Bitscape's Lounge

Powered by:

Man's Real Natural State (Mindfood)

Sunday, October 9, 2005 23:37

Via Anthropik... The Martian Anthropologist uses historical evidence to refute the myth we've all been fed that without the "advance" of civilization, humans would be living desperate and pathetic lives. The truth is quite the contrary.

In 1767 the English navigator Wallis discovered the island of Tahiti. His visit was rapidly followed by those of the French explorer de Bougainville, and Captain James Cook. Between them these men opened up the Pacific. All three captains were overwhelmed by their reception at the hands of the people of Tahiti, and by the gifts showered upon them...

Of course, not being civilized, the islanders did not have a "work week." When they got hungry, they simply walked over to a breadfruit tree, and ate.

Those lazy heathens.

The islanders existed in a state of happiness that humans on Earth dream of. But the Christian Missionaries found this to be evil, of course. They eventually threatened all of them into conversion.

Horrible enough, but more to the point: They could not understand why the Tahitians were so "lazy." Why shouldn't they be, of course? They had everything they needed without a "job". Finally, the "civilized" man found a solution:

Mr. Gyles, a missionary who had formerly been a slave overseer in Jamaica, was brought over, along with the necessary mill to set the industry up. "Witnessing the cheapness of labour by means of the negroes he thought the natives of these islands might be induced to labour in the same way."

He was mistaken. The enterprise failed, and Mr Orsmond, believing that "a too bountiful nature on Moorea diminishes men's natural desire to work", ordered all breadfruit trees to be cut down.

This is the true nature of the beast within which we reside. It will cut off our resources, and then tell us that it's "natural" for people to be slaves and serve it in order to survive. A lot like the way Microsoft has been trying to extinguish free software on the basis that it's "UnAmerican", to use the language of Bill Gates.

The only difference in the physical meatspace world is that here, the same thing happened so long ago, none of us have been alive long enough to remember. The propaganda of corporations and governments tells us that thanks to them, we're better off now than ever before.

By this time the population of Tahiti had been reduced by syphilis, tuberculosis, smallpox and influenza from the 200,000 estimated by Cook to 18,000. After thirty years of missionary rule, only 6,000 remained. Otto Von Kotzebue, leader of a Russian expedition into the Pacific in 1823, long before the decline had reached its terminal phase, wrote: "A religion like this which forbids every innocent pleasure and cramps or annihilates every mental power is a libel on the divine founder of Christianity."

I also like the Martian's conclusion...

Do I propose that humans go back?

No, you can't. It's too late. But you can go forward.

Quit buying into the lie that you have to have a job. As Daniel Quinn says, "Tired of dragging stones up the pyramid? WALK AWAY."

Thank you. The future does not have to be the dystopian nightmare (sometimes disguised as a "bright future" in certain forms of scifi) in which every inch of the earth is covered in pavement, and humans proceed to fuck up outer space in the same manner, once this planet has been made totally uninhabitable.

Just walk away from it. What a beautiful motivational message. (The How then shall we live? part is a bit trickier in practice, but that's what we're here to figure out, isn't it?)

People's History of the United States
by bouncing (2005-10-10 11:02)

There's a fairly detailed account of other similar events in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".

Kind of makes you think the good guys lost a long time ago.

Tahiti
by Zan Lynx (2005-10-12 10:05)

The Tahiti story is nice, but completely irrelevant to Western civilization, which was created in areas where enough food does _not_ grow on trees and people have to work to feed themselves.

If people want to live without a job, that'd be fine, but if they want to live without working, they'd be coasting on civilization's leftovers. Which is hypocritical, in my opinion.

In the absence of mechanized farming, you'd be having to work a _lot_ to feed yourself in Colorado, for example. American Plains Indians didn't live the life of a Tahiti native. Hard work, a lot of moving to follow animal herds, and leaving the very old behind to die when they couldn't keep up.

Civilization means that you can feed yourself by working at some job that you're good at. Having specialized skills to trade with people who have other specialized skills means more for everyone.

History in Context
by bouncing (2005-10-12 18:49)

I disagree that history bares no relevance to Western civilization or the present day. Given that at the time, Europe was in a state of continuous war, and given that when the Spanish were warmly welcomed and returned the favor with genocide, I also question just who the barbarians were.

The reason that story is relevant is that the process is continuing today. Indigenous societies are still vanishing, under similar circumstances.

History and work
by Bitscape (2005-10-12 20:23)

Regarding how the North American native "Indians" lived, Benjamin Franklin seems like a decent witness:

The proneness of human Nature to a life of ease, of freedom from care and labour appears strongly in the little success that has hitherto attended every attempt to civilize our American Indians, in their present way of living, almost all their Wants are supplied by the spontaneous Productions of Nature, with the addition of very little labour, if hunting and fishing may indeed be called labour when Game is so plenty, they visit us frequently, and see the advantages that Arts, Sciences, and compact Society procure us, they are not deficient in natural understanding and yet they have never shewn any Inclination to change their manner of life for ours, or to learn any of our Arts; When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return, and that this is not natural to them merely as Indians, but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.

At this stage in history, yes, it would be very difficut to feed yourself in a place like Colorado, because the land has been so depleted. Where there were once teeming herds of buffalo, there are now nothing but a few tumble weeds and dry grasses. I even remember reading from school textbooks how Columbus found the new land so rich and prosperous. I suspect that maybe this was because Europe had already been so ravaged by civilization, in a way similar to what America is now, that a place without its scars seemed wonderous indeed.

I'm not saying that many of the Indians didn't have to put forth any effort to obtain their food. But at least they weren't stuck in an industrial prison working to systematically subjugate or destroy every living thing it finds. Their "work" had meaning in and of itself, because they were not alienated from it.

I see no hypocracy in coasting on civilization's leftovers. Is a bird who builds a nest on a skyscraper ledge after its forest home was destroyed a "hypocrite" because it didn't help build the skyscraper? Why should it be different for humans? To the extent that civilization has destroyed our natual habitat, we adapt and find ways to live within it. For some, that might mean dumpster diving and train hopping. I say good for them! At least they aren't adding to the problem, which is more than those of us who pay taxes that fund military bombers can say.

American Indians
by Zan Lynx (2005-10-13 14:29)

The East Coast Indians had it pretty easy, living where they did. The Plains Indians had a much harder job. Before the Spanish introduced horses, the Indians had to chase those buffalo on foot, often over cliffs, killing hundreds when they only needed a few.

It's not that they were better people than Europeans. There were simply a lot fewer of them.

People are people everywhere. If they have everything they want (Tahitans), then they will be kind and nice. If they feel wronged or want something, then they will do awful things (quite a few Indian massacres of settlers). And don't forget the delightful habits of native New Guinea before they were civilized by the British.

We remember Europeans doing wrong more often and on a larger scale only because European civilizations have more *power*.

Work and "alienation"
by Zan Lynx (2005-10-13 14:37)

You might feel better about working if you see it benefiting you directly, producing food for yourself and none of it going to bosses or governments.

However, you're going to be working a lot harder and longer for it. Not everyone can live on a tropical island.

As for military bombers...

Say you had your ideal civilization somewhere on a nice island with no government...

Well, first off, you're all going to be growing your own food, so there won't be anybody to build bombers. Second, since you don't have any defense, any African dictator could decide he really likes your island, send in *his* bombers, kill all who resist and use the rest as slaves to build his palace.

Just look at what happened to the American Indians and the Tahitans.

Utopian Societies
by bouncing (2005-10-13 18:27)

Fair point -- egalitarian societies might be internally stable but because of their lack of militarism, they are vulnerable to attacks by aggressive neighbors.

The Iroquois come to mind. And fair enough, they were routed by a more militaristic civilization.