how good things are now - Gaming World Forums

Topic: how good things are now (Read 1942 times)

Print

Vellfire

#41 June 27, 2011, 04:16:04 pm

TV people want to leave
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 9602

Quote from: gloomy djinni on June 27, 2011, 04:11:38 pm

MY actual opinion on this? I love this world and I think we live in one of the most exciting times in history to yet come. But just the same, I get that I WOULD feel that way considering it's the time I live in. But I've got absolutely no problem with that, that's life and I'm a fan of the ride.

I like this attitude a lot.

I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello! It's me, Vellfire! FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye! CLICK! @gidgetnomates

Logged

Biggles

#42 June 27, 2011, 09:56:51 pm

I know your secrets
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 5, 2005
Posts: 688

Quote from: Vellfire on June 27, 2011, 03:20:42 pm

I don't really see the point in arguing what human nature would be like if we hadn't started farming. It's not like we're going to go back to being nomadic and there's nothing we can do about what happened that long ago. Not that it's not interesting reading how agriculture affected us but it's the bit where you actually feel a little mad at humanity for it that is totally nonsense.

edit: when I say YOU I don't mean you specifically gloomy djinni just I see this come up every now and then and I don't get it

I mean with something so vital to how our world is shaped, how can you even try to predict how things would be now if we hadn't started farming. There's no telling what bad things could have happened as a result of it, but all we have are the bad (and good) things that happened as a result of the path we did choose. It's not worth speculating over.

well humanity as a whole is only ceasing to be nomadic around now and a large part of it is IMF structural adjustment related afaik. it's not really a matter of "going back" because there are contemporary nomadic societies. there are also contemporary hunter-gatherer populations. on a basic level it's a question of whether or not we're being assholes for assuming that we're living an objectively better life than these people. this is complicated by the fact that agriculturalists often make things hard for hunter-gatherers. i asked my flatmate who has done some papers on it and he said that hunter-gatherer societies are generally considered to be relatively sustainable and nutritious in principle. i don't have papers to cite on that though. part of the reason i point this out is that some people (particularly researchers from cultures that were hunter-gatherer and then HI IT'S THE BRITISH EMPIRE WE HAVE GUNS) will blow up at you if you say it's "going back" to return to this kind of way of life. (a friend of mine said it by mistake and he got an hour long lecture.)

part of the reason i think it's interesting is that there could be cool things we could learn from pastoral and hunter gather people. looking at other people's ways of life could help us build better technology and live more sustainably. it's also important as far as development goes. some sustainable pastoral societies have been fucked up by the introduction of capitalism based on the belief that it's axiomatically better freemarket freemarket. i mean it's not like you have to care but i think pretty much everything is interesting so yeah.

Logged

crone_lover720

#43 June 27, 2011, 10:59:36 pm

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

Quote from: gloomy djinni on June 27, 2011, 02:24:01 pm

But it's a good quote! Not like I just made it up, nor is it like it doesn't describe the human condition.

I post like once a month these days, every time I do you quote me basically just to make some dumb one or two-word statement that literally just suggests I shouldn't post here on the site I've been posting at for the last 9 years.

stop it ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

wow it was a joke and I don't remember doing anything like that because I don't even know who you are. it's because you have one of those halloween names, but I can't even see your original name by clicking on your profile. you can link me to these posts if you want tho.

Logged

crone_lover720

#44 June 28, 2011, 12:03:41 am

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

Quote

protection for those crops (first versions of armies)

this isn't true. inter-tribe battle is something that existed long before agriculture. agriculture is what made it possible for dense walled cities to be built, but then they weren't protecting crops so much as the people who lived in them.

but regardless of that, to me this Diamond guy's stuff sounds like it's probably dumb theoretical bullshit not at all based upon science and only adhering to historical evidence when convenient. trying to REASON THROUGH LOGIC AND A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND HISTORY what's natural for humans is a complete waste of time/masturbation, depending on how much it entertains you. people almost invariably immediately think back to neo/paleolithic times, which stems from a poor understanding of evolution and is entirely erroneous. people were no more 'natural' back then than they were in the middle ages. the hunter-gatherers were people responding to their surroundings, as all people have in any 'unenlightened' age, arguably any age at all. humans are also extremely complex creatures, and what seemed natural back then is likely entirely different from what's thought to be natural today. really, if you follow the history of the human conception of nature, you'll find it has changed greatly through time (not in one linear direction, either) and varies strongly from culture to culture. interestingly, regardless of how the perception of it has changed, it has always been a subject of fascination. this relatively recent preoccupation with nature's therapeutic/wholesome/roots properties has not always existed, and is just another manifestation of the human fascination with nature. personally, I think this manifestation comes from the contemporary obsession with finding some nifty SECRET TO LIFE that will make everything wonderful and happy and full of life and energy--the same reason why people adopt all these absurd diets (raw food, atkins, paleolithic), watch doctor oz, join cults. really, all they're doing is responding to the stresses caused by modern capitalism

sorry I didn't break that up into paragraphs!! read it anyway!!

concerning sustainability, it's what velf said: really doesn't help us out at all. if someone could figure out a way that it does, that'd be neat.

Logged

Warped655

#45 June 28, 2011, 02:04:05 am

Scanner
Group: Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 2416

I'm with earlchip on the agriculture thing. The idea that we'd be better off had we stuck to nomadic tribes without agriculture is 'eye-rolling at stupidity' at best and groan worthy at worst. IMHO.

What I'd say though is I'm a little surprised that agriculture isn't 100% automated at this point. Kind of wish it was. Actually kind of wish most stuff was automated.

On the topic of culture, I definitely think people simplify culture to much from the past. but there ARE general majority cultures for the past decades. In fact I personally think there is a sort of pattern (at least for the US), but a pattern that is starting to fade with time and technology. 10's were warring, 20's were roaring, 30's were depressing (with calls for change) 40's were warring, 50's we were rich again, 60's and 70's had more calls for change and a bit of war.

Then the 80's and 90's as far as I can tell culturally-wise were cynical, bored, and apathetic. I also think the past 10 or so years have largely been a technology focused age culturally. But maybe I'm just biased because I spend far too much time on the internet. Hopefully soon, we'll have less dividing lines culturally. Eventually merging into a singular mega-culture or something because of the ubiquitous-ness of connective technology. *shrugs* maybe not. Maybe I'm just full of bullshit. I think that why a lot of people think that culture is 'weaker' today though. because we are becoming all more like minded to a extent, making vastly different cultures disappear or merge with others.

Another problem that I actually have on the concept of 'culture' in the first place is people usually complain they someone might not have enough of it or excuse behavior because its just a different/our culture.

Don't drink heavily during parties? That's not very American! Don't participate in asinine culturally established events or holidays? That's not very American! You separate yourself from our culture! (Ok, maybe some of these aren't completely American only, they are still culturally enforced)

Kid sticks hand into glove of bullet ants for hours on end for the third time to experience horrible agony and probably develop serious nerve issues in the hands and arms itself? Its just their culture! You have no right to judge!

I hate that sort of shit. But at the same time I have just as much issue with people who try and be counter culture just for the sake of it. And I'd go into that as well but I think that's already pretty well tread ground. In short: Trying to be the opposite of culture is still letting culture effect your decisions. Usually in very illogical ways.

When making decisions. I try to ignore culture, not conform to or complete oppose it. I'd like to think I try to do what logical or smart or productive. and now I'm rambling so I'm going to shut up.

Logged

Biggles

#46 June 28, 2011, 09:01:12 am

I know your secrets
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 5, 2005
Posts: 688

oh i didn't notice that there was a 'human nature' discussion going on. yeah, human nature is silly. afaik it's a pointedly western obsession, much like the obsession with the idea of a mind or consciousness as separate to the body. i don't think anything i was saying human nature based. i also assume that earlchip wasn't really responding to my post but yeah. nature. hahaha. aeroplanes are natural.
warped655: you can't escape culture. unless you are unconnected from other people and language as a whole, it colours most elements of your life. i use the word culture in a wider sense though. not just like popular culture or high culture.

Logged

crone_lover720

#47 June 28, 2011, 01:40:43 pm

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

I only browsed over these posts. I read the description of Jared diamond's stuff, which seems to be based on the idea that nomadism is a more natural way of life for humankind. at least I assume so, I hope he didn't write a book based solely upon a useless sustainability argument. regardless someone said human nature and I think it applies to most discussions on whether humans would be 'happier' or better off living/eating/having sex like cave men. at least in western society, it has become a pretty pervasive thought that humans were better off and more natural back then, and that's pretty much bull. bull for the reasons people commonly come up with at least

Logged

Biggles

#48 June 28, 2011, 02:43:54 pm

I know your secrets
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 5, 2005
Posts: 688

yeah. i mean Russell blamed it on Rousseau's idea of the 'noble savage', but it's silly whoever came up with it. it's clear that pastoral and hunter-gatherer people are not cave men or cave women or savages. they're contemporary people, who frequently (to the best of my knowledge) have ways of life that are coherent and stable and sustainable where they are. this doesn't mean that living like them is 'natural' for us or even that it would be beneficial where we live. similarly, there is no reason to assume without evidence that our way of life is better, or would help these people achieve some supposed betterment. i do think though, that we can probably learn some things from each other. i definitely remember a public radio interview with an australian who married into a nomadic group and felt that westerners could learn from some of their ideas. i think she was also actively helping to introduce some western medicine to the group, since that has pretty clear benefits. condoms and things also iirc. anyway i'm sure y'all already know. i'm just kind of infodumping to clarify my position.

Logged

bort

#49 June 28, 2011, 02:52:49 pm

-
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Posts: 912

Quote from: Biggles on June 28, 2011, 02:43:54 pm

yeah. i mean Russell blamed it on Rousseau's idea of the 'noble savage', but it's silly whoever came up with it. it's clear that pastoral and hunter-gatherer people are not cave men or cave women or savages.

when is it clear 'savages' last existed?

Logged

Biggles

#50 June 28, 2011, 11:12:54 pm

I know your secrets
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 5, 2005
Posts: 688

around when racism was last acceptable in academic discourse, i guess!

i mean yes clearly i believe in savages haha ok

Logged

big ass skelly

#51 June 29, 2011, 12:09:01 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

Quote from: bort on June 28, 2011, 02:52:49 pm

when is it clear 'savages' last existed?

Heh... maybe have a look in ya own united states congress

or something. A post like that.

Logged

crone_lover720

#52 June 29, 2011, 12:22:41 am

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

this isn't england with all your houses and shit, no one here cares about congress except when the news calls them a lame duck

Logged

big ass skelly

#53 June 29, 2011, 08:32:58 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

What do I say for a post like that. the white house?

Logged

Barack Obama

#54 June 29, 2011, 08:36:50 am

Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 5244

all that hunter-gatherer romanticism is a bunch of horseshit that really only gets taken seriously in university halls, nobody but a bunch of shitty anthropologists think that humanity was better off prior to shit like modern medicine. Clinging to that garbage seems like more of a symptom of a boring and unfulfilling life more than anything else.

Logged

Biggles

#55 June 29, 2011, 11:48:23 am

I know your secrets
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 5, 2005
Posts: 688

doesn't seem like any of the anthropologists i know have boring and unfulfilling lives. they'd also agree that romanticising hunter gatherers is bullshit though. i do too!

Logged

Barack Obama

#56 June 29, 2011, 12:11:19 pm

Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 5244

it's a generalization. all of that deep-ecology and anti-civilization stuff typically takes hold among anthropology types and/or misanthropes who hate themselves and others because of their boring suburban life. it's a stupid posture at it's most benign but incredibly dangerous and antisocial at its worst.

Logged

dada

#57 June 29, 2011, 01:41:41 pm

VILLAIN
Group: Administrator
Joined: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 5538

Quote from: DietCoke on June 29, 2011, 08:36:50 am

all that hunter-gatherer romanticism is a bunch of horseshit that really only gets taken seriously in university halls

A lot of anarchistic ideas that I've read about online, even the good ones, tend to be similarly intellectually distant in that they're not practical to implement until you accomplish a million other things. Like abolishing the state. Nice idea, but it will only lead to a massive collapse of everything until you can, at the very least, build some sort of framework to fill the void once you do so. Some people that I've talked with about that either don't seem to realize this or just aren't interested in thinking in practical, a-to-b terms.

Logged

crone_lover720

#58 June 29, 2011, 02:30:24 pm

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

they are opposed to all organized thought

Quote from: big ass skelly on June 29, 2011, 08:32:58 am

What do I say for a post like that. the white house?

maybe, or something to do with a local government. nothing gets people more riled up than a proposal to reduce their parking spaces

edit: I had a guy in summary call me a malefactor with "no consideration for my fellow human beings" for not parking in a space as he saw fit (I was only being polite to him)

dok is our resident anti-civilization anarchist

Logged

tuxedo marx

#59 June 29, 2011, 02:59:01 pm

Fuckin' A.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 4143

if someone had called me a malefactor with no consideration for my fellow human beings i'd shake his hand and give him a write-in for the next election. they know.

Logged

Faust

#60 June 29, 2011, 06:27:35 pm

Comedy Bronze
Group: Global Moderator
Joined: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1018

Quote

A lot of anarchistic ideas that I've read about online, even the good ones, tend to be similarly intellectually distant in that they're not practical to implement until you accomplish a million other things. Like abolishing the state. Nice idea, but it will only lead to a massive collapse of everything until you can, at the very least, build some sort of framework to fill the void once you do so. Some people that I've talked with about that either don't seem to realize this or just aren't interested in thinking in practical, a-to-b terms.

It's why it's a faulty concept and those that preach it are, frankly, naive and ill-suited to discussions like this. I've had people tell me about a "Chaocracy" before, where people are chosen entirely randomly day by day to run the state. What a wonderfully egalitarian principle, until you realise that most people are actually idiots and don't have the skills, intelligence, or basic worth to govern our lives (and indeed our societies DO need governance, otherwise order breaks down and everything is infinitely shittier than it is already). For some reason certain individuals see this allowing everymen to have significant influence over important matters as being BETTER than people trained and suited for doing the job. Sure, there are/will be comments along the lines of "LOLS our governmant suxor already, how dis worse?", but in actuality I haven't noticed significant danger to my person in the current society that I inhabit. Allow Joe BNP, Mrs. Can'tspell, and Fred "I hate sinners" Gospelman to be randomly selected to make policy and BAM, that situation changes quite a lot.

Also fuck hunter/gatherer societies. Civilisation is about more than just surviving. Why the hell would anyone EVER propose this as a valid alternative, let alone a better one, to the current?

Hey hey hey

Logged