Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:45:59 -0400
Reply-To: Oliver Mueller-Heubach <groundhogging@MAC.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Oliver Mueller-Heubach <groundhogging@MAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Are Today's Young People Mechanical Nitwits?
In-Reply-To: <6e95da690808151622gcb59136k2031f55a73a689f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Sorry.. too many articles I've had to read for school on whether
agriculture was a good or bad move for humans (cultural ecology,
paleoepidemiology, etc.). What we know as non-agricultural and non-
industrial societies today are almost entirely transformed by fallout
from world capitalism, so hard to know what it would really be like
(nowhere near the present conditions, though). Hunter-forager life
would be more sustainable and there would be more gain per unit
effort as far as food. There would be no cities, hence less disease
threat, etc. Limited food would limit reproduction and the lions,
tigers, and bears would do the rest... I didn't say it would ever
work again- we are creatures of habit and comfort hounds to boot
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Joy Hecht wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Oliver Mueller-Heubach <
> groundhogging@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Depends on what classifies as a good standard of living. Without
>> agriculture, we might be considerably better off in some ways,
>> with more
>> free time and better health within a certain age range.
>>
>
> Huh? Without agriculture, what are you going to eat? Either
> someone else
> grows it and you buy it, or you spend all your time growing crops.
> Agriculture is a VERY risky business, takes a lot of time. I don't
> know any
> farmers, but what I've read about being one emphasizes CONSTANT
> work and you
> can't ever take a break.
>
>
>> We might only live to 30, but we would be closer to the earth and
>> those
>> around us.
>>
>
> I'll take another 60 years over that, any day!
>
>
>> At least the 1/10 of a percent of the current population that could
>> sustained without surpluses, etc. I'm not sure we're any better
>> off than
>> most pre-industrial civilizations (even with states, organized
>> religions,
>> and agriculture).
>>
>
> I work in non-industrial civilizations. Life is damned hard. A
> huge amount
> of work, and nothing to do when you aren't working except maybe
> talk to your
> neighbors or get drunk or have sex. No books, no communications, no
> electricity, no transportation. Little or nothing in the way of
> schools, medical care, sewage, clean drinking water. Sex leads to
> yet more
> children, which makes life even harder, especially when it comes to
> what
> land they will inherit to live on - land doesn't multiply the way
> children
> do. No privacy whatsoever living in a small village. Basically no
> choices. But yeah, you are close to the earth, that's for sure.
>
> I'll take specialization of labor and longer life over that any
> day! And
> for those who want to work on their own cars, why that's an option
> as well,
> in the world we live in. Choice is a good thing. If young folks
> don't
> choose to work on cars, let's cheer the fact that they can do what
> they want
> either way, instead of bemoaning that they don't choose what some
> on this
> list prefer.
>
>
> Joy
Oliver Mueller-Heubach
groundhogging@mac.com
|