4 ms·

It's about the bigger picture since "progress" brings also negative stuff like living in cramped boxes instead of in nature. Are in general western people happ

It's about the bigger picture since "progress" brings also negative stuff like living in cramped boxes instead of in nature. Are in general western people happier than inedegenious people without access to said medicine ? Not sure , but it doesn't seem so.

facepalm 12y ago
If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. As for cramped boxes: is the population explosion due to progress? Maybe better health care and food? On the other hand, also better contraceptives, and the biggest population growth seems to happen in places with less progress. And with modern transport, at least you can get to nature at times. Also, people flock to the cities because they have no good opportunities in the countryside (look at China). If they wouldn't go to the cities, perhaps they would just starve, or start wars with their neighbors. Living in nature undisturbed Thoreau style is actually a great luxury.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. Two things. 1. You say "short and happy" life, but you can argue for "long and happy" - people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do. 2. It might not be survivor bias, there are lots of records and arguments suggesting that living hunter-gatherer lifestyle is much, much happier than what we have today. There's a nice article elaborating on that in case of Comanches [0]. An excerpt: So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant: All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives. Note the second paragraph. [0] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html
  - facepalm 12y ago
    "people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do." Not at all true. According to "The World Until Yesterday" life expectancy in traditional societies is more like 40 years. I know there is always the issue with child mortality distorting the numbers, but still. As to 2), while some aspects of living in traditional societies sound great, in "The World Until Yesterday" Jared mentions that most people chose to live in civilization once given the choice. The main advantage apparently being to not live in permanent fear of being murdered. There were countless different ways to live in traditional societies, though. Maybe some where better than others. Still, I am more inclined to believe Jared Diamond than your source. Another thought on the Comanche example: how civilized was the world of North America at the time? People were coming to the Americas to escape extreme poverty and starvation. And there still seemed to be wars raging on. Maybe not at all comparable to our modern comfy civilization? I don't remember all aspects, but I think hunter gatherer actually have to work less than farmers. There are certainly advantages to that lifestyle. But then they don't have much surplus to invest into medical research, and they can't support a high number of people - surplus people have to die, either by being murdered as children, being sent away into the wild, or in wars.
- anonymous2013 12y ago
  My favorite insight on Thoreau's undisturbed nature living is that he had his mother do his laundry. I am not trying to be mean or cynical about his philosophy---just saying that one has to be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs. Personally, I think that an intelligent person should look at both the conventional modern lifestyle and the happy nature lifestyle, and try to understand and extract the best features of both. You know, thesis and anti-thesis leading to synthesis.

facepalm 12y ago

If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. As for cramped boxes: is the population explosion due to progress? Maybe better health care and food? On the other hand, also better contraceptives, and the biggest population growth seems to happen in places with less progress. And with modern transport, at least you can get to nature at times. Also, people flock to the cities because they have no good opportunities in the countryside (look at China). If they wouldn't go to the cities, perhaps they would just starve, or start wars with their neighbors. Living in nature undisturbed Thoreau style is actually a great luxury.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> If you look at the happy faces of indigenous people, you experience survivor bias: you only see the smiles of the people who survived. Perhaps you could argue that it's better to live short and happy than long and miserable, but I think a lot more research would be necessary. Two things. 1. You say "short and happy" life, but you can argue for "long and happy" - people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do. 2. It might not be survivor bias, there are lots of records and arguments suggesting that living hunter-gatherer lifestyle is much, much happier than what we have today. There's a nice article elaborating on that in case of Comanches [0]. An excerpt: So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant: All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives. Note the second paragraph. [0] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html
- facepalm 12y ago
  "people before civilization didn't live much shorter lives than we do." Not at all true. According to "The World Until Yesterday" life expectancy in traditional societies is more like 40 years. I know there is always the issue with child mortality distorting the numbers, but still. As to 2), while some aspects of living in traditional societies sound great, in "The World Until Yesterday" Jared mentions that most people chose to live in civilization once given the choice. The main advantage apparently being to not live in permanent fear of being murdered. There were countless different ways to live in traditional societies, though. Maybe some where better than others. Still, I am more inclined to believe Jared Diamond than your source. Another thought on the Comanche example: how civilized was the world of North America at the time? People were coming to the Americas to escape extreme poverty and starvation. And there still seemed to be wars raging on. Maybe not at all comparable to our modern comfy civilization? I don't remember all aspects, but I think hunter gatherer actually have to work less than farmers. There are certainly advantages to that lifestyle. But then they don't have much surplus to invest into medical research, and they can't support a high number of people - surplus people have to die, either by being murdered as children, being sent away into the wild, or in wars.
anonymous2013 12y ago
My favorite insight on Thoreau's undisturbed nature living is that he had his mother do his laundry. I am not trying to be mean or cynical about his philosophy---just saying that one has to be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs. Personally, I think that an intelligent person should look at both the conventional modern lifestyle and the happy nature lifestyle, and try to understand and extract the best features of both. You know, thesis and anti-thesis leading to synthesis.