cassowary wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:54 pm
Yes yes. But this does not answer my question. If the quality of life as a hunter gatherer is superior to that of modern civilization, then why doesn't modern individuals go back to the bush?
I agree it is impossible for all to go back to it. But it cab still sustain say 50,000 people. If enough people find a Paleolithic lifestyle find it attractive then a point is reached when natural resources are insufficient to maintain a small population at subsistence level. But that level has not been reached because people do not want to give up on modern conveniences , medicine etc.
Well, thanks for a very interesting question cassowary. Reluctance to give up modern conveniences, comforts etc are undoubtedly part of the reason: but principally because we are so attached to them that it would be painful, even life threatening, for us to have to give them up.
Succinctly, if you or I were to go bush and try to live the way the Australian Aboriginals of yore lived; we would likely starve to death sooner rather than later due to lack of the intimate environmental skills and knowledge they possessed. Furthermore, they knew which wild herbs could be used to cure which ailments and how to find water in apparently waterless places; which we do not.
Even modern Aboriginals lack this set of indispensable, survivalist know how.
Their way of life, I contend, would not have been either necessarily superior nor necessarily inferior to our own: so please abstain from grading civilisations and cultures into this sort of perceived hierarchy of merit.