Worst Mistake Never Made

zhao

there are no accidents
(this thread is a follow up to Worst Mistake in History of Human Race)

just finished a cultural anthropology audio lecture series and one chapter focuses on the Dobe Ju/'hoansi bands of South Africa. one real living example among a number of other currently functioning micro societies scattered in the remote to us areas around the globe.

a few main points:

• gather 70 percent of their food (roots, nuts, fruits, etc.)
• no authority, only "temporary leaders"
• no private property
• work 20 hour weeks with only division of labour being between sexes
• does not distinquish between work and play
• zero starvation: 100% of population fed compared to 30% starving in the "civilized" world

here is the Gatherers and Hunters (not the other way around) chapter for your pleasure/scrutiny:

14 MB

http://www.mediafire.com/?9tixdt4tetz

this prof actually goes further than me the crazy, in conjecturing that the advent of agriculture and hierarchy and all that was actually the result of power itself and the evolution of human society, and not out of need which came with "little ice-age" and/or population growth.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
In the spirit of reconciliation...

just finished a cultural anthropology audio lecture series and one chapter focuses on the Dobe Ju/'hoansi bands of South Africa. one real living example among a number of other currently functioning micro societies scattered in the remote to us areas around the globe.

a few main points:

• gather 70 percent of their food (roots, nuts, fruits, etc.)
• no authority, only "temporary leaders"
• no private property
• work 20 hour weeks with only division of labour being between sexes
• does not distinquish between work and play
• zero starvation: 100% of population fed compared to 30% starving in the "civilized" world

I have loads of empirical data in support of this, Zhao (drawn from Greg Clark's new book), though there are some rather nasty implications. The most valid comparison is between pre-industrial or developing economies and hunter-gatherers. You are certainly right that hunter-gather quality of life was / is much higher. The price, though, is pretty high. I will try to post some tomorrow.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
I have loads of empirical data in support of this, Zhao (drawn from Greg Clark's new book), though there are some rather nasty implications. The most valid comparison is between pre-industrial or developing economies and hunter-gatherers. You are certainly right that hunter-gather quality of life was / is much higher. The price, though, is pretty high. I will try to post some tomorrow.

not sure what "nasty implications" or "price" yer on about but would be interesting to see. thanks.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It sounds great, and I'm not quibbling with any of your data, but I would guess they probably have a pretty low population density.

This leads to the following question: is their population stable, i.e. are deaths occurring at about the same rate as births? Because if everything is as peachy as it seems, births would rapidly outstrip deaths and the population would soon rise to the point where it was no longer sustainable purely (or even 70%!) by hunting/gathering (or gathering/hunting, if you prefer). The alternatives are either a population practicing birth control, which seems unlikely in a pre-technological culture (and, if it *is* there, will only be due to the intervention of a technological culture); or a 'natural' (i.e. high) infant mortality rate, which runs a bit counter to this Edenic image.

Or do you accept that, in situations like this, a high infant mortality rate is a necessary part of the ecological dynamic?
 
Last edited:

gek-opel

entered apprentice
just finished a cultural anthropology audio lecture series and one chapter focuses on the Dobe Ju/'hoansi bands of South Africa. one real living example among a number of other currently functioning micro societies scattered in the remote to us areas around the globe.

a few main points:

• gather 70 percent of their food (roots, nuts, fruits, etc.)
• no authority, only "temporary leaders"
• no private property
• work 20 hour weeks with only division of labour being between sexes
• does not distinquish between work and play
• zero starvation: 100% of population fed compared to 30% starving in the "civilized" world

here is the Gatherers and Hunters (not the other way around) chapter for your pleasure/scrutiny:

http://www.mediafire.com/?9tixdt4tetz

this prof actually goes further than me the crazy, in conjecturing that the advent of agriculture and hierarchy and all that was actually the result of power itself and the evolution of human society, and not out of need which came with "little ice-age" and/or population growth.


Thanks Zhao- about a year and a half ago I was arguing along these lines and got savagely shot down specifically on the issue of how much labour was necessary...
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Yeah nice one. Next up, the solar array and the space elevator. Oh and free medical grade smack for everyone.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
It sounds great, and I'm not quibbling with any of your data, but I would guess they probably have a pretty low population density.

This leads to the following conclusion: is their population stable, i.e. are deaths occurring at about the same rate as births? Because if everything is as peachy as it seems, births would rapidly outstrip deaths and the population would soon rise to the point where it was no longer supportable purely by hunting/gathering (or gathering/hunting, if you prefer). The alternatives are either a population practicing birth control, which seems unlikely in a pre-technological culture (and, if it *is* there, will only be due to the intervention of a technological culture); or a 'natural' (i.e. high) infant mortality rate, which runs a bit counter to this Edenic Image.

Or do you accept that, in situations like this, a high infant mortality rate is a necessary part of the ecological dynamic?

popular way of classifying societies roughly as follows (numbers from memory and could be slightly wong-kei):

bands: 20 - 50 people
tribes: 50 - 200
chiefdoms: 200 - 500

so the Dobe being example of Band level society have no more than 50. and population is controlled by rules such as no sex for a period of time up to 2 or 3 years after a birth.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
so the Dobe being example of Band level society have no more than 50. and population is controlled by rules such as no sex for a period of time up to 2 or 3 years after a birth.

Really? Well, fair play to them, not sure I could keep to that!
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
and population is controlled by rules such as no sex for a period of time up to 2 or 3 years after a birth.

Interesting... I was reading about the 19th century Oneida sex cult; they practiced "male continence" -- basically holding it in.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
just finished a cultural anthropology audio lecture series and one chapter focuses on the Dobe Ju/'hoansi bands of South Africa. one real living example among a number of other currently functioning micro societies scattered in the remote to us areas around the globe.

a few main points:

• gather 70 percent of their food (roots, nuts, fruits, etc.)
• no authority, only "temporary leaders"
• no private property
• work 20 hour weeks with only division of labour being between sexes
• does not distinquish between work and play
• zero starvation: 100% of population fed compared to 30% starving in the "civilized" world

here is the Gatherers and Hunters (not the other way around) chapter for your pleasure/scrutiny:

http://www.mediafire.com/?9tixdt4tetz

this prof actually goes further than me the crazy, in conjecturing that the advent of agriculture and hierarchy and all that was actually the result of power itself and the evolution of human society, and not out of need which came with "little ice-age" and/or population growth.

Am I having deja-vu or did we have this same discussion a few months ago...? I remember we talked about this idea before--is this a new link to a new book or something?
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Am I having deja-vu or did we have this same discussion a few months ago...? I remember we talked about this idea before--is this a new link to a new book or something?

this is a continuation of that conversation, which sits just a few threads down. guess i could have put it in there but whatever.
 

vimothy

yurp
It sounds great, and I'm not quibbling with any of your data, but I would guess they probably have a pretty low population density.

This leads to the following conclusion: is their population stable, i.e. are deaths occurring at about the same rate as births? Because if everything is as peachy as it seems, births would rapidly outstrip deaths and the population would soon rise to the point where it was no longer supportable purely by hunting/gathering (or gathering/hunting, if you prefer). The alternatives are either a population practicing birth control, which seems unlikely in a pre-technological culture (and, if it *is* there, will only be due to the intervention of a technological culture); or a 'natural' (i.e. high) infant mortality rate, which runs a bit counter to this Edenic image.

Or do you accept that, in situations like this, a high infant mortality rate is a necessary part of the ecological dynamic?

Mr Tea you are absolutely OTM! Mortality rates to keep hunter-gatherers in berries and leisure time are through the roof, and there are some reports of tribes people murdering 3/4s of all new-borns to maintain a Malthusian equilibrium at an acceptable standard of living.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Mortality rates to keep hunter-gatherers in berries and leisure time are through the roof, and there are some reports of tribes people murdering 3/4s of all new-borns to maintain a Malthusian equilibrium at an acceptable standard of living.

source? which "tribes"?

it is easy for biased westerners to lump all societies drastically different from their own into a single "primitive / tribal" entity in their minds. while the reality is that there are hundreds and thousands of non-modern societies each with unique characteristics and practices. so while the murdering babies practice may exist in maybe the Amazon, that would not mean the Dobe in South Africa or any other band or tribes do it; and it doesn't have much weight in an attempt to characterize all gatherer/hunter or non-modern societies with a single stroke.
 

vimothy

yurp
so while the murdering babies practice may exist in maybe the Amazon, that would not mean the Dobe in South Africa or any other band or tribes do it; and it doesn't have much weight in an attempt to characterize all gatherer/hunter or non-modern societies with a single stroke.

Of course. However, the unavoidable facts are that if you want to live a good life as a hunter-gatherer tribes person, your tribe better have one or more of the following things:

A low birth rate;
A high death rate.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Isn't the point of this about ways forward?

We have contraception you know. So it's quite simple - if we are saying that some of these models for society have viable aspects then we combine them with those features of our own culture that also work. Saying they have to murder babies is totally specious, even if it is grounded in some kind of facts.
 

vimothy

yurp
Isn't the point of this about ways forward?

We have contraception you know. So it's quite simple - if we are saying that some of these models for society have viable aspects then we combine them with those features of our own culture that also work. Saying they have to murder babies is totally specious, even if it is grounded in some kind of facts.

Eh? I was saying that some tribes practise infanticide. Some tribes do practice or did practice infanticide and you pretty much admit that yourself. The point is not that we win, harharhar1111!!!, but that a natural economy follows certain rules regarding population size and income / living standards (i.e. basic Malthusian logic), rules that are systemic and apply to pre-industrial England, modern developing states and the !Kung equally.

In any case, Zhao is dead right: hunterer-gatherers lead far more comfortable lives than comparative populations. Pre-industrial Europe was more comfortable than Imperial China for the same reason. It's got nothing to do with scoring points.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Isn't the point of this about ways forward?

We have contraception you know. So it's quite simple - if we are saying that some of these models for society have viable aspects then we combine them with those features of our own culture that also work. Saying they have to murder babies is totally specious, even if it is grounded in some kind of facts.

thank you.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
hunterer-gatherers lead far more comfortable lives than comparative populations. Pre-industrial Europe was more comfortable than Imperial China for the same reason.

eh? which european period are you talking about? 18th century? 16th? which period of Imperial China? elaborate please.
 

vimothy

yurp
eh? which european period are you talking about? 18th century? 16th? which period of Imperial China? elaborate please.

It doesn't really matter. The logic is the same everywhere before the industrial revolution, and still the same in many areas today. More people alive = lower living standards.
 
Top