it's nice that you have bothered to write all this, thanks!!

I don't plan to be a politician in my life, so I might as well tell ppl (or the FBI) what I think...

I do appreciate whalen taking the time to give thoughtful responses. I disagree with this notion that an individual cannot escape from society. The percentage of the ground on the earth that is occupied by "civilized" people is tiny! Hell, we deliberately pack in cities so it should be even easier for those who don't like it to find land elsewhere. Just because a government claims a huge swath of land, doesn't mean they patrol it nightly. They will only interfere if the "outsider" interferes with them, I reckon. Otherwise, the "outsider" is off their radar.

It's very easy to blame society for the genocide, the wars, the famines, and all other unfortunate things that befall people. But you only KNOW about these things thanks to civilization. If you didn't have your high tech news sources, you'd be totally oblivious. We have access to all this information, and it's very easy to get swept up in it and feel sorrow for every poor soul who is crushed in the world. Well, I say we should start to act and think more locally. Sicarius, get off your crusade to save mankind and work on saving those who surround you. Take THEM out to the wilderness and create your anarchic society.

When I look around my neighborhood and those I come into contact with, I see only people who have benefited from our society. Even the poorest people I see have more opportunity than they would if they were in the wilderness. Sure, you can say that we live because so many have been unjustifiably killed, but that isn't my fault and I don't presume to judge the death's of others.

So, I am still not satisfied that you lack the freedom to run away to the woods. Now, perhaps you lack the freedom to run away and take a fully functioning set of people to comprise an anarchist society. This, I buy, but this is also an unreasonable freedom to request. I'm talking about personal freedom here, not your freedom to impose your will on a whole big group of people.

@Whalen

I do appreciate you responding to my post, in an at least somewhat orderly manner. And as if often the case I focused perhaps too much on on example or point you made, but it was one that stuck out to me as a particularly bad example, and then I went off because I get annoyed when people try to claim that native americans lived this perfect wonderful lifestyle before Europeans showed up. The so called "noble savage" and it does a disservice to many people to try to claim that it did. My real point was this: You used Native Americans as an example of a group trying to live a different lifestyle, that was crushed for doing so. My argument was essentially that they were crushed because a bigger more powerful group wanted their land and stuff, not because they cared one whit how they lived.

Anyway, I got a bit too caught up in the debate here, and on a few points of it in that post. It is Friday night after all and after going out and doing some other, much more fun stuff for a while I've got a bit more perspective on this whole thing. I'm not going to go through point by point on your response, you make some good points and some I'd probably dispute, but fundamentally, I've realized, this discussion is not really about capitalism vs anything else, it's about modernity vs "primitive" society, and that's not really a debate I want to get into. I like my modern lifestyle, and feel that as society progresses it will deal with and fix it's problems, but I won't necessarily argue that a far less modern way of life has it's appeal, and would encourage you to find a way to live your life in the way that you think will best make you happy. All the better if you can set an example and can find some other people who agree and want to live that way with you.

"oh and as far as using a computer and being a luddite gos, I look at it like this, if an iraqi freedom fighter uses a captured U.S. jeep does that make him a hypocrite?"

lol sic, you might have won a place on my fb quote wall with that one

yeah I get quoted alot. usually its by the F.B.I. though...
no fun
fuck you agent matt mayer!!!

@whalen
I think we all appreciate your responses.
me especially, because your responses seem like what I would say if I wasnt so scatter-brained

-->Jerkface... That's funny, because I just watched a BBC documentary that stated 50% of the world's land has now been 'developed.' This means cities, farms, managed wood production, etc. If you factor in our impact on non-developed land and the ocean, we are in deep trouble. Do you fly much? Maybe you should pour over google maps for a while and measure development. -->"But you only KNOW about these things thanks to civilization" You're right, and if civilization was not here I would quite happily not know of these things...

and I've read Thoreau mapleleaf.
I dont care for him

also, this really isnt about my freedom to go live in the woods or not. the current civilization is ruining the world, literally. how much longer before theres not a woods I can run off to

Can I point out that hunter-gathering Native Americans, because a lot of them were agricultural, and hunter-gathering tribes in New Guinea and surrounding islands had extremely high rates of murder?

When two natives met each other for the first time, they had to quickly establish some sort of relation, such as "you're my brother's wife's sisters cousin", otherwise there would be little impetus against murder. It seems ridiculous, but statistics show this to be true.

care to cite your source?
I'm curious

--> DrOct... Sure, agree with your first paragraph, the point though is that civilization thirsts (insatiably) for land, growth, 'development,' and stuff... Not just Europeans. Additionally, I'm not saying 'noble savages' lived perfect lives, I'm saying they lived drastically BETTER lives.

Your second paragraph, I'm sorry, but I still think misses the point. This has nothing to do with modernity. Anarchism versus civilization is about... Here it comes... --> The Exercise of Violence and Power.

There is nothing wrong with living a non-primitive lifestyle, granted that it reinforces the integrity of ecosystems and justice. THIS modern lifestyle, however, is based on violence and power dynamics. You (and I) are only rich, fat, and happy(?) because we have participated in stealing resources, labor, and culture from other peoples around the world (and currently extinct.) I like computers, ice cream, and hot water too. But I would be willing to forgo some of that if it didn't mean killing 87,000 Iraqis. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

Certainly. In fact, I first read it in Jared Diamond's, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". He professes to believing that agriculture was a mistake, but he acknowledges the ridiculous amounts of murder in hunter-gathering societies compared to agricultural societies.

Here are a few other sources:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolution/hill_2007_hiwi_mortality.html (See the second excerpt for estimated rate of death due to violence.)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110504188/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n6_v133/ai_6396953/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703

I can surely find more if you want more sources. I tried to pick less biased sites and stick to scientific papers. But here you go anyways.

whalen, while the majority of the earths surface may be technically "controlled" or "claimed" by various governments, actual on-the-ground control is scarce. There are backwoods even in very dense countries like France and Germany where I bet a small group of hunter-gatherers would not be bothered by the police, as long as they don't bother their neighbors.

Obviously, I haven't researched this deeply but if I were convinced that technology and civilization were going straight to hell, well, I'd at least give living in the woods a try. Actually, I do fly quite a bit. I spent the last year and a half traveling basically ungrounded throughout western europe.... all this adventuring being made possible by money and technology and civilization, I might add.

chris, yes the death rate seems high. it seems to be a few specific examples though, like the hiwi tribe or Gebusi tribe

I still think it would be better than what we have today. deep social problems, widespread starvation, hieracrchal exploitation, and the frequent murder of millions of people.

jerkface, you do realize that it's impossible to live like we are now forever

I agree that I'd give up computers, hot water and ice cream too if it meant 87,000 iraqis didn't have to die, but lets be honest, these things are not directly related. I had all of those things before President Bush foolishly invaded Iraq for little to no reason, and honestly I'd probably have all of those things a lot more cheaply and easily if that hadn't happened. (One plus to all of that, and I'm not saying it's worth it, but one plus is that it has contributed at least some to the increase in the price of fuel, which while in the short run is a problem, especially for lower income people, is in the long run necessary to move us along in a more sustainable direction.)

It sounds like on some level we actually agree, I like a modern way of life, and I think that it's possible to live that sort of life sustainably, with some sacrifices and more importantly changes, which I'm working on making in my life.

But I also don't think that capitalism fundamentally has to lead to death, destruction and exploitation (those things have been around a lot longer than capitalism), and I don't think modern civilization has to lead to those things either, which I think its where we fundamentally disagree, and I very much doubt that we'll ever really convince each other of the others position.

Sicarius, I ordered my sources from what I deemed to be most scientific to least scientific. Obviously the higher sources are a little more conservative with their claims because they're easier to defend. If you use just a tiny amount of inductive logic however...

Also, while today we may have more death, starvation, and exploitation, that is most probably due to simply a higher population. In terms of ratio I would say we have less death, starvation, and exploitation than a hunter gatherer society. I say this because we have enforced law, advanced (relatively) medicine, and far more advanced means of food production.

Well, I give up... if anyone here lives in Boston, I'd be happy to continue this conversation in a better format.
--> Jerkface... Research it deeply. Research peak oil, water scarcity, overpopulation (and population dynamics,) global warming, nuclear proliferation, difference, power and discrimination issues, human impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity loss, and explorer's journals. Research "lies my teacher told me," "a people's history of the United States," Noam Chomsky, Jared Diamond (next,) then Daniel Quinn, then (finally) Derrick Jensen... When you are done let me know what you think. If you have some stuff you would like me to check out in my limited spare time I'd be happy to look. (please don't say Ayn Rand... lol) ;o)

@Sicarius... Thanks man! best of luck though... Don't ever think for a minute that you can change someones world view in a blog, message board, or ten minute conversation. Good luck anyway...

@DrOct...
"but lets be honest, these things are not directly related" --We disagree on this for sure... I'd love to chat some time about how related these things are.
"It sounds like on some level we actually agree, I like a modern way of life, and I think that it's possible to live that sort of life sustainably"--Certainly on some level... How do you know you like a modern way of life? What experiences have you had to compare it to? What makes you think that if you had a future (lol... whatever that is) way of life you wouldn't prefer that more? Or of course, a primitive way of life? On what basis or experience can you state your comparison?

"I don't think capitalism/civilization fundamentally has to lead to death" Yes, this is where we fundamentally disagree. And we likely won't convince each other here... Too bad...

One thing to keep in mind is that this reformed, ethical, sustainable modern life that you're idealizing would be so radically different from our current way of life that I'm not so sure you could call it a 'modern' or capitalist way of life... Just food for thought.... ;o)

Whalen, I'm glad you took the time to put your thoughts out there, and I have to say, you did it in a much more eloquent and logical fashion than did Sicarius, not to say his views aren't valued either.

I'm not sure what you're arguing at the moment. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct in thinking that you are saying that primitive life was better than modern civilized life?

"we certainly have different world views if you think routine genocide, violence, poverty, dis-education, poor health, and a collapsing ecosystem is the best we can do."

Of course genocide is bad, but considering we have over 6 billion people, the ratio of violent death in our times are much lower than that of primitive civilizations. Have you looked at my sources? I can find more if you want. But violence is proportionally much more significant in primitive society.

As for poverty... of course this is also bad, and the immense inequality between North America and Africa as well as internal inequalities in developed countries is terrible... but on a global scale, the average standard of living is MUCH higher than that of primitive society. The inequality may be due in part to exploitation, though I would say imaginary lines known as borders and the sentiment that the country where your parents fucked is the best one in the world is probably significantly responsible as well. However, all our computers, coffee, and cars are not simply because of exploitation. It's not all about pushing people down and standing on top of their prone bodies... most of our progress has come from increased co-operation, organized government, specialization, and the power of mass, organized labour.

Dis-education? I have many issues with the dominant style of education in developed countries, but I would definitely say that modern peoples are much more knowledgeable than primitive societies. I wouldn't necessarily say more intelligent though, because in the long run, I believe that a society of hunter-gatherers would generate more intelligence than an agricultural one, due to the different selection pressures, but that doesn't justify reverting to primitive times, that would be social Darwinism. But to return to topic...

Poor health? Hardly. Nothing's stopping you from adopting a Neolithic diet if you want to... Modern medicine has drastically increased our lifespans. Sure, there's obesity and hunter-gatherers were traditionally lithe and limber and whatnot, but that's because an obese person can survive in our world. In a primitive society it's merely that anyone unhealthy, just died. We have a little more mercy than that now.

Collapsing ecosystem. First off, I'd say a shifting ecosystem is more appropriate. Life is incredibly robust and has passed through much greater bottlenecks than the unfortunate one that our industry is leading us toward. I can't refute this point, because it is definitely a major consequence of civilization, but I would not say that it's proof that primitive society is better than a civilized one. With greater power comes greater responsibility. The world is filled with intelligent individuals, and I have no doubt that human civilization will persist beyond the eventual problems of global warming and overpopulation.

Jared Diamond professes a wish to return to primitive society... but is his thesis not that primitive society will deterministically be replaced by a civilized one?

I want you to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, especially the chapter about evolutionarily stable strategies. Read it, and apply it to our world. I think you'll find that an anarchist society is probably not as idyllic as often portrayed and imagined.

"Whalen, I'm glad you took the time to put your thoughts out there, and I have to say, you did it in a much more eloquent and logical fashion than did Sicarius"

I'm afraid I have to agree with this. I can never dbate quickly.
give me time and I'll blow you away but in this conversation style format I'll inevitably seem a fool

whalen, care to trade email address' or something? this is a conversation I'd like to continue

oh by the way for those who continually disagree with me on the subject of the fall of civilization, you seem to all have read guns, germs, and steel and enjoyed it.
try another jared diamond title, it's called collapse

As to the topic:

Not all freedom is good.

Dispute me if you like, but think long and hard on that statement before you knee-jerk into repulsion.

@Chrispminis--> Yup, I think Pre-civilized life was better than modern life. (and we should define our terms here... by better I mean quality of life, health, and happiness.... not material possession.) Murder was appr. 4 times higher in primitive societies, however, genocide was non-existent. There is a huge difference here, and the level of general hatred and fear is shockingly higher today.

I almost completely disagree with your second paragraph. I don't believe for a minute that abject poverty was even a problem in prehistorical societies. There is no room to argue in this forum though...

I also totally disagree with your paragraph about education. You agree that a primitive society should be smarter, and have more wisdom, however, I also think that knowledge (defined as volume of information) was also MUCH higher (especially on average) in primitive societies. Not to mention that their information was MUCH more practical in nature. Can you name the uses of every plant in your garden? Let alone your world?

Research also show that with health, you are comparing apples to oranges. There is a wealth of research showing that the average lifespan of agricultural societies just recently (this last 50 years) caught up to the average life span of prehistorical societies. It was the lifestyle of agriculturalists described to 'nasty, brutish, and short...'

Shifting ecosystem? I'm sorry but this one makes me a little upset... The last time we (our planet) faced a 'bottle neck' of this proportion every living thing over several pounds in weight became extinct. I certainly don't think you understand the gravity of the situation we're in. We are currently living in the second or third greatest mass extinction this planet has ever seen. Our rates of extinction rival that of 'The Great Dieing.' And I think we will be extremely lucky (not smart...) to see the other side of it, if we do. You surely haven't read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond...

I have read Dawkins, and I clearly got a different picture than you. Our Genes (and memes) are now threatening our own existence on this planet. We have become a victim of our own success.

To elaborate on this... While primitive societies had a somewhat higher murder rate (it's true) they never faced the prospect of 5 billion (that's Billion, with a B, a very big number) people starving to death, killing each other, and committing nuclear war upon each other. I'm sorry, but I'd rather live with a slightly higher murder rate than face the current situation which presents itself to us in the next 60 years. You probably won't understand this, and I wish we could have a more extensive conversation, because I think over time I could show you what I mean.

just a snippet I found about the life expectancy stuff


Measuring quality of life is always a tricky thing, but the United Nations’ “Human Development Index” looks at three criteria: longevity, knowledge, and standard of living. In the case of the HDI, all three are measured in ways biased towards civilization. For example, longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth–a measure which presumes the common civilized assumption that life begins at birth. It does not weight the average with abortions, for example, even though there is disagreement even within our own culture of when life begins. Given such disagreement, we should not be terribly surprised to learn that other cultures have different measures of when life begins. Foraging cultures, for example, often believe that life begins at age two, and thus classify infanticide and abortion in the same category. Children are often not named or considered persons until that time. A !Kung woman goes into labor, and walks into the bush–maybe she comes back with a baby, and maybe she doesn’t. Whether stillborn or killed at birth, it’s not considered any business of anyone else’s. This kind of attitude has given foragers a very high infant mortality rate, leading many naive commentators to assume that their way of life must be terribly afflicted with disease to claim so many infants, and ultimately taking the skewed statistics that arise from such a practice to make statements on forager quality of life. In fact, all such commentary provides is a glimpse of the power of ethnocentrism to skew even what we might consider unbiased statistics.


A less biased measurement might take expected age of death at a given age. Richard Lee noted that up to 60% of the !Kung he encountered were over 60 (in Western countries, that number is 10-15%). The table provided by Hillard Kaplan, et. al, in “A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity” (Evolutionary Anthropology, 2000, p. 156-185: PDF) is quite instructive. Comparing the Ache, Hazda, Hiwi and !Kung shows an average probability of survival to age 15 of 60% (reflecting the enormous impact of normative infanticide), but the expected age of death at age 15 shoots up to 54.1. In Burton-Jones, et. al, “Antiquity of Postreproductive Life: Are There Modern Impacts on Hunter-Gatherer Postreproductive Life Spans?” (American Journal of Human Biology, 2002, p. 184–205: PDF) another table is presented on p. 185, showing that at age 45, women of the !Kung could expect to live another 20.0 years for a total of 65 years, women of the Hadza could expect to live another 21.3 years for a total of 66.3 years, and women of the Ache could expect to live another 22.1 years for a total of 67.1 years. We should also bear in mind that all of the forager cultures examined to derive these statistics live in the Kalahari Desert–an extremely marginal and difficult ecosystem, even for foragers. Could we expect significantly higher numbers from foragers, if they were allowed to roam the sub-Saharan savannas to which humans are adapted, or verdant forests? We can only speculate, though the inuitive assumption would be affirmative.


An expected age of death even at 54.1, or even 67.1, may seem dismal to us in the United States, but even here in 1901, life expectancy was 49. It has only been very recently that civilized life expectancy has caught up to even the most marginal foragers. Moreover, in thesis #8, we explored the relationship between the First World and the Third World. Focusing on First World statistics produces the same skewed result as focusing only on medieval royalty, to the exclusion of the peasants they relied upon for their abundance. The worldwide average life expectancy, then, is the far more relevant measure than the United States’. That number is currently 67 years–exactly the number Burton-Jones found for !Kung women eking out a living in the Kalahari. Given the marginality of the ecosystems these foragers exist in, it seems that we could easily conclude from these data that the incredible advances made in our life expectancy–advances which are now slowing, due to the diminishing marginal returns of medical research (a point addressed explicitly in thesis #15)–we have managed to raise our life expectancy to that of the most meager and marginalized foragers.

You living in the woods would solve one of PHPDiplomacy's problems.

It's stupid to consider primitive societies to have more knowledge than the industrial civilization, as defined by "the volume of information". While specialization means an individual's knowledge of a broad range of subjects is limited, his knowledge of a particular subject is much higher than what would be possible without specialization... and other individuals cover for other areas.

hey dick, we're having an intelligent disscussion, if you dont have anything to input, leave.

Nephilm. this is what I thought at first too. then I mulled it over and dont find it far fetched at all.
think about average intelligence, not your intelligence

I know this comment was made awhile back but in regards to Thucydides observation that not all freedom is good, I absolutely agree, at least on a personal level. Still, I think in general freedom is positive for people. It allows us to utilize the features that make us such special beings--our discerning intellect.

I don't really agree that primitive people have more knowledge than modern people. The main observation I wish to make is that their knowledge is, by and large, redundant. That is, everyone basically knows the same stuff as everyone else, maybe with particulars for special environments or circumstances, but they all know the basics very well, but not much beyond that. In the modern system, everyone knows a much smaller amount of basic knowledge (that is commonly shared) BUT they more than make up for it in specialized knowledge--knowledge that other people pay them to utilize. So, within one person, I can perhaps agree that we have as much knowledge as our primitive ancestors, but in society as a whole, no. All of the ancient knowledge is retained, just not by everyone. This is why modern society appears to be much more community-based, where people's successes are also successes for their neighbors. (I'm also aware that people's vices and failures are also magnified but that's part of what makes life fun!)