3 ms·

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, usua

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.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  That is no argument. Not only you're again dismissing it based on opinion alone, now I'm being personally judged for it... I'm not going down that line. Practically every research study on happiness associates it with health, family, culture, friends, purpose, religion. Comfort, physical goods, wealth are always at the bottom. Living in simple conditions doesn't mean forfeiting health or basic sanitation. The question is still valid: you have a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare; but no TV, Netflix, car, laptop. You'll never afford even a mobile phone. Are you poor? If not having internet, a phone or computer has a detrimental impact on your quality of life - which it most likely does for the vast majority of people who live in the city, have a normal job and bills to pay - then the answer is yes. If you go homeless, hungry or sick because of not having one of these things, yes. But what if it doesn't? It's not as black and white as you imply. This is much more of a philosophical question than socioeconomics (or marxism).
  - silverberry 5y ago
    First of all, I'm not judging you, where did I? I'm arguing against your ideas, which are harmful. Second, how am I basing anything on opinion alone? I never mentioned modern day commodities or technologies, you are arguing against things I've never said, and are completely omitting my main points. According to your own arguments and words, do "tribes living off-grid" have "a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare"? It seems like you're completely changing what you're saying on the go. I'll just say this: that's precisely your error, it is not a philosophical question, it is a material one. It is not ideas we're talking about, it's people and their living conditions.
    - FuWeiShi 5y ago
      There's a problem in your assumptions though. Modern examples of tribal living are after the vast majority of fertile lands have been colonized by "civilization". Imagine judging the wealth of a place like America by its Indian reservations.
      - akiselev 5y ago
        The (vast?) majority of pre-industrial tribes I remember studying in anthropology live in very fertile areas like the Amazon, Pacific islands, and the mountainous jungles of central Africa or Papua New Guinea. These areas can support small scale agriculture but for various reasons are impractical to exploit economically. Anthropologists have gone to great lengths to study tribes that have had little to no interaction with the outside world so our understanding of their quality of life isn't as biased as you'd think.
roenxi 5y ago
Because I have thought carefully about my lifestyle and, like pretty much everyone, decided that if I have the option of being grid-connected I will take it. It is an open-and-shut case. If people are given a choice, it would be a good day when 1 in 100 would choose to live a life in absolute poverty. If these hypothetical secluded tribes had a choice, they would say the equivalent of "wow, antibiotics! Reliable food! Houses! Sign me up for this please, I want to be a part of it! This will make my life better!" in their local language.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Are there any downsides of being connected you can think of?
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Lots, obviously. It isn't utopia. But not being connected would make you impoverished. Like how monks might disconnect by taking a so-called vow of poverty. And people who voluntarily do that? Vanishingly rare.
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      It is interesting that it is obvious to you. Did you grow up in an unconnected region and then become connected later in life? How would your perspective change if that was true. Is this speculation or have you spoken to someone who had that story? I find it fascinating what facts are assumed by societies. That the current way of life is the best is a reoccurring theme amongst societies with very different conditions. To me it is more of a defense mechanism that rationalizes it more than anything else, but that's just my opinion.

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.

ricardobeat 5y ago
That is no argument. Not only you're again dismissing it based on opinion alone, now I'm being personally judged for it... I'm not going down that line. Practically every research study on happiness associates it with health, family, culture, friends, purpose, religion. Comfort, physical goods, wealth are always at the bottom. Living in simple conditions doesn't mean forfeiting health or basic sanitation. The question is still valid: you have a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare; but no TV, Netflix, car, laptop. You'll never afford even a mobile phone. Are you poor? If not having internet, a phone or computer has a detrimental impact on your quality of life - which it most likely does for the vast majority of people who live in the city, have a normal job and bills to pay - then the answer is yes. If you go homeless, hungry or sick because of not having one of these things, yes. But what if it doesn't? It's not as black and white as you imply. This is much more of a philosophical question than socioeconomics (or marxism).
- silverberry 5y ago
  First of all, I'm not judging you, where did I? I'm arguing against your ideas, which are harmful. Second, how am I basing anything on opinion alone? I never mentioned modern day commodities or technologies, you are arguing against things I've never said, and are completely omitting my main points. According to your own arguments and words, do "tribes living off-grid" have "a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare"? It seems like you're completely changing what you're saying on the go. I'll just say this: that's precisely your error, it is not a philosophical question, it is a material one. It is not ideas we're talking about, it's people and their living conditions.
  - FuWeiShi 5y ago
    There's a problem in your assumptions though. Modern examples of tribal living are after the vast majority of fertile lands have been colonized by "civilization". Imagine judging the wealth of a place like America by its Indian reservations.
    - akiselev 5y ago
      The (vast?) majority of pre-industrial tribes I remember studying in anthropology live in very fertile areas like the Amazon, Pacific islands, and the mountainous jungles of central Africa or Papua New Guinea. These areas can support small scale agriculture but for various reasons are impractical to exploit economically. Anthropologists have gone to great lengths to study tribes that have had little to no interaction with the outside world so our understanding of their quality of life isn't as biased as you'd think.

roenxi 5y ago

Because I have thought carefully about my lifestyle and, like pretty much everyone, decided that if I have the option of being grid-connected I will take it. It is an open-and-shut case. If people are given a choice, it would be a good day when 1 in 100 would choose to live a life in absolute poverty. If these hypothetical secluded tribes had a choice, they would say the equivalent of "wow, antibiotics! Reliable food! Houses! Sign me up for this please, I want to be a part of it! This will make my life better!" in their local language.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Are there any downsides of being connected you can think of?
- roenxi 5y ago
  Lots, obviously. It isn't utopia. But not being connected would make you impoverished. Like how monks might disconnect by taking a so-called vow of poverty. And people who voluntarily do that? Vanishingly rare.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    It is interesting that it is obvious to you. Did you grow up in an unconnected region and then become connected later in life? How would your perspective change if that was true. Is this speculation or have you spoken to someone who had that story? I find it fascinating what facts are assumed by societies. That the current way of life is the best is a reoccurring theme amongst societies with very different conditions. To me it is more of a defense mechanism that rationalizes it more than anything else, but that's just my opinion.