3 ms·

> offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist Those are not the big gotchas you think they are. They are luxuries that only have value in the context of our wes

> offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist Those are not the big gotchas you think they are. They are luxuries that only have value in the context of our western society, but don't intrinsically. Think about it. 1. Office -- if you live in a nice climate, a climate controlled building is not much of a draw, in fact hanging out outside most of the time is more fun 2. Grocery store -- not much of a need for this if you can get all your food from the nature around your home 3. Dentist -- this is mostly to solve problems of civilization. Eating lots of grains, especially refined ones and refined sugars, leads to cavities. The causes of cavities mostly got introduced to our diet when grain was adopted 10000 years ago, and again in the mid 20th century with the advent of ultra processed food. What else are you going to list? A car that you don't need in a walkable village? Then there's healthcare. Most healthcare in the west today deals with lifestyle diseases caused by modern processed food, obesity, etc. Then there's infectious diseases-- again mostly an urban problem, really starts taking off when agriculture and sedentism began 10000 years ago. Lot of living packed together in close proximity with plenty of animals. Admittedly advanced healthcare for accidents and other freak health conditions other than modern obesity or infectious diseases, would be an undeniable luxury. But it really represents a small percentage of health care services, both these days and in the past.

hef19898 3y ago
No food shortages, like never? Health care, including dentists, that render almost all health problems that killed our crippled our ancetors harmless? Vaccines and anti-biotics? A warm roof over our heads, all year long? I don't know, I personally like all of those things. Especially since I wouldn't be around anymore without them, neither would be my wife or my son. There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival." Just like the idea of the noble savage is wrong and hard to get rid of, so is this idea. It was never a constant struggle for survival. Depending where the tribe lived, there were indeed times of hardship, like winter or draught. Or war. And hunting some animals is and was dangerous - but so is driving with a car and wars we also still got. Oh and times of hardship are still a thing: "828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021". But most of the time, it was lots of free time in a pleaseant environment without toxins and plastic garbage and fresh air among your trusted friends. It might have been cold at night, but the more you enjoyed the sun at day. And nothing tastes as good as self hunted meat, when you are hungry. This is the reason, why this archaic livestyle is romanticised - and our genes were optimized for it - not for the air conditioned office living.
- galdosdi 3y ago
  I'm not saying that if you have a time machine and have to choose whether to hop in or not, that it would be better. But it's really worth stopping and realizing how many of the problems solved by modernity, were also caused by modernity! For example, for some weird reason you are obsessed with dentists. Read this then: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oral-mystery-are-agriculture-and-rates-responsible-for-tooth-decay/#:~:text=But%20the%20study%20of%20human,changed%20to%20an%20agricultural%20lifestyle https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oral-mystery-are-.... Cavities were probably rare before agriculture. Same goes for antibiotics -- infections were a lot rarer before agriculture concentrated much larger population densities AND put them next to birds to catch respiratory illnesses from. Population density was basically a health hazard from 10,000 years ago to really, really recently, when modern plumbing finally solved it once and for all. Finally, humanity arose in an area where cold was not a major issue. There are still plenty of areas like that. And of course, food shortages historically are almost always associated with agriculture -- it's not surprising that intensively cultivating land to force it to sustain a much larger population would also be much more precarious. How could you possibly have a shortage if there's 10 or 100 times as many calories available in the area as are needed? It's in agriculture, where you only grow about what you need, because you allow the population to reach the maximum that can be supported, and force a large portion of them to work hard all their days to support as big an army as possible to conquer more land and repeat the cycle.... yeah, you become very vulnerable to small problems. It seems like a lot of the problems of modernity are scaling problems -- problems you only run into when you insist on a much higher population density. We have been busily solving them for millenia, and by today, yeah, I'd pick today over 10,000 years ago. But don't kid yourself. There were plenty of generations in the 1300s who would have loved to trade places with hunter gatherers in a rich habitat with a low population density. This is the subtlety you are missing.

hef19898 3y ago

No food shortages, like never? Health care, including dentists, that render almost all health problems that killed our crippled our ancetors harmless? Vaccines and anti-biotics? A warm roof over our heads, all year long? I don't know, I personally like all of those things. Especially since I wouldn't be around anymore without them, neither would be my wife or my son. There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival." Just like the idea of the noble savage is wrong and hard to get rid of, so is this idea. It was never a constant struggle for survival. Depending where the tribe lived, there were indeed times of hardship, like winter or draught. Or war. And hunting some animals is and was dangerous - but so is driving with a car and wars we also still got. Oh and times of hardship are still a thing: "828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021". But most of the time, it was lots of free time in a pleaseant environment without toxins and plastic garbage and fresh air among your trusted friends. It might have been cold at night, but the more you enjoyed the sun at day. And nothing tastes as good as self hunted meat, when you are hungry. This is the reason, why this archaic livestyle is romanticised - and our genes were optimized for it - not for the air conditioned office living.
galdosdi 3y ago
I'm not saying that if you have a time machine and have to choose whether to hop in or not, that it would be better. But it's really worth stopping and realizing how many of the problems solved by modernity, were also caused by modernity! For example, for some weird reason you are obsessed with dentists. Read this then: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oral-mystery-are-agriculture-and-rates-responsible-for-tooth-decay/#:~:text=But%20the%20study%20of%20human,changed%20to%20an%20agricultural%20lifestyle https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oral-mystery-are-.... Cavities were probably rare before agriculture. Same goes for antibiotics -- infections were a lot rarer before agriculture concentrated much larger population densities AND put them next to birds to catch respiratory illnesses from. Population density was basically a health hazard from 10,000 years ago to really, really recently, when modern plumbing finally solved it once and for all. Finally, humanity arose in an area where cold was not a major issue. There are still plenty of areas like that. And of course, food shortages historically are almost always associated with agriculture -- it's not surprising that intensively cultivating land to force it to sustain a much larger population would also be much more precarious. How could you possibly have a shortage if there's 10 or 100 times as many calories available in the area as are needed? It's in agriculture, where you only grow about what you need, because you allow the population to reach the maximum that can be supported, and force a large portion of them to work hard all their days to support as big an army as possible to conquer more land and repeat the cycle.... yeah, you become very vulnerable to small problems. It seems like a lot of the problems of modernity are scaling problems -- problems you only run into when you insist on a much higher population density. We have been busily solving them for millenia, and by today, yeah, I'd pick today over 10,000 years ago. But don't kid yourself. There were plenty of generations in the 1300s who would have loved to trade places with hunter gatherers in a rich habitat with a low population density. This is the subtlety you are missing.