archaic/tribal society: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » archaic/tribal society » archaic/tribal society

archaic/tribal society
Is humanity supposed to live in our high tech, modern society?

archaic/tribal society

OutOfMyMind
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/20/08 - 06:15 AM: Subject: archaic/tribal society	#1
These days we all hear stuff about overpoulation, global warming, and epidemics. These things are caused because of humans. We have become to advanced for our own good. Humans are, afterall, just animals. So should we not live in the manner of animals? Should we not live in tribes, delocalized throughout the world like any other animal. A return to archaic would be a solution to so many of our problems today.
_____________________ Dust in the wind.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11511

Posted 03/20/08 - 11:41 AM:	#2
Look at Austailia. A whole continent turned barren desert by tribal man. One of our worst atrosities against nature. Clearly mass suicide is the only way to go. When I spoke to him this morning God said that's how it's supposed to be. ReminRemind me, please, what other animals have tribal societies. Also, of course, tribal society can support about half a billion people at most so I presume you're voulenteering to be culled. Edited by Paul on 03/20/08 - 11:48 AM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 452

Posted 03/20/08 - 02:01 PM:	#3
Um, Paul - the aborigine people live in harmony with nature - they are part of the bush ecosystem. They did not turn the continent barren, any more than the termites did, or the kangaroos. We wouldn�t use the term tribe for non-humans in normal speech; however prides of lions, groups of Gorillas, even families of meerkats operate in a similar manner to tribes... My problem with your objection to this is that humans should not act like other animals in order to be distinctively human. I guess this is my problem to the original post also: we are humans, and what we act like is what we are meant to act like. If not, then how would we know? You are right about the population sizes though, I would suggest that life would be far easier with a few million less humans around.

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/21/08 - 04:49 AM:	#4
No, we should not live in tribes. By 'delocalized' do you mean decentralised? 1. Overpopulation. On most projections the world population plateaus by about 2050 and actually starts to go negative thereafter. A tribal society would certainly not be a solution to the problems posed by this phenomenon. Cities in fact provide efficiencies that enable large populations to be supported, which is why most people now live in them. It seems highly doubtful that a tribal society could support 6.5 billion people. Problems such as starvation will be solved in the next decade using cloning techniques to artificially manufacture animal tissue and other protein sources in factories at very little cost. 2. Global Warming. We do not currently have the technology to combat this problem, but by the 2020s we will have sufficient mastery of nanotechnology to completely remove carbon, and any other pollutants, from the atmosphere using nanobots. This will reverse the global warming trend at significantly lower cost than currently proposed strategies (e.g. Kyoto). 3. Epidemics. We already have the technology necessary to cheaply sequence genomes, and Craig Venter is on the edge of designing and manufacturing artificial life. During the next decade of this century our mastery of genetic engineering will increase to the point of being able to optimise our own DNA in order to make our bodies resistant to many known diseases. Furthermore we will have the ability to quickly develop vaccines to any emerging threat. There are many challenges facing humanity, but the problem is not that we are too advanced, but rather that we are not yet advanced enough. But don't worry, over the coming decades we will develop the required technologies. I honestly don't see how reverting to a tribal society would help anybody.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 452

Posted 03/21/08 - 05:53 AM:	#5
Sophistry wrote: I honestly don't see how reverting to a tribal society would help anybody. Well Sophistry, I am glad to see your so optimistic about our abilities - I hope your right, because to be frank such advancement would be humanities best hope. Reverting to a tribal society would have one benefit I am aware of - People would be happier. A tribal society offers each member his or her place, a sense of group enterprise, the food/social nourishment they need. The stresses of modern life might be dealt with by technology, but it doesn�t mean we will be happier as a result.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/21/08 - 12:40 PM:	#6
I don't see how our technologically advanced society is more desirable or beneficial to its inhabitants than more tribal societies. In analogy, I do not see how the crackhead's lifestyle is more desirable or beneficial than someone who chooses to abstain from drugs. But the scope of most people's individual motivations is narrow and immediate. I doubt the people in our global society would ever choose or "want" to give up technology and go back to tribalism anymore than the average crackhead will choose to give up crack. I do hope and think it is possible that society will become much more free and decentralized, and I hope that freedom and decentralization will help create many distinct cultures (or subcultures) and groups throughout the globe that can co-exist more peacefully than the current centralized nation-states. It's important to note that technology has lead to the process of globalization because it is making geographical separations much less important. In other words, people are no longer forced to associate with the people geographically closest to them, which can actually help bring about decentralization. Consider the internet, for example; Though global, it's relatively decentralized. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Aestheticist
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 120

Posted 03/22/08 - 02:10 AM:	#7
OutOfMyMind wrote: These days we all hear stuff about overpoulation, global warming, and epidemics. These things are caused because of humans. We have become to advanced for our own good. Humans are, afterall, just animals. So should we not live in the manner of animals? Should we not live in tribes, delocalized throughout the world like any other animal. A return to archaic would be a solution to so many of our problems today. I would still prefer to live in a technological advanced society since science has done more good than harm. The reason why science has done because humans have no self-control. And the majority are lack of education of science.

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 790

Posted 03/22/08 - 12:08 PM:	#8
Aestheticist wrote: I would still prefer to live in a technological advanced society I agree as to preference, but do we have the choice in the long run? It comes down to whether technological advance is conducive to long term survival. If humans have no self control then they have no control over their technology and it is quite likely that we will wipe ourselves out with it, like children with matches. But a voluntary return to an earlier, more primitive state would require just the self control that we seem to lack, so the OP is unlikely to be able to turn his 'should' into a 'shall' either.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 03/23/08 - 05:06 AM:	#9
What we need is more rigorous culling. We have protected our children too much. Throw them out of the house at twelve and receive them back at eighteen. Those that survive are bound to be smarter than the average eighteen-year old today.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

duality-divinity
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 18

Posted 03/25/08 - 12:47 PM:	#10
Sophistry wrote: There are many challenges facing humanity, but the problem is not that we are too advanced, but rather that we are not yet advanced enough. But don't worry, over the coming decades we will develop the required technologies. I honestly don't see how reverting to a tribal society would help anybody. I would just like to ask a simple question. How would you consider further development of technology 'evolution'? When you look at it, the creatures which have been dwelling on this planet the longest have evolved to coexist with their environment, and develop that which they need internally. Example: Birds are the descendants of prehistoric dinosaurs, they have developed the ability to fly. Whales have been around even longer, and they can survive underwater. It seems to me that humanity differs from this trend in a very distinct way: We tend to destroy (maybe 'conquer' is a better word) our environment, and attempt to create that which we need externally (resulting in technology). Example: We, too, developed the ability to fly... externally, using planes. We, too, developed the ability to survuve underwater... using brwathing apparatus. My view is that we have moved away from 'true' evolution, and towards something which I cannot name. Whether this is 'good' or 'bad', I cannot say, but I'd like to hear others' opinions of this idea...

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 03/25/08 - 05:52 PM:	#11
In fact the whole world is evolving, all of its species, the geo-physical matrix in which they live, and indeed, the technology that can be used to modify the world. The only question is whether that evolution via technology will have consequences for our children and their children. I think so.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Inthedark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 04/15/08 - 01:32 PM:	#12
duality-divinity wrote: When you look at it, the creatures which have been dwelling on this planet the longest have evolved to coexist with their environment, and develop that which they need internally... It seems to me that humanity differs from this trend in a very distinct way: We tend to destroy (maybe 'conquer' is a better word) our environment and attempt to create that which we need externally (resulting in technology). You assume that co-existence with the environment is not accidental and that given the chance the species would not "conquer" its environment. It could be that the species has too much competition from other species or too little food to expand its population. It may be that it is simply not that successful in evolutionary terms. I do agree that use of technology is not evolution I think it is a survival adaptation that humans have continued to use because it is successful and I doubt there is any human ever who has survived without the aid of some form of invention. Having said that but I don't think its any a less natural adaptation than say camouflage markings or being able to run fast. Also Humans are not the only species of creatures to use technology, there are species of birds and primates that use tools. On the topic in general I doubt that a complete return to tribal existence is going to help anyone. Firstly tribal existence still generates C02 less than we do at the moment but still a lot especially if there were 6 billion tribesmen. More importantly we would be blind to this damage because we wouldn’t have the technology to measure changes. Also it’s not possible to revert back to tribal existence because we have changed the environment drastically and some areas have always been desolate. It’s hardly fair to let people starve or freeze simply because they live in a country that relies heavily on imports or technology to survive. How do you teach people who have lived in a city all their life to hunt? Is their enough wildlife for them to hunt? How do you ensure that future generations of humans know not to build more technology? I agree that something drastic needs to be done to prevent the serious effects of climate change but I don’t think a return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle isn’t a plausible solution.

jvtrain89
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:07 AM:	#13
Technology is not real. It is another time consumer that we have deleloped in evolution. After time was created we became obsessed with it and find it neccessary to fill our free time slots up with meaningless activites. We are no more intelligent than those who existed before us. We just altered the setting a little bit, learned about the old one and called it an advanced society. What is an advanced society anyway?

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 04/27/08 - 08:49 AM:	#14
jvtrain89 wrote: Technology is not real. It is another time consumer that we have deleloped in evolution. After time was created we became obsessed with it and find it neccessary to fill our free time slots up with meaningless activites. We are no more intelligent than those who existed before us. We just altered the setting a little bit, learned about the old one and called it an advanced society. What is an advanced society anyway? Technology is as real as reading and writing, religious rituals, and systems of government. If we deal with it, it is real. If we can ignore it without serious consequences, it is unreal.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Antares
Emperor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/27/08 - 11:23 PM:	#15
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Gandhi
_____________________ I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life. - Mahatma Gandhi

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.