From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:25:30 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Oct13115213@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct13.190023.8884@vexcel.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:00:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.190023.8884@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   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.

Didn't Nepal have severe civil riots in the last year or two
in protest over govenrment suppression?

   >	  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?

Did yours? Do you assert that they are not violent _because_ they
have a low material standard of living? Or that they have
a low standard of living because they are not violent?
My culture is by any measure much less violent than US culture
and has _higher_ standard of material living.


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc