Primitivism Discussion

imagineaa said:

What was wrong with a wind up alarm clock

Click to expand...

After twenty years of service, my wind-up alarm clock died recently. Alas, I do not have the skills to repair it. Nor can I find a replacement without utilising technology - none of my local shops stock such an item. From a purely practical viewpoint, I don't want to miss an important appointment because a power cut during the night reset an electric clock. If I forget to wind up the clock, that's my fault.

imagineaa said:

Well I was going to ask the same question. What types of actions have you taken or do you advocate being taken? One, because I'm interested, and two, because sometimes when people make these recommendations, they're hoping society will change but not them. Respectfully curious here.

I think we ought to use knowledge and technology to actually simplify our lives and reduce our energy consumption.

Plus we ought to go back to basics in some respects. [Yes, me and society.]

Why do so few of us have laundry lines to dry our clothes? It's actually against my covenance. Why is clean laundry floating in the wind so detrimental to property values? We should re-examine our prejudices.

Why do we have grass to mow? There are other short plants that don't require mowing. What an enormous waste of gas and time.

Why don't more of us have gardens?

Why don't employers make it easier to work from home so there is less energy consumption?

Why is everything going electronic so we keep on using more and more electricity? What was wrong with a wind up alarm clock or old-fashioned books? Or even crank-operated car windows instead of electric windows?

If we are really in a terrible recession, why isn't everyone canning stuff when it's cheap and in season?

Those are the things I wonder about.

Click to expand...

Happy to answer someone actually interested in a discussion.


"Why don't I just walk out into the woods....?"
Because I am not the unibomber. I still like some version of a community.

I am personally pretty low impact. I work as (among other things) an environmental educator (well, I manage enviro educators more these days...not as fun...). I earn green/simple lifestyle points legitimately in a variety of areas, I also lose points in a few. My worst vice is disposable coffee cups (what's worse is that this one would be easily remedied by simply remembering my own cup from home). So, I am definitely not trying to come across "holier than thou". I do try to generally be low impact and lead a simple lifestyle. Suffice to say, I walk my talk pretty honestly.

I agree with the vast majority (all) of your points. The bolded (my bolding btw) is especially true for me. Does this mean I am not a primitivist? Well, I guess by definition. But I do think a more primitive lifestyle incorporated with some reasonable and intelligent uses of technology makes the most sense.

I am mindful that often times there are trade offs. I often use a simple hypothetical with new teachers or interns to illustrate a point:We have a fundraising event. Do we use plastic, paper, or glass cups? They all have different impacts. The real trick (as for me with primitivism) is determining an intelligent balance. There are no simple answers, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument.

jiggeryqua said:

Or the future. Assuming humanity survives, it will survive in a world in which this wasteful consumption of finite resources has had to cease. The romantic fantasy is that the prevailing technological petrochemical culture can be sustained.

Click to expand...

Sure, barring we adapt and innovate in order to accommodate.

Mr. Purple said:

I appreciate the warmth and thought. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Click to expand...

The question is serious. If you want to live a primitive lifestyle, why aren't you?

rwguinn said:

As someone who used to spend part of his Summer living in a Tipi and wearing dead animals, cooking over a fire, no refrigerator, no electric anything, not even a Coleman lantern, let me say this:
The most under-appreciated thing of modern life are hot showers and flush toilets.
And padded chairs.

Click to expand...

As someone who spent half a year wandering aimlessly across southeast Asia, China, Mongolia and Siberia, I earnestly agree.

jiggeryqua said:

Funny, in a different way, that other posters should raise serious issues about modern advances, while you apparantly couldn't live without pineapples.

Click to expand...

I'm not all that big on pineapples actually. The point was that modern technology gives us access to a far richer life experience than any "primitive" culture could even dream of. I would argue that having a richer life is a good thing; whether or not it's worth the environmental cost is an interesting discussion.

jiggeryqua said:

You do also mention life and death, to be fair, but seemingly from the perspective that, if we could only get the technology right, we could live for ever.

Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

I was responding to the notion that people from the 1870's would be ashamed of our inability to survive without our modern trappings. I don't disagree, but to ignore the other side of the coin is hardly engaging in an honest discussion; I'm quite sure they would be rather envious of the fact that nobody dies from smallpox anymore for example.

jiggeryqua said:

How many modern north americans live in poverty and die 'early'? Many of them. How many are illiterate? Seriously, look that one up.

Click to expand...

A smaller percentage than in 1870; most people would probably argue that that's a good thing.

Mr.D said:

A smaller percentage than in 1870; most people would probably argue that that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Is that an assertion, or an actual fact that you unfortunately forgot to substantiate? I'm under the impression that most families had a bible at that time - it may have been the only book they read, and they may not have been a good thing, but they read it all the same. Besides, percentages are one thing, numbers are another.

macdoc said:

I'm not fond of the term "p..ism" tho I can understand some who want to do the noble savage thing.
Good on them but it won't succeed for an industrial civilization.

I do however advocate hitech minimalist - in fact we are designing our long term place in Kuranda Australia with that in mind.

Very green , environment sensitive ( has to be since we are in a protected species corridor with strict covenants ( no cats and dogs, no lawn, no altering anything except a small house block in a largish rain forest chunk ( second growth - the original is intact a few hundred meters up the mountain in the World Heritage park.)

Hitech sustainable is where I'd like to be - and quite a few billion less to give the biome time to recover.

There is a lot that can be done with electrons that can offset some of the ills. But that infrastructure needs to be in place.

Click to expand...

^^ This ^^ is where we should be heading.

It doesn't need to be an either/or choice between a "short and brutish life" and stubbornly clinging to all the creature comforts we seem to think we can't do without, no matter how unsustainable.

I also don't think a long life is necessarily better than a short one. It depends on the quality of life and what you are doing with it.

My optimistic view of humanity is that we will figure out how to live in harmony with our environment, and that our ethical and moral development will catch up with our technological development before time runs out.

Mr. Purple said:

I disagree with both characterizations as necessarily consistent with primitivism as I see it. I have no problem with education, that would be silly in my view.

Click to expand...

Hence my differentiation between a "simpler" lifestyle and a "primitive" one. Anecdotally, I've had discussions with people who over-romanticize the later while yearning for the former.

Mr. Purple said:

Definitely, and I agree. Personally, there are several aspects of modernity I can't see abandoning (notably medicine). But, I do feel very strongly that the ubiquity of depression, generally poor health, anxiety and stress are likely a result of improper husbandry of Homo sapiens. Quite seriously, I have maintained a wide variety of animal species in my adult life, if any acted with the symptoms I described above, I would assume there was likely a keeper error.

Click to expand...

The trick (and where the interesting discussion is) is in how to balance everything. Depending on your point of view increased lifespan, higher standards of living and larger populations are all side-effects, preconditions and results of each other.

jiggeryqua said:

Is that an assertion, or an actual fact that you unfortunately forgot to substantiate? I'm under the impression that most families had a bible at that time - it may have been the only book they read, and they may not have been a good thing, but they read it all the same. Besides, percentages are one thing, numbers are another.

Click to expand...

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

To be fair, literacy rates in the US have declined since the last year of that study. Nevertheless I'm still going to assert it's not reaching 1870 levels.

It occurs to me that some of the greatest cultural achievements of civilization have been made under what we would consider "primitive" conditions: the great pre-industrial artworks, music, literature, architecture...all produced without electricity or even steam engines.

EGarrett said:

The question is serious. If you want to live a primitive lifestyle, why aren't you?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you were being snide.

I do to an extent, and have tried to make it clear that personally, I think that the answer lies in between the two extremes (though probably closer to the primitive end than most people are comfortable with). I am interested in examining the issue completely.

But again, social reasons are the main impediment to me living a more primitive lifestyle.

Also, re-reading my OP, I can see how it seemed like I was saying that I was advocating the extreme position of the primitivist spectrum when I said "some of us" vs "others of us". I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I am clearly on the less extreme portion of the spectrum.

babycondor said:

It occurs to me that some of the greatest cultural achievements of civilization have been made under what we would consider "primitive" conditions: the great pre-industrial artworks, music, literature, architecture...all produced without electricity or even steam engines.

Click to expand...

Excellent point in general. Art is enhanced by technology (Jimi Hendrix to Jim Henson to Jackson Pollack) but is plenty possible and full of potential even with a greatly reduced technological basis. There is plenty of great music created by primitive societies, not to mention visual art and dance.

Have string instruments been greatly helped by electronic amplification? I would say absolutely.
Does every song on the radio have to feature that satanic autotune? I would say absolutely not.

Mr.D said:

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

To be fair, literacy rates in the US have declined since the last year of that study. Nevertheless I'm still going to assert it's not reaching 1870 levels.

Click to expand...

I have glanced at that, and the first thing I noticed was the considerable rates of illiteracy among the black population in 1870. To my shame, when I suggested that 'most families' had a bible and could read, I'd forgotten how many slaves were also part of the population. But the ethical decision not to keep slaves is not dependant on technological advances.

Is being prey for larger carnivorous animals included in "primitivism"?

Perpetual Student said:

Is being prey for larger carnivorous animals included in "primitivism"?

Click to expand...

Sure. There really aren't that many predators capable of routinely predating on man in a terrestrial eco. A handful of cats, hyenas, a few species of bear, and wolves.* Crocodillians at the water's edge.

Maybe a dozen or so species, worldwide? All of which, we are better equipped to predate upon?

Meh. I'll take my thumbs, brain, and social skills and roll with it. I think this is one of the areas (big scary animals) where people tend towards a disproportionate level of fear. It is easy to understand why, there is at least a little selective pressure against becoming tiger food.

There are other animals that demand respect that don't wish to consume us as well, but as with above- as humans, we are pretty well equipped to play.

This is not to say that any sane person should ever go into the ocean. There are sharks out there man.

babycondor said:

It occurs to me that some of the greatest cultural achievements of civilization have been made under what we would consider "primitive" conditions: the great pre-industrial artworks, music, literature, architecture...all produced without electricity or even steam engines.

Click to expand...

What about "The Empire Strikes Back"?

Was that achieved under "primitive" conditions?

jiggeryqua said:

But the ethical decision not to keep slaves is not dependant on technological advances.

Click to expand...

On the other hand technology has made slave labor for cotton and sugar cane economically unviable. (And on the other-other hand created a market for super cheap labor in other industries; so once again good and bad)

Mr. Purple said:

Sorry, I thought you were being snide.

I do to an extent, and have tried to make it clear that personally, I think that the answer lies in between the two extremes (though probably closer to the primitive end than most people are comfortable with). I am interested in examining the issue completely.

But again, social reasons are the main impediment to me living a more primitive lifestyle.

Also, re-reading my OP, I can see how it seemed like I was saying that I was advocating the extreme position of the primitivist spectrum when I said "some of us" vs "others of us". I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I am clearly on the less extreme portion of the spectrum.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine anything less primitive than posting on the internet. What benefit or justification of primitivism is there that also encourages or allows posting on the internet?

Just going to try a stream-of-consciousness thing here:

I can think of at least three advantages of a pre-revolution lifestyle:

1) Less work.
I understand that the work week and the difficulty of work increased massively when we shifted to agriculture, and hasn't gotten much better since. I believe even if you live in a first world country and work a non-physical job you at least work more hours.

2) No pandemic diseases.
Can't happen when everyone lives in small, isolated groups and you don't constantly fly sick people around the world in planes.

3) More "natural"
I understand that humans are designed to live in groups of less than 100, and that living in dense groups of thousands or even millions in the case of large cities causes stress because of this. The kind of lifestyle we lead in modern times is also highly divorced from what we evolved to do. I spend my days working in a small fabric-covered box, fixing bugs in software that will allow someone I don't know half-way around the world to accomplish some equally abstract task. Maybe people were happier about their work when jobs were less technical and abstract? I don't know, maybe this one is a bit of a stretch.

I can also think of huge disadvantages:

1) You're going to die.
Very low life expectancies and child survival rates. Warfare and violent conflicts represented an absurd proportion of all mortality in most cases, and of course there's the lack of modern medicines, clean environments, etc.

2) No modern infrastructures, amenities, or consumer goods.
I've got a house, a car, books, ipods, laptops, television, the internet, indoor plumbing, toilet paper, heating, air conditioning, fast food, eat-in restaurants, a family cottage, business trips and vacations around the world, etc.
I don't know if I could give all these up.

3) Difficult to develop culture, education, technology, science.
As someone who cares about this species at least somewhat, I can't downplay how important the neolithic and cultural revolutions were in facilitating massive leaps in the above, all of which I would say are vastly important and critical to our long-term survival.

So. Maybe I'd be open to primitivism, but it would have to be in a form that would take advantages from both systems while minimizing the disadvantages of either, if that makes any sense.

imagineaa said:

I think we ought to use knowledge and technology to actually simplify our lives and reduce our energy consumption.

Click to expand...

I think that's what I'm trying to say too.