The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: News & Current Events:
Environment

The World and Human Advancement

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 · >>
Asme251 On December 21, 2017
Area Man





Boston, Massachusetts
#1New Post! May 07, 2009 @ 23:52:20
I just finished reading the novel Ishmael and I've been thinking about this question: Was the world better off with humans as hunter-gatherers? Also, would humans survive longer if they had stayed as hunter-gatherers?

I think that the answer is yes, to both questions. First of all, there is the obvious environmental damage that humans have imparted upon the world through their industrial expansion.

However, the future of "green" energy and technology promises to stop the environmental damage. However, I believe that the problem is more fundamental than just environmental damage. The problem, as stated in Ishmael, started when humans decided to settle down and become agriculturalists. Now some might wonder, why is that bad? Well, as hunter gatherers, humans had to live and adapt to the environment. That's how humans came to evolve. They needed to survive and thus needed to evolve. More importantly, humans also had to limit their growth (like every other animal) in order to survive as hunter gathereres. If there are too many humans, then resources will run out, the population will decrease, food will be available again and the cycle repeats. This practically happened to every Animal in the world .

When humans settled down after the first Agricultural Revolution (also called the Neolithic Revolution ) , they decided to step out of their hunter gatherer lives. In doing so, they tried to exempt themselves from the laws that limited the growth of other Animals. When you grow your own food, when you have surplus food available, you no longer depend on the availability of prey or plant life. You can simply harvest the food and live as you wish. More importantly, you can live without having to limit your growth . Why is this bad? Well think about it. If you grow a lot, what do you need? Food. How do you obtain the food? You settle on new areas, drive out the competiton (Animals who eat your prey) and obtain enough food to feed your population. But now you have more food than your population needs. So what happens? The cycle repeats, and you have what we have today! A poupulation expanding with unchecked growth.

Obviously, this means that we have successfully exempted ourselves from the laws that govern the growth of other Animals right? No. And I think most people everywhere know it. Eventually, we'll suck the resources out of the earth and we will have to reduce our population, drastically. What's different this time is that we won't be able to recover. As hunter gatherers, our prey would repopulate as our population declined. Judging by the way things are going now, we won't have the same prey in the future. We will have killed off all of our competition, reducing the diversity of nature, and we have domesticted and homogenized our prey. So by the time humans start dying off, most other animals will have died out. This is inevitable.

Some might argue that we're trying to keep our population under control through birth control, condoms...etc but of course, that's not taken seriously by anyone. Most people don't want to get pregnant because it will ruin their future, not because it will contribute to population increase. So in the end, we have to question our way of life. Is it the best way to survive in the long term? I mean, sure we have all these comforts but what use are they if we only destry ourselves in the end? Are we better off as hunter gatherers?

Now, of course no one is willing to go back to living as nomads. However, it is the only way to ensure our long term survival. Ishmael had a good theory about why humans are reluctant to live as nomads.As hunter gatherers, Humans were the best adapted species in the world. They had few to none natural predators and, as omnivores, they could eat a wide vareity of food. So why did humans detest living in the mercy of nature? Quinn argues that once humans discovered agriculture, they hated going back to the mercy of nature. He states that humans wanted a guaranteed food source. They did not want to rely on the weather or on the availability of prey. So they decided to take themselves "out" of nature's grip and live as settled communities. Quinn says that humans did not escape nature's grasp. We are still constrained by food resources. We will eventually die off. And it's not going to be a gradual process either. So, ironically, our attempt to escape the grasp of nature will drive us to extinction.

So, I have to ask, With Gorilla gone Is there any hope for man?

Criticisms and other points of view are welcome!
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#2New Post! May 08, 2009 @ 01:05:25
While I understand what you are saying...and do understand that you believe humans overall would be better off as hunters-gathers....i bring to you this.

@Asme251 Said

However, the future of "green" energy and technology promises to stop the environmental damage. However, I believe that the problem is more fundamental than just environmental damage. The problem, as stated in Ishmael, started when humans decided to settle down and become agriculturalists. Now some might wonder, why is that bad? Well, as hunter gatherers, humans had to live and adapt to the environment. That's how humans came to evolve. They needed to survive and thus needed to evolve.


POV A: Well...as an intelligent species why can't we we "settle" down. As humans...settling down is also a form on evolving. If we don't settle down...we would not experience and adapt to something. No exposure to something = no existence. If all we are exposed to is hunting-gathering...then most likely we are living that way or in a similar fashion for over eternity really. We wouldn't not have time to live as we do now...we may not have light bulbs, we mot have electricity etc. Now you may ask...why would we really need this? But is it not a form of evolution as well. How can we only limit ourselves to one way of life when clearly we can do more. There is no full way to analyze this situations...because no two types of existence in its true form occur simultaneously.

You also say, that we have gone overboard...basically over populations. But I can counter argue that; we as intelligent species HAVE recognized that we are over populated, for a long while now too. And we are combating that don't you think. From efficient manufacturing of food and products, to in some places limiting the amount of children you can have etc (i.e China). We have morals to think about here...which is a whole different issue. Secondly...I think that one of our main goals...which has been for a long time because we DO recognize our problems is constantly trying to find a balance and a solution. In your theory, you believe the solution is to go back to being hunters-gathers. It is a solution. Others however believe its in education, others in control, others that just believe in natural birth and death etc.

I had another POV...but i wrote so much I forgot. Let me go think.
Asme251 On December 21, 2017
Area Man





Boston, Massachusetts
#3New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:34:20
@boobagins Said

While I understand what you are saying...and do understand that you believe humans overall would be better off as hunters-gathers....i bring to you this.



POV A: Well...as an intelligent species why can't we we "settle" down. As humans...settling down is also a form on evolving. If we don't settle down...we would not experience and adapt to something. No exposure to something = no existence. If all we are exposed to is hunting-gathering...then most likely we are living that way or in a similar fashion for over eternity really. We wouldn't not have time to live as we do now...we may not have light bulbs, we mot have electricity etc. Now you may ask...why would we really need this? But is it not a form of evolution as well. How can we only limit ourselves to one way of life when clearly we can do more. There is no full way to analyze this situations...because no two types of existence in its true form occur simultaneously.

You also say, that we have gone overboard...basically over populations. But I can counter argue that; we as intelligent species HAVE recognized that we are over populated, for a long while now too. And we are combating that don't you think. From efficient manufacturing of food and products, to in some places limiting the amount of children you can have etc (i.e China). We have morals to think about here...which is a whole different issue. Secondly...I think that one of our main goals...which has been for a long time because we DO recognize our problems is constantly trying to find a balance and a solution. In your theory, you believe the solution is to go back to being hunters-gathers. It is a solution. Others however believe its in education, others in control, others that just believe in natural birth and death etc.

I had another POV...but i wrote so much I forgot. Let me go think.


First of all, THANKS for not running away at the first site of my post!




Ok, second of all, I say that settling down stunting our evolution. When we were hunter gatherers, we had to adapt to our environment. We had competition for our prey, we were sometimes hunted... etc so we had to evolve continuously in order to survive. In fact, you see different kinds of people today because of that adaption. However, as settlers, we made environment adapt to us. We said, why compete? Lets kill off the competition and we did! We didn't like the forest so we cut it down. We didn't like animals living near us so we drove them away. We basically shaped our environment. So we stopped evolving at the rate we used to evolve. Electricity and all other technological inventions were invented to make sure that we have the environment the way we want it to be.

Of course almost everyone recognizes the problem with overpopulation but no one cares apparently. I have seen countless ads advising people to get condoms or birth control pills so that they are not burdened with a baby or get an STD but I have yet to see one that asks people to control their growth. And China's solution is what we should expect to see in the future. They have recognized that they need to stop their unlimited growth but their solution is only temporary. We will eventually run out of resources, we will try to make people stop growing, we shall fail and die off until only a fraction of the current population is left.

The solution of others will always be temporary. Can you tell me a way that we can retain all our resources indefinitely?


And again, Thanks for responding!
glassman55 On November 01, 2010

Deleted



Dingwall, United Kingdom
#4New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:41:20
@Asme251 Said

I just finished reading the novel Ishmael and I've been thinking about this question: Was the world better off with humans as hunter-gatherers? Also, would humans survive longer if they had stayed as hunter-gatherers?

I think that the answer is yes, to both questions. First of all, there is the obvious environmental damage that humans have imparted upon the world through their industrial expansion.

However, the future of "green" energy and technology promises to stop the environmental damage. However, I believe that the problem is more fundamental than just environmental damage. The problem, as stated in Ishmael, started when humans decided to settle down and become agriculturalists. Now some might wonder, why is that bad? Well, as hunter gatherers, humans had to live and adapt to the environment. That's how humans came to evolve. They needed to survive and thus needed to evolve. More importantly, humans also had to limit their growth (like every other animal) in order to survive as hunter gathereres. If there are too many humans, then resources will run out, the population will decrease, food will be available again and the cycle repeats. This practically happened to every Animal in the world .

When humans settled down after the first Agricultural Revolution (also called the Neolithic Revolution ) , they decided to step out of their hunter gatherer lives. In doing so, they tried to exempt themselves from the laws that limited the growth of other Animals. When you grow your own food, when you have surplus food available, you no longer depend on the availability of prey or plant life. You can simply harvest the food and live as you wish. More importantly, you can live without having to limit your growth . Why is this bad? Well think about it. If you grow a lot, what do you need? Food. How do you obtain the food? You settle on new areas, drive out the competiton (Animals who eat your prey) and obtain enough food to feed your population. But now you have more food than your population needs. So what happens? The cycle repeats, and you have what we have today! A poupulation expanding with unchecked growth.

Obviously, this means that we have successfully exempted ourselves from the laws that govern the growth of other Animals right? No. And I think most people everywhere know it. Eventually, we'll suck the resources out of the earth and we will have to reduce our population, drastically. What's different this time is that we won't be able to recover. As hunter gatherers, our prey would repopulate as our population declined. Judging by the way things are going now, we won't have the same prey in the future. We will have killed off all of our competition, reducing the diversity of nature, and we have domesticted and homogenized our prey. So by the time humans start dying off, most other animals will have died out. This is inevitable.

Some might argue that we're trying to keep our population under control through birth control, condoms...etc but of course, that's not taken seriously by anyone. Most people don't want to get pregnant because it will ruin their future, not because it will contribute to population increase. So in the end, we have to question our way of life. Is it the best way to survive in the long term? I mean, sure we have all these comforts but what use are they if we only destry ourselves in the end? Are we better off as hunter gatherers?

Now, of course no one is willing to go back to living as nomads. However, it is the only way to ensure our long term survival. Ishmael had a good theory about why humans are reluctant to live as nomads.As hunter gatherers, Humans were the best adapted species in the world. They had few to none natural predators and, as omnivores, they could eat a wide vareity of food. So why did humans detest living in the mercy of nature? Quinn argues that once humans discovered agriculture, they hated going back to the mercy of nature. He states that humans wanted a guaranteed food source. They did not want to rely on the weather or on the availability of prey. So they decided to take themselves "out" of nature's grip and live as settled communities. Quinn says that humans did not escape nature's grasp. We are still constrained by food resources. We will eventually die off. And it's not going to be a gradual process either. So, ironically, our attempt to escape the grasp of nature will drive us to extinction.

So, I have to ask, With Gorilla gone Is there any hope for man?

Criticisms and other points of view are welcome!


I disagree on a large scale. If we stayed as hunter-gatherers, our lives would have stayed as short as they were. 30 was an old guy. The advancement of modern medicine has more than doubled the life expectancy in first-world countries. But, I suppose living longer isn't such an amazing thing if you think about it. You start being less mobile, forget things, have a 4 in 5 chance in developing dementia, i could go on. From what I've seen, being old is probably going to be one of the hardest parts of your life. Now take that and confine it to 30 years. You spend 21 years fully growing, then have only 9 more years to use it in. Unless you're killed by a wild animal or enemy tribe. Brilliant fun...
Asme251 On December 21, 2017
Area Man





Boston, Massachusetts
#5New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:48:48
@glassman55 Said

I disagree on a large scale. If we stayed as hunter-gatherers, our lives would have stayed as short as they were. 30 was an old guy. The advancement of modern medicine has more than doubled the life expectancy in first-world countries. But, I suppose living longer isn't such an amazing thing if you think about it. You start being less mobile, forget things, have a 4 in 5 chance in developing dementia, i could go on. From what I've seen, being old is probably going to be one of the hardest parts of your life. Now take that and confine it to 30 years. You spend 21 years fully growing, then have only 9 more years to use it in. Unless you're killed by a wild animal or enemy tribe. Brilliant fun...


Thanks for replying!

Yes but as hunter gatherers we may have lived for as long as the Earth may have existed. Now, we are continuously using up the Earth's resources and it won't be long before they run out.

Plus we're violating the rule of population control. If we don't control our growth, then we shall overpopulate. Simple as that. When we settled, we stopped controlling our growth. We eliminated the diversity of nature so that we can continue to grow and by the time we realize our fault, it will be too late.
glassman55 On November 01, 2010

Deleted



Dingwall, United Kingdom
#6New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:51:44
@Asme251 Said

Thanks for replying!

Yes but as hunter gatherers we may have lived for as long as the Earth may have existed. Now, we are continuously using up the Earth's resources and it won't be long before they run out.

Plus we're violating the rule of population control. If we don't control our growth, then we shall overpopulate. Simple as that. When we settled, we stopped controlling our growth. We eliminated the diversity of nature so that we can continue to grow and by the time we realize our fault, it will be too late.



Ah, but there's also the distinct possibility that we ourselves get wiped out.
soypuke On May 13, 2009

Deleted



,
#7New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:53:02
All races die out eventually
Asme251 On December 21, 2017
Area Man





Boston, Massachusetts
#8New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:53:49
@glassman55 Said

Ah, but there's also the distinct possibility that we ourselves get wiped out.



That's what I'm arguing, that we will be wiped out. If we continue this way, we will. No doubt about it.

Sorry, didn't want to sound like a pessimist!
Asme251 On December 21, 2017
Area Man





Boston, Massachusetts
#9New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:54:23
@soypuke Said

All races die out eventually



Races? Do you mean species?
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#10New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:54:52
@Asme251 Said

Thanks for replying!

Yes but as hunter gatherers we may have lived for as long as the Earth may have existed. Now, we are continuously using up the Earth's resources and it won't be long before they run out.



But haven't we existed thus far as long as the earth has existed? Also can't account for diseases and such, while I agree that we created a large amount of diseases and such, there were some that affected us. Plus living in herds (since we are social creatures) and having no treatment can sometimes kill of an entire mini-population.

Also how would survival of the fittest fit in? Are we the the most "capable" creatures that would ensure our survivability over the rest or would we eventually become extinct or limit our growth.
soypuke On May 13, 2009

Deleted



,
#11New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:54:56
@Asme251 Said

Races? Do you mean species?


Yeah, species, i sometimes confuse the two. lol
glassman55 On November 01, 2010

Deleted



Dingwall, United Kingdom
#12New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:55:17
@Asme251 Said

That's what I'm arguing, that we will be wiped out. If we continue this way, we will. No doubt about it.

Sorry, didn't want to sound like a pessimist!



And I'm arguing that we might have been wiped out as hunter gatherers as well. It's not only humans that cause extinction.
friendlybear On March 10, 2010

Deleted



Nanaimo, Canada
#13New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:56:16
I don't believe we face total extinction. I do think there is going to be a catastrophic population reduction soon, though.
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#14New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:56:37
@Asme251 Said

That's what I'm arguing, that we will be wiped out. If we continue this way, we will. No doubt about it.

Sorry, didn't want to sound like a pessimist!


If we continue this way I don't think we would ALL be wiped out...but maybe a large number. There are enough natural resources that can grow and form by itself to ensure our survivability...
friendlybear On March 10, 2010

Deleted



Nanaimo, Canada
#15New Post! May 10, 2009 @ 01:59:00
@boobagins Said

If we continue this way I don't think we would ALL be wiped out...but maybe a large number. There are enough natural resources that can grow and form by itself to ensure our survivability...


And people are resourceful enough to avoid total extinction. Natural disasters, that's a whole nother thing, we may go rhe way of the dinosaurs.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Mental Health
Wed Feb 15, 2012 @ 00:38
17 1931
New posts   Animal Rights
Fri May 01, 2009 @ 13:03
0 1015
New posts   Philosophy
Mon Jul 28, 2008 @ 17:38
7 816
New posts   Food & Drink
Fri Aug 17, 2007 @ 20:48
18 979
New posts   Random
Sat Jul 07, 2007 @ 07:08
172 4541