←back to thread

430 points mhb | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179223[source]
"A woman's work is never done."

In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.

Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).

Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.

We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.

There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.

replies(26): >>46179343 #>>46179376 #>>46179422 #>>46179481 #>>46179798 #>>46179855 #>>46179919 #>>46180233 #>>46180355 #>>46180599 #>>46180969 #>>46181092 #>>46181124 #>>46181414 #>>46181875 #>>46181896 #>>46181937 #>>46181950 #>>46182147 #>>46182207 #>>46182381 #>>46183157 #>>46183746 #>>46184169 #>>46184908 #>>46186251 #
nowittyusername ◴[] No.46179422[source]
When humans domesticated animals and started tending to the fields is when IMO it all went down hill. That change brought in modern civilization with all its advantages but moreeso its disadvantages and maladaptive behaviors of the human mind. We shoulda stayed hunter gatherers, I am almost certain we would have been happier.
replies(7): >>46179444 #>>46179967 #>>46180265 #>>46180737 #>>46181077 #>>46181205 #>>46183362 #
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179444[source]
You first.

And no cheating by bringing antibiotics with you.

replies(9): >>46179484 #>>46179508 #>>46179529 #>>46179601 #>>46179614 #>>46179640 #>>46180009 #>>46180014 #>>46180175 #
defrost ◴[] No.46179508{3}[source]
A lack of antibiotics wasn't sufficient reason to stay in western society for those members of the Pintupi Nine and other hunter gather families that came in, looked about, and left again.

Some can't imagine life without antibiotics, others can't fathom living with everything else that comes with it.

replies(2): >>46180020 #>>46180214 #
1. tor825gl ◴[] No.46180214{4}[source]
But you've selected one particular group. The thousands of groups and individuals who merged their way of life with that of farming/toolmaking/industrialised/modern human society do not have a name, they are just part of the human mainstream.

Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't. So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress, even at the cost of giving up their previous way of life, that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.

replies(1): >>46180276 #
2. defrost ◴[] No.46180276[source]
> But

But?

> you've selected one particular group.

I used as examples some specific individuals of one named group, yes. I also had in mind other specific individuals of a few other families - all these groups share the same major language group.

There are other similar examples across the globe, of course, there's an entire island that famously prefers no contact- but I'm making a brief comment not writing a book.

> Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't.

If I were to pursue this I'd likely argue that a majority of adaptions happened with more force, less willingness, and at a pace faster than desired by the less technologically advanced side.

> So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress,

Indeed. Many are curious about water but didn't expect a hose shoved down their throats with a bucket load funnelled in endlessly with no off tap.

> that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.

I'm assuming this refers to those groups that want to retain autonomy but have difficulty doing so.

In many such cases that I'm aware of the problem stems less from former group members wanting to bring the outside in, more from outsiders (eg: loggers) wanting to clearfell habitat, miners wanting pits, etc.

eg: The entire West of PNG not wanting rule by Indonesia, various "Indonesians" not wanting their dense jungle homes cleared for palm oil plantations, various groups in Brazil, Native American Indians not wanting pipes to cross ther lands, giant copper mines on sacred grounds, etc.

replies(1): >>46180510 #
3. tor825gl ◴[] No.46180510[source]
You are making the same two errors again.

You are focusing on the 0.01% of humanity which isn't part of mainstream modernity rather than the 99.99% which is. And you're discussing cases of extreme differential in technological knowledge and worldview (Amazon jungle, Papua New Guinea), rather than the vastly more common smaller gaps and asymmetries.

If a majority of adaptations happened with force, how do you explain the ones that didn't? Don't they suggest that even without any force there would have been convergence, just more slowly?

European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that. But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions. Arguably North Americans could not have ignored the written word or manufactured textiles in perpetuity, just as their societies adapted and mutated to accept the horse and steel tools.

replies(1): >>46180791 #
4. defrost ◴[] No.46180791{3}[source]
> You are making the same two errors again.

Are you stating that no hunter gathers ever turned their backs on modern society despite antibiotics, dishwashers, and iPhones?

The claim I made in my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46179508 that prompted your response was a simple documented fact:

Antibiotics were not a sufficient factor to stop some people from rejecting technological society.

I'm not seeing the two errors there you claim.

> European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that.

Cool. I mean that's not something I said, but hey, if you want to chuck that in, sure.

> But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions.

I'm not sure 400 years of war, conflict and asymetric resource exchange makes up for the genocide part.

The Javanese subjugation of West Papua was a lot faster and equally or more brutal, the Europeans were largely hands off for that one, although they did quietly nod along and ignored the severed tonges and familial violence that accompanied the staged plebiscite :

Cute Name though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Free_Choice

Blackwater: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrciT3lXtwE