The amazon- unnatural histories!

[gibbon]

My point wasn't that indigenous peoples are less morally or culturally advanced than us, nor that they would not have been better of if historically left alone it was simply to say that the average person alive today is better off on average than their ancestors on any criteria that you care to measure.

 

The reality of the indigenous life is very different (as I'm sure you have experienced) from that imagined by those that wish for us to smash our technology, return to bartering, live in yurts and live off the land. It's hard and one must embrace different (note not lower or higher) expectations. As a result I find the glibness of the "everything would be better if we lived in harmony with nature" mindset epically naive and essentially insulting. It basically demeans the ethics of modernity (and by extension, my ethics) in favour of an unreal never never land.

 

But what are the real ethics of modernity? Greed, gain, consume. The modern world I see is driven by money and power. When enslaving people through physical power became rather politically incorrect we choose to do it in a more subtle way. “Here third world country, borrow this money to improve your infrastructure and pay us back with interest. Oh your economy has not grown as much as we forecast and you cant pay the money back let alone the interest. Never mind, let our companies mine your minerals and extract your oil. We will be able to do it very cheaply because your population are poor and will work for nothing. Now we can still plunder your resources and utilise near slave labour.” Where’s the ethics there?

 

I do not mean to imply I'm right and your wrong here, but my experiences have lead me to have a differing opinion. And as it happens I will be in Africa next week and I'm hoping to visit a Marabou (Witch Doctor). When I do I will chew a frog for you and ask him his opinions on the real ethics of modernity.

Rant over, Ive got work to do

Edited January 24, 2012 by gibbon

[skyhuck]

 

Clearly things could be better. We should have less poverty, disease, crime (and all the other bad things to numerous to mention), and there are problems that humanity will have to address in the near future (adaption to climatic variability, the eventually rising price of conventional fossil fuels, etc etc) but things are better than they were.

 

While I largely agree, its really not so black and white.

 

If I had lived 100 years ago my wife and first born son would have both died in childbirth, my eldest daughter would have died aged 4 of pneumonia.

 

So I am incredibly grateful for most of the modern advances that have dramatically improved life for most of us.

 

But as gibbon points out many of the negatives of the modern world are truly horrendous and generally affect those who are not benefiting,which feels to me very unfair.

[Amelanchier]

No one in their right mind would deny that there are terrible things happening to many many people at this moment in time (see Gibbons good examples). There are and I agree that we should strive to eradicate them (strive harder no doubt, than we are). There are also immoral disparities between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' which we must work on reducing.

 

However, none of this means that things can't be better now than in the past. The reality that the average life has improved does not mean that we should feel less compassion for the starving millions, nor does it mean that we have to accept the dire ethical mechanics of our financial institutions. Just because our world isn't perfect doesn't mean we should bin it and start again from some romanticised pre-agricultural illusion. Thinking that life would be better for everyone if we closed our bank accounts, moved off grid, grew a few courgettes and ate squirrels is a cop out, it's a refusal to really engage with the more difficult question of how we improve the world for everyone.

[Amelanchier]

When enslaving people through physical power became rather politically incorrect we choose to do it in a more subtle way.

 

Slavery is a good example of what I'm talking about. It didn't just become politically incorrect; it became illegal. Modernity did that, not romanticism. Societies decided it was immoral, that they wanted to eradicate it and they weren't looking backwards to the good old days when they choose to do so. The average person alive today is many many times less likely to be sold into slavery than their ancestors. And lest we think that capitalism is crypto-slavery lets remember that a slave-owner could brand, beat, rape, mutilate, torture and kill their slaves with impunity as well as profit from their work and control their property and lives. I don't think even the worst fat cat is quite that bad.

 

...as it happens I will be in Africa next week and I'm hoping to visit a Marabou (Witch Doctor). When I do I will chew a frog for you and ask him his opinions on the real ethics of modernity.

 

Ha - get the lottery numbers as well!

[Amelanchier]

If I had lived 100 years ago my wife and first born son would have both died in childbirth, my eldest daughter would have died aged 4 of pneumonia.

 

And had you lived in the 14th century (still in England but outside of nobility) some sources estimate your likelihood of being murdered as 110 times greater than today (based on the number of homicides per 100,000 population)!

[skyhuck]

And had you lived in the 14th century (still in England but outside of nobility) some sources estimate your likelihood of being murdered as 110 times greater than today (based on the number of homicides per 100,000 population)!

 

I feel sure I would have been nobility

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

, it's a refusal to really engage with the more difficult question of how we improve the world for everyone.

 

I did offer an opportunity to explore such a path via Alan Rayners natural inclusionality, some of us are acutely aware of that question, and the urgent need of an answer.

 

There are many boundaries within the human psyche.

[Amelanchier]

I feel sure I would have been nobility

 

[Amelanchier]

I did offer an opportunity to explore such a path via Alan Rayners natural inclusionality, some of us are acutely aware of that question, and the urgent need of an answer.

 

There are many boundaries within the human psyche.

 

Did no-one take you up on that offer? S'funny...

[gibbon]

And had you lived in the 14th century (still in England but outside of nobility) some sources estimate your likelihood of being murdered as 110 times greater than today (based on the number of homicides per 100,000 population)!

 

Did you just copy that from a book called one hundred and one useless facts?