[quote author=“rogerflat”]Dougsmith wrote:
If indigenous peoples are really so happy, why do they get so easily “infected” with these memes, as you put it?
I am a happy person. Would you question why I ended up with a viral infection if I was indeed so happy? No, of course not. Those are two unrelated things.
They are related. If the indigenous people were so happy with their own cultural ways and practices, they would be basically immune to infection from outside memes. The fact that they are so easily infected shows that they are in fact happier with the more modern lifeways. Just as they are much happier with steel machetes than stone axes.
[quote author=“rogerflat”]I’m not interested in the romantic notion of indigenous cultures, I’m only interested in their way of life which is inherently stable and sustainable—the exact opposite of our (oil-based/hierchal) culture.
Well they can’t be inherently stable, since as a matter of historical fact their cultures became ours, and their cultures are always changing, as every culture is all the time. There is no such thing as an inherently stable culture except in the romantic notions of some 19th century philosophers.
Their ways of life appear more sustainable because their populations are so low. One could not sustain six billion people on this planet with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
[quote author=“rogerflat”]That’s always a rough comparison. Because you are comparing billions of civilized people to tribes of only a few hundred members. So the percentage correlation never works out quite right. But keep in mind that within a small tribe, no matter what happens to people, the percentages will be much higher. And say that ten people are murdered in the tribe in one year. Is that worse than 10,000 people being murdered in civilized society? The murder rate is higher in the tribe after all. Do you see why that is a bad comparison?
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here. If I were to live among the Yanomami I would have roughly a 10-100x greater chance of dying by violence than I would living in Europe during the 20th century, including both world wars. I would also have a lifespan probably half as long even if I did survive to ‘old age’.
[quote author=“rogerflat”]A quick story, try to follow…I was buying shoes one day. An elderly couple came in and the woman was apparently trying on some shoes. I overheard her saying, “These will be good for walking around the hospital.” Two things: 1) The last thing I would ever judge a pair of shoes by is whether they would be good for walking around a freaking hospital, and 2) It stands to reason that age alone is a factor which makes people view the same things in completely different ways.
I don’t know, maybe taking care of someone, or being taken care of, is of critical importance to people who are older? It’s not for me or the people I know, not yet anyway. So the only issue that’s left is the philosophy of love and how that applies to marriage and/or monogamous relationships. So where do legal restrictions come into play as far as love goes? That is a question I can’t answer at this time. I don’t know of an answer.
Again, the legal restrictions don’t really come into it at all so far as the two (or more) of you are happily living together. The laws come in at the edges—at the extremes—when you have kids, when you decide to break up, when one of you falls desperately ill, when one of you dies. These can be instances in which there isn’t agreement between the two of you because you are either at loggerheads (breakup) or one of you is unable to speak for yourself (incapacitation). Then an outside third party has to make the call of what to do. In that instance, there need to be laws or regulations so that these decisions can be made fairly at least in the majority of instances.