|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Aug 19, 2008 12:00
Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
part of every other
|
| |
|
| | 42 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Aug 19, 2008 14:23
On Aug 19, 12:00 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
> about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
> lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
> hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
> others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
> one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
> another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
> trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
> another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
> govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
> part of every other’s life.
>
> But with the rise of civilization --- the culture of cities ---
> those bonds could not be maintained. People found themselves living in
> large communities in which most of the people around them were
> strangers, with whom they had no familial or other personal ties, and
> often very little else in common. People began to notice the differences
> among them --- differences in coloration and bone structure, in habits
> of dress, in temperament and mannerisms, in interests and tastes, and ...
|
| Show full article (8.41Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: neo-anchoriteneo-anchorite Date: Aug 20, 2008 04:44
Publius is onto something. That lack of connection - sometimes (but
not always) unpleasant - is a part of what it is to be a modern
individual. But some questions:
1 Is it a correct diagnosis to say that the moral problem (the value
problem - call it what you will) of the age is the fact that we live
in a society that includes millions of people we will never know face
to face? Is that the problem?
2 Are all societies which include strangers to be lumped together as
equally dissatisfying?
3 Is the only meaningful (albeit impossible) direction backwards?
4 Is it absolutely inconceivable that there could be some other
articulation of the individual and society which, although not as cozy
(if one ignores blackspots like cannibalism, for instance or female
genital mutilation) as the old tribal one would nevertheless ease some
of the pain of individuation?
5 Is the problem not that there are strangers but that we are obliged
to participate in and support a society whose fundamental orientation
(the paranoid pursuit of eternal GDP growth) is meaningless - is
suicidal, frankly?
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: neo-anchoriteneo-anchorite Date: Aug 20, 2008 04:45
Publius is onto something. That lack of connection - sometimes (but
not always) unpleasant - is a part of what it is to be a modern
individual. But some questions:
1 Is it a correct diagnosis to say that the moral problem (the value
problem - call it what you will) of the age is the fact that we live
in a society that includes millions of people we will never know face
to face? Is that the problem?
2 Are all societies which include strangers to be lumped together as
equally dissatisfying?
3 Is the only meaningful (albeit impossible) direction backwards?
4 Is it absolutely inconceivable that there could be some other
articulation of the individual and society which, although not as cozy
(if one ignores blackspots like cannibalism, for instance or female
genital mutilation) as the old tribal one would nevertheless ease some
of the pain of individuation?
5 Is the problem not that there are strangers but that we are obliged
to participate in and support a society whose fundamental orientation
(the paranoid pursuit of eternal GDP growth) is meaningless - is
suicidal, frankly?
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Aug 20, 2008 06:06
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:00:06 -0500, Publius wrote:
> But with the rise of civilization ---
In your excellent essay.. this 'civilization' seems to just 'poof'
happen. I am going to cheery pick some of your points...
First, thanks for the time and effort you have given this.
'Tribes' become what is called civilization.. why? Large groups change
because of the differences between individuals, ok but how did this
happen? How does one just acquire individuality?
You are leaving out big things here, in my opinion..
The first is the importance of physical environment as it pertains to the
ability to actually move from one place top another and the type of
economy and size of the group supported by that environment.
Related to this is the migration of tribes or one coming into contact
with another, for whatever reason, as opposed to large groups just
forming and differences just happening.
I also think your statement:
> In tribal societies there is no free will, and no individuality.
|
| Show full article (4.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Aug 20, 2008 10:28
On Aug 19, 3:00Â pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
> about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
> lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
> hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
> others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
> one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
> another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
> trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
> another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
> govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
> part of every other’s life.
>
> But with the rise of civilization --- the culture of cities ---
> those bonds could not be maintained. People found themselves living in
> large communities in which most of the people around them were
> strangers, with whom they had no familial or other personal ties, and
> often very little else in common. People began to notice the differences
> among them --- differences in coloration and bone structure, in habits
> of dress, in temperament and mannerisms, in interests and tastes, and ...
|
| Show full article (7.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Aug 20, 2008 10:32
On Aug 19, 5:23Â pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 19, 12:00 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
>> about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
>> lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
>> hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
>> others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
>> one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
>> another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
>> trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
>> another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
>> govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
>> part of every other’s life.
>
>> But with the rise of civilization --- the culture of cities --- ...
|
| Show full article (5.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Aug 20, 2008 13:36
On Aug 19, 2:00Â pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> Homo sapiens, if the anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for
> about 200,000 years. Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he
> lived in small tribal villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few
> hundred members --- small enough that all of its members knew all of the
> others, indeed, had known each other all of their lives. They midwifed
> one another's births, tended one another's illnesses, shared one
> another's possessions, and married one another's cousins. They knew and
> trusted one another, and had dense, intimate relationships among one
> another. They needed no formal ethics nor any political structure to
> govern their affairs, simply because each was and had always been a
> part of every other’s...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Aug 20, 2008 17:43
> I sometimes debate with so-called "Libertarians". Their philosophy
> is, essentially, that politics and government are unnecessary. They
> frequently refer to mediaeval Iceland as an example of this. When I
> point out that there were only, at most, a few tens of thousands of
> people in Iceland, giving a population density of just 1 person per
> square mile, on an island totally isolated by the Atlantic Ocean,
> they don't quite see the point. The point is, mediaeval Iceland
> approximated the conditions of primitive man. So, they didn't need a
> government. We do.
I agree, Jerry. The question is not whether we need a government, but what
role government can usefully play in civilized societies (societies
comprised of millions of unrelated, individualized persons).
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
