The most arrogant people in Australia....

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by neverfail » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:38 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:01 pm
If the Paleolithic lifestyle is better than civilization, how come people don't go back to it? Nobody is stopping anyone from going back to the bush.

Except that there are now too many of us homo sapiens on this earth to be sustained by this lifestyle. Hunting-gathering was for when the human population was but a tiny fraction of what it is now.

In the case of the Australian aboriginals the price they paid for sustaining this way of life millennia past its "used by date' was that their population remained too thin on the ground to ever credibly defend their island-continent home against a determined foreign invader when he finally arrived by sea.

The big transformations mankind has undergone have all been born of dire necessity. Absolutely nothing to do with bringing about an improved overall quality of life.
Last edited by neverfail on Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

neverfail
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by neverfail » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:47 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:49 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:42 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am
You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work.
You attribute to me (above) an emotion that I assure you I did not experience.

Mild exasperation when dealing with a block head who thinks he has nothing to learn should never be mistaken for outright anger Cass.

Don't you agree?
Neverfail, given how clear Cass's explanation is here, and well it pertains to the situation, you may want to be careful who you call a blockhead who thinks he has nothing to learn.
Admittedly, Cassowary's explanation is clear and also big on hypothetical logic. All very optimistic about outcome. But have witnessed enough examples from real life to understand that there is always a downside to the situation as well. That is what I can never seem to get across.

No gain without pain and sometimes the potential gain is not worth the sacrifice.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:54 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:38 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:01 pm
If the Paleolithic lifestyle is better than civilization, how come people don't go back to it? Nobody is stopping anyone from going back to the bush.

Except that there are now too many of us homo sapiens on this earth to be sustained by this lifestyle. Hunting-gathering was for when the human population was but a tiny fraction of what it is now.

In the case of the Australian aboriginals the price they paid for sustaining this way of life millennia past its "used by date' was that their population remained too thin on the ground to ever credibly defend their island-continent home against a determined foreign invader when he finally arrived by sea.

The big transformations mankind has undergone have all been born of dire necessity. Absolutely nothing to do with bringing about an improved overall quality of life.
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.

neverfail
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by neverfail » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:55 am

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.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:07 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:55 am
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.
When I was in Australia, our tour guide pointed out a survival school we passed by. There are training camps that teach you Bush Lore. So for people convinced that a simple hunter gatherer lifestyle will make them happier, it still can be done.

But that is if you don't mind a shorter lifespan. It has often been said that cavemen lived to an average age of 25.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by SteveFoerster » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:58 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:07 am
But that is if you don't mind a shorter lifespan. It has often been said that cavemen lived to an average age of 25.
The article you link to explains that figure is due to infant mortality. Adjusting for that, hunter-gatherers live what we would consider a reasonable lifespan.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Paleaolithic life not all it was cracked up to be?

Post by neverfail » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:28 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:07 am



When I was in Australia, our tour guide pointed out a survival school we passed by. There are training camps that teach you Bush Lore. So for people convinced that a simple hunter gatherer lifestyle will make them happier, it still can be done.

But that is if you don't mind a shorter lifespan. It has often been said that cavemen lived to an average age of 25.
Well, I believe that our Aboriginals (pre-colonial era of course) did a little better than that cass. Before it became illegal to do so without the permission of the local Aboriginal land council (I believe the legislation was passed through Parliament in the 1980's): anthropologists had an almost 200 years free run at recovering bones from Aboriginal grave sites. Some remains had since been returned but most are still to be found in museum archives and university collections worldwide. From these, studies have determined that the average life expectancy for an Aboriginal living their old, traditional way of life averaged between 40 to 45 years.

The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian today is 55 years. This is considered a national scandal because it falls well short of the average life expectancy for non-Aboriginal Australians now in the low 80's. Yet it still means that their average life span is presently over a decade longer than before British colonization began.

So cassowary; I concede here that whilst the old Aboriginal way of life had its merits; I think that I much prefer the one that has since superseded it. :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:18 am

Exactly Neverfail. I agree that modern life is still better than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Even at a life expectancy of 40 to 45, this is far short of our modern life expectancy. Modern Australians can expect to live to 80 to 84.5 years.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:20 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:58 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:07 am
But that is if you don't mind a shorter lifespan. It has often been said that cavemen lived to an average age of 25.
The article you link to explains that figure is due to infant mortality. Adjusting for that, hunter-gatherers live what we would consider a reasonable lifespan.
Yes, I know. But even then, I am pretty sure that it will be shorter than our modern lifestyle.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:43 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:47 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:49 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:42 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am
You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work.
You attribute to me (above) an emotion that I assure you I did not experience.

Mild exasperation when dealing with a block head who thinks he has nothing to learn should never be mistaken for outright anger Cass.

Don't you agree?
Neverfail, given how clear Cass's explanation is here, and well it pertains to the situation, you may want to be careful who you call a blockhead who thinks he has nothing to learn.
Admittedly, Cassowary's explanation is clear and also big on hypothetical logic. All very optimistic about outcome. But have witnessed enough examples from real life to understand that there is always a downside to the situation as well. That is what I can never seem to get across.

No gain without pain and sometimes the potential gain is not worth the sacrifice.
What you witnessed were some people who lost out like your friend. What you don't see is the many more who gained from privatization and improved productivity.

Post Reply