3 ms·

Yeah, it’s pretty common. You can recognize supporters by: - A call to return to a primarily agrarian culture. - A claim that prehistoric humans were somehow

by dexwiz 2y ago

Yeah, it’s pretty common. You can recognize supporters by: - A call to return to a primarily agrarian culture. - A claim that prehistoric humans were somehow in more harmony with nature and their community. - Focus on small, tribe like communities. - Avoidance or downplay of any modern advantages like medicine or logistics.

lmpdev 2y ago
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater though While some may - as this thread make out - fall for that archetypal trope; some of those elements are indeed worth studying For example, scientists don’t place a huge effort on documenting the peoples of Papua New Guinea for some weird Exoticism. They genuinely provide unbridled access to effectively untouched (from western influence) and highly diverse groups. This access in turn is breeding ground for anthropologic, historic and psychological theory development and empirical studies Don’t fall into the trap of immediately disregarding genuine areas of research due to previous experience with these “noble savage” admirers To go further with this example: western doctors and researchers immediately began to force PNG groups to stop their burial rites after finally discovering Kuru (deadly prion disease) was being caused by some of their rites (consumption of brain tissue after death) You can both be an advocate for smaller cultures in undeveloped areas without fetishising it and still support modern medicine, science and logistics
- dexwiz 2y ago
  I'm not saying don't study nonindustrial groups of people. I agree there is real value in that. But the noble savage is definitely a romanticization of these cultures by industrialized societies.
noworriesnate 2y ago
We tried raising a generation of babies without breastmilk and discovered that doing so causes weak digestive tracts. We have a huge problem with obesity, largely due to highly processed foods that are optimized for profits. We have a mental health crisis that is likely linked to social media etc. The reality is that nobody wants to completely go back to the past. Nobody is protesting the use of soap or brushing their teeth. The real question is in which areas do we reject modern technology? We should evaluate modern technology not as fanboys but as mature humans. People think that the Amish are hypocrites because they use diesel generators instead of bringing electricity into their homes. But their relationship with technology is mature: they decide as a community which tech to use and which to avoid, instead of being fanboys who think the only thing better than tech is more of it. I personally don't make the same tradeoffs the Amish do. But I do make tradeoffs. Saying that modern tech is universally good is just as chronologically snobbish as saying that the olden days were universally good.
- dexwiz 2y ago
  I am not claiming industrialization is universally good. Just that it is not universally bad. And progress isn't a straight line. You can reject parts without rejecting the whole.

by dexwiz 2y ago

lmpdev 2y ago

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater though While some may - as this thread make out - fall for that archetypal trope; some of those elements are indeed worth studying For example, scientists don’t place a huge effort on documenting the peoples of Papua New Guinea for some weird Exoticism. They genuinely provide unbridled access to effectively untouched (from western influence) and highly diverse groups. This access in turn is breeding ground for anthropologic, historic and psychological theory development and empirical studies Don’t fall into the trap of immediately disregarding genuine areas of research due to previous experience with these “noble savage” admirers To go further with this example: western doctors and researchers immediately began to force PNG groups to stop their burial rites after finally discovering Kuru (deadly prion disease) was being caused by some of their rites (consumption of brain tissue after death) You can both be an advocate for smaller cultures in undeveloped areas without fetishising it and still support modern medicine, science and logistics

dexwiz 2y ago
I'm not saying don't study nonindustrial groups of people. I agree there is real value in that. But the noble savage is definitely a romanticization of these cultures by industrialized societies.

noworriesnate 2y ago

We tried raising a generation of babies without breastmilk and discovered that doing so causes weak digestive tracts. We have a huge problem with obesity, largely due to highly processed foods that are optimized for profits. We have a mental health crisis that is likely linked to social media etc. The reality is that nobody wants to completely go back to the past. Nobody is protesting the use of soap or brushing their teeth. The real question is in which areas do we reject modern technology? We should evaluate modern technology not as fanboys but as mature humans. People think that the Amish are hypocrites because they use diesel generators instead of bringing electricity into their homes. But their relationship with technology is mature: they decide as a community which tech to use and which to avoid, instead of being fanboys who think the only thing better than tech is more of it. I personally don't make the same tradeoffs the Amish do. But I do make tradeoffs. Saying that modern tech is universally good is just as chronologically snobbish as saying that the olden days were universally good.

dexwiz 2y ago
I am not claiming industrialization is universally good. Just that it is not universally bad. And progress isn't a straight line. You can reject parts without rejecting the whole.