From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:24:25 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <STEINLY.92Dec15130933@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <724384281snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>
>   In article <STEINLY.92Dec7124044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu writes:
>
>    > Huh, I thought the CW was that agricultural societies (and h-g's)
>    > went for large families to help with local sustenance labour (and
>    > overcome very high mortality rate), and that urbanization led to
>    > a disincentive for large families and a lower birth rate but with
>    > a generational lag and resultant population bulge especially
>    > when combined with higher life expectancy due to centralised health
>    > care and other factors...
>
>   Well, the trends remain indicative that *regardless* of what economic
>   base drives the particular culture; h-g, swidden, nomad, agricultural,
>   industrial, whatever, affluence brings with it small families. An
>   excellent reference on h-g affluence is
>
>	   Sahlins M.  1974
>	   Stone Age Economics
>	   London: Tavistock
>
>   in particular, Ch.1, "The Original Affluent Society".
>
>I've read Sahlins thesis of the affluent society, and while
>it makes some excellent original points, I feel the thesis
>is too often taken too far. In particular, it relies on a
>relative definition of affluence, where people become inured
>to hardships to the point where they're no longer considered
>hardships - which is subjectively true, but says more about
>the flexibility of the human psyche than the happiness and
>health of people  (defined by some "objective" measure, in
>so far as that is possible).
>
You have made this point a number of times in the past.  How
do you arbitrarily place your criteria for happiness above
measurements by others?  They may seem totally obvious to you
but the opposite is true of many members of other cultures.
Many Native Americans did not want to switch to Euro-American
culture, but they were given no choice.  To point to those who
do want to switch to a technological culture ignores those who
did not.  While it is easy to point to various mortality
statistics, many people may choose a quality of life instead
of quantity (length) of life and that which they see as quality
may simply be incompatible with technologicalsociety.  The common 
negative attitude 
towards "heroic" actions to extend a human life by modern 
medicine show that lifespan measurements as quality of life 
(or culture) are not absolute.  Furthermore, some people (admittedly
a small minority) are choosing a "simpler" life today - less
technology.  Their choice need not mimic indigenous cultures or
h-g to indicate dissatisfaction with many of the standard quality 
of life measurements.  
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
>*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
>*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 
>
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)