From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:00:23 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct13115213@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.051307.18621@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <-1366948899snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>   >
>   >In article <JMC.92Oct10113638@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >
>   > > in disagreement with someone who said:
>   > >  
>   > >      The more labor intensive day-to-day survival is, the lower
>   > >      the standard of living is.
>   > >  
>   > > Both within countries and between countries, the lower the standard
>   > > of living the more fighting there is.
>   >
>   Violence among the poor becomes common when there are unrealized expectations
>   of wealth, which often implies great disparities of wealth.  Societies with
>   low _material_ standards of living, but with sustainable lifestyles are
>   often very satisfied and have little violence.  I have traveled extensively
>
>More simply, organised violence is a luxury not affordable to those already
>struggling to exist. To support an army or even an extended raid
>you must produce a surplus to support them, if your society does
>not generate surplus resources no systematic fighting lasting more
>than a day or two is possible.
>That still leaves casual violence, and plenty of it, either way you're dead.

And as the next paragraph indicates, "casual" violence is also not a
part of the culture.
>
>   in the hills of Nepal where material standards of living are extremely low.
>   Violence is simply not an acceptable method for solving personal disputes.
>   The people lead a hard and happy life.
>
>Yet the same hills produce some of the fiercest fighters in the world
>when provided with the resources and incentive.

A fierce fighter is not the same as a violence-prone person.  The point
is that this "lower" standard of living exists in a society more
peaceful and less prone to violence than the US.
>
>	  I was traveling alone, eating with
>   the people, sleeping next to their chicken coops and was not insulated at all.
>   I would feel much safer walking through any city at night there than in any
>   city in the US.  I also met Nepalis who had lived in the US and went back
>   "because nobody smiles in American cities."  I would suggest that their
>   definition of a "high standard of living" would be very different than yours.
>
>So what. If I wanted to I could buy several cows, this would boost my
>living standard immensely by some measures. By my measure it would
>severly reduce my living standard. Is the other way better?

Obviously not for you.  The subject here is the possible correlation
between violence and material standards of living.  Does your last
statement relate to this?
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment