On Aug 23, 6:49 pm, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>>> You're thinking of "city" and "village" in their modern senses,
>>> rather than as defined in the thread. A tribal village is a
>>> self-sufficient community (whether permanent or migratory) consisting
>>> of at most a few hundred people, all of whose members are personally
>>> known to one another, and who have little or no contact with
>>> outsiders. It is not the equivalent of modern small towns. A "city"
>>> is a community so large that most of its members are strangers to one
>>> another.
>
>> It sounds to me like you are setting up a false dilemma -- that the
>> choices are either tribalism or what I consider to be the disastrous
>> experiment of modern civilization.
>
> Actually, no choice between those two alternatives is implied or
> recommended. Tribalism is not an option, barring some catastrophic event
> which reduces the Earth's population by 99%% or more, e.g., a meteor
> impact of the magnitude of the Yucatan strike which killed the
> dinosaurs. Even then it is doubtful the human remnant would resocialize
> itself in that fashion.
>
> There is no choice between tribalism and civilization, practically
> speaking. The only choice is to adapt our own psyches to the
> (relatively) new social reality.
False dilemma.
The other choice that you have conveniently ignored is that we can
consciously change our social structures by making choices that create
more balance, harmony, freedom, and peace, such as in the ways I have
presented.
Modern western civilization is by all objective and sane measures a
failure that may very well end in the extinction of our species (and
many others along the way) if we continue along the path unfettered.
The United States, for example, the world's beacon of democracy, has
the highest incarceration rate in the world. We also lead the world in
carbon dioxide emissions. Two dubious honors, to be sure.
To "adapt our psyches to the new social reality" of modern western
civilization is to choose insanity -- which of course is insane.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
Of course, that's not to say we should discard all of the truly
valuable aspects of western civilization that have evolved along the
way.
>> The reality is that there are beneficial aspect of tribal life that
>> you are ignoring. Living in small, safe, autonomous communities where
>> everyone knew each other is a good thing, especially when considering
>> the hazards of inner city life (unless you are wealthy, of course,
>> where can afford to shield yourself from these negative effects, to
>> some degree).
>
>> We should acknowledge these beneficial ways of living and incorporate
>> them into modern life, rather than discard them. Indeed, that is the
>> trend now in many cities across the U.S., with the emergence of "urban
>> villages".
>
> You harbor a romanticized view of tribal life (as do most people).
Nonsense. Your mind-reading skills are weak (don't quit your day
job). ;-)
The fact is there *were* beneficial aspects of tribal life. Hunter-
gatherer tribes most likely worked far fewer hours than the average
21st century man, had more time for leisure, had ample supply of
healthy food, and had a great deal more freedom (with the latter
supposedly being highly important to you libertarian types). The tight-
knit social structures also provided greater security.
There's nothing romantic about it -- thems the facts, jack.
> It
> was neither safe nor economically secure. Average lifespans were
> typically <30 years; infant mortality >50%%. Tribes could be exterminated
> by a single year of drought, an outbreak of disease, or an attack by a
> more powerful tribe. Perhaps even more importantly, it was
> intellectually barren. Tribal people produce no art (apart from ritual
> and decorative art), no literature, no drama, no music (apart from
> ritual music), no science, and no philosophy. They do not speculate upon
> and then investigate the workings of the world around them, or ponder
> their ownorigins. Instead they create fanciful folklores which are
> transmitted orally, unchallenged, uninvestigated, and unquestioned, for
> generation after generation, changing only via random errors in the
> retellings. The "benefits" of tribal life, if any there are, are greatly
> overshadowed by its drawbacks.
One of your (and other libertarian dogmatists) favorite straw man
arguments is that people want to "go back to the stone age", which of
course is ludicrous. All of the things you point to are largely solved
by technological and social advances we have already made.
No one longs for poor dental care, stone tools, and 30-year life spans
-- that's just politicking. What people do long for, and rightfully
so, are safety, health, security, autonomy, and creative and
intellectual freedom.
When we combine the social benefits of small, autonomous "village
life" with modern technology and a greatly reduced human population,
those things can be maximized.
>> One can still maintain one's individuality while recognizing one's
>> connection to the rest of the community.
>
> Absolutely. The trick is in not mistaking the nature of that connection,
> by assuming it is identical with or analogous to tribal bonds.
>
>>> The point was thatpolitics, governments, and the oppressions they
>>> entail existed for several millennia prior to industrialization.
>
>> That's true. But industrialization exacerbated the need forpolitics
>> (control).
>
> Nor sure what you are counting as evidence for that claim. In fact,
> industrialization only began after the rise of liberalism, which
> emphasized limiting the powers of government, and in those countries
> where that doctrine gained the most traction, i.e., the UK and the US.
The control mechanisms are still largely in place -- they are only
more subtle than they were.
>> So what exactly is your overall point? What are you suggesting we do?
>
> Get used to the idea that modern societies are not tribes, understanding
> the differences between those two social forms, and developing attitudes
> and expectations reflective of the actual structure of civilized
> societies.
What attitudes and expectations do you think we should adopt?
