Is modern civilization a mistake?

[igor_frankensteen]

This is a nonsense question.

“Modern civilization” wasn’t a CHOICE, so it could not be described as " a mistake" no matter the result. It was and is, an evolutionary event.

By the way, people who indulge in this kind of thinking always remind me of a relatively recent idea about what the Biblical garden of Eden story was actually expressing. That is, that it was the written/verbal history creation of the very ANCIENT anti-civilization types, who yearned for the “freedom and simplicity” of the lawless hunter-gatherer days (having forgotten all about how much of a pain in the ass it was to HAVE to go out and hunt and gather, regardless of conditions or pains).

[marshmallow]

The bit about serfs reminded me of this Serf vs. Wagecuck meme, which I think is supposed to be a joke, but it’s the internet so who knows.

[Machinaforce]

But what about in regards to self esteem? I mean doesn’t modern society place all these pressures on us to measure up to, and we feel like failures for not living up to them? To feel like we have to do something great for our lives to be worth it?

What about those who refer to the work that doesn’t directly contribute to survival as non productive work.

[DSeid]

@Machinaforce

But what about in regards to self esteem? I mean doesn’t modern society place all these pressures on us to measure up to, and we feel like failures for not living up to them? To feel like we have to do something great for our lives to be worth it?

What about those who refer to the work that doesn’t directly contribute to survival as non productive work.

You know that civilization has accomplished something when self esteem is something to worry about.

As to happiness and all that … my suspicion, strongly held, is that once our basic needs are met (food, shelter, health, and I’d put up there companionship/social connectivity) our happiness is mostly intrinsic to who we are. More stuff or stuff lost, an accolade or a public humiliation even, will push us each off our baselines transiently but we gravitate back to our temperamental baselines fairly quickly. The exception being the impact of the chronic stress of poverty when those basic needs are met but not assured of being met tomorrow.

Now I did say “mostly” … there is some good data on international differences. I consider Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland pretty damn modern and civilized countries, and they consistently lead the happiness index
I cannot add much to the compare and contrast with life as serfs, but globally over the last 200 years the improvements for humanity due to what civilization has accomplished is impressive indeed.

… In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died. …

… From 1981 onwards, we have better empirical data on global extreme poverty. The Bourguignon and Morrison estimates for the past are based on national accounts and additional information on the level of inequality within countries. The data from 1981 onwards come from the World Bank, which bases their estimates on household surveys. (See below for more on where historical poverty estimates come from).

According to these household surveys, 44% of the world population lived in absolute poverty in 1981. Since then, the share of poor people in the world has declined very fast—in fact, faster than ever before in world history. In 32 years, the share of people living in extreme poverty was divided by 4, reaching levels below 11% in 2013. …

[Trinopus]

Not being able to see very well, and living in an era before corrective lenses, would REALLY drag down my self-esteem.

So would dying at age 5 of pneumonia.

[Machinaforce]

@Trinopus

Not being able to see very well, and living in an era before corrective lenses, would REALLY drag down my self-esteem.

So would dying at age 5 of pneumonia.

Fair point. I wear glasses and if I didn’t have them life would be very difficult for me.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Machinaforce

But what about in regards to self esteem? I mean doesn’t modern society place all these pressures on us to measure up to, and we feel like failures for not living up to them? To feel like we have to do something great for our lives to be worth it?

What about those who refer to the work that doesn’t directly contribute to survival as non productive work.

What makes me you think that there were no social pressures in societies gone by?

If somebody is making you feel like you have to do something great with your life for it to be worth it, I would suggest to:

1 - ignore them; or,
2 - tell them to go fuck a cactus.

If somebody refers to your work by saying that it doesn’t directly contribute to survival and it is therefore non-productive; thereby implying it is not worthwhile my suggestion is to:

1 - Ignore them; or,
2 - Tell them to go fuck a cactus.

You’ll probably start to notice a pattern here. Pressures on you from the outside are, in fact, pressures from within. They’re a fabrication that you allow to be created by your own mind. Ignore such things and you’ll be a lot happier. Real happiness comes from within and enjoying all the little things.

[Machinaforce]

What about the consumption rate of what we use? I mean thinking about it is dizzying. THe supplies for homes, the furniture for homes, the appliances, the wiring, the chemicals you need to clean the home, the amount of food. It’s like it’s nothing but consumption and I find it hard to argue against it. Even the claims about how thinking that technology is progress is just some kind of religious brainwashing we have been fed.

The make it seem like the modern world was mistake. Because we must go into stressful jobs to make money (a choice outside of our will), since we need it to get anything done. Some would liken it to slavery, and that money is the chain. We can’t be self sufficient so we have to work for others. That this goes against thousands of years of evolution and the subsistence lifestyle we were meant for.

Or how most of the problems are between humans and the laws we have in place? How we blow and lock each other up like nothing?

They just make the society we live in seem crazy and that the ones who point it out to us are loony.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Machinaforce

What about the consumption rate of what we use? I mean thinking about it is dizzying. THe supplies for homes, the furniture for homes, the appliances, the wiring, the chemicals you need to clean the home, the amount of food. It’s like it’s nothing but consumption and I find it hard to argue against it. Even the claims about how thinking that technology is progress is just some kind of religious brainwashing we have been fed.

I have no idea what this means.

The make it seem like the modern world was mistake. Because we must go into stressful jobs to make money (a choice outside of our will), since we need it to get anything done. Some would liken it to slavery,

They can liken it all they like, my reply is “Meh, I enjoy my work and I get paid for it so that’s nice.” And if this “they” were to really push me on it, I’d refer them to option 2 in my previous post.

and that money is the chain. We can’t be self sufficient so we have to work for others.

But if we weren’t living in a modern society what makes you think you wouldn’t have to work your butt off to survive? The “chain” if there were one is doing the work needed to stay alive. And I suspect you’re going to try, unsuccessfully, to backdoor this into “We’re slaves to having to work to live so we’d be better off if we didn’t exist.” but that won’t work because as above. I enjoy living and I enjoy the work I do to keep on living. YMMV.

That this goes against thousands of years of evolution and the subsistence lifestyle we were meant for.

Do you have any proof for that statement? Because the term “evolution” and “meant for” don’t really line up that well.

[msmith537]

@Machinaforce

Technology solving problems. Vacuum cleaners are supposed to be time and labor saving devices. But are they? Before vacuum cleaners, people cleaned rugs by taking them outside and beating them with a stick. This takes less time than vacuuming. "

I just found it time consuming to constantly rip up my wall to wall carpeting and reinstall it every week.

Then again, I’ll probably be sitting back and laughing when iRobot accidently ships a bunch of Roombas in “Kill all humans” mode.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Machinaforce]
What about the consumption rate of what we use? I mean thinking about it is dizzying. THe supplies for homes, the furniture for homes, the appliances, the wiring, the chemicals you need to clean the home, the amount of food. It’s like it’s nothing but consumption and I find it hard to argue against it. Even the claims about how thinking that technology is progress is just some kind of religious brainwashing we have been fed.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s not like you have a new idea here. The roots of what you are groping for go back centuries…hell, people have probably been fretting about the stuff you are wringing your hands over for thousands of years, the only things that change being what resource(s) they are worried about and what technological change frightens them most. You have the Luddites, the folks predicting we’d run out of food, coal, oil, copper and just about everything else, that our technological society was unsustainable and would collapse any day…any day…tap tap tap…any day…hey, is this thing on??..any day now…

This isn’t to say there aren’t problems and issues. Certainly, global climate change is one of the biggest ones. But the growth of technology and knowledge is so huge BECAUSE of the technological society and civilization we have, and your rose-colored view of the past is just fantasy. People weren’t happier and certainly not healthier in the past…quite the opposite. And while global climate change is certainly challenging, there have been several times when our ancient ancestors were right on the cusp of extinction.

[BeepKillBeep]

@msmith537

I just found it time consuming to constantly rip up my wall to wall carpeting and reinstall it every week.

Then again, I’ll probably be sitting back and laughing when iRobot accidently ships a bunch of Roombas in “Kill all humans” mode.

I have a Roomba. The first time I used it kept bumping into me. So, I actually call it my “Killer Robot Vacuum Cleaner”.

[QuickSilver]

@Machinaforce

What about the consumption rate of what we use? I mean thinking about it is dizzying. THe supplies for homes, the furniture for homes, the appliances, the wiring, the chemicals you need to clean the home, the amount of food. It’s like it’s nothing but consumption and I find it hard to argue against it. Even the claims about how thinking that technology is progress is just some kind of religious brainwashing we have been fed.

Living things consume. We are a product of the environment, like everything else.

@Machinaforce

The make it seem like the modern world was mistake. Because we must go into stressful jobs to make money (a choice outside of our will), since we need it to get anything done. Some would liken it to slavery, and that money is the chain. We can’t be self sufficient so we have to work for others. That this goes against thousands of years of evolution and the subsistence lifestyle we were meant for.

You do not understand human history, familial and tribal dynamics, agrarian societies, industrial societies, technological societies. There has always been sharing, trade, collaboration and exchange of resources/goods/services/information. This is true of humans and animals.

@Machinaforce

Or how most of the problems are between humans and the laws we have in place? How we blow and lock each other up like nothing?

Civilized societies are complicated. But they have more benefits than detriments.

@Machinaforce

They just make the society we live in seem crazy and that the ones who point it out to us are loony.

People for whom society doesn’t work can choose to unplug their computer and go live in the woods, off the grid. Are they loony? Not necessarily. What is loony is to insist that society doesn’t work for anybody when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[LicketySplit]

@Machinaforce

Environmental issues and the additional pressures and strains that modern life brings, not to mention our great dependence on technology. We seem to idle our time with non productive work (Like anything that doesn’t contribute directly to survival). We seem to think that more tech will just solve our issues but will it? Was it mistake to advance this far?

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/

The link makes some mention of it. Here is one of the comments on the matter:

"You should do some more research. I think you’ll find that most of the beliefs about history you express in this comment are actually myths created to defend industrial civilization from valid critiques.

For example, medieval peasants had more freedom and autonomy in their day-to-day life than modern office workers. They set their own hours and since their diet was almost entirely vegetarian they were mostly pretty healthy, saving for absolutely atrocious oral hygiene. By contrast, the early industrial revolution was probably the worst time to be a human being. Read some descriptions of factory towns circa the turn of the 20th century. The Jungle is a fine example. 16 hour workdays, 6 day weeks, no benefits and no provisions for worker safety. Few provisions for sanitation. Until the labor movement, the industrial revolution made life for the majority of human beings subject to it much worse.

So called “primitive” hunter-gatherer/gardener societies with very limited contact with modern civilization (sometimes intentional, as in the case of some sea nomads) are almost always the happiest groups of people despite a state of existence that doesn’t even qualify as “poverty.” Living in the moment as part of a community of human beings, hunting when you’re hungry and doing what you want otherwise is apparently much more fulfilling to the human organism than existing as an alienated individual relating to life mostly through bureaucratic machinery.

As far as education and social mobility go, try comparing Tocqueville’s account of American life in the 19th century to conditions in the 20th century. Before the modern state bureaucracy, much of it a legacy of the New Deal, Americans had more social mobility and education, despite not being compulsory and not lasting 12 years, was more successful. The vocabularies of 14 year olds in the 19th century were better than many of today’s college grads. Many high school grads can’t even read.

Technology solving problems. Vacuum cleaners are supposed to be time and labor saving devices. But are they? Before vacuum cleaners, people cleaned rugs by taking them outside and beating them with a stick. This takes less time than vacuuming. And since vacuum cleaners are usually very poorly constructed, they actually recirculate more dust and dirt than they pick up. So this time and labor saving device costs us more time and labor than its predecessor AND lowers the quality of the air in the home. So why do people use them at all? At first, effective marketing. And that had the effect of making vacuum cleaning the default means of cleaning carpets for the next generation.

You’re part of that next generation in a more general sense. Your life is so interwoven with technology that you can’t see clearly how the technology uses you as much as you use it. This is exactly why Kaczynski’s critiques of technology are important. You can’t see the whale when you’re in its belly. I don’t think Kaczynski’s revolution is possible; you can’t go back again. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be honest with ourselves about what we’ve lost."

On what sort of information, or collection of facts or historical data do you base your assumption that our Hunter gatherer ancestors, of, say, 20,000 or more years ago were happier than we are today?
I’d be very interested in hearing your sources for that. I studied Evolutionary Psychology…and never heard that hypothesis.

Rather, I think you’re indulging in an acute exercise in The Grass is always Greener…or the Golden Age mythos.

LOL

People who usually do those things are also usually very unaware of the particular and specific aspects of the time era that they idolize. Just to warn you, mate.

From everything modern anthropologists know about homo erectus, homo habilus, Neanderthalis, and homo sapiens…we are technically homo sapiens sapien…life back then was especially nasty, Brutish, physically intense, and quite short. There were no golden years, there was no recreation, and hunger and illness or injury was the norm.

Hope this helps.

Don’t forget to answer my initial question, if you can.

Thanks!

[DSeid]

@Machinaforce

… the subsistence lifestyle we were meant for. …

Meant for?

If you are positing that some greater power “meant for” us to stay in a Gan Eden of … hunter-gatherer, subsistence farming, whatever … and that we are perverting that higher powers plans … well you are in the right forum for witnessing I guess.

Absent that then we were not “meant for” any specific lifestyle. We evolved the ability to create and use tools and the ability to teach each other with high fidelity both how to do that and other things. We consequently established groups with divisions of labor and specializations which put us on the path to civilization, to some degree finctioning much more successfully as a meta-organism than ever before. We can use the fruit of that creation to look out for each other or to exploit each other and historically we have done both. That’s human nature for you and as much how we are “meant to” be as anything else about us.

[Machinaforce]

@XT

Well, it’s not like you have a new idea here. The roots of what you are groping for go back centuries…hell, people have probably been fretting about the stuff you are wringing your hands over for thousands of years, the only things that change being what resource(s) they are worried about and what technological change frightens them most. You have the Luddites, the folks predicting we’d run out of food, coal, oil, copper and just about everything else, that our technological society was unsustainable and would collapse any day…any day…tap tap tap…any day…hey, is this thing on??..any day now…

This isn’t to say there aren’t problems and issues. Certainly, global climate change is one of the biggest ones. But the growth of technology and knowledge is so huge BECAUSE of the technological society and civilization we have, and your rose-colored view of the past is just fantasy. People weren’t happier and certainly not healthier in the past…quite the opposite. And while global climate change is certainly challenging, there have been several times when our ancient ancestors were right on the cusp of extinction.

I guess so, I’m not well versed in Anthropology so I take people’s word for what they say. But maybe the whole “collapse” bit is coming and the rate we are going it might occur.

[LicketySplit]

…silence?

As I expected.

I’ll take that as a “No I just pulled that observation on the overall mindset of ancient peoples out of my ass.”

LOL

[kanicbird]

God did not seem too cool on what we would do under those circumstances either in Genesis 11 (Tower of Babble)

[XT]

@kanicbird

God did not seem too cool on what we would do under those circumstances either in Genesis 11 (Tower of Babble)

Yeah, but this is the same god who burned down two cities because people like to fuck (or because they broke guest rights…or something) and destroyed the fictitious world in a huge flood, so he’s obviously got some control issues. Conversely, he seems to have mellowed, since we build towers much higher today AND we have iPhones that can translate our language into other folks fairly easily…plus people still like to fuck and he hasn’t seen fit to destroy cities for that for a while now. Plus, have you seen how folks regard guest rights today?? Dreadful! :eek:

[XT]

@Machinaforce

I guess so, I’m not well versed in Anthropology so I take people’s word for what they say. But maybe the whole “collapse” bit is coming and the rate we are going it might occur.

Eventually, someone is bound to be right and civilization will collapse…I mean, sometime in the next few billion years at most it’s a near certainty after all.