Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Well-being in a primitive society

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Well yes, since a rational ethic starts with the nature of the entity in question, then if the nature of man were such that it required primitivity to flourish, then a caveman ethic would follow. If the nature of man were such that it required sucking blood to survive and flourish, then a vampire ethic would follow. So the question is what exactly is required by the nature of man and does primitivity in fact enable man to flourish. I would think it to be pretty obvious that the answer is in the negative on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's use two example societies: a primitive one at the hunter/gatherer level and a highly technological laissez-faire one. If it was reasonably proven that the inhabitants in the primitive society generally have a greater well-being, does that mean a more technologically advanced society shouldn't be pursued?

 

Hmmm.  Let's look at two numbers 2 and 10.

 

If one could reasonably prove 10 is less than 2 would that mean one should always pursue 2 loaves of bread instead of 10? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To prove that one would need to start with a notion of "well being". What do you mean by well-being?

A criteria is necessary here. Carol Ryff, a leading scientist in the field, uses these points:

 

1) Self-Acceptance

High Self Acceptance: You possess a positive attitude toward yourself; acknowledge and accept multiple aspects of yourself including both good and bad qualities; and feel positive about your past life.

Low Self Acceptance: You feel dissatisfied with yourself; are disappointed with what has occurred in your past life; are troubled about certain personal qualities; and wish to be different than what you are.

2) Personal Growth

Strong Personal Growth: You have a feeling of continued development; see yourself as growing and expanding; are open to new experiences; have the sense of realizing your potential; see improvement in yourself and behavior over time; are changing in ways that reflect more self-knowledge and effectiveness.

Weak Personal Growth: You have a sense of personal stagnation; lack the sense of improvement or expansion over time; feel bored and uninterested with life; and feel unable to develop new attitudes or behaviors.

3) Purpose in Life

Strong Purpose in Life: You have goals in life and a sense of directedness; feel there is meaning to your present and past life; hold beliefs that give life purpose; and have aims and objectives for living.

Weak Purpose in Life: You lack a sense of meaning in life; have few goals or aims, lack a sense of direction; do not see purpose of your past life; and have no outlook or beliefs that give life meaning.

4) Positive Relations With Others

Strong Positive Relations: You have warm, satisfying, trusting relationships with others; are concerned about the welfare of others; are capable of strong empathy, affection, and intimacy; and understand the give and take of human relationships.

Weak Relations: You have few close, trusting relationships with others; find it difficult to be warm, open, and concerned about others; are isolated and frustrated in interpersonal relationships; and are not willing to make compromises to sustain important ties with others.

5) Environmental Mastery

High Environmental Mastery: You have a sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment; control complex array of external activities; make effective use of surrounding opportunities; and are able to choose or create contexts suitable to your personal needs and values.

Low Environmental Mastery: You have difficulty managing everyday affairs; feel unable to change or improve surrounding contexts; are unaware of surrounding opportunities; and lack a sense of control over the external world.

6) Autonomy

High Autonomy: You are self-determining and independent; are able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways; regulate behavior from within; and evaluate yourself by personal standards.

Low Autonomy: You are concerned about the expectations and evaluations of others; rely on judgments of others to make important decisions; and conform to social pressures to think and act in certain ways.

 

alex-gregory-something-s-just-not-right-

I don't recall seeing a better example for the converse.

If the threat of an earlier death from those primitive means is associated with a society that has a high level of well-being, then maybe it's one of the necessary components.

 

One could argue that a hunter/gather society operates on a level of laissez-faire too, the fundamental question then being the value of pursuing a higher level of technology.

Yeah, exactly. The difference would be from values and/or living in a highly technological society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the standard of value that Ryff brings is a prerequisite for another's evaluation of the claims about these hunter-gatherers.

 

The issue of the general level of conceptual awareness is relevant here. I think it is a gross error to compare the psychology of a unsophisticated primitive to that of a modern healthy humans. Where explicit knowledge of causally possible outcomes and the necessary means of attaining and identifying such, as relates to values, ignorance may be a blissful state.  I mean, if you don't know you could live much longer by performing a few easily achievable self sustaining actions, then there is no guilt or evasion to weigh on your conscience.

 

With knowledge comes responsibility and with that comes the requirement to evaluate ones actions against the virtues one holds as a standard.

 

The whole notion of measuring the spiritual-psychological wellbeing via archeology is a rather dubious proposition to me.  

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A criteria is necessary here. Carol Ryff, a leading scientist in the field, uses these points:

An expert in the components of well-being?

Anyway, that's besides the point. The way you framed the OP: if well-being is the aim, and if a primitive society is the way to well-being, then one should aim in that direction. How can one even debate a syllogism something like that? One can only debate the premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's use two example societies: a primitive one at the hunter/gatherer level and a highly technological laissez-faire one. If it was reasonably proven that the inhabitants in the primitive society generally have a greater well-being, does that mean a more technologically advanced society shouldn't be pursued?

I like the innocent and positive sense of life in this post.  But examine the last phrase in the final sentence of the OP - "shouldn't be pursued."  I ask, pursued or not by whom, and the decision imposed by whom?  The problem with these kinds of questions is that they assume one of two incorrect premises.  Either decision making is a group experience rather than an aspect of individuals, or, that some supervising body should make and then impose the decision.  And so, the question is outside the Law of Identity as related to human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the innocent and positive sense of life in this post.  But examine the last phrase in the final sentence of the OP - "shouldn't be pursued."  I ask, pursued or not by whom, and the decision imposed by whom?  The problem with these kinds of questions is that they assume one of two incorrect premises.  Either decision making is a group experience rather than an aspect of individuals, or, that some supervising body should make and then impose the decision.  And so, the question is outside the Law of Identity as related to human beings.

I was thinking from an individual basis and only passively. Kind of like: "here's the info, do what you want with it." 

 

I think what led me to this curiosity was Rand's exaggerated value she placed on material possessions and her apparent dislike for the primitive. My experiences tell me that being closer to nature is of fundamental importance for well-being, but I was wondering if knowledge proposed like in the OP would be sufficient to prove it all the way to the hunter/gatherer level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the innocent and positive sense of life in this post.  But examine the last phrase in the final sentence of the OP - "shouldn't be pursued."  I ask, pursued or not by whom, and the decision imposed by whom?  The problem with these kinds of questions is that they assume one of two incorrect premises.  Either decision making is a group experience rather than an aspect of individuals, or, that some supervising body should make and then impose the decision.  And so, the question is outside the Law of Identity as related to human beings.

 

I agree.  This glaring error (or false premise) of the hypothetical is ignoring what laissez-faire IS (or implying what it is not).  The system of Laissez-faire is the opposite of a planned government dictated society, it is the opposite of force, it is hands-off, it is freedom from interference, and is the only moral system.

 

Free men can always choose to live as primitive as they want within their means, but they can never force any other man to live primitively or "highly technologically" without violating rights of those other men.  They must deal with other voluntarily.

 

 

Furthermore, more technology does not mean fewer choices.  Technology is a tool and any man who chooses to use any technology does so based on the risks and benefits, for which all have to be weighed: time, cost, space, weight, effort, psychological well being.  If a clothes washer places such a psychological burden of anxiety on an individual to the extent that it would be better for him to simply hand wash his clothes... and if he cannot reasonably get over his psychosis with counseling, he may be stuck washing his clothes by hand.  Essentially a highly technological context provides MORE choices INCLUDING the freedom to revert to older technology.  Of course this does not imply one can force others to construct steam engines in today's world, but it leaves one free to build one if it is within his means.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, more technology does not mean fewer choices...Essentially a highly technological context provides MORE choices INCLUDING the freedom to revert to older technology. 

There's more to it than just the use of technology; it's a way of life. The necessity for money in a highly technological society prevents most people from being able to live in a primitive state. Not to mention the longer such a society exists, the less of nature remains. It essentially changes into a new environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more to it than just the use of technology; it's a way of life. The necessity for money in a highly technological society prevents most people from being able to live in a primitive state. Not to mention the longer such a society exists, the less of nature remains. It essentially changes into a new environment.

 

In order to be able to choose a way of life, one first must be free.

 

In a free society, no one is forcing you to use money. 

 

Money, if you choose to use it allows you more flexibility re. specialization, trading actual goods and services for a particular grocer would mean you would have to have exactly what he needs so that you could trade it for food... often you would simply go without food, or you would have to trade with someone else ... and a number of someone else's to ensure he gets what he wants and you eventually get your food.

 

If you mean primitive to mean inflexible, inconvenient and ineffective, then money does stand in the way of a primitive life.  But if you mean access to nature, choices to live on one's own terms... money is a tool that can only help an individual attain these goals.

 

 

As for your comment about nature, insofar as nature is a value which individuals seek, it will exist.  Private parks, private property, oases, billionaire multi-hectare wild gardens etc. will always exist and flourish to the extent they ARE a value to people, and people are FREE to choose to own, rent, share, etc. these values.

 

 

How would "money" specifically prevent anyone in a truly free Objectivist society from being able to live in a primitive state if he chose to do so?

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experiences tell me that being closer to nature is of fundamental importance for well-being...

Why? When you think of "nature" does it make you feel big or small? Does it remind you of how insignificant you are in the vast scheme of things or does it remind you that there's more to conquer in the world?

If "nature" makes you feel small then no, that's not beneficial and you should really analyze why you think you need it.

However, if it's invigorating to you (as it is to me); a challenge that demands to be met then that's absolutely vital to your wellbeing.

It's not "nature" itself that's important, though; what matters is what you're using "nature" to symbolize.

In general, "nature" is antithetical to human life. Have you ever researched the Tetse fly? Whatever is natural is usually not good for you.

However, if you fill some valid psychological need by being close to nature then there's nothing wrong with that (and you could turn it into something profoundly good) as long as you understand it isn't necessarily good for everyone.

No matter how beautiful nature can be, not everybody can coexist with the ticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the threat of an earlier death from those primitive means is associated with a society that has a high level of well-being, then maybe it's one of the necessary components.

I don't think you understand how that works. It's not "the threat of an earlier death".

 

The life expectancy isn't brought down by the death of people in their fifties. People in their fifties do relatively well in primitive societies (not as well as in a modern society, but better than others in a primitive society).

 

The age categories most at risk are people in their first two decades: children and very young people. Child mortality rates in primitive societies are at 38%. Then the mortality rates go down, and stay down for about four decades. That means that, on average, parents would bury at least half of their children. That's the average. Some of course might get lucky and bury none, but many others would bury all their children. And grandparents, if any of their children live to reach puberty, would then once again bury most of their grandchildren.

 

That's the hell humanity climbed out of, that you want to re-create, not some romantic world where people sacrifice their sixth and seventh decade to live well and be close to nature in the first five.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elephant in the room: Man and technology are natural...

My point is that our modern society is immensely different from what humans as a species adapted to. It's not our natural environment.

 

No matter how beautiful nature can be, not everybody can coexist with the ticks.

But it's everybody's natural environment. Some people aren't adapted to their natural environments? They're better adapted to some artificially modern one?

 

 

The age categories most at risk are people in their first two decades: children and very young people. 

You're right, you're right, and I knew that. It just slipped my mind. And I don't think condemning a society based on one aspect is justifiable. There's plenty wrong with the society we live in now.

 

I never said a primitive life was "romantic." It seems rough and inconvenient. I would like to know if enduring that is what's necessary for the highest well-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How would "money" specifically prevent anyone in a truly free Objectivist society from being able to live in a primitive state if he chose to do so?

It comes down to land. To live off the land - to have that way of life - a person would need to purchase it. He would have to get a job and therefore live a non-primitive life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to land. To live off the land - to have that way of life - a person would need to purchase it. He would have to get a job and therefore live a non-primitive life.

To get straight to the point: Are you arguing for Rousseau's "state of nature" where part of the idea is that reason is not essential to man's happiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only there was a special citizenship-exchange program that allowed U.S. citizens to exchange their citizenship with some primitive person... say someone living in the hills of Columbia, who is desperate to come to the U.S. 
That's one easy way to increase the total amount of happiness in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to land. To live off the land - to have that way of life - a person would need to purchase it. He would have to get a job and therefore live a non-primitive life.

 

In a just moral society a man would know he could purchase land with some effort, that he could work towards his dream of a primitive life, and if he deserved it through effort (earned it) he would be secure in knowing the fruit of his labour would be protected from force by a government which protected his rights.

 

In the jungle, the true jungle where no society exists, where no government has been set up to protect individual rights, the effectively right-less man would have to possess the land by exercising force, never knowing if warring factions or his neighbor would try to wrest him from it.  Here he would earn his survival by being personally ready to fight to maintain that survival, always being vigilant to invasion and theft... never having a moment of peace... paying for his patch of nature with the duty to pace its borders constantly.

 

 

Is this beneficial to the well being of man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said a primitive life was "romantic." It seems rough and inconvenient.

Calling it "rough and inconvenient" is romanticizing it. A more realistic description would involve expressions like "abject misery" and "wholesale suffering".

 

It comes down to land. To live off the land - to have that way of life - a person would need to purchase it.

That's not true. There is plenty of wilderness in the world.

Try the Congo. Just avoid the bigger cities, and trust me, no one will ask for a deed to your mud hut in the middle of the jungle. And you'll have plenty of fellow primitives to interact with.

They'll probably kill you and eat your heart because they think that allows them to steal your soul, but hey: you're the one who wanted to be primitive. Getting brutally murdered is one of the many "rough and inconvenient" perks of being primitive.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...