You seem to be stuck on this phrase that I used. Allow me to withdraw it. As I said in the same paragraph I used it, Please excuse my ignorance.
I was not trying to say, really, that the activities of hunter gatherers required more time to subsist than modern people do. I was probably simply observing that much of the time hunter gatherers spend producing anything, goes toward producing things for physical survival. I probably said it badly, again, due to my ignorance.
See, I’m not so sure this is the case. Maybe I’m missing your point. But it seems to me that even the poorest amongst us has many opportunities not available to even the most well off hunter gatherer. Books comes to mind as the most obvious. But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do.
From the article I linked to earlier.
and
The problem with this characterization (which I see you trying to suggest, erislover, please correct me if I am wrong) is that it plays fast and loose with the simple word “all”. What exactly does it mean to say that “all the people’s material wants usually can be easily satisfied”? The word does not mean the common sense meaning of “all the people”. It means “all of the people (who can live given that their material needs can be met with hunter gatherer techniques)'s material wants usually can be easily satisfied”. That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long.
While it is certainly true that those who survive this cut live a pretty decent life. Everyone who is relatively healthy and able to keep up with the group has plenty of leasure time. I’m not really sure that this is not exactly what I said earlier. However, as I said, I am willing to withdraw the phrase and search for a better one.
I don’t believe it is a matter of ignorance, but simply a matter of not using your own customs and expectations to judge another’s, not because it would be invalid, but because, in this case, it is undefined. We do not marvel at primitive society by saying, “But how did they make microwave popcorn without a microwave?”
What I don’t understand is why you think this still isn’t true. I work to survive. Hopefully I can enjoy more goods by a little luck and some more effort, but it is not like I am working for fun: if I do not work, I will die. This has not changed.
Of course. I admit as much. Specialization brings a wide array of new opportunities. But it is not cost-free.
Obviously. What form of society can this not be said of, though?
Analytically simple, universally applicable. Without a welfare system or other support structure, this is still true today.
I couldn’t even start the second. The bad guys belong to Opus Dei? We’re supposed to be afraid of a bunch of old Italian grandmas? Okay, I’m afraid of old Italian grandmas (what sensible Catholic kid isn’t?) but it’s not like they are trying to take over the world.
There are some historians who believe that humans got so good at hunting that the population grew. As the population grew they eventually had to supplement their diet with domesticated animals and crops and eventually switched to that as their primary source of food. There are plenty of examples of hunter gatherer type societies who cultivated wild plants to ensure they’d have a source of food the next time they were in the area.
That’s fair enough. But it is important not to become guilty of the reverse.
Because a vast majority of the things you have are not necessary for your survival. Think about it from the hunter gatherer’s point of view. How much or your work goes for food and the most basic necessities of physical survival. Cars don’t count. Houses don’t count. Clothes don’t count. Nothing which uses electricity or even metal counts. How much of your work goes to provide you with just the number of calories you need to survive until tomorrow. That’s what I mean by subsistence. That’s why I don’t think we live that way anymore.
I hope I never suggested that it was cost free. I meant more that the costs are outweighed by the benifits.
Many. There are many forms of society where the methods of hunter gatherers are not necessary to survive. Most, in fact. Anybody reading this know how to build a bow or arrow from the basic components? Without looking it up?
No, it is not. Many people are able to earn their livings without needing to be able to run, hunt, or know which wild plants to eat and where to find them. Many of the qualities needed by participants in a hunter gatherer society are no longer a matter of life or death. Your statement may be true if we apply modern standards to it. But if we rewrite it as “[…] anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a modern industrial society simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long.” then it is true. But that means we are judging older societies by our standards, no?
What I was trying to say originally, however, is not that life was harder 10,000 years ago, or that it is easier now. I’ll never let that stop me from parrying with you, however. It’s too much fun.
I was more interested in Sleel’s perspective on what role the increase in specialization has played in the problems women have had in modern society. Partially, I note that it was not possible to make much of a living if many women spent all of their time in camp preparing food gathered from outside camp. Most had to participate in the gathering of food on an ongoing basis. Over the last couple hundred years, that has not been the case. This difference, in my ignorance, seems to be a major contributor to the sexual role differences that we take for granted today.
You still insist on comparing the societies as if that was really what I was getting at. Yes, it does take a car for a lot of people to survive. It is true that any area can support some of its local population, but generally speaking we’ve specialized to the point where this does not generally hold.
Yes, I have things that are not necessary for survival. This does not remotely suggest that I do not work to survive.
Maybe the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe we didn’t have much choice. Maybe most didn’t have a choice. Maybe some have resisted change at nearly every step. The analysis simply isn’t that simple.
You said, But I would also like to point out that life itself for most of us would not be possible if we did not live the way we do. I suggested this could be said of all societies. It is why societies have sprung up the way they have: as a solution to the problems of surviving. We live the way we do because if we were to do otherwise, we would die. America can’t be hunter gatherers, and hunter gatherers can’t be accountants. People survive because they find a behavior appropriate to their surroundings. This directly impacts the next point.
You said, That is, anyone who has material needs outside the capacity of a small group of hunter gatherers simply is not counted as one of “all the people” for very long. I suggested this is still true, and you immediately interpret it as saying that people not fit to be hunter gatherers die. Of course I did not mean that, because I thought I’d already mentioned that we need to examine the circumstances surrounding existence to determine how to best understand that existence. People not fit to live in our society aren’t counted for long. They die. It happens. Has the implicit definition of “fitness” changed? Yes. Does this make the statement no longer a truism? No.
I would just like to add that Hunter Gatherers were overall healthier and more well nourished than (early?) agrarian socieites. The lack of food variety and sanitary problems of settled life took their toll. The fossil record supports this.
The problem with hunting gathering is the amount of land necessary to support this lifestyle. Eventually population growth would make it untenable. In other words no choice.
Hunting was always more valued than planting or collecting plants… something that benefitted male status. Eventually War and conflict determined the fate of societies… and men had a leading role always. Women’s status fell and fell.
Oh, absolutely. In my posts here I try to look to before the scriptures take form, in the sense of, there was already a disadvantageous dynamics of power before it was codified into the antecessors of the religions we now know. As others have pointed out, relative to what was the norm at the time, at times the compilers of the Torah, New Testament and Qur’an are moderates or even liberals for the time and place, but they definitely were creatures of that time and place. Which translates to many people getting a shabby deal a few centuries down the road, not because of something inherent in religion, but because of the foibles of the founders and prophets… and interpreters and followers.
In my unprofessional opinion, it is because the tribes and states were led by men, and as they grew larger, they simply kept the gender divide. Or maybe the women were too busy raising the children.
I classify myself as pagan, some would classify me as Wiccan, though Wicca is a barely defined gathering of loosely-organized ideas based on semi-standardized ritual utilizing pre-existing gods and goddesses. In any case, women are held in fairly high regard (as noted previously, often ahead of men. I’ve been to some ceremonies where you were considered lucky to be there if you were a man).
Mayhap monotheism has something to do with it?
Going back to my off the cuff remark about the women raising the children, isn’t it interesting that, as far as my knowledge goes, Eastern religious monks were largely male, while women tended to other duties? Obviously there are many exceptions to this, and I know of many Eastern religions in which women play a prime role, but the tendancy does seem to be towards the males, and I think it is for a very primal reason.
Also, the theory of conception that held sway for thousands of years was that only men were the “creators of life”- women were just carriers. When the Bible and other ancient texts refer to a man’s “seed” they weren’t being figurative- essentially it was believed that a man’s semen was the seed of a human being and that women were essentially the fertile ground- if a couple could not have children it was the woman’s fault because the man had done his part. When van Leeuwenhoek looked at sperm under a telescope this theory not only didn’t go away but in fact gained currency (This 1694 drawing is what one early microscopist believed he saw- the head of the sperm was a perfectly formed homunculus that would grow into the fetus while the tail would become the umbilicus, connect to the mother and be responsible for any physical resemblance to the mother.)
This relegated women’s roles to less important than men AND also aided to homophobia (if a sperm cell is nothing short of a teeny weeny fetus, then every act of deliberately non-procreative sex is little short of abortion). It is amazing that the true process of conception is more recent than the Declaration of Independence (discovered 1779 but not widely accepted until much later) and this was a major factor in reducing the role of women.
erislover, I agree with the general things you are saying. But I disagree with your interpretation of them. I understand what you mean when you say that “those who cannot live in a society die” is true for hunter gatherers as it is for our modern society. But there are absolute definitions for some of the words we are using, and your conclusions require that we make those words relative.
for instance:
This is not true. IF what you mean by survive is “find enough nutrients to continue living for another day”. If you mean anything else by survive, then it may be true, but simply to find sufficient nutrients from day to day does not require an automobile for anyone on the planet.
But this was not my point. My point was that we have also increased our population per area to the point that many techniques for living will not support us. In fact, this was my main criticism of the article I linked to. It specifically said that hunter gatherers could find enough food for “all people”. But this is only true if you kill off the others which modern society supports which would not be able to live that way.
Of course not. But it does indicate that saying we work harder than hunter gatherers may be comparing apples and computers.
Sorry if I left the impression that any analysis of this question is simple. I did not mean to.
Quite correct. The statement is a truism. But it only by interpreting the word “survive” relatively that you can compare the amount of wealth owned or the work performed by a hunter gatherer and a modern denizen of New York. And it is only by interpreting such phrases as “all people” in this same relative way that we can come to the odd conclusion that any costs of modern life might not have been worth the benifits.
Allow me to insert a personal anecdote. I work with the SCA in my area. One of the nicest bunch of people it has ever been my pleasure to associate with. However, “The SCA is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe.” This to some participants is akin to “pining” for the simpler life of that time. The fact is, however, that we can only “pine” for such a life as a hobby. To attempt to live in that way would mean death for a great many of us.
I don’t object to “pining” for the freedom from responsibility that hunter gatherers enjoy. I do so myself quite often. But I do object to suggestions that hunter gatherers enjoyed anything like a better life than we do under anything like an objective measure. The fact is that life in general was harsh, short, and unpleasant by most measures. It may be true that hunter gatherers do not toil for as many of their waking hours as we do. But it is also true that they do not have nearly the number of choices of how to spend their leasure time as we do either.
Having said all this, on re reading your first paragraph, it seems I may have missed what you were “getting at”. Perhaps you could sum it up for me. I’ll stipulate that any such post will be the last word on this subject here.
However, it is true that wives are to submit to their husbands, but… and this is important… a truly christian husband will raise his christian wife up to the level that she deserves. Generally, (if she’s christian) she deserves to be raised up very high, much higher than the husband. The feminist movement won because the country was full of non-christian men. The relationship of huband and wife is all about trust. The woman has GOT to exhibit trust in her husband that he won’t dominate her. And he has got to be worthy of that trust.
(Oh, an interesting new interpretation on Genesis I heard recently.)
After Adam and Eve ate from the tree God spoke to them…
Sin caused this. The interpretation said that because of sin Adam will rule over Eve. In other words, “because Adam is now sinful, he will be selfish and exhert his power over you. He will rule over you because he is sinful, not because you are being punished.” And I would like to point out this fact, man is supposed to protect the woman in his life. While the serpent was tempting Eve, where was Adam? Was he out picking berries and talking to God? Nope.
He was right there, watching the whole freaking thing. Why didn’t Adam step in and keep Eve from sinning? The Bible admits that Adam was there and sinned as much as Eve. So the Bible is obviously not against women because she caused original sin. So, following this interpretation, it is sinful to “rule” over your wife. But you should raise her up and make her #1 in your life.
