Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Do you think the human race would of advanced more by not advancing? page

  1. #1
    Carandini's Avatar
    Carandini is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1

    Do you think the human race would of advanced more by not advancing?

    Shop Now
    What I mean by this is simple : If we took away all of our technology and everything that existed today throughout the entire world, would it do us better? If we had just stayed more primal throughout time, wouldn't it of been better off?

    I will get into some of the reasons why we humans destroy this planet in modern age, but if we just stayed more like our roots, apes, animals, wouldn't it of done better? Global warming certainly wouldn't be a problem, a danger that no matter what technology we can come up with, will always loom over us and essentially, nothing being able to prevent it. The only way some of us would have by getting away from this, is literally and physically leaving this planet.

    But I mean, really. Modern problems now include:
    Radio Raves
    Global Warming
    Pollution
    Money
    Status
    Tainted foods because of added chemicals
    Plastic
    Religion
    Toxic waste
    Cars, planes, accidents relating to these
    Depleting natural resources such as water, cotton, foods
    Over population

    I mean, just use common sense. The human race can only survive with natural resources. Once these are all gone, we are gone as well.
    So what do we do? Keep spreading and polluting this planet with baby after baby until we leave it on our children after we're long gone?

    Would it of been better, to of just, not advanced so much?
    In the end, we are all alike. We are apes that wear suites to cover up the animal we truly are. Why did we think all this technology was really advacement? Posting this quesiton on the computer is the only advantage I get from all of this.

    Is less in fact more?

  2. #2
    mjoshuahill's Avatar
    mjoshuahill is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Warwick, Bermuda
    Posts
    74
    This is an interesting topic

    I certainly think that if your definition of advancing is the survival of the human race then we would have advanced more by not leaving our hunter gatherer origins. This is due to the fact that it was the only method of sustaining ourselfs that appears to not use more resources then nature produces and thus being completely indefinite, provide that climate shifts don't make the world uninhabitable by us or our food. Agriculture if done in a permiculture-like manner is a close second, one in which we manipulate nature for food but while encouraging natural eco-systems.

    It would have been interesting to see how long the hunter-gatherer tribes that are left could survive if we didn't come in and screw up the habitates.
    It is sad that the measuring stick of our progress is the speed by which we distance ourselves from the natural world. Even sadder is that we will only see this when there is no nature left to save.

  3. #3
    stevehtcyl's Avatar
    stevehtcyl is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    55
    Global warming doesn't exist. It's a political debate not a scientific one. If we look at it in the realms of science then the answer is as clear as the exact number which infinity is. Fact is the earth's climate is changing, just as it always has and always will.

  4. #4
    barry's Avatar
    barry is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by stevehtcyl View Post
    Global warming doesn't exist. It's a political debate not a scientific one. If we look at it in the realms of science then the answer is as clear as the exact number which infinity is. Fact is the earth's climate is changing, just as it always has and always will.
    Seconded

  5. #5
    Bukawww's Avatar
    Bukawww is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by stevehtcyl View Post
    Global warming doesn't exist. It's a political debate not a scientific one. If we look at it in the realms of science then the answer is as clear as the exact number which infinity is. Fact is the earth's climate is changing, just as it always has and always will.
    3rded...and I suppose if your only goal in life is to sustain life, have at it. Mine is to enjoy and appreciate every inch of this awesome earth and the people, places, and things that are on it. I get really miffed at the notion that procreating is abusive to the planet. Someone needs to teach someone else to take good care of our planet...if we all just stopped having babies, we'd have a pretty amazing Earth and no one around to enjoy it so what is the point?

    But I'm a mama (bear) so of course I'm partial to children

  6. #6
    Grol's Avatar
    Grol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    919
    I think Steve meant to say that global warming does exist currently through natural climate change; thus, man's path, be it agricultural or something else, wouldn't make a difference on that topic. Something like that, right Steve? Carandini could have left climate change out of this to avoid the GW debate and focus on his actual topic.

    I can take the other side. The growing paleo community has a subset that romanticizes paleolithic life a bit beyond reality. Neo-luddism is boring. I can ski Patagonia in July. Wind surf Hawaii in the dead of winter. Bicycle Bordeaux for the autumn harvest, and witness the ice cracking in Denali in a couple weeks. Sometimes more is more.

    There may have been a few paleo edens where humankind found the land of milk and honey and lived joyfully with nature's bounty. In those cases I believe they probably became obese, especially the women.

    She's about 30,000 years old and much can be debated about what she represents. What cannot be debated is that paleolithic humans experienced some obesity or the image wouldn't make sense. Some of them may have worshipped obesity in women. Explorers discovered plenty of fat natives in the south pacific.

    More often though life was short and hard. They suffered famines and fought tribal wars. They destroyed themselves time and again by depleting the only resources they knew how to exploit. That pattern has rarely been broken and continues today. Read Jared Daimond.

    An interesting exercise would be to examine how we may have progressed differently from the neolithic revolution had we not been domesticated by grains, but rather by animals. I doubt it would have changed much. We still would have grown sedentary, invented writing, architecture, legal boundaries, class systems, economics, politics, community -- civilization. Either way mother earth was going to domesticate humans while letting us believe we had done the domesticating. Isn't it the grains that are best flourishing? We seem to be their slaves. Toiling to improve them first through hybridization now through genetic modification. Grains that probably found it difficult to compete with paleo plant life are now covering the planet. The resource they are exploiting is rainforest clearing humans. Ironically, they too are endangering the only resource they know how to exploit. Us.

    I should stop. I think there was something in those mushrooms.

  7. #7
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    Something ---another thing---I don't understand.

    A bird's nest is part of nature. A beaver dam is also natural. So is a beehive. Do you see where I am going? All of these constructs are natural. However, when a human critter builds a nest we say that nature was destroyed. When some animal, bird or whatever makes its home, some part of the earth is destroyed too.

    You may say that those other simple homes of birds, beavers, and bees, etc. don't do as much damage to the planet as the homes that we build, but they do damage the planet. The earth does work to wear down those critter homes and return the resources to the earth. But that is also true for human structures. It just takes longer for the earth to reclaim its material and space when dealing with human edifices.

    Why aren't the structures that we humans put on this planet also considered to be natural? Aren't we part of this planet? We are not aliens, are we?

  8. #8
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator View Post
    Something ---another thing---I don't understand.

    A bird's nest is part of nature. A beaver dam is also natural. So is a beehive. Do you see where I am going? All of these constructs are natural. However, when a human critter builds a nest we say that nature was destroyed. When some animal, bird or whatever makes its home, some part of the earth is destroyed too.

    You may say that those other simple homes of birds, beavers, and bees, etc. don't do as much damage to the planet as the homes that we build, but they do damage the planet. The earth does work to wear down those critter homes and return the resources to the earth. But that is also true for human structures. It just takes longer for the earth to reclaim its material and space when dealing with human edifices.

    Why aren't the structures that we humans put on this planet also considered to be natural? Aren't we part of this planet? We are not aliens, are we?
    I think a lot of that stems from people's own self hatred, and by extension, a hatred of their own species. They view themselves as evil and nature as pure and good, thus setting up a false dichomoty. They also like to believe that achievement is false so they have an excuse not to try.

    Nature is not good nor evil, it just is. It is violent and disgusting and scary and beautiful and inspiring all at once. The same is true of civilisation. I remember seeing high rise buildings and being awed. I hadn't been to Sydney since I was a kid and too young to appreciate it. Civilisation, everything man has created architecturally, artistically, technologically etc is but a reflection of man's brilliance.

    To the OP, it depends on your definition of better.

  9. #9
    Gator's Avatar
    Gator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    122
    Bushrat: Never been to Sydney, but my ship pulled into Perth for a few days. I liked it. Your Folgers was nothing like what we get in the USA. I think you are cheating us and sending us water. <insert smile>

    I also believe that too many people denigrate anything worthwhile because they doubt that they can aspire to anything great, themselves. Too many Eyeore's and not enough Pooh's. I am not supernatural. I am not subnatural. I am human. One of Earth's species. I am part of nature. So are the things I do. Unfortunately, too often humans are a yeast like species that destroys its environment.

    I once had a cartoon that I had cut from some magazine. On the left were skyscrapers and factories. On the right, mountains, forests, and a lake. There was a highway connecting the two and there were two cars on the highway. One headed towards the city and the other headed towards the country. The caption bubble had an arrow to each car and they both were saying, "Ah, civilization!" For me, civilization is an attitude, not an environment.

  10. #10
    Tahl's Avatar
    Tahl is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14
    Carandini,

    To answer your original question: Undoubtedly YES. Civilization is unsustainable and leads to far more problems than it supposedly solves. Your list is full of great examples of this. I would slightly quibble with overpopulation, however. Yes, that is a problem, but more precisely the problem is one of overconsumption, i.e. the carrying capacity of any given landbase. If we were more focused on maintaining a healthy landbase, we would certainly be healthier due to the nature of ecological cycles.

    Check out the writings of Derrick Jensen for starters, such as his two-volume book Endgame and What We Leave Behind.

    Tahl

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •