NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/environm/13563

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-15 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!darkstar!steinly
From: [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:02:05
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:24:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   >   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

   >    > Huh, I thought the CW was that agricultural societies (and h-g's)
   >    > went for large families to help with local sustenance labour (and
   >    > overcome very high mortality rate), and that urbanization led to

   >   Well, the trends remain indicative that *regardless* of what economic
   >   base drives the particular culture; h-g, swidden, nomad, agricultural,
   >   industrial, whatever, affluence brings with it small families. An
   >   excellent reference on h-g affluence is
   >
   >       Sahlins M.  1974

   >   in particular, Ch.1, "The Original Affluent Society".

   >I've read Sahlins thesis of the affluent society, and while
   >it makes some excellent original points, I feel the thesis
   >is too often taken too far. In particular, it relies on a
   >relative definition of affluence, where people become inured
   >to hardships to the point where they're no longer considered
   >hardships - which is subjectively true, but says more about
   >the flexibility of the human psyche than the happiness and
   >health of people  (defined by some "objective" measure, in
   >so far as that is possible).

   You have made this point a number of times in the past.  How
   do you arbitrarily place your criteria for happiness above
   measurements by others?  They may seem totally obvious to you
   but the opposite is true of many members of other cultures.

True, that is why I say "so far as that is possible".
For example, there are people locally that seem to derive happyness
from self-mutilation, I would argue that in some objective
sense this is a real hardship, even if subjectively it
is a contributor to their happyness. More strongly, a high enough
a  child mortality rate observably decreases the agony
a mother feels when a child dies - it becomes expected,
yet how many people would advocate simply letting children die
because we'll get used to it and it won't bother us?

Similarly, the absence of pain killers can be tolerated to
an extent in that a high level of continuous pain can be tolerated
after a while - the nervous system renormalises it's pain tolerance
(although not always, and certainly not fast enough :-( ) so
why should we waste resources on producing pain killers? After all,
people will get used to it? A proper cultural context may even
convince them to enjoy the pain...

   Many Native Americans did not want to switch to Euro-American
   culture, but they were given no choice.  To point to those who
   do want to switch to a technological culture ignores those who
   did not.  While it is easy to point to various mortality
   statistics, many people may choose a quality of life instead
   of quantity (length) of life and that which they see as quality
   may simply be incompatible with technologicalsociety.

Yup, yet the observation is that a large enough fraction of
people will actively seek out those features of technological
society that extend life and reduce pain, that there _is_ change.
The question then becomes whether people can have their cake
and eat it too? Can you accept smallpox vaccine and tetanus jabs,
clean water and imported food reserves during hard times and
still reject the cultural baggage completely?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  I know people whose idea of fun                *
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun        *
*  Oh let me be as free as them                    *
*                  - BB 1986            *