In many ways, yes.

I might add that this is not necessarily good. I think that modern society has led to a narrowing of cultures such that our world has drastically fewer diverse cultures than before. This is one price we pay, and I lament it.

ok I think we might have a different definition in mind, whats yours

what is your definition of community

A community, I guess, is a group of people who are dependent on each other. Whether there is a hierarchy doesn't really make a difference. People in a community would share a lot in common such as customs, outlook, socio-economic conditions, aesthetics, etc. They needn't share ALL of these but at least some. The degree to which the people are similar is the degree to which the community is tight. Inter-dependence and awareness of each other are the most important things, I think. What's your definition?

k by your terms than I agree

definition is probably a bad word.
when I think of the word community it has very positive connotations and implies some level of mutual like of each other

Right, so, in the modern world I am connected (in varying degrees) to way more people than I probably would be in a primitive world. For one thing, I can meet people online such as yourself. Granted, this is about as weak as a connection gets but we have more community with each other than we would ever hope to have in a primitive world. Products I buy were made in China. This is phenominal! Disregarding for the moment what I may think about conditions and government in China, the fact that people way across the world are making and seeing things that I also see and use indicates another expression of the world's greater community. When people say the globe is shrinking, that means more community.

So is it not right that the modern world offers more ways to grow and nurture a community?

To start off, I always appreciate good responses. I would definitely like to continue discussion. If you have MSN, feel free to add me, and when I have enough time, go ahead and convince me. I'm young enough to change my mind. =D

I'm also very happy that Sicarius has brought a touch of science to his posts, and I'll have to take my response more serious as a result. I may play the devil's advocate, if only to strengthen the scrutiny on either side.

I'm not sure I agree with you so far about the definition of "better", but I can see where you're coming from. However, if you could also define quality of life that would be helpful. My current impression is that quality of life encompasses both health and happiness and is a fairly subjective matter. Perhaps standard of living is more appropriate? Is there a reason that material possession should not be included in the measurement of "better" other than the fact that modern society clearly has more, and that it's all very zen-like to reject it?

In my second paragraph I conceded the terrible poverty in the world, but perhaps that could be solved with more socialist measures... what I did say is that I believe the standard of living on average is higher for modern society.

As for education, I conceded that there were many flaws in our education system and that hunter-gatherers might end up more intelligent (not necessarily wise, whatever that means to you) over the long term as a result of differing selection pressures. However, bit for information bit, I would argue that there is a lot more information available to us now, and readily accessible. If I want to name all the plants in my garden and their uses, I can have that in 20 minutes. The human brain puts a certain limit on how much we can retain in our heads, and assuming that evolutionarily, parsimony is golden, I wouldn't argue that the information in our heads is greater now than it was in primitive times. Also, the practicality of hunter-gathering knowledge in nature is no way to say that they know more than civilized peoples because obviously they have different purposes and needs and so require different knowledge. They may know the names and uses of all the mushrooms in their forest, but I could trump them in many other areas.

I wouldn't say the ends justify the means, I would have said civilization was inevitable. And here we are. We may have surpassed the average lifespan of primitive societies, by whatever standard you see fit to use, only within the last 100 years... but hell, we've surpassed it.

I have not read Collapse, perhaps I will. But regardless, if you respect the IPCC at all as a scientific and relatively objective source, than I think you'll find a few of your claims are a *tad* exaggerated. Don't get me wrong, I recognize global warming as a massive impending consequence of our foolish use of fossil fuels to artificially increase our progress, but I don't see it as an end-of-world scenario. Contrary to everything over a pound dying, and the second or third largest mass extinction, the IPCC places the number more around 20-30% of plant and animal species extinct. Of course this is still a tremendous loss of biodiversity and the effects of global warming should not be trivialized, but I wouldn't throw out civilization because of it.

I was not using Dawkins to justify civilization. I was merely using the concept of evolutionarily stable strategies to show you why anarchic societies are not the pretty picture of friends co-operating with each other freely giving gifts without fear of exploitation or unfairness. Dawkins paints a rather optimistic picture in fact, because we're at a point where we can deny our genetic chains and choose a more humane approach to the world. The more we understand genes, the less they have to control us. The more we understand memes, the more we can determine their quality and usefulness.

That's a gargantuan prediction to make, but I'm sure you have evidence to back it up. If you could direct me to a condensed argument for such a doomsday I'd much appreciate it. Overpopulation is definitely a great problem that must be faced in the next decades, but I think you exaggerate again. It's not as if the global governments have no idea this is coming. I will bet you 2500$ that within the next 60 years, there is no nuclear war.

Sicarius, I will try to formulate a response for you as well, because I appreciate the time and effort you put in, and as well for citing what appears to be a scientific paper. I don't have enough time right now to do it justice, but I should have one by tomorrow.

okay appreciate it.

side note though, you say civilization is inevitable
well it's fall is as well

heres one interesting read I found in 10-ish seconds

http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-26-collapse-is-inevitable/

You have a rather advanced case of cut and paste there Sic. I think at least six times already in this thread you admit to having, 'just found' something on line.

The originality in your thinking is almost as impressive as the time you take to digest what you find. And I thought you said you weren't the mirror whore?

Lovely name-dropping regarding you being quoted by the FBI too, almost as crass as your picking up the grenade in that other thread.

Oh, and I've got a sleeping bag I don't roll up as well, but as I own the space on which it rests I don't have to: I can indulge myself in one of this current civilisation's freedoms.

@whalen

I'm definitely enjoying this discussion more and more, as we all take a bit more time on them, and have less of a knee-jerk reaction to others opinions, and as we all get a chance to further clarify our thoughts.

I really do think that we agree on more than we perhaps realize. I still don't think that I'd be happier living a more primitive lifestyle, but I certainly see it's appeal. I've spent a fair amount of time backpacking and camping in my life, and definitely enjoy the change of pace it provides, living a simpler and life closer to nature, and I can certainly understand the appeal there, but I think in the end I prefer a more urban lifestyle for my everyday life. That being said, I expect this lifestyle to change as civilization moves forward, and would absolutely agree that this lifstyle will change and will HAVE to change, but I'm looking forward to seeing how these things change, and I predict I'll in the end enjoy this future way of living more than I do my current one.

I think technology will make all sorts of things possible that never have been before, while at the same time I think other aspects of our lives will necessarily become simpler as we as a civilization "rediscover" a lot of older ways of doing things that we probably never should have forgotten.

As we go forward, I don't think capitalism, or civilization as a whole will have to collapse in order for these changes to happen. In fact I think as we move forward and governments and people realize more and more the changes that have to be made, capitalism will move us toward more sustainable lifestyles (if the people in the market want something, the market will, eventually, provide it, and things people don't want will wither away). There will certainly be problems and growing pains going forward, and humanity certainly faces some very very serious threats, but in the end I think we'll all be ok. As long as we all work toward changing things, and making it clear what our priorities are, and are willing to make some sacrifices, (I also think government's role in this will be to force corporations and manufacturers and such to build in the real price of everything they do into their business models), things will be alright in the end.

I think in the end we agree on a lot of the fundamentals, but not necessarily on the end result of all of it. But that's ok. It'll take a lot of people with a lot of different ideas to make it in the coming years. I certainly enjoy this exchange, and look forward to where it goes as it continues (assuming it does).

well the fundamentals are all that really matters. no matter how sure anyone is about the end result, even me, in the end its really just speculation.
what really needs to happen is everyone needs to get onboard with the fact that there is a problem, a HUGE problem, we're living on borrowed time. we cannot continue to live this way forever, and the time that a radical change has to occur is drawing near.
what grates on me is when peopel think everything is fine, that there is no big problem, at least none that technology wont magically solve at the last minute, and we'll all be fine and ushered into a new age of technology and prosperity

Alright, here is my reply to Sicarius' post... despite that I seem to be debating someone else entirely. =D

I'd like to start by pointing out that the article is fairly deceptive. Of the four peoples discussed for statistics, only one is from the Kalahari desert despite that the author claims "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." The Ache are from Eastern Paraguay, the Hadza from Tanzania, and the Hiwi from Columbia and Venezuela. The !Kung people are the only ones mentioned that live in the Kalahari desert, though they also inhabit the tropical woodlands of Angola.

As for the harshness of the environment, it was a little exaggerated in the article. The Kalahari is not meager, in fact, the majority of it is not even a true desert. It receives annual rainfall, and contains the Okavango, a permanent river. The significant animal and plant diversity present paint a less than stark picture of life in the Kalahari. It manages to support large predators such as lions and hyenas, attesting to impressive herbivore presence, and consequently attesting to significant vegetation and plant life.

I find it even more deceiving that he uses only female statistics with hunter-gatherers but goes on to use average statistics for his more modern samples. Not to mention he claims that "67 years–exactly the number Burton-Jones found for !Kung women eking out a living in the Kalahari. " when only a paragraph earlier he cites the same statistic as being 65 years.

Well for some comparison, the average life expectancy of an American woman at birth is 80.79 years according to the CIA Factbook 2007.

By far the most misleading claim is the impression left by his scaled life expectancies meant to offset infanticide statistics. In any population, even modern ones, you'll find the life expectancy increases quite dramatically for increasing ages already attained. The author claimed that the 1901 life expectancy in the United States was 49, but let's use his very own technique and compare the results. Looking in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, as well as Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics; National Vital Statistics Reports, vol 54., no. 19, June 28, 2006, I found these numbers.

I scaled his 1901 claim to 1850, the earliest statistics available. White females in the United States during 1850 who lived to age 40 could be expected to live another 29.8 years, for a total of just under 70 years of age, while those women who lived to 50 could be expected to live another 23.5 years, for a total of 73.5 years.

Now there's no use denying that agriculture initially caused a massive drop in average lifespan, but that was due to the fact that most of the world's fauna was not tailored for human consumption, but thanks to our artificial selection, agriculture produces increasing food production and nutrition. However, I find it deceptive to claim that we have only now caught up to pre-Neolithic life expectancies... let alone the expectancies of "meager" foragers.

Sicarius didnt you say that you were native american?

I think that was Pandora. Maybe its both of them.

As to the link you provided, Sic, I read it.

My comment is this: Indeed, in a finite world everything must end, this is indubitable. But, I argue that humans will sooner go extinct than allow civilization to collapse. And even this will surely not happen for hundreds of millenia. Though it may diminish or regress, it will still exist right up until the time humanity is extinguished.

yes I'm native american.
pandora is too, but she tends not to claim it because she doesnt look it at all
why does that matter???

I dont think it's a matter of anyone 'letting' civilization collapse. no one lets a volcano explode it just happens.
I think preventing the collapse was possible at one point, but I think that time has passed so now it's just an inevitability.
in my opinion at least.

chris, thanks for the reply.
just facts though not really any argument there

Of course it was an argument. It was a refutation of the thesis you posted. I found that his conclusion was flawed and deceptive, and that modern civilized peoples are healthier and live longer than pre-agricultural peoples.

...time for the anarchists to demonstrate that they don't have any serious answers for how progress would be made in a society where there are no laws...

Just a clarification to something I said earlier (much earlier). I looked at one of my earlier posts and realized I'd left out a few words in the middle of a sentence, and it didn't really make much sense without them.

I mentioned the idea of the "noble savage" and how that annoyed me, or at least I tried to. What I was trying to say was that the "noble savage" never existed, and that the whole idea of it is patronizing and does a disservice to those who are tagged with the label. People are people. Some live or lived in different ways, and that's cool, but don't put anyone on a pedestal, that's almost always going to be inaccurate and it's patronizing to the people you're doing it too.

to be honest I really dont care. you'll have to figure it out for yourself. my time for internet debating is rapidly declining, as much as I love it.

is no one alarmed by what's happening?
prisons that could hold millions of people are being erected
army combat battalions are being deployed in the continental U.S.
the government itself is preparing for a major civilian uprising, as they put it 'a second american revolution'

so hell maybe you're rigjht, maybe a hunter gatherer society is hell on earth, but it wont matter soon man

as to the argument though I will say this, anything wrong with hunter gatherer societies is multiplied a hundred-fold in this society, hunger, deaths, exploitation

"as to the argument though I will say this, anything wrong with hunter gatherer societies is multiplied a hundred-fold in this society, hunger, deaths, exploitation"

Not proportionately to population. Anything right is also multiplied.

"to be honest I really dont care. you'll have to figure it out for yourself. my time for internet debating is rapidly declining, as much as I love it."

The quality of debate depends not on it's medium, but on it's participants. Sicarius, you institute change by convincing people of your cause. You convince people of your cause with proof and refutations of alternatives.

"is no one alarmed by what's happening?
prisons that could hold millions of people are being erected
army combat battalions are being deployed in the continental U.S.
the government itself is preparing for a major civilian uprising, as they put it 'a second american revolution'"

Nobody's alarmed because nobody believes that any of that is happening right now. You have to convince us that it's happening for anyone to be alarmed and at your side.

If you know something we all are missing, and the world really is fucked in the ass, I would suggest that you stop playing online Diplomacy and start planning for the impending apocalypse. Stock up on water, non-perishable food, fuel, a safehouse, the works. Then you can laugh at us misguided morons screaming in the inferno as we vote for Republican and starve as famine and government oppression run rampant.

Or, if you had an ounce of "altruism" as you call it, perhaps you could take some time to educate those around you properly so that we might be spared as well. CONVINCE ME! SAVE ME!

Sicarius, why run from the debate just when it's getting good? Chris has very graciously donated so much time and patience to hearing you out, giving you the benefit of the doubt and just allowing you to explain your views. Now you turn your back on him and all of us who are also curious? I recall this also happening when I gave you more effort and patience some months ago. Once it gets interesting, you claim to not care and all-of-a-sudden turn your nose up on this conversation. Well if that's the case then you can spare us any future apocalyptic, alarmist newsflashes about how doomed and stupid we all are.

Chris' cry for you to convince us and save us all is well echoed (by myself, at the very least), but you seem unable to make any productive steps towards addressing our numerous and serious questions and issues with your outlook. Despite some of the jabs, we're not all trying to be mean about this... we STILL respect your opinion in at least some regard, or else we all would have started ignoring you long ago. I'd say you have as good a medium as could be asked for to explore and explain your own ideas. Take charge, man!

You are like a God to me, Sicarius.

Wow, I was tempted to single out mapleleaf as someone who genuinely does not care a whit about you anymore but even HE has shown his face here. You've got quite the fanbase!

@Sicarius:
you said, "I couldnt give a shit about you. I'm concerned with the human race as a whole.
collapse is inevitable..."

"as to the argument though I will say this, anything wrong with hunter gatherer societies is multiplied a hundred-fold in this society, hunger, deaths, exploitation"

There is arguably also a hundred-fold increase in happiness and love. The modern societies manage to isolate people who live in cities is true, but not neccesary. It is possible to educate people, tell children of the importance of interacting with their neighbour for their happiness. (that humans are social creatures, and they need to find others to interact with)

Just because our current system isn't great doesn't mean you should tear it all down. (though if you want to learn survival skills and go live in the 'state of nature' then by all means do so, and don't worry about the rest of us suffering)

We might be heading towards a collapse, current competitive actions are not sustainable, but leaders tend to prioritize the advancement of their own group (country) as a matter of common sense. Until you can prove there is some threat which they must fight you're not going to change anything.

I think I've already pretty much said all I can say for my primitivist views. I gert asked the same questions alot, then theres a ton of hypotheticals and what ifs, which honestly I usually dont know how to answer, because it's unknowable.
there are lots of resources for primitivists if thats what you want. Anthropology books are good, books by daniel quinn, Anthropik.com has alot of good essays and things. Whalen seems to know his shit as well. so I'm not giving up when things get too hot for me to debate, I just run out of answers, because I stop getting asked real questions, or at least ones I can answer.

"If you know something we all are missing, and the world really is fucked in the ass, I would suggest that you stop playing online Diplomacy and start planning for the impending apocalypse. Stock up on water, non-perishable food, fuel, a safehouse, the works. Then you can laugh at us misguided morons screaming in the inferno as we vote for Republican and starve as famine and government oppression run rampant. "

I kinda am. I kinda have to laugh at myself once in awhile because it all seems so ridiculous, because I kindof am preparing for apocalypse, and sometimes it's just so damn hilarious. it feels fictional, like a novel or something. but I see lots of signs. my primitivist prediction bullshit aside, you cant deny that SOMETHING is going to happen, especially in this country. People ACTUALLY talking about seccession, digging up fucking ak's from the ground and meeting zapatista's and building fighter jets from boneyards and scoping out old nuclear silos and shit. now, I'm sure this kindof stuff has always been goin on at some small scale. but I'm talking about thousands of people! I'm still young, it wasnt that long ago that I left mainstream society, if you could see some of the things I am you would know too.
And its scary to see the things out goverment is doing. liek the domestic deployment, increased repression of dissidents and basic rights for the general populationthe, FBI run-ins, etc.
its fucking scary man, to see black-water and wackenhut patches on people in unmarkeds, with a fucking SAW in the passenger seat.
when the patriot act first came out or was passed, you know you were in a little bit of disbeleif, that doesnt happen in america! but now you're probably used to it, its not that big of deal. it sucks and its not right, but it stops there, theres nothing bigger going on.
well there is
failing that even, if everything I say is just some kind of paranoid ranting, look at the economy. theres bound to be a major civilian uprising, theres major US cities that have 20% or more unemployment, whose public schools have closed, who have bankrupt municipalities selling city halls and things! gas is almost 5$ in most major cities, food prices are rising worldwide, at an exponential rate, and in america the housing crisis is leaving thousand upon thousands of homless. now thats a lot of very pissed off peopel with no outlet for aggression.

the most that'll come of what I'm saying is a revolution, with large parts of the country seceding.
at the very least, we're becoming an increasingly poor, hungry, and pissed off population, so lock your doors, somethings going down.

now I'm starting to laugh at myself a bit because it all seems so unreal.
but please please please please, dont listen tio me,
FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF
so you know I'm not fucking crazy.

also I know theres a lot of typos, I'm on a shitty library computer and the keyboard is pretty substandard

"it's unknowable."

Therein lies the crux. There are a million different ways the future can go, and the onus is you to back up your assertion with proof. I appreciate your effort, but it's not enough to wake us out of our slumber. I can't find out everything for myself, because I need to know what's a waste of time or not. There are people who say aliens have landed, or that Michael Jackson killed Princess Diana, or that the world is going to end 12/21/12. I can't check out all these claims myself. If I claim that in the future everyone will turn into lizards (or something more subtle and plausible sounding, but equally wrong), I should have proof to convince people.

There is no city, or area, let a lone a major US city with anywhere near 20% employment. The Detroit has the most with 9%, but the average is more around 5.4-6.8%.

There are 300 million people living in America. Thousands of homeless people crying for revolution is in the order of magnitude of 1 in 100,000. Will there really be secession?

Sicarius, really all I can ask for from you is some citations for your claims. Where is there 20% unemployment? I live in a fairly major city and have recently traveled to several others in different parts of the city, and with the exception of ONE gas station I saw in Santa Barbara no where had had gas terribly close to $5 a gallon, and honestly since I got back gas prices where I live and nationally have gone down.

I'm not saying there aren't serious problems right now, and that SOMETHING big is going to happy, but a lot of what you're saying sounds pretty hypberbolic, and without anything to back up your claims it's hard to take any of it seriously.