5 ms·

Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?

Ericson2314 5y ago
There was no poverty between the control of fire and civilization. We got our calories nice and easy.
- nikanj 5y ago
  Then why was the population so low?
  - zzt123 5y ago
    The MVP wasn’t scalable.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    because every person had a huge chunk of land! Compare population density today in a rich suburb to a poor inner city.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      A fairly well (but far from universally) accepted thesis is that war and violence was widespread in pre-civilized times, keeping the population density low more "efficiently" than cycles of over-expansion and famine..
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        Pre Holocene, there was just more climate variability too. I mean maybe we could have spent more time hunting, gathering, and birthing, but I don't begrudge the ancestors for just kicking back instead!
        losvedir 5y ago
        I don't get it. You're saying there were a bunch of happy, well fed people back then, just kicking back and relaxing.... and not having sex?
        Ericson2314 5y ago
        I don't fully get it either. Certainly the agricultural revolution led to more babies and more calories (if not better nutrition in the early days), so it is possible to the calories / babies ratio stayed the same. For the hunt gather nice times stuff to work out, I think theoretically there must also be some claims about the work being divided more evenly. Among other things, that could be some restrictions on how much pregnancy the nomadic band can deal with.
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
This is exactly what I had in mind, thanks for asking. Are those tribes who are still living a secluded life in the forests of Amazon or say even those who are completely isolated like in Indian ocean islands considered poor? They've had everything they need and unless there's no external interference(Humans, Weather events e.g. Tsunami) they're living a successful life. Also I have serious issues with the term 'Civilization', I don't know how tribes who have been co-existing with nature successfully for thousands of years could be called uncivilized where as we who have set in motion the likely destruction of vast majority of the species on the planet considered civilized? I feel that mentality is a relic of colonial mindset, There are vast amount of written accounts of colonists calling the indigenous people 'Uncivilized'.
- roenxi 5y ago
  That seems like a simple question - yes, they are poor. It would be miserable and horrific, and they'd be happy every day they were healthy because it would be a pleasant surprise. And there is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant at the same time. Even if hot running water is now considered a colonial luxury.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    Why do you assume tribes living off-grid are miserable? That doesn't seem to be the case unless they are stricken by a particular disease / natural events, usually they appear to be very content with a simple life. That you would be miserable in their condition does not tell us anything about happiness.
    - silverberry 5y ago
      This relativism isn't good for anything. They are poor and also underdeveloped in every sense. That's a fact. If you romanticize them you are not doing them any good. You simply cannot understand what being in their position is like. Any slight inconvenient to a modern society is a very serious event for them, eg. disease, drought, famine, etc. while you have most conveniences in life and most problems solved. As I said in a previous comment, if you consider yourself a Marxist or a leftist you really aren't. Societies do advance, humanity goes forward. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress and it surely isn't any good. Stagnating isn't either.
sleepingadmin 5y ago
>Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation? It's far more complicated than that. How do you measure inflation across the world of disparate currencies and circumstances across a century? How do you measure it in hostile zones? Some warlord/dictator isn't going to report how much of their population is in poverty. The error margins would be massive even if you could. Then there's the complication of poverty vs extreme poverty. Ultimately what we want to measure isn't 'do you have enough money' but rather 'do you satisfy your maslows heirachy of needs' or rather really how much? If you look at a tribe, their physiological needs are met, their security needs are met, they most likely have friends and good social order, they very likely have a sense of accomplishment. So what's the problem? Flipside, we in the rich world have created multiple planet wide problems and what if those tribe people are who have the solution? We want to get them connect to the internet as soon as possible.
huetius 5y ago
One must be careful not to fall into Rousseauian “noble savage” myths. Primitive societies were also stratified, as evidenced by differentiated burials. Violence was also very much a part of their lives. Graeber talks about this. That doesn’t mean that modern society has nothing to learn from its antecedents, though.
probinso 5y ago
you might enjoy reading "tribe", "braiding sweet grass", "The dawn of everything", and "The new trail of tears" they have very helpful history in understanding how poverty is manufactured, within the context of colonial capitalism.

Ericson2314 5y ago

There was no poverty between the control of fire and civilization. We got our calories nice and easy.

nikanj 5y ago
Then why was the population so low?
- zzt123 5y ago
  The MVP wasn’t scalable.
- mellavora 5y ago
  because every person had a huge chunk of land! Compare population density today in a rich suburb to a poor inner city.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    A fairly well (but far from universally) accepted thesis is that war and violence was widespread in pre-civilized times, keeping the population density low more "efficiently" than cycles of over-expansion and famine..
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Pre Holocene, there was just more climate variability too. I mean maybe we could have spent more time hunting, gathering, and birthing, but I don't begrudge the ancestors for just kicking back instead!
      - losvedir 5y ago
        I don't get it. You're saying there were a bunch of happy, well fed people back then, just kicking back and relaxing.... and not having sex?
        Ericson2314 5y ago
        I don't fully get it either. Certainly the agricultural revolution led to more babies and more calories (if not better nutrition in the early days), so it is possible to the calories / babies ratio stayed the same. For the hunt gather nice times stuff to work out, I think theoretically there must also be some claims about the work being divided more evenly. Among other things, that could be some restrictions on how much pregnancy the nomadic band can deal with.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

This is exactly what I had in mind, thanks for asking. Are those tribes who are still living a secluded life in the forests of Amazon or say even those who are completely isolated like in Indian ocean islands considered poor? They've had everything they need and unless there's no external interference(Humans, Weather events e.g. Tsunami) they're living a successful life. Also I have serious issues with the term 'Civilization', I don't know how tribes who have been co-existing with nature successfully for thousands of years could be called uncivilized where as we who have set in motion the likely destruction of vast majority of the species on the planet considered civilized? I feel that mentality is a relic of colonial mindset, There are vast amount of written accounts of colonists calling the indigenous people 'Uncivilized'.

roenxi 5y ago
That seems like a simple question - yes, they are poor. It would be miserable and horrific, and they'd be happy every day they were healthy because it would be a pleasant surprise. And there is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant at the same time. Even if hot running water is now considered a colonial luxury.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  Why do you assume tribes living off-grid are miserable? That doesn't seem to be the case unless they are stricken by a particular disease / natural events, usually they appear to be very content with a simple life. That you would be miserable in their condition does not tell us anything about happiness.
  - silverberry 5y ago
    This relativism isn't good for anything. They are poor and also underdeveloped in every sense. That's a fact. If you romanticize them you are not doing them any good. You simply cannot understand what being in their position is like. Any slight inconvenient to a modern society is a very serious event for them, eg. disease, drought, famine, etc. while you have most conveniences in life and most problems solved. As I said in a previous comment, if you consider yourself a Marxist or a leftist you really aren't. Societies do advance, humanity goes forward. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress and it surely isn't any good. Stagnating isn't either.

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation? It's far more complicated than that. How do you measure inflation across the world of disparate currencies and circumstances across a century? How do you measure it in hostile zones? Some warlord/dictator isn't going to report how much of their population is in poverty. The error margins would be massive even if you could. Then there's the complication of poverty vs extreme poverty. Ultimately what we want to measure isn't 'do you have enough money' but rather 'do you satisfy your maslows heirachy of needs' or rather really how much? If you look at a tribe, their physiological needs are met, their security needs are met, they most likely have friends and good social order, they very likely have a sense of accomplishment. So what's the problem? Flipside, we in the rich world have created multiple planet wide problems and what if those tribe people are who have the solution? We want to get them connect to the internet as soon as possible.

huetius 5y ago

One must be careful not to fall into Rousseauian “noble savage” myths. Primitive societies were also stratified, as evidenced by differentiated burials. Violence was also very much a part of their lives. Graeber talks about this. That doesn’t mean that modern society has nothing to learn from its antecedents, though.

probinso 5y ago

you might enjoy reading "tribe", "braiding sweet grass", "The dawn of everything", and "The new trail of tears" they have very helpful history in understanding how poverty is manufactured, within the context of colonial capitalism.