4 ms·

>Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. The point is that they are

>Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. The point is that they are not suffering. Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, have more social harmony, deeper longer lasting social bonds, etc. All the ingredients for deep, lasting, and fulfilling happiness. They are living precisely how humans evolved to live. From the perspective of "suffering" agriculture is actually a step backwards. Nonetheless agricultural societies dominate because agricultural societies have higher populations, stronger diseases (natural disease warfare) and better military technology. It is natural that agriculture dominates and pushes out the tribal lifestyle. However on the basis of suffering/misery it is actually the agriculturalists who are worse off. A great book that details this phenomenon was recently released for the public called Sex At Dawn.

CamperBob 16y ago
Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. So does the typical Oxycontin addict. 'Happiness and satisfaction' are weasel words that ultimately have no objective meaning. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, No, they do not.
- forensic 16y ago
  I wasn't the one making the argument that these people are experiencing misery/suffering. Misery and suffering is no more objective than happiness and satisfaction. I would argue that both of these things are objective and can be observed in the brain and well as inferred from other criteria. >No, they do not. Yes, they do. We can go back and forth like this all day or you can make a real argument. Read SEX AT DAWN and get back to me with your criticism of their anthropology. Based on your statements regarding happiness I'm going to tentatively conclude that you're one of the ignorant engineers who has little contact with the social sciences. Why do programmers believe they know more than everyone else in subjects where they are grossly ignorant? We need a word for this. Programmer hubris or something. I guess it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect striking again.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    You're the one who made the specific assertion; it's up to you to deliver the citation. "Read book X" isn't sufficient.
    - forensic 16y ago
      >it's up to you to deliver the citation. "Read book X" isn't sufficient. What do you think a citation is?
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - CamperBob 16y ago
        Sigh. OK, you're right. By the way, have you heard the Good News about Jesus? There's a book for that too, you know. Downvote away, but you don't get to use verbal sleight-of-hand on here (comparing life expectancy in hunter-gatherer versus 'agricultural' societies, when the question involves an industrial/post-industrial society) and top it off with a vague "It's true! Go read about it" argument.
anigbrowl 16y ago
I guess you didn't read the stuff on the website describing how they cultivate manioc and papaya in gardens. They've already adopted agriculture.
- forensic 16y ago
  There are degrees of agriculturalism. How much of their diet is from foraging and hunting? Also there is still a big difference between cultures who cultivate fruits and cultures who cultivate grains and legumes. If they adopt grains/legumes their population will increase and their lifespans will decline. But as long as they stick to fruit and animal meat, and avoid modern diseases, they will be healthier than our society. It's NOT a foregone conclusion that they experience suffering/misery. It's certainly possible but in order to claim this you need to provide evidence of their suffering/misery. Most likely, it's quite the opposite. If they are anything like the typical tribal hunter-gatherers, depression is probably unheard of in their culture.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

CamperBob 16y ago

Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. So does the typical Oxycontin addict. 'Happiness and satisfaction' are weasel words that ultimately have no objective meaning. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, No, they do not.

forensic 16y ago
I wasn't the one making the argument that these people are experiencing misery/suffering. Misery and suffering is no more objective than happiness and satisfaction. I would argue that both of these things are objective and can be observed in the brain and well as inferred from other criteria. >No, they do not. Yes, they do. We can go back and forth like this all day or you can make a real argument. Read SEX AT DAWN and get back to me with your criticism of their anthropology. Based on your statements regarding happiness I'm going to tentatively conclude that you're one of the ignorant engineers who has little contact with the social sciences. Why do programmers believe they know more than everyone else in subjects where they are grossly ignorant? We need a word for this. Programmer hubris or something. I guess it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect striking again.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  You're the one who made the specific assertion; it's up to you to deliver the citation. "Read book X" isn't sufficient.
  - forensic 16y ago
    >it's up to you to deliver the citation. "Read book X" isn't sufficient. What do you think a citation is?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      Sigh. OK, you're right. By the way, have you heard the Good News about Jesus? There's a book for that too, you know. Downvote away, but you don't get to use verbal sleight-of-hand on here (comparing life expectancy in hunter-gatherer versus 'agricultural' societies, when the question involves an industrial/post-industrial society) and top it off with a vague "It's true! Go read about it" argument.

anigbrowl 16y ago

I guess you didn't read the stuff on the website describing how they cultivate manioc and papaya in gardens. They've already adopted agriculture.

forensic 16y ago
There are degrees of agriculturalism. How much of their diet is from foraging and hunting? Also there is still a big difference between cultures who cultivate fruits and cultures who cultivate grains and legumes. If they adopt grains/legumes their population will increase and their lifespans will decline. But as long as they stick to fruit and animal meat, and avoid modern diseases, they will be healthier than our society. It's NOT a foregone conclusion that they experience suffering/misery. It's certainly possible but in order to claim this you need to provide evidence of their suffering/misery. Most likely, it's quite the opposite. If they are anything like the typical tribal hunter-gatherers, depression is probably unheard of in their culture.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]