From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:52:08 GMT
	<1992Jul28.183126.4370@vexcel.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.183126.4370@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Jul27185132@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >
   >   real. This brings me to another question: why, when speaking of how some native
   >   people's found a close balance between themselves and nature, is it pointed out
   >   that they had all these diseases and only lived to be 50 and had very hard 
   >   lives... ?? Really now, tell me, do we really think that our QUALITY of life 
   >   has become so beautiful that "it was worth it?" I see SO much psychological and
   >   other damage BEACUSE of this lifestyle we've created. STRESS.....!! Sure, we
   >   live to be 100 -- unable to walk, talk and in a old folks home. Great. 
   >
   >Yes. It is great. Try the alternative someday. 
   >Remember that humans tend to scale crisis on a relative
   >scale, as major problems are resolved, lesser problems appear
   >more important - stress is quite frankly a trivial problem when
   >compared to hunger, and worrying about it is a luxury only
   >afforded by the sated.

   From your perspective.  There still is a small minority in western
   culture (and I think its growing) who are willing to accept a
   significant decrease in material standard of living to get out of
   the "rat-race" and all its stresses and pressures.  While starvation
   will never be a trivial problem, I am not aware that it was significant
   in native American societies, and we still have some in our society.

Dingo, I'm sure you followed this on sci.env - maybe you saw the
Malthus quote on native American conditions that John posted - but
I assure you that starvation was significant in native American
culture, and that current US conditions are not of the same order,
bad as they may be. The "counter-culture" movement can only work
(IMHO of course) _because_ it is marginal to society, I'd assert
that they're effectively parasitic on the industrial society they
want to reject.

   The emphasis on success, wealth, achievement, etc. that exists in most
   western (and plenty of other) cultures is not true of all cultures.
   Out technology gives us a clear physical, but not moral,
   hegemony over other cultures.

True but irrelevant. Morality at some level can be made as relative as
you like, I still consider starvation unpleasant and think anyone
naive enough to compare yuppie stress to lack of food must be
astonishingly lacking in empathy. I'd almost wish they'd get to
experience the privation they've lacked so they could get a little
perspective on life.

   The decision on which culture is "better" is clearly relative, and most
   people will have a subjective opinion on this.  I would leave a final
   determination of this to a distant historian.

Sure, in the meantime starving people will do what they can to get
food, and yuppies will continue to whine about the stress of making
the payment on the BMW and the 45" TV...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*