"People are more civilized now"

[InquilineKea]

<p>
[quote]
Daniel Quinn (a very highly educated author) describes a tribe in his book, Ishmael. I admit that my opinion about tribes living simpler, happier lives is rooted mostly in his descriptions. It's obvious that in a tribe there's a lot less "going through the motions", which also plays a big role in my perception of tribes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a single tribe. How is it representative of all tribal groups? Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" says that the murder rate of even the most peaceable of tribes is comparable to the murder rate of cities like Detroit.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Glad you asked. Generally, tribes practiced moderation. They took what they needed and worked hard enough to survive. However, they didn't take too much, and they didn't work too hard. Moderation is the byproduct of a of a tribe, or "we" culture. Members of a "we" culture do not let things get out of hand, they don't stray from their track and they keep the goal in mind. For example, a tribe member knows that the goal of life is to have "cradle-to-grave" security. In order for that to happen, he needs to have enough food, shelter and clothing to last him a lifetime. Once he reaches his goal, he doesn't continue to search for more food, shelter or clothing. On the other side of the spectrum is our "me" culture, where we continue to gather resources long after we're satiated, clothed and warm. Tribes practice moderation, while we believe in "progress" (a word with a connotation much too positive for it's meaning).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lol, interesting point. Asian cultures are collective by nature - but yet - are they still necessarily moderate? For one thing - China's economy is now booming, and it has to face problems related to pollution and overpopulation. Apparently the government has to institute steps to fix them - not the individuals.</p>

<p>That being said, the collective culture is really only possible in small tribes, rather than large superentities. But the fact is - small tribes have competing interests with other tribes. And this will lead to warfare - unless there are macroorganizations - read, governments - that can control this. Look at the history of any tribal group. The history is overwhelmingly filled with blood and warfare. (there are some exceptions - but those groups are the minority)</p>

<p>
[quote]

Science is constantly changing as new information is gathered. Not that that's a bad thing, in fact, it brings meaning to many a scientists' life. The only thing is, because science is constantly morphing, we never know what's true and what's false. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to base one's beliefs on science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We know as much as our data tells us. The fact is - science has given rise to new technology. That the technology works - this proves that the science is sound (at least to some degree). It's not perfect. But do you doubt concepts like the double helix structure of DNA, the processes of mitosis, evolution, or the ultimate denouement of the sun? You should read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But an anomaly is needed first. And there aren't a lot of such anomalies in the sort of every day science that we rely on.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you implying that Humans are the only species on Earth that will never die out? We won't go extinct, EVER? Also, you mention that other animals make mistakes. I'm sure that's true, but the affects of their mistakes are not comparable to the detrimental environmental affects of our mistakes. Also, other species do not have greed, or shortsightedness.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They're more adaptable than other animals. The fact is - humans can decide to kill off any animal if they so desire to do so. Other animals don't have such a choice. And the fate of the planet in the future is in the hands of humans. </p>

<ul>
<li>sorry - parents forcing me off - coming back later.</li>
</ul>

<p>
[quote]
Much more time is wasted than ever before. Our current "needs" are completely out of hand--they go way beyond our true needs. Our "needs" include mowing the lawn, going to college, fixing the TV, knowing how to read, write, speak at least two languages fluently, have twenty different clothes outfits, building a new house when old houses are still habitable, formal wear, 'moving up', and taking vacations. Our true needs include water, calories, nutrients, shelter, fire, and some clothing. Tribe members recognize that fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, I agree. </p>

<ul>
<li>sorry - parents forcing me off - coming back later.</li>
</ul>

[Taggart]

<p>
[quote]
Taggart--I know someone with a very similar perspective to yours. It's interesting. Hmm.. a good word to describe it would be "all-or-nothing". There's no gray area for you, is there?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By what is moral and what is not? No, there is no gray.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That quote is the perfect example of an all-or-nothing mentality. It implies that you have two choices: give away everything and starve yourself, or keep everything and let the other guy starve. Why can't the person in question keep what he needs to survive, and give away his extra resources?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He can, if that is voluntarily what makes him happy. However, why should the person who has the most be forced to give away what he has? When giving becomes the norm, someone'll propose it as law, and then the looting begins.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>
[quote]
One more thing--</p>

<p>InquilineKea, about vegetarianism and how it relates to local economies:</p>

<p>Small, family farms can be a positive part of any thriving local economy. I'm a strong supporter of organic meat, because I believe that factory farms are detrimental in every way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But the fact is - organic meat takes up a lot of space. And that only increases the necessity of taking up more land, space, and resources (sometimes, it requires rain forests to be burned down).</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>
[quote]
Glad you asked. Generally, tribes practiced moderation. They took what they needed and worked hard enough to survive. However, they didn't take too much, and they didn't work too hard. Moderation is the byproduct of a of a tribe, or "we" culture. Members of a "we" culture do not let things get out of hand, they don't stray from their track and they keep the goal in mind. For example, a tribe member knows that the goal of life is to have "cradle-to-grave" security. In order for that to happen, he needs to have enough food, shelter and clothing to last him a lifetime. Once he reaches his goal, he doesn't continue to search for more food, shelter or clothing. On the other side of the spectrum is our "me" culture, where we continue to gather resources long after we're satiated, clothed and warm. Tribes practice moderation, while we believe in "progress" (a word with a connotation much too positive for it's meaning).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tribes have practiced moderation in a small environment where it was necessary to practice moderation - because their limited technology allowed them to only procure limited amounts of resources. Now, it is true that they moderate their killings as a result of their cultural beliefs. But on the other hand - do we need to go back to tribal beliefs? As opposed to management practices based on sound science? We now have access to more information than tribes ever had. And it is more optimal for us to base our decisions on basis of the information that we collect - and those decisions can be grounded in morals other than those of tribal morals.</p>

<p>Tribal morals are by nature fixed. They don't respond particularly well to a changing world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Science is constantly changing as new information is gathered. Not that that's a bad thing, in fact, it brings meaning to many a scientists' life. The only thing is, because science is constantly morphing, we never know what's true and what's false. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to base one's beliefs on science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So it's risky to base one's beliefs on evolution? On mitosis? On the double helix structure of DNA? On the photoelectric effect? On Maxwell's equations? On the immune system? On how the immune system relates to blood transfusions? On neurobiology? On the effects of brain damage? </p>

<p>And what alternatives do we have? Science is not perfect. But it is the best possible choice among alternatives. That is why we pursue it. It is the intrinsic nature of science to be modifiable with new evidence. Other beliefs, which are totally fixed and engraved, do not respond to new discoveries. And this is why those other beliefs are ultimately flawed.</p>

<p>If we don't trust anything, then we cannot make any decisions at all. At least science makes our decisions more accurately than other belief systems. And that is grounds in itself to trust science more than anything else. What else? Our intuitions? Flips of the coin?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Science is constantly changing as new information is gathered. Not that that's a bad thing, in fact, it brings meaning to many a scientists' life. The only thing is, because science is constantly morphing, we never know what's true and what's false. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to base one's beliefs on science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Much more time is wasted than ever before. Our current "needs" are completely out of hand--they go way beyond our true needs. Our "needs" include mowing the lawn, going to college, fixing the TV, knowing how to read, write, speak at least two languages fluently, have twenty different clothes outfits, building a new house when old houses are still habitable, formal wear, 'moving up', and taking vacations. Our true needs include water, calories, nutrients, shelter, fire, and some clothing. Tribe members recognize that fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I agree that our "needs" are getting waaaaaay out of hand, I must ask the question - are tribes necessarily better off than modern society is in this respect? </p>

<p>You're comparing tribe members (who could not have access to anything but the most basic fundamental needs - and who had to spend A LOT of time trying to procure such needs) with us (who have lots of time to waste on things other than fundamental needs). The comparison does not apply. Moreover, tribes do waste a lot of time on tribal customs that are ultimately misgiven. They have all sorts of dances, masks, rites of passage, cultural artifacts, etc. How are those any better than modern-day customs? </p>

<p>We have the opportunity to waste more time, due to our technology. If tribes had this same technology - what would they be doing? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you implying that Humans are the only species on Earth that will never die out? We won't go extinct, EVER? Also, you mention that other animals make mistakes. I'm sure that's true, but the affects of their mistakes are not comparable to the detrimental environmental affects of our mistakes. Also, other species do not have greed, or shortsightedness.

[/quote]

@original

By 'intelligence', I'm assuming you mean lack of instinct. When it comes down to it, that's really what human 'intelligence' is. Instead of running on thousands of years of collective wisdom (instinct), we have 'personal choice'. That makes us way more prone to mistakes (and shortsightedness) than all other species. If you look at it from that perspective, we have the LEAST intelligence of all species on the planet.

</p>

<p>There's a reason why I don't trust "thousands of years of collective wisdom/instinct". Collective wisdom/instinct only applies to particular environments that have been relatively stable for the same thousands of years. Unfortunately, this collective wisdom/instinct proves detrimental to the organisms that possess it in changeable environments. </p>

<p>Your original assertion was that we lack collective wisdom/instinct and that we consequently are more prone to mistakes as a result of that wisdom/instinct. But the fact is - as a result of our free choice, we can adapt. We make mistakes in our attempts to adapt. But at least we can still adapt, unlike animals rooted in instinct - whose instincts force them to respond in a limited number of ways to particular prompts - and this allows us to take advantage of their weaknesses and to kill them off. </p>

<p>Your counterassertion, "but the affects of their mistakes are not comparable to the detrimental environmental affects of our mistakes," is a non sequitur. Our mistakes could still be just as detrimental to the environment if we were rooted in instincts. Especially instincts that motivate us to be self-serving - instincts that make us want to pass our genes to the next generation, independently of how it affects others.</p>

<p>If you want to look at a true communal society where the individuals care about each other - look at species of ants. But humans are different - because individual humans are completely unrelated to each other - whereas all ants are related to each other (and completely willing to sacrifice their genetic fitness in favor of the fitness of the colony).</p>

<p>It is true that humans do care about each other in small tribes. But these tribes have a maximum population - before people can start getting away with wrongdoings without getting caught. Splitting up our world into numerous tribes is a flawed idea, as I have described above. It results only in more warfare between tribes. It's between-group strife rather than internecine strife.</p>

<p>Most other animals are self-serving as well. They do not care about the fates of their competitors. All they care about is impressing the females during breeding season and then passing off their genes to new generations as a result of that. They may not kill members of their own species, true, but that is due to the intrinsic risk of the endeavor. </p>

<p>And yes - male lions have been known to kill the baby cubs of female lions who are unrelated to them. There is another effect - known as the Bruce Effect, which is also related to this.</p>

[mj93]

<p>"But do you doubt concepts like the double helix structure of DNA, the processes of mitosis, evolution, or the ultimate denouement of the sun?"</p>

<p>I can't imagine anything is wrong with those theories--but that's just the thing, <em>I</em> can't imagine any flaws. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Anyone can speculate which of those theories, if any, are somehow wrong. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, we must admit to not knowing for sure. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to put one's full trust in science.</p>

<p>"That being said, the collective culture is really only possible in small tribes, rather than large superentities."</p>

<p>Exactly! Since we can't go back to tribal culture, the only alternative that I can think of is shrinking our species to a more managable size (esp. in Asia).</p>

<p>"But the fact is - small tribes have competing interests with other tribes. And this will lead to warfare - unless there are macroorganizations - read, governments - that can control this."</p>

<p>Regardless of what the chiefs of the tribes say, warfare will occur. It's a fact of tribal life. Imagine a stream that supplies water to two different tribes. If Tribe A builds a dam that cuts off the other Tribe B's access to the stream, warfare will most likely ensue. Tribal life isn't perfect, but the fact that tribes are much smaller scale than our society means that they are indeed more moderate.</p>

<p>--
i'll be back on tomorrow to respond to the rest of your points, inquiline.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>
[quote]
Herbal medicine was around long before modern science ever existed. I have a teacher who recently returned from Tanzania, where he spent a day with the Hakas (sp?). He sprained his ankle badly. He told the class, "I remember just wishing for an aspirin and a band-aid". The tribe 'medicine man' put his foot in a bowl with some sort of liquid and said a prayer. In a couple of hours, his ankle had returned to normal. Based on my teacher's testimony, it seems that our science can't stand up to thousands of years of tribal wisdom.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you sincerely think that this one example is sufficient enough to justify tribal medicine as superior to modern medicine? Are you sure that this one example is independent of the placebo effect?&lt;/p>

<p>You need large-scale double-blind controlled studies. And out of those, we see that traditional medicine very rarely does very well.</p>

<p>And what has medicine done? (it has been based on a sound understanding of science)
- vaccinations (eradicate smallpox, nearly eradicate polio and a host of other diseases)
- antibiotics
- sanitation.
heh, I remember mentioning exactly those three reasons of increased lifespan in my 7th grade life science class, which impressed the teacher.
- surgery
- diseases that kill people are now primarily old-age diseases, rather than infectious diseases. Many of those are caused by flawed lifestyle practices, but those are independent of the effects of medicine.</p>

<p>And herbal medicine. The problem with herbal medicine - the medicine prescribed to treat ailments differs from culture to culture. Moreover (in some cultures), it involved practices such as trepanning and bloodletting. </p>

<p>The most important point - as a result of our technology - we now have access to more information about an ailment than we ever had before. And the fact is, the more information we know about an ailment, the better treatments we can prescribe for it. Sure, most treatments are not perfect. But we use statistical methods to find the best and most inclusive treatments for those illnesses. </p>

<p>As opposed to herbal medicines, grounded in the practices of the past. The practices of the past came out of limited information. And that's what precisely makes a lot of them ineffective</p>

<p>And it keeps getting better. We're entering the age of personal genome sequences. James D. Watson just got his genome sequenced. The costs of genome sequencing technology are going down. Eventually we'll have access to information specific to a patient, to know which treatments work on the patient, and which treatments do not work on the patient.</p>

<p>More information => better outcomes.</p>

<p>(14:39:22) NihilisticMacaw: remember that
(14:39:25) NihilisticMacaw: advice is based on what you know
(14:39:27) NihilisticMacaw: if you know less
(14:39:35) NihilisticMacaw: probability of advice being wrong gets higher
(14:39:50) NihilisticMacaw: it's like a confidence interval in statistics
(14:39:53) NihilisticMacaw: the more you know
(14:40:01) NihilisticMacaw: the lower the range of 95% confidence interval
(14:40:03) NihilisticMacaw: but the less you know
(14:40:10) NihilisticMacaw: the greater the range of 95% confidence interval"</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can't imagine anything is wrong with those theories--but that's just the thing, <em>I</em> can't imagine any flaws. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Anyone can speculate which of those theories, if any, are somehow wrong. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, we must admit to not knowing for sure. For these reasons, it's impractical and risky to put one's full trust in science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Modified response of mine:</p>

<p>So it's risky to base one's beliefs on evolution? On mitosis? On the double helix structure of DNA? On the photoelectric effect? On Maxwell's equations? On the immune system? On how the immune system relates to blood transfusions? On neurobiology? On the effects of brain damage?</p>

<p>And what alternatives do we have? Science is not perfect. But it is the best possible choice among alternatives. That is why we pursue it. It is the intrinsic nature of science to be modifiable with new evidence. Other beliefs, which are totally fixed and engraved, do not respond to new discoveries. And this is why those other beliefs are ultimately flawed.</p>

<p>If we don't trust anything, then we cannot make any decisions at all. Period. At least science makes our decisions more accurately than other belief systems. And that is grounds in itself to trust science more than anything else. What else? Our intuitions? Flips of the coin?</p>

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>Back before the agricultural revolution, most tribe members lived relatively pleasant, content lives. It was a small minority that began to believe in "progress" as we define it--the movement grew, and eventually other tribes were cornered, attacked, or the children were simply drawn in by the glamour of the new agricultural movement. Imagine being there--you can grow your favorite foods repeatedly until you have enough to last all winter! You can see why children were drawn into the idea. The tribal elders couldn't stop them. So really, humans aren't "progressive" by nature. It was a small subgroup that forced everyone into what is now considered "me" culture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lolage. Pleasant contentful lives where the average life expectancy was 30ish? And besides, agricultural civilizations are more stable. In fact, the rise of civilization coincides with the spread of agriculture.</p>

<p>There's a reason why I trust institutions - they allow you access to more information. Collected from people all around the world.</p>

[Lurker_1]

<p>"Funny how people care for animals more than human beings these days. We worry about endangered whales when children are being abandoned and people in disadvantaged countries can't even get clean water. We wail about destroying the habitats of monkeys, but meanwhile Darfur is just a passing thought. We are human beings, let us propagate our own species before we worry about the other species of the planet. Don't worry, the Earth is very resilient, and it's "suffered" a lot worse than global warming. It's called evolution."</p>

<p>I dunno DerrickA, I think we need to practice a little affirmative action and give the little animals a chance. We need to maintain the diversity of the earth after all. </p>

<p>Kidding aside, I think protecting endangered species and the environment is a very worthy cause - by destroying habitats of say monkeys (rainforests), we're screwing up humanity a lot. Who knows what new wonder drug could be locked up in the heart of the rain forest ... and we're destroying it. And while destroying the rainforest, we're introducing deadly viruses like Ebola and AIDS to the world. Horray!</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>
[quote]
Anyone who truely believes that has been drinking the Kool-Aid. Look at how complicated our society has become: children must be schooled for 15-25 years just to function in it. And what are the positive effects of this? Uhh.. there are none. We're single-handedly destroying the planet. We have almost no free time in our lives--it's all spent on obligations that keep this (way too) complicated society running. More and more people become depressed and commit suicide every year. That didn't happen back in tribal times, when life was simple.

[/quote]
Crime rates are lower and life expectancies are much longer.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>
[quote]
I stopped myself from answering in this thread mainly because I thought it was a joke. It's not, and it's sick.</p>

<p>Humans are undeniably more civilized now, with their discoveries, innovative technologies, governments, and whatnot. So what if the planet's being destroyed? Is old nature so much more sacred than new-age skyscrapers? Are you willing to throw away medicine and let people die because you believe nature to be worth more than a life? There is no point for all this "holier than thou." There is never a reason to bring human beings to the sacrificial altar.</p>

<p>And in olden times, when the human life expectancy was at what? 30? You think they were satisfied? You think that having to constantly work to hunt and make food (and continually risk your life doing so) is equivalent to having one's basic needs? Being able to sustain life is not the same as living. Never knowing anything more is not a replacement for contentment.</p>

<p>I personally adore the "me" culture, mainly because there is no reason at all to put others ahead of oneself. I am an individualist. I will not be blamed for the actions of others. I refuse to give to the undeserving.</p>

<p>Yes, there is such a thing as human superiority -- we find a problem, and we can solve it. Monkeys use basic hand-tools and we're amazed. Trains run and we complain about the marring tracks laid across mountains. Why?

[/quote]
+1. Top quality.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>
[quote]
Glad you asked. Generally, tribes practiced moderation. They took what they needed and worked hard enough to survive. However, they didn't take too much, and they didn't work too hard. Moderation is the byproduct of a of a tribe, or "we" culture. Members of a "we" culture do not let things get out of hand, they don't stray from their track and they keep the goal in mind. For example, a tribe member knows that the goal of life is to have "cradle-to-grave" security. In order for that to happen, he needs to have enough food, shelter and clothing to last him a lifetime. Once he reaches his goal, he doesn't continue to search for more food, shelter or clothing. On the other side of the spectrum is our "me" culture, where we continue to gather resources long after we're satiated, clothed and warm. Tribes practice moderation, while we believe in "progress" (a word with a connotation much too positive for it's meaning).

[/quote]
Yes. The Aztecs practiced moderation. They only demanded 10 sacrifices daily, as opposed to an obscene 20hearts/day sacrifice requirement. Honestly, it sounds like you don't have a clue how the old world operated. War/Homocide was the largest killer, starvation was a yearly menace. Basically, just look at the poorest countries in the world today. Huge homocide rates, large amounts of warfare, low amounts of food, etc.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Much more time is wasted than ever before. Our current "needs" are completely out of hand--they go way beyond our true needs. Our "needs" include mowing the lawn, going to college, fixing the TV, knowing how to read, write, speak at least two languages fluently, have twenty different clothes outfits, building a new house when old houses are still habitable, formal wear, 'moving up', and taking vacations. Our true needs include water, calories, nutrients, shelter, fire, and some clothing. Tribe members recognize that fact.

[/quote]
Says the person posting on an internet forum. Please. In every measurable way, quality of life has improved. You are arguing this as a bad thing. You say "taking vacations" as if it was a bad thing. I don't know about you, but I think vacations are pretty sweet. I mean, I can go places and experience new stuff that people 300 years ago hadn't even imagined.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Back before the agricultural revolution, most tribe members lived relatively pleasant, content lives.

[/quote]
Absolutely false. Quality of life, in virtually every measurable way was worse.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It was a small minority that began to believe in "progress" as we define it--the movement grew, and eventually other tribes were cornered, attacked, or the children were simply drawn in by the glamour of the new agricultural movement.

[/quote]
Yes, the lower starvation rates of settled societies were superior to nomadic hunter gatherers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Imagine being there--you can grow your favorite foods repeatedly until you have enough to last all winter! You can see why children were drawn into the idea.

[/quote]
Yes, having enough food to survive is a good thing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The tribal elders couldn't stop them. So really, humans aren't "progressive" by nature. It was a small subgroup that forced everyone into what is now considered "me" culture.

[/quote]
Back then, people cared about one thing. Food. If you have more of it, that's good.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Herbal medicine was around long before modern science ever existed. I have a teacher who recently returned from Tanzania, where he spent a day with the Hakas (sp?). He sprained his ankle badly. He told the class, "I remember just wishing for an aspirin and a band-aid". The tribe 'medicine man' put his foot in a bowl with some sort of liquid and said a prayer. In a couple of hours, his ankle had returned to normal. Based on my teacher's testimony, it seems that our science can't stand up to thousands of years of tribal wisdom.

[/quote]
Dude, seriously lay off the pipe.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>lolorz. still this is my favorite thread here. ;)</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Hahaha
<a href="http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2008077%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2008077&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Ethics of vegetarianism:
<a href="http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/163282.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/163282.html&lt;/a>
(heh, it has the same points as I do - namely - ecosystems have higher informational content than artificial systems)</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Anyways, I know that current modern day customs do seem barbaric, unnecessary, and frivolous. It makes us want to esteem anything but our own customs. But yet, you haven't grown up with the customs of the past. if you did, then maybe those same customs may seem barbaric to you. Don't make comparisons until you're reasonably sure that you took care of your cognitive biases. We really cannot know how living in tribal societies would be like - until we get to experience it ourselves. Can you be that confident in thinking that something that you do not know would be preferable to what's currently the norm?</p>

[DerrickA]

<p>I would sooner give my life for another human being than a pigeon. </p>

<p>And I refuse to believe that a few thousand years of existence will doom the Earth. We don't even register on the magnitude of Earth's existence. That's not to say that we should not care for endangered species and all, but I think we need to worry about kids being killed in Darfur before we rant and rave about destroying a planet that has A) Experienced far worse global warming on an absolute scale (Thermal Maximum, anyone?) B) Is billions of years old, and C) has survived cataclysmic collisions that have wiped out several species at once. As cruel as it seems, ( not to say that we are the Mother Theresas of the world) I honestly don't think that we have a significant impact on the death date of Earth. We overestimate our own importance on the largest scale. Of course, global warming and endangered species are worthy causes, but I don't think they are as worthy as Darfur or AIDS.</p>

[schrizto]

<p>
[quote]
Herbal medicine was around long before modern science ever existed. I have a teacher who recently returned from Tanzania, where he spent a day with the Hakas (sp?). He sprained his ankle badly. He told the class, "I remember just wishing for an aspirin and a band-aid". The tribe 'medicine man' put his foot in a bowl with some sort of liquid and said a prayer. In a couple of hours, his ankle had returned to normal. Based on my teacher's testimony, it seems that our science can't stand up to thousands of years of tribal wisdom.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I haven't been able to read the more recent posts on this thread (it seems as if some of the posts on here have become insanely long) but I just have to point out that this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. You can't depend on a single testimony to say that herbal medicine is superior to modern medicine. Furthermore, "an aspirin and a band-aid" does not characterize the way medicine is applied today. There is a reason why "tribal wisdom" isn't practiced in the developed countries nowadays: because it is less effective than modern medicine.
What about how to treat other ailments other than a sprained ankle? Do you really believe dousing someone with a heart attack, or an infection, etc., with some liquid and then reciting an incantation will actually cure them? No, it is better off to know what is the cause, what is actually wrong with the person and trying to solve the problem directly. I'm not saying things like herbal and alternative medicine don't work, just that modern medicine actually has concrete evidence and explanations to back it up. Yes, science is flawed like you say, but tribal beliefs are probably flawed more so in their own right. If tribal remedies are really so effective, then in poorer countries where herbal medicine is often practiced in place of modern techniques, their population would actually have a higher survival rate from diseases and injuries and such than people in developed countries. </p>

<p>Your argument about the unreliability of science has basically eaten itself. You're preaching about how tribal medicine is better than modern medicine based on a single anecdote. Also, you're talking about how science is unreliable because it will be different in the future, when today IS the future and tribal beliefs were what was in the past.</p>

[Taggart]

<p>

@Mr Payne

+1. Top quality.

</p>

<p>Do I get a prize?</p>

[mj93]

<p>"Yes. The Aztecs practiced moderation. They only demanded 10 sacrifices daily, as opposed to an obscene 20hearts/day sacrifice requirement."</p>

<p>The aztecs were obviously not a tribe. I'll respond to the rest of this tomorrow.</p>

[TritiumKnight]

<p>I can't even believe this topic exists. Human society is more civilized then before. Acts of violence, suicide, malnutrition per capita is a lot lower then when we were "tribes." Was much better when disease was common, death because you lack seemingly mundane thins e.g. potable water? Was it much better when 1 in 10 people you knew died because their skin literally rot off? (The Black Death) Was it much civilize to be worry about raiders pillaging your food? WAS IT? </p>

<p>When you speak of the earth has a breaking point, carrying capacity, biologist say we do, they've estimated it around 10 billion. What happens if we exceed it? Massive population death, predicted by Thomas Malthus in the 19th century. </p>

<p>Your notion of science staying steady is quite scary. Not many concepts stand unchanged over 200 years, they're modify with new information, etc. </p>

<p>Now with Moderation...Science proven it true? Yea..right...why don't you take a moderate amount of arsenic! Or a moderate amount of botulism? There are such things that even in moderation your body can tolerate. (Epidemiologist...shh..lets not get into doses)</p>

<p>Now lowering the population gradual...yea...it's not going to work. The Chinese tried it, and it didn't work great. It'll take a complete totalitarian government to achieve that. Even then...You're going against nature. Why? Nature programed us to propagate, even built in some functions that make it much more interesting.... The ones with the flawed programing doesn't exist anymore..Why? They just didn't pass down their genes. It reminds of the Shakers...A religious group believing that reproduction was sinful...Guess how many generations they lasted? In theory its possible to fight out biological urges but, for 6 billion, even 1 billion people its highly improbable. ...HIGHLY....</p>

<p>But, why are you discriminating against humans? Why should anything else be able to reproduce when we shouldn't?!?! Goats shouldn't reproduce! They pull the roots out of grass killing them! Why aren't you thinking of their(the grasses) rights?!?! This degradation is creating deserts! OMG SHOT THE GOATS! Hell...why not just launch our nukes now...The earth will be so much happier without life! Nothing is messing with its Pure nitrogen! Nothing is polluting its ocean with urine! Wait, why should the earth exist?! It's blocking sunlight from reaching mars occasionally?! Hopefully you get the point.</p>

<p>Now..."children must be schooled for 15-25 years just to function in it(society)"
Not true...The school is the passing on of past lessons that might be helpful later on: e.g. basic mathematics, if you don't know you'll find out eventually. Why not help or kids with collective knowledge? Should we not tell them the stove is hot? </p>

<p>"And what are the positive effects of this?"
- By giving past information they can continue to build on top of it and add their own.
- Gives them the opportunity to dwell on more complex things. e.g Philosophy, you've already demonstrated this luxury.
- Stable environment
- less reckless lost of some life, due to ignorance (Information can be everything...Darwin Awards :D)<br>
- etc.</p>

<p>"We're single-handedly destroying the planet."
Global warming at the worst isn't going to destroy the planet. The Ozone hole at its worse wasn't destroying the Planet. What's with the hype? Global warming will influence how we live, where we live, how comfortable we live. </p>

<p>Hey, even if we were to launch ALL of our atomic arsenal, cockroaches will still be alive...</p>

<p>Only known thing that could destroy our planet is the Death Star. Lucky that's in a galaxy far far away. And the Force is on our side...</p>

<p>"That didn't happen back in tribal times, when life was simple."
- Ack! Raiders!
- Ack! I'm dying from the tapeworms, other pathogens that could easily be curied with modern medicine!
- Ack! The herbal medicine doesn't work because a large part of it is religious!
- Ack! Leeches!
- Ack! Can't find enough food!
- Ack! Drought! Whole tribe dies, or results to cannibalism: Which of course is much more civilized!
- Listen to the Alpha Male, and not disagree at all...Think George Bush..but all powerful..
- Worrying about living everyday
- Not getting to higher thought because you're stuck on the lowest of the hierarchy of needs.</p>

<p>How about this...you and your family...and a couple of your closest friends and their families move into the middle of a forest. The males fight and whoever beats all of them becomes the leader. You get nothing. You are to survive only with what you find in nature. Repeat in different environments. If someone breaks a leg, contracts rabies, tough luck. Mourn for him/her. Can I add..you get no clothes...you make your own. Remember leaves of 3 let it be...If you don't no anti-itch cream for you. (Remember tribal times where Hunter Gathers so no farming!) Oh...an a rival tribe will occassionally attack to kill you for food or steal whatever stuff you get or rape or kidnap who they want.... Of course it's simpler because you don't have to worry about getting into Harvard or if your significant other is cheating on you, or if your feces is contributing to global warming? Or if the LIBERALS are trying to eat you! </p>

<p>"In order to maintain moderation, I believe there needs to be less of us."
- Ok..that can be accomplished! All out war!! Like risk but, that damn guy on Madagascar doesn't have insanely luck.
- Or like you said limit breeding...So who breeds and who doesn't? The rich get to? Or just the whites? Or just the blacks? Or only the smartest? What right do you or anybody else in the world to tell them they can't breed?
- Randomly kill people? Play god? Is that ethical?
- Hypothetically lets say the government goes to your father and says you don't get to live. Is that ok with you?</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>
[quote]
Do I get a prize?

[/quote]
Well, you did get +1 internet points. A pretty heady prize, but I'll bump it up to +2.</p>

[piccolojunior]

<p>This is not a bad theory at all, and I actually agree with it. </p>

<p>However, here one must draw the solid double yellow line (Im taking my DMV test next week...) between realism and idealism. What you propose (and what I want) fall into the latter...in reality no one knows where this world is headed because too many *****es get knocked up and too many bible thumpers preach universal pro-life, regardless of circumstance.</p>

<p>The last part was written with a flippant attitude.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>I'd like to point out something else - temporal chauvinism. People tend to value the present more so than the past. However, there is no intrinsic reason why they should value the present more so than the past, their own interests aside.</p>

<p>The fact is - that for the vast majority of the existence of the Earth - its biodiversity has been free from human interference. It has only undergone human interference in a small minute fraction of its entire existence. And the fact is that in only a billion years or so, it will become too hot to support life (due to the sun's evolution). So even if humans stayed until its death, the fact is that the earth's diversity will have been free from human interference for most of its existence. There are no natural rights or natural wrongs - and humans are free to craft their own moral standards w.r.t to the Earth since they have the power to do so. Too bad the collective energy of them is far far less than the collective energy of the Sun.</p>

<p>Anyways - the Earth has had its variations in biodiversity for a looong time. What good has that done? When it's all going to be blown away by the Sun anyways?</p>