3 ms·

"a literal 24/7 struggle to survive" Doesn't this describe nearly all of human history, for the vast majority of humans who have ever lived? For far longer tha

"a literal 24/7 struggle to survive" Doesn't this describe nearly all of human history, for the vast majority of humans who have ever lived? For far longer than capitalism was ever the basis for any kind of human society?

pmiller2 6y ago
Why does it have to be? We have plenty of resources. Everyone can have the bottom levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Everyone! Today is today, not “nearly all of human history.” Who cares about “nearly all of human history?” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
- unishark 6y ago
  I think the point was that human history predates the recent increase in depression. Having unmet needs you need to work to fill is the baseline state of all animals, and the unending grind to fill them is what we are evolved to do.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    People would still have plenty of unmet needs if the basic physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy are met. What kind of straw man are you trying to argue here? If anything, having those needs met makes it easier -- nay, possible -- to "grind" toward needs at upper levels of the heirarchy (not that I accept your contention that humans were "evolved" to "grind"). Who says the increase in depression is "recent?" The article itself mentions the strong upward trend since 1990. You know 1990 is 30 years ago now, right? (Not trying to be condescending here -- I genuinely forget this myself sometime.)
    - unishark 6y ago
      I'm not arguing any strawman. I don't accept your non-acceptance of my contention. I say 30 years is recent. Particularly given I was referring to evidence on a prehistoric timescale. I hope that clears everything up for you. Totally not trying to be condescending either.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Then, what are you arguing? Why does it even actually matter if the increase in depression is recent, or not? What does that have to do with the fact that mere survival does not have to be a constant 24/7 struggle for anyone, really? And, what is your evidence we were "evolved" to do much of anything besides survive and breed? More importantly, who cares?
sudosysgen 6y ago
The thing is that it just doesn't have to be this way anymore. We'd all need to work somewhere around 8h a week to produce enough food, housing and energy to survive. Instead we make up bullshit jobs and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to convince people people they should be unhappy with what they have, while structuring the necessities for life and social function around extractive institutions.
samvher 6y ago
Actually many people believe it does not. Living off the land might have caused stress occasionally due to e.g. natural hazard but on average people may have been able to get by with relatively little effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

pmiller2 6y ago

Why does it have to be? We have plenty of resources. Everyone can have the bottom levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Everyone! Today is today, not “nearly all of human history.” Who cares about “nearly all of human history?” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

unishark 6y ago
I think the point was that human history predates the recent increase in depression. Having unmet needs you need to work to fill is the baseline state of all animals, and the unending grind to fill them is what we are evolved to do.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  People would still have plenty of unmet needs if the basic physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy are met. What kind of straw man are you trying to argue here? If anything, having those needs met makes it easier -- nay, possible -- to "grind" toward needs at upper levels of the heirarchy (not that I accept your contention that humans were "evolved" to "grind"). Who says the increase in depression is "recent?" The article itself mentions the strong upward trend since 1990. You know 1990 is 30 years ago now, right? (Not trying to be condescending here -- I genuinely forget this myself sometime.)
  - unishark 6y ago
    I'm not arguing any strawman. I don't accept your non-acceptance of my contention. I say 30 years is recent. Particularly given I was referring to evidence on a prehistoric timescale. I hope that clears everything up for you. Totally not trying to be condescending either.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Then, what are you arguing? Why does it even actually matter if the increase in depression is recent, or not? What does that have to do with the fact that mere survival does not have to be a constant 24/7 struggle for anyone, really? And, what is your evidence we were "evolved" to do much of anything besides survive and breed? More importantly, who cares?

sudosysgen 6y ago

The thing is that it just doesn't have to be this way anymore. We'd all need to work somewhere around 8h a week to produce enough food, housing and energy to survive. Instead we make up bullshit jobs and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to convince people people they should be unhappy with what they have, while structuring the necessities for life and social function around extractive institutions.

samvher 6y ago

Actually many people believe it does not. Living off the land might have caused stress occasionally due to e.g. natural hazard but on average people may have been able to get by with relatively little effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society