5 ms·

I both agree and strongly disagree with you on this. Allow me to explain. The way you frame the proposition as a luddite removal of technology based on some sup

I both agree and strongly disagree with you on this. Allow me to explain. The way you frame the proposition as a luddite removal of technology based on some superficial desire to live like back in the day, I agree with. It obviously won't solve many of the issues that hunter_gatherers and early agricultural cultures and civilizations had to deal with. That said though, and I didn't rtfa, so I'm just addressing this common retort more generally, it is you who are being logically fallacious pretending that is what people who call for a return to the old ways mean. Essentially you are ad homeniming their position. (Not saying there aren't those who take the position you claim they do, but after talking to many of them I find most are being overly rhetorical and understand the need for a moderate approach). I grew up in the mountains, around Apache, Navajo, Zuni, and Hopi people, who I have learned a great deal from, and they recognize the vast quality of life improvements modern science, medicine and technology have brough, and embrace it. The fact they understand that though doesn't stop them from admonishing us in how most Americans treat the land and live out of symbiosis. They aren't calling for a naive luddite-esque return to the old ways, they are calling on us to use our technology to augment the benefits the old ways have, and that is a huge distinction. Of course there are some hippy groups that naively take that position, such as the Rainbows, and then after they've destroyed a section of forest during a party they still put on their suit and tie and drive their BMW back to California or wherever. Nobody from the forest has respect for them because their views are immature and superficial, but it is a large mistake to extrapolate that type of position to all those calling for a review of how we live in relationship to the land. There is a lot of good discussion and knowledge to be had if you can get past that. I could ramble on with some stories that illustrate what I mean, but let me summarize the position most of the native American culture from my old stomping grounds take: value community, but also value self-sufficiency within that community, because those two things make a person and a people strong and able to weather storms. Personally, when I think about thinks like space exploration, I think that approach has much wisdom in it, and given my experience of the Internet, I think decentralization is a key strength of that viewpoint as well. You know, most of them pretty much expect us to destroy ourselves because we don't listen to their wisdom. They say stuff like "We were here before America and unless they change we will be here after America."

indubitable 9y ago
Something that's I've always found striking is how long lived ancient peoples were, if they made it to adulthood. Early life deaths is what really used to bring up mortality rates. If one out of 3 children make it 20, but the child that does lives to an average of 80 then you have an aggregate life expectancy of something like 30-40 years - but that's obviously quite misleading. When you look at those that did make it to adulthood and died of some natural cause (as opposed to human caused things like warfare or famine) the longevity of people does not seem to have really changed all that much. The Ancient Greeks were pretty much clueless on medicine still viewing things through the lens of miasma theory, yet go search for any name you're familiar with and you'll find the distribution of ages to not be as low as you'd expect. Granted there is a bias in that people that died earlier in adulthood might not have had a chance to make their mark to the point that you'd know their name today, but I don't think that's the predominant issue. The names we know we'd still know even had they died much earlier. Aristotle was an outlier living to be only 61, yet he certainly made his name even well before that. Socrates - 71 (death by execution), Plato - 80, Eratosthenes - 82, Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, etc, etc. Modern medicine should certainly have enabled ancient civilizations to extend their lives substantially. What if it were possible to live the lifestyle of one such as the Ancient Greeks, yet given the availability of modern medicine in case of urgent need? And it's there that I completely agree with you. I think the goal should be to use modern medicine to supplement, not supplant, traditional life values. There's certainly a concern of being a luddite, yet on the other hand I think people are at times too quick to forget that our level of understanding of things like human physiology is still quite superficial. We have no real causal understanding and while correlations can and do enable enormously beneficial breakthroughs, they are also subject to a never ending stream of unforeseen consequences. Decisions our species made for hundreds of thousands of years to survive were obviously not always optimal or ideal, but they did prove to be, if nothing else, sustainable and deterministic.
natecavanaugh 9y ago
I think you and I are in 100% agreement, because I didn't try to ad-hominem all people who value nature, I was being a very tiny bit reductionistic in describing a large vocal population, which are people who demonize technology or our current state because it doesn't fit into their personal narrative (often surprisingly fed by many 90's movies). So I was targeting it towards the idiocy of the original author, not of those on every side that realize nuance and balance are just as important.

indubitable 9y ago

Something that's I've always found striking is how long lived ancient peoples were, if they made it to adulthood. Early life deaths is what really used to bring up mortality rates. If one out of 3 children make it 20, but the child that does lives to an average of 80 then you have an aggregate life expectancy of something like 30-40 years - but that's obviously quite misleading. When you look at those that did make it to adulthood and died of some natural cause (as opposed to human caused things like warfare or famine) the longevity of people does not seem to have really changed all that much. The Ancient Greeks were pretty much clueless on medicine still viewing things through the lens of miasma theory, yet go search for any name you're familiar with and you'll find the distribution of ages to not be as low as you'd expect. Granted there is a bias in that people that died earlier in adulthood might not have had a chance to make their mark to the point that you'd know their name today, but I don't think that's the predominant issue. The names we know we'd still know even had they died much earlier. Aristotle was an outlier living to be only 61, yet he certainly made his name even well before that. Socrates - 71 (death by execution), Plato - 80, Eratosthenes - 82, Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, etc, etc. Modern medicine should certainly have enabled ancient civilizations to extend their lives substantially. What if it were possible to live the lifestyle of one such as the Ancient Greeks, yet given the availability of modern medicine in case of urgent need? And it's there that I completely agree with you. I think the goal should be to use modern medicine to supplement, not supplant, traditional life values. There's certainly a concern of being a luddite, yet on the other hand I think people are at times too quick to forget that our level of understanding of things like human physiology is still quite superficial. We have no real causal understanding and while correlations can and do enable enormously beneficial breakthroughs, they are also subject to a never ending stream of unforeseen consequences. Decisions our species made for hundreds of thousands of years to survive were obviously not always optimal or ideal, but they did prove to be, if nothing else, sustainable and deterministic.

natecavanaugh 9y ago

I think you and I are in 100% agreement, because I didn't try to ad-hominem all people who value nature, I was being a very tiny bit reductionistic in describing a large vocal population, which are people who demonize technology or our current state because it doesn't fit into their personal narrative (often surprisingly fed by many 90's movies). So I was targeting it towards the idiocy of the original author, not of those on every side that realize nuance and balance are just as important.