Isolated groups (religious, indigenous, etc.,) should be de-isolated.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Isolated groups (religious, indigenous, etc.,) should be de-isolated.

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

Marijuana Nihilist posted:

An idiotic idea. Leave the tribes alone, the last thing we need on this planet is more cultural homogenization. Not everyone on earth needs to live in the exact same way.

Our systems of education are a joke, meant to babysit and burn time rather than empower youth. The schools churn out disposable drones for the workforce, it is not for the benefit of children that they are sent to such prisons. The real purpose of schools in this society is to teach children to respect authority and that violence is the monopoly of the state.

A thousand times this. There's an assumption in the OP that bears examination, and it's the assumption that civilized life is objectively better than indigenous/noncivilized life. Not only is that not necessarily the case, but I can actually think of two instances where civilization is the clear loser when measured up against noncivilized lifestyles (which I'd define as any lifestyle that includes hunting/gathering as the primary mode of subsistence):

1. Sustainability. In a little over a century, industrialized society has radically altered Earth's climate, acidified the oceans, left us with only 60 years of viable topsoil remaining, and caused an extinction event on the order of magnitude of asteroid collision. Indigenous lifestyles, on the other hand, have been ecologically stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

2. Mental Health. I know this one sounds ridiculous, but humor me. Anthropologists have shown time and again that mental illness is nearly unheard of in uncivilized peoples. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that their lifestyle results in more contentedness, life satisfaction, and just a better perspective on life in general. If you don't believe me that mental illness is incredibly rare among the noncivilized, I'll gladly provide citations. Contrast that with roughly 1 in 5 Americans suffering from some form of mental illness every year.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 13:08

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

Liberal_L33t posted:

I know this is from many pages back but I just feel like reiterating that both of these are unmitigated bullshit, including the second point.

Did you even bother reading your own link? Because it doesn't refute either of the points I made (hell, this section explicitly discusses a decline in overall health and a rise in social divisions as a result of the Agricultural Revolution. But yeah, neither declining health nor a rise in social divisions could possibly influence mental health, so what do I know?).

Not sure how you are planning to argue against my point about sustainability, considering that anyone could confirm it by reading a single shred of scientific research on what is happening to the environment, or by just, I don't know, walking outside and looking around. If you don't understand that our current lifestyle is wildly unsustainable, then I don't know what to tell you.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 15:32

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

WhitemageofDOOM posted:

There are Seven Billion humans in the world.
That number is not remotely sustainable as hunter gatherers, in fact a million humans isn't sustainable as hunter gatherers.

So, no. Modern society is vastly more sustainable, it has to be, it has to support more people.

I don't think you know what sustainable means.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 14:35

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

blowfish posted:

the point, however, stands:

a hundred thousand hunter gatherers may be more sustainable than seven billion people participating to a greater or lesser extent in a global economy with intensive agriculture and industry, but seven billion people in a global economy with intensive agriculture and industry are less unsustainable than seven billion hunter gatherers

That's true, but it is meaningless. We are not discussing a world of seven billion hunter-gatherers, because it is an absurd hypothetical. Let me clarify my point:

A hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which some cultures on Earth still practice today, is sustainable. Part of the reason this is the case is that hunting and gathering can only support maybe a million or so people worldwide (during the many millennia that the lifestyle was dominant), which keeps the human population at a reasonable, non-destructive level. Modern industrial society, on the other hand is unsustainable. Full stop. It remains to be seen whether or not it can possibly be made sustainable (my strong suspicion is that it can't, given the way it has historically progressed). The reasons it is unsustainable are many, including resource depletion, habitat destruction, widespread extinction, climate change, and exponential population growth. The very population levels you are pointing to is part of the reason why it is unsustainable. Seven billion humans is only possible given the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions.

Do you agree?

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 17:20

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

OwlFancier posted:

It's weird to suggest that hunter-gathering is inherently sustainable because if we all went out with M16s and weed whackers and hunted/gathered the poo poo out of everything around us, it would be pretty hosed pretty quick.

The point about pre-agrarian civilisation is not that it was hunter-gatherer, but that it was bad at hunting and gathering.

Any mode of living can be progressed to the point where our ability to extract from our environment outstrips the environment's ability to replenish itself. This is true of all creatures, actually, any form of life will happily eat itself into extinction if it's able to. Human intelligence means we will always have to consciously limit ourselves if we want to not out compete everything else on the planet into extinction.

Dude, you're not getting it. Hunter-gatherers don't use M16s or weed whackers, even the majority of the ones who exist today (there may be some isolated hunter-gatherers in the far North who use modern technology to get by, but that doesn't take away from my overall point). Complex, technological society (and all its accoutrements, like M16s and weed whackers) is only possible through agriculture. If everyone went out and tried to hunt and gather right now, the M16 factories and weed whacker plants would shut down in short order. What you are suggesting is absurd. Let me be clear:

What I AM NOT suggesting is that we should all go be hunter-gatherers right now. That is completely loving bonkers and if you'll read my posts, you'll see that I've never suggested such a thing. All I am doing is comparing sustainable human lifestyles to unsustainable ones. Trying to all be hunter-gatherers now after centuries of technological development would be an instant, catastrophic failure. The OP was about forcibly contacting and potentially "modernizing" uncontacted peoples (or at least giving them the choice). I am saying that is wrong because many of those uncontacted peoples are the last vestiges of a truly sustainable human lifestyle.

Also, sidenote: "Pre-agrarian civilization" is by and large not a thing that exists. I can only think of one example, and it only arose due to very specific environmental reasons and remained quite small.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 17:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Isolated groups (religious, indigenous, etc.,) should be de-isolated.