Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Well-being in a primitive society

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's not our natural environment.

In Minnesota, where I live, the temperature consistently drops below zero for at least a few weeks every year. Anyone who tried to survive that "naturally" would fail.

Almost everybody from Texas to California would die without manmade irrigation. Plenty more people would die from the Measles or the Flu, without manmade vaccinations. Without modern agricultural technology, nine out of every ten people on the planet Earth would die.

Let's be very clear about our "natural environment":

Homo sapiens living "naturally" are fit to live on a single woody savannah in Central Africa, which could only support a few of us in a really good year.

That's where natural selection put us and that's where a few of our ancestors stayed, for one generation after another, until we started changing our own environment.

If you'd like to go home then be my guest.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know if enduring that is what's necessary for the highest well-being.

Are Malarial Mosquitoes, Crocodiles, Cholera, dental abscesses, the constant delirium of near-starvation and gangrenous wounds good for your well-being?

Homo sapiens in the wild had to give "natural" birth, without any anaesthetics, in areas where Hyenas might investigate any loud noises and the child would probably be stillborn, anyway.

What the Hell could be worth choosing that, instead of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

I don't see that happening with the primitive tribe in this video

 

If you'd like to go home then be my guest.

 

I think you might have to be born into it. There's a lot of specific knowledge needed, the right community, and other things.

Are Malarial Mosquitoes, Crocodiles, Cholera, dental abscesses, the constant delirium of near-starvation and gangrenous wounds good for your well-being?

Homo sapiens in the wild had to give "natural" birth, without any anaesthetics, in areas where Hyenas might investigate any loud noises and the child would probably be stillborn, anyway.

What could be worth choosing that, instead of this?

You're only focusing on the bad parts. It's like saying: why would you want to live in a society of menial jobs, a high rate of depression, plagues, pointless addictive activities, laziness, and being fat and unhealthy?

 

I like that their "jobs" pertain directly to their survival and that there's a risk of failing. I like that all activities serve a purpose directly to survival, with some occasional innocent fun. I like that it's not so easy. I like that our emotions, reactions, and feelings are adapted to that certain environment. I like being part of nature. I like being physically active for a real reason. I like eating food that hasn't been altered or made dirty. I like the idea of being part of a small community that supports each other in order to survive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that happening with the primitive tribe in this video.

That tribe is in Brazil, right? Brazil is a nation of laws, with an army and a police force that would arrest anyone trying to kill those tribesmen. And it's all paid for by people with jobs.

Like I said, if you want primitive, try the Congo. In the Congo, you wouldn't enjoy that same protection. You would be truly primitive, exposed to the whims of other primitives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the OP at face value, well being is a pursuit of happiness.  Presuming the right to life has been secured by both societies, a majority of hunter/gatherers couldn't impose their lifestyle on a minority of nerds, nor would they want to.  Each society would have some benefit the other lacked.  Most likely there'd be some trade agreement in place, including immigration, worker visas and tourism, all of which worked to the benefit of wildermen and nerds alike.

 

Edit: There are recurrent sci-fi themes that address this issue, and most often tech remains of value to both mindsets.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're only focusing on the bad parts. It's like saying: why would you want to live in a society of menial jobs, a high rate of depression, plagues, pointless addictive activities, laziness, and being fat and unhealthy?
To compare Malarial Mosquitoes and gangrenous wounds to "laziness" and "being fat and unhealthy" says more than you realize.

Nothing else that I have to say about it has any place in a civilized discussion.

Live long and prosper (preferably in some jungle).

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who's confused:

menial jobs, a high rate of depression, plagues, pointless addictive activities, laziness, and being fat and unhealthy?

The very concept of a "pointless addiction" means that an individual's own happiness is not the point. This error is not, in and of itself, evil. It's one of the more subtle ones and frequently made in total honesty.

However, whoever asserts that "pointless addictive activities" are evil, in themselves, is calling an individual's pursuit of their own (PRIVATE) happiness evil, in itself.

Why do you think we have drug prohibitions? Recreational drug use (regardless of its long-term consequences) is a private pleasure for an individual's enjoyment. Even if they make it into a social activity, the fun part is solitary.

Such "pointless addictions" are not limited to drug use, of course; everything from Candy Crush to sex is ultimately enjoyed privately.

In fact, NOTHING can EVER be enjoyed collectively.

Consequently, the condemnation of "pointless addictions" as such is the condemnation of happiness as such.

He compared the horrors of a life in nature to "laziness", obesity and happiness itself.

The failure to see what's wrong with the idea of a "pointless addiction" could easily be an honest mistake. I've made it before. Hell; I've seen Peikoff make it before and he's a professional.

The failure to see any difference between good and evil themselves, though; between pleasure and pain; between joy and suffering - you can't reason with that.

What do you say to someone who's gotten it wrong all the way down to that? What could you appeal to? Truth? Someone who doesn't care about happiness cannot give a damn about truth. As empirical evidence, note the mention of "plagues" -in an evaluation of the metaphysical versus the manmade- as a mark against the manmade. So much for "truth".

All that's left to say is that he deserves to achieve his own goals.

Hence the backhanded "live long and prosper".

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to this question obviously has everything to do with the definition of “well-being.” A simplified dictionary definition would be: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.

 

Of the three conditions named in the definition, only one can be “reasonably proved.” That is the condition of being healthy. Happy and comfortable have more to do with the contents of consciousness, with how one feels about ones condition, and consequently cannot be objectively observed or reasonably proved.

 

For example, I was once asked the question, “If the primitive tribe is just as, or even more, happy than those living under science and technology; then how can it be said that living in the Western world is better than living under primitive, tribal conditions?”

 

This question cannot be rationally answered because happiness has to do with contents of consciousness, while the benefits of living under the science and technology of the Western world can be objectively observed, and therefore proven. Who can know what makes a man “feel” happy or comfortable? The contents of a man’s mind are entirely subjective in this context.

 

So, the question in the Original Post would seem to be exactly like the one in my example above. It is logically unanswerable because it is a package deal; one that combines two entirely different contexts and premises.

 

Now, if the original question were rephrased to, “Which is better: a) living in a technologically advanced society or, B) living in a primitive society;” then this question is objectively and rationally answerable.

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...