
  - imustbeevil 9y ago
    Seems odd to sit on a horse that high and still call the Native Californians "Indian".
  - elefanten 9y ago
    How long was that situation sustained? If longer than "for a bit", then it's probably a major outlier. On average across time and space, the situation would be way less comfortable than modern life.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Not a whole lot is reliably known about pre-contact North American Indians. Even population estimates vary from 12 to 100 million. From what I've read about pre-contact bones, they did suffer from periodic episodes of famine. I've read nothing specific about California Indians.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    If you wish to go full fairy tale, you must always remember to include the they-had-no-word-for-war meme.
    - labster 9y ago
      I don't wish to go full fairy tale, which is why I only mentioned facts. One of my exes did a PhD thesis on California Native Americans during the mission period. The Spanish introduced the locals to the concept of corporal punishment, which afawct was alien to them. None of this is to say that they were without technology, because science and technology are definitively human traits. Boat tech was pretty decent for the Chumash, and they traded inland to the desert tribes. But there's an attitude that civilization must be superior here among lots of commenters here, with an obvious ignorance of what uncivilized life was actually like. We have traded away free time, clean environments, and live with family; for medicine, safety, and iPhones. We have also traded infant mortality, exile, and ignorance; for anomie, prisons, pollution, and tyrants.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  > I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter I'm not particularly well-versed on hunter-gatherer societies in this regard, especially in Paleolithic societies rather than those that persisted to the modern day. But given that hunter-gatherers were generally nomadic and had a much more diverse source of foods than settled agriculturalists, you probably would have worried less about food lasting you through winter than if you had been in any agricultural civilization up until 100 years ago or so. > would have little hope of living past 40 Lolnope. Hunter-gatherer societies had longer lifespans than sedentary agriculturists, and even the shortest-lived societies generally had life expectancies of over 50 years of age if you made it past 5 or so. > I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor, Once again, hunter-gatherers are probably more resistant to famine than settled agriculturalists. It is now well-known that hunter-gatherers spent very little time working: about 2-4 hours per day of work was required, far less even than modern society. > and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight. Probably not. Old people hold valuable knowledge, such as which foods are edible in extreme famine. > I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen. Fewer on both accounts than you would in early settled agricultural societies. While it used to be thought that agriculture was obviously superior to hunter-gatherer societies (not least because it was independently developed at least 9 times), more recent anthropological work has shown that on nearly every metric, hunter-gatherer societies outperform agricultural societies until about the 19th century.
  - dorchadas 9y ago
    > Fewer on both accounts than you would in early settled agricultural societies. Especially because they had fewer children, since the human child is dependent on the mother for so long. So they focused more on getting each child to an age where they could start to take care of themselves before having another one. And it also helped keep population low, which slowed the spread of disease and parasites, and also meant that a smaller food supply could feed people well.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    > Probably not. "Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels. The choice for the healthy and young is to do this or carry the old and infirm on their backs — along with children, weapons and necessities — through perilous territory. Also prone to sacrificing their elderly are societies that suffer periodic famines. Citing a dramatic example, Diamond said Paraguay’s Aché Indians assign certain young men the task of killing old people with an ax or spear, or burying them alive." http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-150571 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-1505... If you want to lop off 30 years of life expectancy to join your tribe, please include me out.
- crispinb 9y ago
  The word picture you've made up doesn't remotely resemble anything I've read about a wide variety of indigenous cultures. It's as much a caricature as is the Noble Savage. I don't have a horse in the race, which is a silly one in any case. We are where we are and global civilisation can only be unpicked via cataclysm (which is a by no means remote possibility). And one can still see the human good in other cultures without wanting to abandon your own. I personally wouldn't be of that much use in a more communal society. But I see no harm in starting with at least a modicum of knowledge, interpretive charity, and curiosity. When did the latter in particular become so undervalued in our society, as it seems to be on HN when this subject comes up?
- sliken 9y ago
  Sure, much like a the elite ruling class of any society. How many slaves (or near slaves) made your clothes? Picked your food? Built your computer? Recycled your old computer? What about the garbage man? Postman? Janitor? Teachers? What is it doing to the environment to make your car? How about the electricity you use? How about the plastics/nylon in your clothes, shoes, food packaging, etc? How about your children? What air will they breath? Water will they drink? How much more contaminated will the environment be? How many estrogen mimics will there be? Keep in mind that the current bushmen are basically working half time jobs, are quite healthy (measuring blood values, percent fat, aerobic capacity, etc) AND they are living on extremely marginal land after been pushed out of more desirable land by cities and agriculture. If they weren't forced off the good land their quality of life would be even better. A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Not sure the current society will last 200 years, and I'm afraid my kid is going to have a WAY tougher time of things than I had. Sure it's great to be in the top few %, getting great health care, making over $100k, and not really having a serious unmet need. This however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it.
  - crispinb 9y ago
    > A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Australian indigenous nations managed a whole continent pretty successfully for 60,000 years. Agricultural-industrial civilisation has brought it to its knees in under 200. Our climate stability is collapsing at breakneck speed, the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, we have the most catastrophic mammalian extinction rate of any continent, our topsoil is being flushed out to sea, our great river systems are diminishing before our eyes. (Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth). > his however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it. I see your point, but the poor are only being used as tools by the rich. It is the rich for whom our living planet is being sacrificed. They will buy themselves comfort for another 50-200 years, as our world collapses.
    - perilunar 9y ago
- nikdaheratik 9y ago
  I think you're right about the benefits, but wrong about most of the drawbacks. The Inuit seemed to have done pretty well in a much harsher environment than most of us have to deal with. Also, for nearly all of prehistoric times, humans lived in the tropics and didn't have to worry as much about fighting the environment, especially cold. And the thing about modern medicine versus prehistoric illnesses, is that you would nearly always be either "doing okay", or dead. And the majority of people who got past 30 had a decent chance of living to 60 in most cases. Especially since they were usually involved in child care, etc. while the younger adults did the hunter-gatherer thing.
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  Don't forget the hook worms and other things that don't kill you fast, but still degrade life's experience.
  - RandomInteger4 9y ago
    Not sure why I was downvoted for pointing out that parasitic infections are one more negative aspect of not living in civilized society where we have the knowledge and understanding to know how important clean feet and shoes are.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Lots of stereotypes here. In fact longevity was high, for example. Labor was light the vast majority of the time (since food availability was highly variable) until agriculture came along, etc, etc. Civilization sometimes seems to mean that people just get to create whatever "facts" they please without consequences. If you want to find out about the reality, "The Old Way: A Story of the First People" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas is a fine start.
booleandilemma 9y ago
Ironically, someone like Chesterton couldn’t exist outside of civilization.
grondilu 9y ago
That made me think of the famous "What have the romans ever done for us?" scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

WalterBright 9y ago

Geez. I prefer civilization because I can sit in my warm office and work on projects I like, I have good food to eat, etc. Under savagery I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter, and would have little hope of living past 40. I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor, and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight. I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen. I'd have to train with weapons constantly, and live in fear of the next tribe over attacking me and my family at any moment. No thanks.

goatlover 9y ago
Well, we evolved to live in the warm African climate, not the Northern hemisphere, so you may or may not be shivering in the winter. Also, they did have fire, clothing and shelter. I think the evidence suggest hunter/gatherers lived longer than civilized people prior to modern medicine and sanitary practices, had more exercise, ate better, and didn't catch the same diseases (domesticated animals were a big source of disease). That's not saying it's preferable. I have no way of knowing, having grown up with all the advantages of modern life. I do notice the large amount of overweight people, the preponderance of mental illness, and the various complaints about abuses from governments and corporations, the environmental impact of 7.x billion people, and the large number still living in abject poverty. Also the history of institutional slavery, war and genocide. So it's not all roses. If I were forced to pick between medieval life in London or hunter/gather, I would pick the latter, unless I was nobility.
ambrosite 9y ago
> Under savagery I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter A long time ago I saw a television documentary about a tribe of nomads living on the steppe in western Mongolia. They were supposedly distant descendants of the ancient Scythians, and living very much the same lifestyle their ancestors had for centuries -- a small tight-knit community, growing up on horseback, being highly skilled at archery, and so on. During one particularly bad winter the tribe entered a Mongolian city at the edge of the steppe to seek shelter, and they never left. The filmmakers found the old women of the tribe working in an office building, sitting in cubicles and typing on computers. The only connection they had to the old ways was a horse archery show and competition they held in the streets of the city. The filmmakers asked the old women why the tribe had done this. Didn't they miss their traditional way of life? They told him, of course we miss some aspects of our old life, and the freedom of living on the steppe, but what we don't miss is being cold and hungry all the time.
krapp 9y ago
Yeah, but no taxes.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Right, whoever had the weapons just took what they could. Theft is the first labor-saving innovation.
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    Now whoever has the weapons passes laws to take what they could...
labster 9y ago
Meh, tell that to the California Indians who worked less than four hours a day, lived ten years longer than Europeans did, and had a society mostly free of violence. Thanks a lot for introducing civilization, Father Serra.
- imustbeevil 9y ago
  Seems odd to sit on a horse that high and still call the Native Californians "Indian".
- elefanten 9y ago
  How long was that situation sustained? If longer than "for a bit", then it's probably a major outlier. On average across time and space, the situation would be way less comfortable than modern life.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Not a whole lot is reliably known about pre-contact North American Indians. Even population estimates vary from 12 to 100 million. From what I've read about pre-contact bones, they did suffer from periodic episodes of famine. I've read nothing specific about California Indians.
- interfixus 9y ago
  If you wish to go full fairy tale, you must always remember to include the they-had-no-word-for-war meme.
  - labster 9y ago
    I don't wish to go full fairy tale, which is why I only mentioned facts. One of my exes did a PhD thesis on California Native Americans during the mission period. The Spanish introduced the locals to the concept of corporal punishment, which afawct was alien to them. None of this is to say that they were without technology, because science and technology are definitively human traits. Boat tech was pretty decent for the Chumash, and they traded inland to the desert tribes. But there's an attitude that civilization must be superior here among lots of commenters here, with an obvious ignorance of what uncivilized life was actually like. We have traded away free time, clean environments, and live with family; for medicine, safety, and iPhones. We have also traded infant mortality, exile, and ignorance; for anomie, prisons, pollution, and tyrants.
jcranmer 9y ago
> I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter I'm not particularly well-versed on hunter-gatherer societies in this regard, especially in Paleolithic societies rather than those that persisted to the modern day. But given that hunter-gatherers were generally nomadic and had a much more diverse source of foods than settled agriculturalists, you probably would have worried less about food lasting you through winter than if you had been in any agricultural civilization up until 100 years ago or so. > would have little hope of living past 40 Lolnope. Hunter-gatherer societies had longer lifespans than sedentary agriculturists, and even the shortest-lived societies generally had life expectancies of over 50 years of age if you made it past 5 or so. > I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor, Once again, hunter-gatherers are probably more resistant to famine than settled agriculturalists. It is now well-known that hunter-gatherers spent very little time working: about 2-4 hours per day of work was required, far less even than modern society. > and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight. Probably not. Old people hold valuable knowledge, such as which foods are edible in extreme famine. > I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen. Fewer on both accounts than you would in early settled agricultural societies. While it used to be thought that agriculture was obviously superior to hunter-gatherer societies (not least because it was independently developed at least 9 times), more recent anthropological work has shown that on nearly every metric, hunter-gatherer societies outperform agricultural societies until about the 19th century.
- dorchadas 9y ago
  > Fewer on both accounts than you would in early settled agricultural societies. Especially because they had fewer children, since the human child is dependent on the mother for so long. So they focused more on getting each child to an age where they could start to take care of themselves before having another one. And it also helped keep population low, which slowed the spread of disease and parasites, and also meant that a smaller food supply could feed people well.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > Probably not. "Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels. The choice for the healthy and young is to do this or carry the old and infirm on their backs — along with children, weapons and necessities — through perilous territory. Also prone to sacrificing their elderly are societies that suffer periodic famines. Citing a dramatic example, Diamond said Paraguay’s Aché Indians assign certain young men the task of killing old people with an ax or spear, or burying them alive." http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-150571 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-1505... If you want to lop off 30 years of life expectancy to join your tribe, please include me out.
crispinb 9y ago
The word picture you've made up doesn't remotely resemble anything I've read about a wide variety of indigenous cultures. It's as much a caricature as is the Noble Savage. I don't have a horse in the race, which is a silly one in any case. We are where we are and global civilisation can only be unpicked via cataclysm (which is a by no means remote possibility). And one can still see the human good in other cultures without wanting to abandon your own. I personally wouldn't be of that much use in a more communal society. But I see no harm in starting with at least a modicum of knowledge, interpretive charity, and curiosity. When did the latter in particular become so undervalued in our society, as it seems to be on HN when this subject comes up?
sliken 9y ago
Sure, much like a the elite ruling class of any society. How many slaves (or near slaves) made your clothes? Picked your food? Built your computer? Recycled your old computer? What about the garbage man? Postman? Janitor? Teachers? What is it doing to the environment to make your car? How about the electricity you use? How about the plastics/nylon in your clothes, shoes, food packaging, etc? How about your children? What air will they breath? Water will they drink? How much more contaminated will the environment be? How many estrogen mimics will there be? Keep in mind that the current bushmen are basically working half time jobs, are quite healthy (measuring blood values, percent fat, aerobic capacity, etc) AND they are living on extremely marginal land after been pushed out of more desirable land by cities and agriculture. If they weren't forced off the good land their quality of life would be even better. A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Not sure the current society will last 200 years, and I'm afraid my kid is going to have a WAY tougher time of things than I had. Sure it's great to be in the top few %, getting great health care, making over $100k, and not really having a serious unmet need. This however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it.
- crispinb 9y ago
  > A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Australian indigenous nations managed a whole continent pretty successfully for 60,000 years. Agricultural-industrial civilisation has brought it to its knees in under 200. Our climate stability is collapsing at breakneck speed, the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, we have the most catastrophic mammalian extinction rate of any continent, our topsoil is being flushed out to sea, our great river systems are diminishing before our eyes. (Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth). > his however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it. I see your point, but the poor are only being used as tools by the rich. It is the rich for whom our living planet is being sacrificed. They will buy themselves comfort for another 50-200 years, as our world collapses.
  - perilunar 9y ago
nikdaheratik 9y ago
I think you're right about the benefits, but wrong about most of the drawbacks. The Inuit seemed to have done pretty well in a much harsher environment than most of us have to deal with. Also, for nearly all of prehistoric times, humans lived in the tropics and didn't have to worry as much about fighting the environment, especially cold. And the thing about modern medicine versus prehistoric illnesses, is that you would nearly always be either "doing okay", or dead. And the majority of people who got past 30 had a decent chance of living to 60 in most cases. Especially since they were usually involved in child care, etc. while the younger adults did the hunter-gatherer thing.
RandomInteger4 9y ago
Don't forget the hook worms and other things that don't kill you fast, but still degrade life's experience.
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  Not sure why I was downvoted for pointing out that parasitic infections are one more negative aspect of not living in civilized society where we have the knowledge and understanding to know how important clean feet and shoes are.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Lots of stereotypes here. In fact longevity was high, for example. Labor was light the vast majority of the time (since food availability was highly variable) until agriculture came along, etc, etc. Civilization sometimes seems to mean that people just get to create whatever "facts" they please without consequences. If you want to find out about the reality, "The Old Way: A Story of the First People" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas is a fine start.

booleandilemma 9y ago

Ironically, someone like Chesterton couldn’t exist outside of civilization.

grondilu 9y ago

That made me think of the famous "What have the romans ever done for us?" scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ