Maternal and infant mortality rates are reason enough for me to tearfully bid aloha to the much beloved days of primitive man.
Yes, I have shit in the woods, and slept in a tent. I prefer the suburbs.
No, the cultures of non-industrialized nations are not without great human warmth, and art, and ritual depth. That’s not the problem. For that, I have Discovery Channel. It’s the whale blubber that kills it for me. And the bugs. And the mud. Chiggers. Let’s not even discuss the snakes. Ugh.
Tris
“Swat my hind with a melon rind, That’s my penguin state of mind.” ~ Opus ~
have you ever been camping? Yeah its fun for a little while. But how about trying it without Gor-tex clothing, a Coleman stove, Mag-Lite flashlights or even a Bic lighter? All that “beauty” in nature aint so great when it tries to eat you.
The Evenk are not “unspoiled” hunter-gatherers; they live in the Russian Federation, are vaccinated against childhood diseases, and many of them live in towns and villages with Russians and other indigenous peoples. The fact that their existence looks attractive in comparison to civilisation is because civilisation has made their life much less “nasty, brutish, and short”.
I imagin if they had computers they would come beat you up for calling them uncivilized! they have a civilization just fine. it is not as advanced as yours technilogically. but that does not mean they don’t have as much social structure as you do.
since they have been refineing their culture for hundreds of years without much change, they have it down pretty well. a house is technology… fire is technology. just as much as a satilite is. they just have had the time to adjust to the lifestyle they live in. my ansestors did not use computers or satilites. so its my generation basicly that is the one figureing out how to deal with all this new crud they are throwing at us. eventually it will all be figured out… and we will be as happy as the tribe fokes. they had 10,000 years to figure out how to deal with their social dynamics… we are makeing stuff up every week. give me 10,000 years and I will be happy and the star trek teleporting energy humans will be haveing all the strife
I tend to believe that the tribal life would be a better life. In my anthropology class last semester, we were told of a nomadic herd in Africa (the Kung people of the Kalahari desert, studied by Richard Lee) who refused to fall into civilization even after many missionaries tried to change their way of life. Their diet consisted maily of mongongonuts - though they surely caught some animals and rounded up other plant food.
When asked why they didn’t want to raise cattle and plant food (even though they were given everything they’d need) their response was basically “Why would we? All we need is mongongonuts.”
I know this has buddhist undertones, but seriously, the problem with our society is that we want too much. These people were happy cause they wanted little. I mean, when I was a kid, getting a toy or candy was a HUGE deal. Now I see my little cousins and other young kids crying cause they only got one toy THIS VISIT to the store. Contentment is wanting little, which is why Americans are not content.
erislover, I would suggest that any culture unable to defend itself against existing and predictable threats is inherently worse off, since it implies a fragility that I expect would be apparent to an aware member of that culture. Of course, that’s a relative thing: if the Vogons showed up tomorrow, we’d be the ones who are fucked. But as far as existing cultures go, I think it’s pretty certain that they’d lose a clash.
Your insertion of the quality of life (“die on your feet…”) is immaterial to my point. I’m not suggesting they’d be better off enslaved by us. I’m talking about cultural survival here, not individual: we’ll assimilate them, they can’t assimilate us. That’s cultural death, and their culture has no defense against it, which is an essential weakness. The continued existence of their way of life is dependent upon being ignored by us.
Perhaps my point isn’t really on-topic, then, since mangetout was asking about objective criteria (is that redundant or oxymoronic, Ludwig?) for quality of life. My point really only matters insofar as their quality of life would radically degrade in a culture war as their culture disappeared, which isn’t an “other things being equal” sort of thesis.
Again, I make no quibble about weakness; I make claims about “better”. I would prefer to live in a society which wasn’t crippled by the need for defense.
And my point wasn’t about enslavement, but rather a counter-example to “survival=good”.
I agree that any culture unable to secure itself would quickly go by the wayside given any other aggresive culture. I just don’t want to say it is better. You are right, though… I also fall short of providing objective examples. I would also say (and agree with you!) that objective examples of “betterness” are tough to come by without some subjective assumptions.
Ok, what about ancient Greece? I’m kinda rusty on this, but I THINK I have a point (I’ve been known to miss points though). However, I seem to recall that the Spartans were the warlike people who no one could beat. They lived most uncomfortably and began fighting at a very early age. Their food was aweful, their living environment was aweful, and all they did was train for battle.
Now, I think as objective as you can be, they didn’t have a good life. They had brute strength and beat everyone else. Therefore, they were physically and militarily stronger (is militarily a word?), yet they were culturally deficiant.
It’s an interesting point: to what degree do specific considerations like survival from external threats affect quality of life?
Defense in this case isn’t a matter of active policy. Rather, it’s about the inherent weakness of a nomadic culture: low population and an extreme dependency on the environment and non-interference.
You have to consider, as a practical matter, that the Evenk lifestyle is under a non-trivial threat of disappearing, which must affect quality of life. For that reason, I’ll say that civilisation is relatively better, because it provides a certain confidance in the longevity and stability of one’s conditions that the Evenk don’t have. Since Siberia is not facing imminent urbanization, it’s a very small advantage to your average reindeer on the street. But imagine what it was like for native Americans when white people showed up, and someone figured out that they were going to colonize the whole continent at this rate.
I don’t believe there are any objective criteria when each culture is considered in isolation. But isolation is not each culture’s natural condition, and so any semi-aware Evenk must today understand something of the threat posed by the rest of the world. I can’t help thinking that that would affect my enjoyment of their lifestyle.
hansel, taking over a culture in this instance seems more or less harmless, and Godwin help me, but of course a conquering racist platform wouldn’t be said by most of the world to imply “better”. So the ability to defend is good, but who is to say that these small bands can’t defend themselves against a comparible threat? American life isn’t better because we can crush our opponents, right?
Survival is the context in which values make sense, but survival is only that: a backdrop, an assumption (to me; I figure that qualifier is necessary here). If you can’t survive then you can’t be better: you’re dead!
I would like to live in a society that had the qualities I liked, and the assumption that it can survive is a given; most people aren’t suicidal, culturally or literally. Given the assimilation of this culture by another, I don’t know what I’d do. If I had a liesurely, though possibly somewhat stoic, life, and faced a 40+ hour workweek and a cluster of people I didn’t, and couldn’t, get to know… well, I might not be so eager (knowing what I know now).
But just because one culture can dominate another… well, I don’t root for the winning team just because they are winning, you know?
Which is to say, hansel, that you are stacking the deck in the question. “Would you rather live in a society that is going to disapear or the one that will take it over?” Well, hey, how is there even a choice there? If I had the choice of living in such a small, isolated band at low technology I probably would. If that was about to be conquered/assimilated by the culture I was leaving, then it wouldn’t be worth the effort. But the other culture was still better.
OK so let’s list the Pros and cons for both and see what we can find out
Mind you this is all subjective so you may disagree with my list. Sorry no real cites so take it or leave it.
Civilization
Pros
Medicine and large medical infrastructure
Higher Degree of Sanitation
(Those two combined mean less epidemics)
Longer life span lower infant mortality
Quality control on foods
Larger supply of food to cover times of shortage
Education system to keep and gather knowledge can improve both practical and theoretical knowledge leading to expectation of advancement
Ability to accept change and adapting
Written language allowing for better record keeping
Sophisticated Communication system
Manufacturing of better quality goods and tools
Ability to support growing population
Week Ends and Holidays
Ability to travel farther due to roads and vehicles
Cons
Less personal knowledge of full group
Long work day (8 to 12 hrs)
Health risks from over Weight and poor diet
Less active lifestyles
Not as rooted to tradition and family
Tribal
Pros
Shorter work day (average 4 hrs)
Closer ties to family and community (required for survival of the group)
Better memory (Oral tradition passed on)
More active lifestyle (less likely to suffer from weight related illness)
Better understanding of immediate environment
Smaller group to support
Cons
Poor medicine
High Infant mortality rate shorter lifespan
Environmental stresses are higher and there are fewer cushions to endure shortages.
Resources are derived only from immediate area forcing the tribe to move when resources are used up.
Quality control on food is to a lesser degree depending on availability.
Education based on immediate practical needs.
Poor sanitation
Epidemics more likely
Comfort level lower.
More steady state more difficult to accept change.
Communication is limited, knowledge of outside is limited to contact with other groups and immediate area.
Limited growth without sedintary life
Living hand to mouth
I’ll take Civilization anyday. In my opinion if it wasn’t a better lifestyle less tribes would have converted over to the sedintary lifestyle throughout history.
king, I think you should reassess your “pros” section. Not all pros of civilized society are available or accessible to citizens of that society. Also, some of them are redundant; for instance, the infant mortality rate is a function of medicine and sanitation, there is no need to list it seperately.
Hey I’m listing pros off the top of my little head. Though those points aren’t necessarily redundant they may be a result but I still think that is a rather nice point to say.
By the way which of those points were not available to all citizens?
Umm… this may sound like a stupid question, but is this planet even capable of supporting 6 billion hunter-gatherers? Doesn’t seem like there’s enough space for everybody to hunt and gather.
Medicine (more obvious in America than other nations), ability to change (in civilized society, this requires education, and how does one stop working to educate themselves without having the funds to do so in the first place?), sophisticated communication system (though this is gradually becoming improved) are some of them. Though the advent of welfare has helped prevent some from dying outright, we have some ways to go to ensure that the benefits of society filter through to all individuals. IMO. (if that is our goal)
Education is an issue in itself; in principle we do have education available, but in some instances education is poor and in others it is unnecessary.
Though I am not a Marxist by any means, that doesn’t mean I disgree with him that a con of western society is alienation from the products of labor. This is partially a function of capitalism, but it is also a function (IMO) of specialization (not all things that are produced may be consumed).
Another con would be available land, though you chose to list the ambiguous “ability to support a growing population” under a pro. I would assume this is another redundant case of food supply and sanitation (and medicine, to a not insignificant degree).
Western Civ judges quality of living as a function of what it has versus what most people can get. It is trivial, then, to assert that the quality of life is better because tribesmen don’t have microwaves, though to me it begs the question: what is so great about microwaves in the first place?
The only question I would use to judge one culture over another would be: how happy would I be there? Microwaves and television make me happy, I won’t deny it. I have no problem with them. But they come at a cost, and sometimes I don’t feel like it is a cost worth paying.
