Discussing this post has been interesting because I find so often the people I'm talking with focus on whether or not prehistoric lives were better than we think they were, and whether we should "go back" (we shouldn't and can't). And even I forget that that wasn't the ultimate point I was trying to make. For me, it's more about recognizing that we're making a lot of assumptions around how our species/societies have evolved, and if we step back from those assumptions and allow ourselves to question the value of technological progress more deeply and look at other alternatives, we might find different paths to move our world forward.
The rebuttal is somewhat contingent on the definition of technology. In brief his definition is that with technology we have more problem solving capability. We can apply knowledge to practical purposes repeatedly and reliably.
He would say that a suppression of technology is a suppression of curiosity. It is a suppression of a possibility. And in his frame he believes slowing things (sustainability safeguards) prolong the duration of our current problems by limiting the arrival of new possibilities (none of which are physically mandatory to adopt).
I think technology is too broad a word to describe your concern. It feels like your real issue is about collective action (climate, war) and how our increased ability to be individualistic has inevitably freed us from the shackles and bonds of communities (large and small) for better and worse.
But just as we can’t overly romanticize technology I’m not sure we can do the same with Hunter gatherer communalism. I am much more convinced that technology has alleviated slavery than wisdom for example.
I loved the Dawn of Everything and Sandtalk has been on my to-read list for years. I haven't heard of The Chalice and the Blade but it sounds good.
I broadly agree with this outline. We all work too much! Industrial tech + an over emphasis on reason has been a disaster for our biosphere and our psychological health.
But, agriculture seems to have become a necessity in a lot of regions following the end of the Ice Age. Although that's oversimplifying things, I feel like the acknowledgement of climate changes and pressures on populations often isn't acknowledged when discussing this trajectory. IE most people take agriculture as a given vs. an adaptation.
I agree completely. It's hard to acknowledge everything in a post like this, and I was trying to focus on the idea that the narrative we have about progress always being good may not be true. But absolutely, there were likely very good reasons our ancestors adopted agriculture, which is something else that I think we should try to learn more about and learn from.
Thankfully we still do have a few examples today of hunger gatherers living in relative isolation from modern society. Is there some kind of comparison we can do to better understand whether they have it better than us? For example, can we somehow observe the Sentinelese people to better understand if they enjoy better lives than the average Western citizen? Or better than the average Chinese or Indian citizen?
Separately, you may be interested in this article if you haven't read it yet:
Yes! My understanding is that this research has been done, although, of course, more would be better. But part of what shifted my take on prehistoric life is some of the comparative studies done on modern hunter-gatherer communities, which found things like lower levels of stress and lower levels of some of modern health problems like cancer and heart disease. I don't remember in detail the research that was done, as, again, it's been a while since I read some of this, but the resources I shared above do address your questions. Of course, there's also the question of what does "better lives" mean?
Have you read Beginning of Infinity by Deutsch? Offers a strong rebuttal.
Captain Fantastic is a movie you might enjoy if you haven’t seen. Explores the tensions you discuss!
Can you tell me more about what the rebuttal is?
Discussing this post has been interesting because I find so often the people I'm talking with focus on whether or not prehistoric lives were better than we think they were, and whether we should "go back" (we shouldn't and can't). And even I forget that that wasn't the ultimate point I was trying to make. For me, it's more about recognizing that we're making a lot of assumptions around how our species/societies have evolved, and if we step back from those assumptions and allow ourselves to question the value of technological progress more deeply and look at other alternatives, we might find different paths to move our world forward.
The rebuttal is somewhat contingent on the definition of technology. In brief his definition is that with technology we have more problem solving capability. We can apply knowledge to practical purposes repeatedly and reliably.
He would say that a suppression of technology is a suppression of curiosity. It is a suppression of a possibility. And in his frame he believes slowing things (sustainability safeguards) prolong the duration of our current problems by limiting the arrival of new possibilities (none of which are physically mandatory to adopt).
I think technology is too broad a word to describe your concern. It feels like your real issue is about collective action (climate, war) and how our increased ability to be individualistic has inevitably freed us from the shackles and bonds of communities (large and small) for better and worse.
But just as we can’t overly romanticize technology I’m not sure we can do the same with Hunter gatherer communalism. I am much more convinced that technology has alleviated slavery than wisdom for example.
I loved the Dawn of Everything and Sandtalk has been on my to-read list for years. I haven't heard of The Chalice and the Blade but it sounds good.
I broadly agree with this outline. We all work too much! Industrial tech + an over emphasis on reason has been a disaster for our biosphere and our psychological health.
But, agriculture seems to have become a necessity in a lot of regions following the end of the Ice Age. Although that's oversimplifying things, I feel like the acknowledgement of climate changes and pressures on populations often isn't acknowledged when discussing this trajectory. IE most people take agriculture as a given vs. an adaptation.
Have more I'd like to add to this topic offline.
I agree completely. It's hard to acknowledge everything in a post like this, and I was trying to focus on the idea that the narrative we have about progress always being good may not be true. But absolutely, there were likely very good reasons our ancestors adopted agriculture, which is something else that I think we should try to learn more about and learn from.
Thankfully we still do have a few examples today of hunger gatherers living in relative isolation from modern society. Is there some kind of comparison we can do to better understand whether they have it better than us? For example, can we somehow observe the Sentinelese people to better understand if they enjoy better lives than the average Western citizen? Or better than the average Chinese or Indian citizen?
Separately, you may be interested in this article if you haven't read it yet:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
Yes! My understanding is that this research has been done, although, of course, more would be better. But part of what shifted my take on prehistoric life is some of the comparative studies done on modern hunter-gatherer communities, which found things like lower levels of stress and lower levels of some of modern health problems like cancer and heart disease. I don't remember in detail the research that was done, as, again, it's been a while since I read some of this, but the resources I shared above do address your questions. Of course, there's also the question of what does "better lives" mean?