What's Wrong with Modern Society?

[Michael]

What's Wrong with Modern Society?

One of the most common critiques of our modern (or western) society is that despite all our fabulous technologies, remarkable daily luxuries and seemingly ever-rising standards of living, there is something missing. Faith, belief, religion, spiritualism, civic pride, community spirit, self discipline, sacrifice, balance, temperance, etc., are all variously put forward as the 'missing element'. No one really seems to be able to identify precisely what is actually missing here (generally speaking).

Now I know this topic has been discussed previously (rather a few years back), but I don't think we really resolved it the first time round (or the second!). Certainly all the usual suspects (capitalism, technology, individualism, selfishness, liberalism, etc.) were discussed as potential 'culprits', but none of them were found to be actually holding a smoking gun (as it were).

So, I ask the question again - what's missing?

* * *

One concept that I remember being raised in regard to this topic that intrigued me was the idea that maybe nothing is actually missing - rather it just might be that modern society tends to creates a yearning for something that isn't there! As is my way with things, certain ideas just 'stick' in my head for months or years, slowly being thought about. This has been one of them. The more I think about it, the more this approach seems to make some sense. Though, I must say, I'm not sure if this represents a manifestation of modern society or whether it might be characteristic of human nature itself. Either way, if it was real, it would explain a lot of things about how and why people tend to get all bitchy about why the world is so fucked up and try to come up with theories to explain it all. :ummm:

[partofme]

I think people always think something is missing. Mark me down for human nature. At any one point and time there is something I desire but it's not always the same thing.

[Greendruid]

The real thing that's missing is more people out there need to think exactly like me!

:rofl:

Seriously though, that may be part of the problem. We never evolved our gloriously large brains in a setting where cities and civilisation existed. Our yearnings for a missing piece may be all of those things listed and are unattainable in the society that we've created. After all, we've only been living in true cities for about 8,000 years depending on your definition of a city. At that, we've only been farming for about 15,000 years, give or take. Given that our species in its modern physiological incarnation has been around for at least 200,000 years, and that our group-forming behaviours may date back even further, perhaps 1.8 million years, adjusting to modern civilisation is likely going to be rough for a lot longer. We are remarkably adaptable creatures though and evolution works on the merits of sufficiency, not efficiency or even happiness if that's beyond sufficient.

[Donkey]

I think the biggest of the general abstract problems is the acceptance of the status quo.

[Dominick]

Déjà vu. :eek:

[phungus420]

Has there ever been a point in time where the recorded phillosophical discussions seemed to agree society was satisfied?

[partofme]

I think much of it also is a case of older people viewing the years of their youth as the good old days. I don't know how often I hear old people talk about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket and back during their younger years there was less crime and everybody was nicer. What they don't consider is that crime (at least in the U.S.) peaked in the early 80s and has been going down overall and that life was only better back before the 60s if you where a white male. Females where limited in what they could do and how much they would get paid to do it and then we all know how shitty minorities had it. Then they seem to forget how far medical treatment and other technologies has improved various other things. Sorry about the rant but I hate it when old people act like there was a time when all was right with the world and everybody under 50 is now in the process of fucking it all up.

[The Drunk Guy]

This is a favorite topic of mine because of my obvious disdain for authority and it's abuse in today's world. Of course, I'm no fool and I realize that authority has always been abusive, thus it's natural antagonistic framing.
One concept that I remember being raised in regard to this topic that intrigued me was the idea that maybe nothing is actually missing - rather it just might be that modern society tends to creates a yearning for something that isn't there! As is my way with things, certain ideas just 'stick' in my head for months or years, slowly being thought about. This has been one of them. The more I think about it, the more this approach seems to make some sense. Though, I must say, I'm not sure if this represents a manifestation of modern society or whether it might be characteristic of human nature itself. Either way, if it was real, it would explain a lot of things about how and why people tend to get all bitchy about why the world is so fucked up and try to come up with theories to explain it all. :ummm:
This is an interesting thought. I must admit, however, that I find it interesting because I've thought it myself several times. ;)

I would love to offer a strong argument one way or the other, but there are just far too many variables to consider to be sure of how I feel. As soon as I feel strongly one direction, something comes up that bursts my little "rage" bubble, leaving me feeling lost again.

There is one thought that goes through my head more often than others and it is that we aren't missing anything. Rather, we have too much. Technology has advanced our civilization in ways unimaginable just a few generations ago. Perhaps we have grown too fast and we are having a system overload.

I know that for me, I often feel depressed and upset because there just isn't enough goddamn time. There are so many wonderful things, natural and human-made, that I want to experience, but our structured 40-hour work weeks and mundane tasks and rituals hinder me. One hundred years ago, men didn't wonder what lying on a Brazilian beach would be like because they probably knew nothing about it.

Maybe life is just fine, but there's always something thrown in our face that shows life could be better. Without those distractions, would we be more content with our little time slot here?

[partofme]

This is a favorite topic of mine because of my obvious disdain for authority and it's abuse in today's world. Of course, I'm no fool and I realize that authority has always been abusive, thus it's natural antagonistic framing.
This is an interesting thought. I must admit, however, that I find it interesting because I've thought it myself several times. ;)

I would love to offer a strong argument one way or the other, but there are just far too many variables to consider to be sure of how I feel. As soon as I feel strongly one direction, something comes up that bursts my little "rage" bubble, leaving me feeling lost again.

There is one thought that goes through my head more often than others and it is that we aren't missing anything. Rather, we have too much. Technology has advanced our civilization in ways unimaginable just a few generations ago. Perhaps we have grown too fast and we are having a system overload.

I know that for me, I often feel depressed and upset because there just isn't enough goddamn time. There are so many wonderful things, natural and human-made, that I want to experience, but our structured 40-hour work weeks and mundane tasks and rituals hinder me. One hundred years ago, men didn't wonder what lying on a Brazilian beach would be like because they probably knew nothing about it.

Maybe life is just fine, but there's always something thrown in our face that shows life could be better. Without those distractions, would we be more content with our little time slot here?


I have felt that same way regarding not having enough time but once I got a whole lot more time on my hands I managed to feel it and still find other things I wish I was able to work in. If I didn't have the kids and had even more time I would probably then not be satisfied because I would want something to do.

[SMadsen]

I think that, in any point in time, there has to be (the feeling of) things missing. If things were perfect we wouldn't do anything. No movement. Ergo, everything we do revolves around imperfection.

It's no coincidence that all religions also revolve around imperfection. Whether it's forefathers, eagles, Brittneys, Clooneys or deities, we project perfection unto culturally convenient idols, most probably, I think, to formalize perfection in order to more or less agree upon, as a society or as another kind of cultural unit, what to strive for.

[SMadsen]

By the way, it's interesting that some religions actually incorporate the notion that Partofme also mentions, namely that life was always better before. Christianity, for instance, fully embraces the notion of perfection before and perfection after and that everything in between, which, incidentally, is the life that always, at any point in time, is being lived, is a mess.

Since imperfection can't be known without having a sense of perfection, I'll submit that it's quite natural to imagine perfection. Whether it's through visions of the good ol' days, expectations from various ideologies, notions brought on by religions or something else doesn't matter. It's only a matter of configuring plans and aims.

[Michael]

The real thing that's missing is more people out there need to think exactly like me!

:rofl:

Seriously though, that may be part of the problem. We never evolved our gloriously large brains in a setting where cities and civilisation existed. Our yearnings for a missing piece may be all of those things listed and are unattainable in the society that we've created. After all, we've only been living in true cities for about 8,000 years depending on your definition of a city. At that, we've only been farming for about 15,000 years, give or take. Given that our species in its modern physiological incarnation has been around for at least 200,000 years, and that our group-forming behaviours may date back even further, perhaps 1.8 million years, adjusting to modern civilisation is likely going to be rough for a lot longer. We are remarkably adaptable creatures though and evolution works on the merits of sufficiency, not efficiency or even happiness if that's beyond sufficient.
I don't see any conflict in this issue at all.

It is understood that humans are a social animal and that we've always lived in packs/tribes/clans/groups. That's how we lived as 'pre-humans' and that's how we lived as humans pre-agriculture and that's how we live now.

So what's the issue here? What needs to be adapted to? What is so special about a city that's different from a town or village? And even in the west, a significantly large proportion of people live in small towns and villages still to this day.

[Michael]

I think the biggest of the general abstract problems is the acceptance of the status quo.
Indeed, I agree completely with this. It does seem that human beings are somehow 'programmed' to love novelty - even for the sake of novelty alone. This appears to drive our creativity, productivity and ambitions to remake the planet itself to suit our needs.

*Sidenote for our anthropologist friend: I'm a huge fan of "neoteny" theory. :D

And if so, this is just "human nature" and thus not anything unique to "western culture".

[Michael]

Has there ever been a point in time where the recorded phillosophical discussions seemed to agree society was satisfied?
Well, now that I think about it, there is a fairly strong trend of that kind of thinking amongst the ancient Greek philosophers - believing that they lived better than any other humans that ever lived. The Roman stoics also followed this line of thinking - though perhaps asserting that there was nothing that could be done about it anyway.

And I believe one can put the whole of Christian philosophy into this same category as they always "accepted" that the world couldn't be changed (unless God willed it so). For them, the world was something to be 'accepted' as is.

Apart from these relics of the past, I believe only Edmund Burke expounds upon the pleasure of the status quo (late 18th century).

It is to be noted that the whole idea of the Enlightenment is based upon a rejection of the status quo. As such, 99% of modern philosophers tend to adhere to this 'dissatisfaction'.

[Michael]

I think much of it also is a case of older people viewing the years of their youth as the good old days. I don't know how often I hear old people talk about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket and back during their younger years there was less crime and everybody was nicer. What they don't consider is that crime (at least in the U.S.) peaked in the early 80s and has been going down overall and that life was only better back before the 60s if you where a white male. Females where limited in what they could do and how much they would get paid to do it and then we all know how shitty minorities had it. Then they seem to forget how far medical treatment and other technologies has improved various other things. Sorry about the rant but I hate it when old people act like there was a time when all was right with the world and everybody under 50 is now in the process of fucking it all up.
Yes, this is always a good point to keep in mind. I believe studies have shown that one's emotions during one's teenage years are felt more intensely than at other times. The fact that most people hit their physical 'peak' at that time (teens or twenties) also reinforces this 'age-period' as a 'golden' time when one's views are most open to new experiences. As people age, it is logical that they would tend to idealize that period of time as being 'better' than the present day.

[Michael]

I think that, in any point in time, there has to be (the feeling of) things missing. If things were perfect we wouldn't do anything. No movement. Ergo, everything we do revolves around imperfection.
Yes, as I noted above in my reply to Donkey, this appears to be an element of human nature, not necessarily "western culture".

It's no coincidence that all religions also revolve around imperfection. Whether it's forefathers, eagles, Brittneys, Clooneys or deities, we project perfection unto culturally convenient idols, most probably, I think, to formalize perfection in order to more or less agree upon, as a society or as another kind of cultural unit, what to strive for.
Yes, that kind of projection is rational and expected - and highly characteristic of religions.

[The Drunk Guy]

I have felt that same way regarding not having enough time but once I got a whole lot more time on my hands I managed to feel it and still find other things I wish I was able to work in. If I didn't have the kids and had even more time I would probably then not be satisfied because I would want something to do.
There's a difference between having time off and being able to enjoy time off. Time off is a drag without the means to go do those things I want to do. In fact, time off means I can't even do the things I normally do. What I long for is the time to write my book, time to visit Yosemite, time to volunteer in a third-world nation, time to learn Latin, time to learn the guitar, time to watch all these movies and read all these books I've been putting off, time to visit with old friends, time to lead a protest. It's not just the time, but the means to do so that is hindering us.

[Greendruid]

I don't see any conflict in this issue at all.

It is understood that humans are a social animal and that we've always lived in packs/tribes/clans/groups. That's how we lived as 'pre-humans' and that's how we lived as humans pre-agriculture and that's how we live now.

So what's the issue here? What needs to be adapted to? What is so special about a city that's different from a town or village? And even in the west, a significantly large proportion of people live in small towns and villages still to this day.

Absolutely correct in your first paragraph. The flaw in your understanding is in your second paragraph. People didn't live even in small towns and villages until agriculture Michael. We were all gatherer-hunters. That is the predominant model of human subsistence. Civilisation is, by definition, the sedentism of staying in one place and building permanent architecture. You will not find this in existence before agriculture. I stand by my argument that this is what we're still struggling to deal with. The permanency of settlement, be it a town, village, city, whatever, is "new" to humanity. The scale of this in a metropolis is only exaggerated whereby the gatherer-hunter patterns of subsistence are almost non-existent.

Thankfully, this is not impossible to change as we have demonstrated for the last 15,000 years. We can build settlements and be quite successful at doing so. We have the ability to change our behaviours because most of them are not instinct. I'm simply suspecting that part of what everyone is describing as "missing" is this form of subsistence that so precious few of us could even imagine relying on, let alone actually being capable of or legally allowed to rely on.

[Michael]

Absolutely correct in your first paragraph. The flaw in your understanding is in your second paragraph. People didn't live even in small towns and villages until agriculture Michael. We were all gatherer-hunters. That is the predominant model of human subsistence. Civilisation is, by definition, the sedentism of staying in one place and building permanent architecture. You will not find this in existence before agriculture. I stand by my argument that this is what we're still struggling to deal with. The permanency of settlement, be it a town, village, city, whatever, is "new" to humanity. The scale of this in a metropolis is only exaggerated whereby the gatherer-hunter patterns of subsistence are almost non-existent.
Yes, the 'permanency' part is new, but that primarily represents a change in diet (agriculture over hunt/gather).

My point is that we as a social animal lived in "villiage-sized" groups in both periods (pre and post agriculture). The large-group-social dynamic is consistent to both.

Thankfully, this is not impossible to change as we have demonstrated for the last 15,000 years. We can build settlements and be quite successful at doing so. We have the ability to change our behaviours because most of them are not instinct. I'm simply suspecting that part of what everyone is describing as "missing" is this form of subsistence that so precious few of us could even imagine relying on, let alone actually being capable of or legally allowed to rely on.
Yes, it is possible that some people may yearn for a closer connection with 'their roots', but I really don't think people as a whole are yearning to be hunter-gatherers for their daily food. ;)

Could you be more precise about what you mean by "this form of subsistence"?

[Greendruid]

Yes, the 'permanency' part is new, but that primarily represents a change in diet (agriculture over hunt/gather).

My point is that we as a social animal lived in "villiage-sized" groups in both periods (pre and post agriculture). The large-group-social dynamic is consistent to both.


Yes, it is possible that some people may yearn for a closer connection with 'their roots', but I really don't think people as a whole are yearning to be hunter-gatherers for their daily food. ;)

Could you be more precise about what you mean by "this form of subsistence"?

As far as we can tell, what you may be calling village-sized was the maximum limits for any group. The general consensus on group sizes before agriculture is 50 to 250, depending on the ecosystem supporting the group. Beyond this, the group MUST fission and create two groups out of one.

One of the things that is suggested by some is that this number is a social maximum for humans. We actually can't know a larger number of people than this on a daily basis. I'm going to peg most Facebook users as having weekly contact with no more than this number of people. It's not only now an issue of time that we're constrained by but there seems to have always been in place a hard-wired social maximum that we are able to cope with. This does not mean that we cannot know that there is another group over here or over there that practices the same customs as us. In fact, it may be necessary in some groups for you to find a mate from that group (a cultural rule we call exogamy that has the added benefit of diversifying the gene pool).

Subsistence is what we call the entire cultural system that a group of people has in place to sustain their existence in co-ordination with the surrounding physical environment, and in turn how they impact their environment by being a part of it. It is similar to the biological term "ecology" but has broader implications in that we are a cultural animal and make bizarre decisions (from the biological standpoint) about how to interact with the environment. It includes, but is not limited to aspects of social stratification, labour specialisation/division, resource distribution, kinship systems, religion and politics. These are seen to be the major things that archaeologists specifically can comment on from what's left behind as well.

Taking all of that into consideration to address the main OP, I believe that the scale of socialisation sometimes required of some of us on a daily basis that is fleeting, even somewhat meaningless, is contrary to the way we have evolved to interact with others. It confuses our brains to have to deal with people so fleetingly and sometimes in great numbers beyond what any of us can imagine as a group because we have evolved to deal with groups that max out at 250 people. We can't know the minds of our fellow Canadians, for instance, because there's just too bloody many of them. I think this is what distresses us and tells us that the group is too large. Hell, there may even be a chemical response associated with this in the brain that is over-firing for those of you who need a biological basis for my argument. I'd be willing to say that this is possible given the time-depth of this behaviour pattern.

[Michael]

As far as we can tell, what you may be calling village-sized was the maximum limits for any group. The general consensus on group sizes before agriculture is 50 to 250, depending on the ecosystem supporting the group. Beyond this, the group MUST fission and create two groups out of one.

One of the things that is suggested by some is that this number is a social maximum for humans. We actually can't know a larger number of people than this on a daily basis.
Yes, I'm familiar with this. That's why I noted the similarity between the size of hunter-gather 'clans' and our modern 'villages'. That represents some 'continuity' in the human social dynamic between 'pre-farming' and 'post-farming' lifestyles.

Taking all of that into consideration to address the main OP, I believe that the scale of socialisation sometimes required of some of us on a daily basis that is fleeting, even somewhat meaningless, is contrary to the way we have evolved to interact with others. It confuses our brains to have to deal with people so fleetingly and sometimes in great numbers beyond what any of us can imagine as a group because we have evolved to deal with groups that max out at 250 people. We can't know the minds of our fellow Canadians, for instance, because there's just too bloody many of them. I think this is what distresses us and tells us that the group is too large. Hell, there may even be a chemical response associated with this in the brain that is over-firing for those of you who need a biological basis for my argument. I'd be willing to say that this is possible given the time-depth of this behaviour pattern.
Thus, modern humans are under constant 'psychic stress' of not being able to deal with the extra people around us?

I admit, this makes sense as an explanation of the many 'neuroses' that modern humans tend to exhibit (not unlike some animals in zoos).

But, to my understanding, this does not explain why there is a constant assertion that "something is missing". Indeed, following the logic of your analysis here, we should be suffering from complaints of "too much" (stress from the overload of people sensations). Certainly we can work to block out the stress of the too numerous 'others' but that doesn't seem to correspond with the idea that 'something is missing' (which is is an ever-present theme of our modern society).

[SMadsen]

But, to my understanding, this does not explain why there is a constant assertion that "something is missing". Indeed, following the logic of your analysis here, we should be suffering from complaints of "too much" (stress from the overload of people sensations). Certainly we can work to block out the stress of the too numerous 'others' but that doesn't seem to correspond with the idea that 'something is missing' (which is is an ever-present theme of our modern society).
Not to mention that the argument is predicated upon the assumption that hunter/gatherer people in groups that don't exceed the social maximum for humans don't feel that "something is missing".

I think Greendruid is absolutely correct in the observations above regarding social biology but I don't think it's particularly related to the sense of a 'wrongness' in society. I suspect there has always been and always will be a sense of something being wrong with society. Just as there, paradoxically, will always be a sense that one's own society is less wrong than other societies.

[andrewl]

What's Wrong with Modern Society?

One of the most common critiques of our modern (or western) society is that despite all our fabulous technologies, remarkable daily luxuries and seemingly ever-rising standards of living, there is something missing. Faith, belief, religion, spiritualism, civic pride, community spirit, self discipline, sacrifice, balance, temperance, etc., are all variously put forward as the 'missing element'. No one really seems to be able to identify precisely what is actually missing here (generally speaking).

Now I know this topic has been discussed previously (rather a few years back), but I don't think we really resolved it the first time round (or the second!). Certainly all the usual suspects (capitalism, technology, individualism, selfishness, liberalism, etc.) were discussed as potential 'culprits', but none of them were found to be actually holding a smoking gun (as it were).

So, I ask the question again - what's missing?

* * *

One concept that I remember being raised in regard to this topic that intrigued me was the idea that maybe nothing is actually missing - rather it just might be that modern society tends to creates a yearning for something that isn't there! As is my way with things, certain ideas just 'stick' in my head for months or years, slowly being thought about. This has been one of them. The more I think about it, the more this approach seems to make some sense. Though, I must say, I'm not sure if this represents a manifestation of modern society or whether it might be characteristic of human nature itself. Either way, if it was real, it would explain a lot of things about how and why people tend to get all bitchy about why the world is so fucked up and try to come up with theories to explain it all. :ummm:


I know whats missing. Our daily lives lack a required dose of contact with the 'natural' world. By 'natural' i mean forests, rivers, wild animals, darkness, stars and planets, contact with other beings, killing your own food...

We have dramatically reduced our chances to develop a meaningful relationship with the natural world. And that is a massive tragedy.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I don't see any conflict in this issue at all.

It is understood that humans are a social animal and that we've always lived in packs/tribes/clans/groups. That's how we lived as 'pre-humans' and that's how we lived as humans pre-agriculture and that's how we live now.

A proper society for any animal includes far more than their own species.

So what's the issue here? What needs to be adapted to? What is so special about a city that's different from a town or village? And even in the west, a significantly large proportion of people live in small towns and villages still to this day.

A city is designed exclusively for humans and devastates other living systems. As the physical footprint of a city shrinks in size down to a town or village there is some improvement as access to 'nature' increases.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

I know whats missing. Our daily lives lack a required dose of contact with the 'natural' world. By 'natural' i mean forests, rivers, wild animals, darkness, stars and planets, contact with other beings, killing your own food...

We have dramatically reduced our chances to develop a meaningful relationship with the natural world. And that is a massive tragedy.

Andrew
I believe that's a symptom. Not a diagnosis ;)

[SMadsen]

A proper society for any animal includes far more than their own species.
Is that why we call most of the species that cohabitate with us for bugs?

A city is designed exclusively for humans and devastates other living systems. As the physical footprint of a city shrinks in size down to a town or village there is some improvement as access to 'nature' increases.
Is that why cities are people-magnets? To provide an escape for this so-called improvement?

[andrewl]

I believe that's a symptom. Not a diagnosis ;)

That is where most people are mistaken. They discount our evolution as animals in a community with other animals. This is a diagnosis, not a symptom.

The symptoms of this tragedy are abuse of self and others, isolation, despair, depression, hopelessness, feelings of emptiness...

Andrew

[andrewl]

Is that why we call most of the species that cohabitate with us for bugs?

Bugs are just the ones we have not yet been able to completely annihilate.


Is that why cities are people-magnets? To provide an escape for this so-called improvement?

People escape to the wilderness (or cheap facsimiles of it to be sure). Cities are people magnets because that is where civilization forces people to be.

Andrew

[dilettante]

What's Wrong with Modern Society?

One of the most common critiques of our modern (or western) society is that despite all our fabulous technologies, remarkable daily luxuries and seemingly ever-rising standards of living, there is something missing. Faith, belief, religion, spiritualism, civic pride, community spirit, self discipline, sacrifice, balance, temperance, etc., are all variously put forward as the 'missing element'. No one really seems to be able to identify precisely what is actually missing here (generally speaking).

Now I know this topic has been discussed previously (rather a few years back), but I don't think we really resolved it the first time round (or the second!). Certainly all the usual suspects (capitalism, technology, individualism, selfishness, liberalism, etc.) were discussed as potential 'culprits', but none of them were found to be actually holding a smoking gun (as it were).

So, I ask the question again - what's missing?

It seems to me the answers to this question are fairly straightforward: happiness, purpose, love, peace...etc. All those various things that would make for an idyllic utopia/heaven. We have these only in part, we lament their incompleteness, and so we feel that they are "missing" (and so they are).

If the "something is missing" conception is new to the modern world, I suspect that's only because the modern world is more inclined to believe that such an idyllic existence could/should be achievable now (or perhaps is simply less inclined to believe that God or "progress" will bring it about eventually), and thus is less inclined to quietly accept the present imperfection.

[Michael]

People escape to the wilderness (or cheap facsimiles of it to be sure). Cities are people magnets because that is where civilization forces people to be.

Andrew
This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. USA and Canada (to be specfic) both massively use city-generated tax revenues to subsidize lightly populated rural places.

In other words, our society MASSIVELY subsidizes rural living with tax transfers, and inflates their political power with imbalanced seats in the house massively favoring lightly populated rural regions at the expense of city dwellers.

So, how does civilization "force" people to live in cities when so much money is used to subsidize rural living?

Seems like society goes out of its way to support/subsidize/encourage rural living - yet people continue to pay a higher monetary price just to get into the city (and away from the rural living that everyone seems to hate). People vote with their feet and rural always loses - even when it is massively subsidized and city-living costs double or triple.

Funny thing is that every government policy expert agrees with you that cities are awful places and people always prefer nice quaint rural places to live (even though this is contradicted by all known facts). This 'cognitive dissonance' is right up there with "tax cuts stimulate the economy" when in reality, 'tax cuts just cause deficits' is what happens every time.

[Donkey]

In "third world" countries I think that it is often the case that people are forced to go to the cities as their traditional rural lifestyle falls apart: India, Peru, etc.

[Michael]

In "third world" countries I think that it is often the case that people are forced to go to the cities as their traditional rural lifestyle falls apart: India, Peru, etc.
I'm no expert on 3rd world present day agriculture, but traditionally, peasants are always forced off the land when any nation tries to improve itself. This is strictly a private market phenomena following the logic of market prices.

Peasant farmers are brutally inefficient economic producers. Thus, the first stage of successful development is to get rid of all those marginal subsistence farmers and replace them with larger farms that can develop crops for export. Historically, this was called "enclosure" in the UK. Same process is going on throughout the 3rd world right now.

And NO ONE forces these landless peasants into the city - they choose to go there on the basis that "jobs available in rural villages = zero" while "jobs available in city = some".

No one forces them into the city. Indeed, by 3rd world standards, cities are usually just big shitholes surrounded by shanty towns. With this kind of urban living, I can imagine why people might like to think that people prefer rural living.

[andrewl]

This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. USA and Canada (to be specfic) both massively use city-generated tax revenues to subsidize lightly populated rural places.

In other words, our society MASSIVELY subsidizes rural living with tax transfers, and inflates their political power with imbalanced seats in the house massively favoring lightly populated rural regions at the expense of city dwellers.

So, how does civilization "force" people to live in cities when so much money is used to subsidize rural living?

Seems like society goes out of its way to support/subsidize/encourage rural living - yet people continue to pay a higher monetary price just to get into the city (and away from the rural living that everyone seems to hate). People vote with their feet and rural always loses - even when it is massively subsidized and city-living costs double or triple.

Funny thing is that every government policy expert agrees with you that cities are awful places and people always prefer nice quaint rural places to live (even though this is contradicted by all known facts). This 'cognitive dissonance' is right up there with "tax cuts stimulate the economy" when in reality, 'tax cuts just cause deficits' is what happens every time.

Small towns and villages are just little cities, only with a greater potential to interact with nature.

But...

I don't think isolated rural living or small town is much better than city living these days. These people attempt to replicate the city wherever they are.

So more and more, rural people live virtually identical lifestyle as city people, they merely have to drive farther to the grocery store, the best buy, the walmart, etc... But even then you see more and more big box stores in every small town along the hi way.

I'm now thinking that when people have access to technology they will limit their access to nature, even when it is literally right out their front door. Why run through a real forest when World of Warcraft is available?

My point about civilization forcing people into cities/towns/villages - for example: Opening up the beaver trade and killing off the buffalo made it impossible for tribal Indians to continue to hunt and gather. This forced them into towns and villages where they were coerced into becoming western style farmers. Working the land by day, and retiring to heavy drinking by night. Suicide and abuse skyrocketed amongst their populations. This same pattern is now repeating itself in the amazon.

Id be interested to see what a tribal person would respond to your question with.

Andrew

[Michael]

Small towns and villages are just little cities, only with a greater potential to interact with nature.

But...

I don't think isolated rural living or small town is much better than city living these days. These people attempt to replicate the city wherever they are.

So more and more, rural people live virtually identical lifestyle as city people, they merely have to drive farther to the grocery store, the best buy, the walmart, etc... But even then you see more and more big box stores in every small town along the hi way.

I'm now thinking that when people have access to technology they will limit their access to nature, even when it is literally right out their front door. Why run through a real forest when World of Warcraft is available?
Doesn't this shoot a hole in your argument given above?

Fact is, people don't seem to show much interest in natural living at all. This seems very consistent across culture, age, class or race.

On this basis, I don't see how you can make the argument that modern humans are secretly yearning to get closer to nature. They seem to spend a whole lot more time/money/effort trying to get away from nature.

My point about civilization forcing people into cities/towns/villages - for example: Opening up the beaver trade and killing off the buffalo made it impossible for tribal Indians to continue to hunt and gather. This forced them into towns and villages where they were coerced into becoming western style farmers. Working the land by day, and retiring to heavy drinking by night. Suicide and abuse skyrocketed amongst their populations. This same pattern is now repeating itself in the amazon.
Curiously enough, the same pattern did not repeat itself with the enclosures of the 15th-19th century in Britain (for example). Huge numbers of landless peasants were thrown off the land. Many of them turned to different work or emigrated.

Likewise with the mill workers, railroad coaliers and telephone switchboard operators. This process is almost a daily occurance.

It is more interesting to me to look at the question of why 'indigenious peoples' seem to be such a striking exception to the rule here.

Id be interested to see what a tribal person would respond to your question with.
Why? Chances are that a tribal person would have very little understanding, awareness or knowledge (if any at all) of modern society. Indeed, if they did, they wouldn't be 'tribal' any more.

[SMadsen]

Why? Chances are that a tribal person would have very little understanding, awareness or knowledge (if any at all) of modern society. Indeed, if they did, they wouldn't be 'tribal' any more.
There's been a couple of TV shows where a group of men from remote and isolated New Guinean tribes were brought to England. One thing I remember that was of grave and sincere concern to the tribesmen was that British pigs got inseminated. "Pigs should be allowed to have real sex!", were the words from the displeased swineherd.

So maybe Andrew is right. Technology is bad, natural living is good. Cities are bad, natural living is good. Et cetera. But, as the announcer from The Weakest Link keeps saying, "But will the team recognize this?"

[Michael]

There's been a couple of TV shows where a group of men from remote and isolated New Guinean tribes were brought to England. One thing I remember that was of grave and sincere concern to the tribesmen was that British pigs got inseminated. "Pigs should be allowed to have real sex!", were the words from the displeased swineherd.

So maybe Andrew is right. Technology is bad, natural living is good. Cities are bad, natural living is good. Et cetera. But, as the announcer from The Weakest Link keeps saying, "But will the team recognize this?"
Sure, technology is evil and naturalism is good. And natural living is capable of supporting probably about 5% of our present planetary population.

Who's going to tell the 95% that they are now deemed to be surplus?

In other words this "good" vs "bad" is a false dichotomy. If one takes it seriously, one is proposing the elimination of many billions of people and make Hitler look like a cub scout.

[andrewl]

Doesn't this shoot a hole in your argument given above?

Fact is, people don't seem to show much interest in natural living at all. This seems very consistent across culture, age, class or race.

On this basis, I don't see how you can make the argument that modern humans are secretly yearning to get closer to nature. They seem to spend a whole lot more time/money/effort trying to get away from nature.

I don't think i made the argument that they are secretly yearning to get closer to nature. I sometimes go out of my way to eat far more cheeseburgers than my body should ultimately digest. What i need and what is missing is more fruits and vegetables. This does not mean im secretly yearning for more fruits and vegetables, but it is certainly what is missing.


Curiously enough, the same pattern did not repeat itself with the enclosures of the 15th-19th century in Britain (for example). Huge numbers of landless peasants were thrown off the land. Many of them turned to different work or emigrated.

Likewise with the mill workers, railroad coaliers and telephone switchboard operators. This process is almost a daily occurance.

These people are already civilized. I'm referring to the pattern with indigenous peoples.

It is more interesting to me to look at the question of why 'indigenious peoples' seem to be such a striking exception to the rule here.

That is what i find interesting as well. And i think its because they are already quite fulfilled and content with 'life'. We take away that fulfillment from them in a stupid attempt to force them into our supposedly 'superior' life style. At least, this is what we make ourselves believe so that we can justify to ourselves the injustices we tend to inflict on them.


Why? Chances are that a tribal person would have very little understanding, awareness or knowledge (if any at all) of modern society. Indeed, if they did, they wouldn't be 'tribal' any more.

I was initially thinking of posing the same question to tribal peoples but without the 'modern' qualifier. What sort of response would you get if you were able to ask a an indigenous person what is wrong with their culture... i'm thinking befuddlement would be the result.

But to even pose the question to those former tribal people who live on the periphery of modern society, say in Northern Alberta or the arctic would be intersting to me.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

I was initially thinking of posing the same question to tribal peoples but without the 'modern' qualifier. What sort of response would you get if you were able to ask a an indigenous person what is wrong with their culture... i'm thinking befuddlement would be the result.
If you can avoid flaunting the difference between yourself and those you'll be interviewing, I'll put a hundred on the exact same answer that you'll get from any member of a 'civilized' society.

If you can't avoid flaunting the difference then I'll put a hundred on the answer that some of what you have is what is missing in the lifes of those you interview and some of what they have is what they think is missing in yours.

[Michael]

I don't think i made the argument that they are secretly yearning to get closer to nature. I sometimes go out of my way to eat far more cheeseburgers than my body should ultimately digest. What i need and what is missing is more fruits and vegetables. This does not mean im secretly yearning for more fruits and vegetables, but it is certainly what is missing.
Isn't this an argument against evolution?

You appear to be suggesting that no matter how far human society may develope beyond the African savannah, humans and human society will always have some "need" to go back to that.

I think humans and human society are both capable of evolution over time to adapt to new conditions. Nostalgia for older patterns of living I can understand, but a "need" for them seems to be arbitrary by general evolutionary theory and/or logic.

These people are already civilized. I'm referring to the pattern with indigenous peoples.
My point was to draw attention to the same pattern with contemporary indigenous peoples where the same pattern still holds (suggesting that is a cultural - or ethnic - thing).

That is what i find interesting as well. And i think its because they are already quite fulfilled and content with 'life'. We take away that fulfillment from them in a stupid attempt to force them into our supposedly 'superior' life style. At least, this is what we make ourselves believe so that we can justify to ourselves the injustices we tend to inflict on them.
True to an extent, but not entirely true in all cases. Inuit for example were not 'forced' into our lifestyles at all - quite the opposite. They traded for and adopted a couple of our 'toys' and they used those toys to wipe out their own socio-economic livelihood (guns and snowmobiles). Our 'soul-destroying' western capitalist-religious system didn't really arrive to these people until they had already done irrevocable damage to their own socio-cultural lifestyles (guns change the whole fundamental dynamics of hunting).

I was initially thinking of posing the same question to tribal peoples but without the 'modern' qualifier. What sort of response would you get if you were able to ask a an indigenous person what is wrong with their culture... i'm thinking befuddlement would be the result.
Well, you are using the definition of 'civilized' to determine who is civilized here. "Civilization" by definition is the art of recording culture. Obviously people who don't record culture don't pay much overt attention to the topic or issue of recording/classifying cultures. The question is nonsense when posed to 'actual' indigenous persons (I'm thinking you need some real New Guinea or African highlanders for that - the vast majority of 'indigenous people' in Canada do have televisions...).

But to even pose the question to those former tribal people who live on the periphery of modern society, say in Northern Alberta or the arctic would be intersting to me.

Andrew
Like I said, I don't think you can meaningfully pose the question, since by definition you are talking about people that don't speak any language but their own - and that language isn't likely to have appropriate or accurate words for engaging in abstract discussions about culture 'as a thing in itself'.