Ludi's links and info

[Ludi]

I often present the tribal or hunter-gatherer society as a helpful model of social organisation. It has the advantages of egalitarianism, with work shared between all members; less total hours of work than typical agrarian/industrial models; small size so that all members know each other thus cutting down on the instances of crime; diversity between societies which means mistakes or poor choices in behavior will be a local effect rather than the worldwide effects we see now from our culture.

The tribal model does not require everyone to live in a cave or mud hut, unless they want to, it doesn't require anyone to be a headhunter or practice infanticide, or cannibalism, or any of the other undesirable characteristic we may find in some HG societies. Tribal peoples as a rule do not try to conquer their neighbors as civilized peoples tend to do, because that's quite difficult to do without standing armies. Rather HG peoples generally practiced what's known as "erratic retaliation" - short intense fights meant to reestablish territorial boundaries. Some tribal peoples devised ways around these painful fights, some of the Plains Indians, for instance, devised between the warring tribes a symbolic manner of fighting in which they didn't attempt to kill each other but instead just hit each other, called "counting coup." Then they would smoke a peace pipe, having reestablished their respective boundaries. They decided on this strategy because warring was too hard on their populations and they figured they could do better. Following the tribal model does not mean having to give up writing or science, or any of the other knowledge we have gained from civilization. It doesn't mean having to give up growing food. "Tribal" does not necessarily mean "hunter-gatherer" exclusively. Many tribal peoples were/are gardeners or small scale agriculturists.

The tribal model was successful for about a million years, and continues to this day. The New Tribal Movement, or Walk Away Movement is promoting this model. Because the tribal model supposes "No One Right Way to Live," it allows total freedom for people to live how they choose, something that our culture, civilization, doesn't allow. Civilization says everyone must live our way or die, this is why tribal peoples are going extinct all over the planet. It's not because we're "better" or "smarter" than they are, it's because we won't allow anyone to live differently than we do.

I'm looking forward to other people seeing that the tribal model is desirable because of its benefits, and learning to take a broader view of anthropology and not accuse people who learn about HG peoples of "idolising" them. Pointing out positive aspects of other cultures isn't idolising them. HG people are just people, with the same failings as other people, they aren't "noble savages" or any such hooey. But their social organization, the tribal model, offers some benefits we don't see in the civilzation model. Perhaps a synthesis of the best of both models can be devised.

[Raxozanne]

Actually carrying on from the other thread (sorry) I would like to point out that HG were actually less likely to oppress their women as they needed them to go out and gather and therefore had to empower them so that the HG group could function efficiently. In settled socities women were more easliy oppressed.

The thing I admire most about HG groups is that they work with nature.

[Ludi]

That's true, though of course some societies were more oppressive than others.

I'm hoping the debate from the other thread won't be carried over here, I'd like to see this as a comparison/discussion of different social models, including any brand new ones anyone can come up with - and not a debate.

Can you expand more on what you see as "working with nature?"

[Raxozanne]

Sorry

Well as I see it they implemented the most efficient practices.
They managed to maximise (food) return per labour input.

[EnergySpin]

I often present the tribal or hunter-gatherer society as a helpful model of social organisation.

In prehistoric times man was a hunter and a killer of other men. The killer instinct in the prehistoric male is clearly attested by archaeology in fortifications, weapons, cave paintings, and skeletal remains. … Neolithic cave paintings show warriors forming a line, firing on command, and marching in column behind a leader who was wearing a distinctive uniform that distinguished him from the rest of his troops. … [In the Egyptian site known as ‘cemetery 117,’ which was actively used from 12,000 to 4,500 BC] nearly half of the fifty-nine skeletons show signs of violent deaths inflicted by small flake points (microliths), probably arrowheads. {edited for graphic content by MQ}

From: Arther Ferrill “Neolithic Warfare-- The Second-Oldest Profession..” MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. Fall 1990 v 3 n 1

So HG societies (as any other society) is not immune to this particular problem. Technologic progress does not lead to killing, it leads to more efficient killing, and HG in the tropical forest or WalMart makes absolutely no difference in terms of social norms. Let's examine NA HG tribes (hippies pet utopia) a little bit closer:

Life expectancies at birth were short… from 16 to 22 years for males and 14 to 18 years for females…. This meant that few lived long enough to develop chronic, degenerative diseases associated with aging…. At least 40 percent of all children died by age 5. Complications due to childbirth were a leading cause of death among women. Males, on the other hand, were more likely to sustain traumatic injuries either as a result of violence or accident…. ‘Cannibalism, infanticide, sacrifice, geronticide, head-hunting, and other forms of warfare,’ was common in many hunter-gatherer societies. … Among the diseases common to hunter-gatherer populations…[were] bacterial and parasitic infections such as shigellosis, salmonellosis, tapeworms, hookworms, whipworms, and pin worms,… helminthic infections such as tapeworms,…bacterial diseases, staphylococcal and streptococcal… amebiasis, giardiasis, and toxoplasmosis, all protozoan infections… New World leishmaniasis and American trypanosomiasis, or Chagas' disease…New World spotted fever…bartonellosis, or Carrion's disease, transmitted by sandflies, …other spirochetal diseases, leptospirosis and two types of relapsing fever…anemia, meningitis, or hemorrhaging …[and] endemic relapsing fever [whose] louse-borne epidemic variety…could produce mortality rates of up to 50 percent.

Suzanne Austin Alchon "The Great Killers in Precolumbian America: a Hemispheric Perspective", Latin American Population History Bulletin, No. 27, Fall 1997


{edited for graphic content by MQ}Dunn in his seminal work (Dunn, Frederick L. 1968 "Epidemiological Factors: Health and Disease in Hunter-Gatherers," in Man the Hunter, Richard B. Lee, ed., pp. 221-228. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.) on hunter gatherer societies makes the following points (p224)

-"social mortality" was a significant in the population equation for any hunting and gathering society.
In the above, social mortality refers to warfare, cannibalism, sacrifice, infanticide etc.
{edited for graphic content by MQ}The historic evidence from that is an article in the Journal of the Central States Archaelogical Societies which can be read here
[edited for graphic content by MQ}

With the new PCR and ELISA protein residue analysis techniques, microscopic remains of identifiable human tissue can be found on ancient knives, in pots and in human feces, indicating the meat was consumed by humans. This is the ultimate test for evidence of human meat consumption and often depends on the state of preservation.[/color]")
I think there are 2 explanations for that: 1) HGs did not like each other or 2) the society was geared towards death and destruction of human life due to technology limitations.

So my assessment of HG societies:
- they were not different from other societies that we know (although the vast majority of them did not have a notion of private property and monetary gain)
- they were probably more violent compared to modern standards due to energy- food limitations and practised social rituals that are not to my taste (I do not know about others though)

If we find evidence for all those behaviours we can certainly reach the conclusion that modern plights do not stem from technology but technlogy has indeed helped to make such barbarous acts a thing of the past. Those acts did stem from limitations of technology (which led to reduced carrying capacity) and the people who advocate a return to the past, by failing to take this subtle historical/thermodynamical details into accout will either taste (or become) a human burger some time in their lives.
People might disagree with that (cause there are other HGs who did not practise cannibalism) but the statistics say that technologically deprived cultures are more likely to eat each other than people who are not.

{graphic photo content deleted by MQ}

[Raxozanne]

No thanx, I will stick with industrial civilization. It is probably less violent and will not have to worry about surprises like the aforementioned ones when I use the bathroom

How long do you industrial civilisation will last without cheap energy? Why do you keep on comparing HG with modern day industrial civilisation? Of course given the choice everyone would like to live like this with high-tech medical forever but it's not going to happen. You enjoy pointing out all the horrers of HG but it could be you might find yourself living like that after a particularly hard crash without any choice in the matter. Then you can sit there and think about all the horrible medical ailments you've listed and how someone might be looking forward to eating you.


If fact Im sure quite a few people will come here look at the pictures and feel alot more scared of PO and how they need to stock up on de-worming tablets .


Ever heard of Ethnobotany?

[Ludi]

Energyspin, you're completely missing the point of this thread, so I'm not even going to address your points. I'm not talking about people being hunter-gatherers, I'm talking about the social organisation of the tribal model.

Like I say, there's no reason to give up modern knowledge just because we choose the tribal social model.

Your post is meaningless in the context of this thread, really as if you didn't read what I had posted.

I'm going to ask you to at least remove the offensive images, if not the entire post, because it is off-topic. If you want to debate ancient hunter-gatherers versus modern industrial society somewhere else, that's fine, but this isn't the thread for it, as I specifically stated. This thread is about present-day and future social organisation, not what some people did in the past.

[Wildwell]

No human social model has ever been egalitarian, because humans are not equal. Even among groups of friends some people are leaders others are followers. A move to such a society would only cause a split off at some stage as the status-quo is upset. Indeed, the English Civil war was such a case in point, particularly in East Anglia (where I come from) where the reformists split off, some of which eventually travelled to the new world.

[EnergySpin]

Energyspin, you're completely missing the point of this thread, so I'm not even going to address your points. I'm not talking about people being hunter-gatherers, I'm talking about the social organisation of the tribal model.

Like I say, there's no reason to give up modern knowledge just because we choose the tribal social model.

Your post is meaningless in the context of this thread, really as if you didn't read what I had posted.

I'm going to ask you to at least remove the offensive images, if not the entire post, because it is off-topic. If you want to debate ancient hunter-gatherers versus modern industrial society somewhere else, that's fine, but this isn't the thread for it, as I specifically stated. This thread is about present-day and future social organisation, not what some people did in the past.

Ludi you are completely missing the point.
Without machines and energy, everything reverses to the stage of man-eating, worms, diseases. So you will have to eat the worms, your friends and kill your unwanted babies or poor grandpa. If you want a historical example check what happened in Ukraine in the 30s, when Stalin forced the entire population to either work for the co-ops or revert to the hunter hatherer status.
In any case PO is the end of cheap fossil fuel, not the end of energy. People who are spitting out doom-gloom scenarios only wish that this happen sooner than latter. In any case any social organization cannot exist in vacuum from technology and the environment. So in order for your flower loving utopia to take hold you'd better come up with a structure and a program of how to protect or control mamma nature.
If you are so naive to believe that you can create some kind of utopia without controlling (to some extent) nature, you might want to adopt the religious belief of certain African tribes who worship the worms inside their intestines. And yes industrial civilization NEVER tried to control or coexist with nature; they took it for granted (bad science, bad politics). In fact, if the field of Industrial Ecology had taken hold earlier we would have limited damage to the ecosystem.
The worms stay till you come up with a plausible explanation of how you will limit the practises of former hunter gatherer practises in your utopia. This is relevant to any practical consideration of the merit of your proposal.

[Wildwell]

The basic problem with the tribal hunter/gatherer model is the resources still don’t tend to be where you need them. Moreover the cause of war was always because other tribes (and later villages and towns) came to steal local resources and rivalry. The communities are highly dependent on good water resources and weather to grow crops, they also lack the wider knowledge that bigger societies tend to, be less educated and more prone to disease.

There isn’t a perfect system, because life has its winners and losers. Humans are approximately equal and follow a limited array of basic personality types. For example, the classic geek might be extremely good at handling computers but be very poor at handling people, while someone who is good with people might be hopeless at organisation or building things for themselves and so on…but they are not equal in the absolute sense.

In short, sustainability is probably the key that is well organised societies with a high degree of education and medical care, a firm moral centre and a good rule of law. Communications help education and understanding, not restrict it, although they are always open for manipulation.

Farming, transport, industry and commerce should be as non-polluting as possible and run on sustainable energy systems.

In short, very few things are truly sustainable, but money and the way society is organised should be as sustainable as possible. However a return to the tribe or increased complexity is not necessarily the answer.

[Ludi]

In any case any social organization cannot exist in vacuum from technology and the environment. .

I've never once suggested we need to, or can, do without technology. Not one single time anywhere in any one of my many posts. Technology is inherent in humanity. Aside from the fact which you keep insisting on missing - that I'm not promoting a "return to the past" - even HG peoples attempted to some extent to "control" the environment. Example the North American prairies being aided in their development by fires set by early tribal peoples.

I like technology, but I don't like hierarchical social organisation. I disagree with Wildwell that there can't be egalitarian society. It's a matter of degree. I exist in a small-scale egalitarian, non-hierarchical society in my home and business life (they are the same, since I work at home with my husband). This model can be translated to larger groups of people. It's been done, is being done at this minute by various groups. Egalitarianism doesn't mean that everyone is equal in the sense of being the same. Of course not, everyone is different with various strengths, talents, and skills. It just means that no one's strengths are given precedence over anyone else's.

[Ludi]

The communities are highly dependent on good water resources and weather to grow crops, they also lack the wider knowledge that bigger societies tend to, be less educated and more prone to disease.

And you don't think sustainable communities of the future will need to be highly dependent on local resources? How will they be sustainable if they ignore these limits? Also, why would small communities of the future necessarily be less educated and more prone to disease than larger societies? From an historical standpoint, it has been the large concentrated societies which suffered the most from plagues.

[Pops]

Yea, the life expectancy / disease part was a little off base for this thread though the other social parts seemed valid.

I guess my main argument is with the ‘civilization won’t allow anyone to live differently’ part.

It seems to me simply a matter of population density. Doesn’t HG style require a greater land area per person? Greater pop. density seems to me to eliminate HG as an option.

Are the terms ‘tribal’ and HG interchangeable?

If not, is tribe just another way to say communal living? It kind of seems the same; just a less provocative term - not making a judgment just wondering.

[Wildwell]

Societies can ignore the limits even if it’s through basic horse drawn and oxen based transport and sailing ships. This is something MQ fails to understand, the role of trade.

Small communities would be less educated because of the overall resources, limits of experience and communication. Very often you need to experience things or at least be aware of things to understand them and prevent them happening again or promote them.

As society has had more transport and communication we have become aware of things we would never have become aware of living in localised communities, our understanding of the world and each other has increased exponentially. Not to say this is not without downsides, more communication can mean wider rivalry, immigration problems, and pollution and so on. The internet has many downsides as well as up. For example, people can build bombs as well as learn positive things merely by looking at the net.

Plagues are now less of a problem thanks to communications and development. Although, one could argue the global economy might be a very easy way to spread a super virus, say through international travel.

Personally I believe that there is a balance to be had with these issues, rather than all out growth or no development at all and that was the point I was making.

[jato]

The tribal model was successful for about a million years, and continues to this day. The New Tribal Movement, or Walk Away Movement is promoting this model. Because the tribal model supposes "No One Right Way to Live," it allows total freedom for people to live how they choose, something that our culture, civilization, doesn't allow. Civilization says everyone must live our way or die, this is why tribal peoples are going extinct all over the planet. It's not because we're "better" or "smarter" than they are, it's because we won't allow anyone to live differently than we do.

Why don't we allow anyone to live differently?

I disagree with Wildwell that there can't be egalitarian society. It's a matter of degree. I exist in a small-scale egalitarian, non-hierarchical society in my home and business life (they are the same, since I work at home with my husband). This model can be translated to larger groups of people. It's been done, is being done at this minute by various groups.

I have noticed (in today’s world) that egalitarian societies seem to work when there is abundant, cheap energy (ie everyone is fat, dumb & happy). Egalitarian societies don't seem to happen when resources (to include food) are scarce such as in modern day Africa. Have you noticed this as well?

So my point would be: How do you implement your social model in a time of scarce resources (ie peak oil, peak natural gas)? How will you defend your egalitarian structure against those who wish to rule and/or control you?

[TheTurtle]

I guess my main argument is with the ‘civilization won’t allow anyone to live differently’ part.

All you need do is look at the way European-Christian Civilization treated every culture it encountered to confirm that statement.

[Ludi]

I guess my main argument is with the ‘civilization won’t allow anyone to live differently’ part.

But it never has. When the colonial powers took over North America, they gave the natives a choice - live like us or die. Most chose to die.

If not, is tribe just another way to say communal living? It kind of seems the same; just a less provocative term - not making a judgment just wondering.

Yes, the word "communal" is analogous to "tribal" but can be just as provocative because confused with Communism.

All HG groups are tribal, but not all tribal groups have been HG.

This is something MQ fails to understand, the role of trade.

Tribal/communal model doesn't preclude trade. Many tribal societies had trade with other tribes. But they didn't depend on trade for their survival.

Personally I believe that there is a balance to be had with these issues, rather than all out growth or no development at all and that was the point I was making.

I think we might be agreeing, but I'm not sure. Don't know if you read my opening post in which I mentioned maybe a synthesis of both the civilization and tribal models might be the best course. By "development" I'm interpreting you to mean technological development, not expanding human population.

[Ludi]

So my point would be: How do you implement your social model in a time of scarce resources (ie peak oil, peak natural gas)? How will you defend your egalitarian structure against those who wish to rule and/or control you?

This is a problem continually faced by people who are trying to work with this model. Tribal peoples were not able to successfully stand up to conquering peoples in the past, how will they do so in the future? It's a tough, tough problem. Some people propose the answer to try to change as many minds as possible to the idea of the desirability and practicality of the tribal/communal/give-support/get-support model. This is very difficult because most people are stuck on the idea "Civilization= Good, Anything else = Bad." Changing minds is a bitch, and I'm not very good at it. All I can do is toss these ideas out there and let people mull them over, maybe they'll look into the writings of those who deal with these ideas, such as Daniel Quinn and Derrick Jensen.

The answer to tribal survival might be the ability to band together into "tribes of tribes." This is another model being promoted - rather than fighting, tribes would work together for their mutual benefit. This was a model being explored by the Iroquois Confederacy at the time North America was being colonised by Europe. Who knows what they might have achieved if they hadn't been interrupted? But it looks like they were working with the idea that armed conflict between tribes wasn't in anyone's best interest, and trying to find ways to avoid it.

[Pops]

All you need do is look at the way European-Christian Civilization treated every culture it encountered to confirm that statement.

But it never has. When the colonial powers took over North America, they gave the natives a choice - live like us or die. Most chose to die.

I didn’t say that the “civilized” haven’t pushed out other societies, just as the US natives pushed out the tribes west under pressure from the colonials – my point was that there was a higher population density in Europe than in the eastern US at the time of colonization. Under pressure from the colonists some tribes pushed west as well and displaced those natives – it isn’t a European-Christian thing it’s a human thing or even more basic than that - most animals are territorial.

Point being, the HG lifestyle requires much more land area per person than we are likely to see for a long time or am I wrong?

[Wildwell]

We are kind of agreeing, but I’m trying to explain how development happens. It’s through transport and trade because resources are not where you need them, even localised villages need to exceed the local carrying capacity because of the effects of the natural environment: Droughts, poor weather.

Humans can exceed their carrying capacity because they are clever, either by invented forms of transport which are not dependent (or are in their current case in the main) on fossil fuels or through ingenuity - even if this is just the horse and cart or sailing ship.

Sure, we could all go and live in small villages, but the localised carrying capacity is altered soon as one village trades with another. The invention of the wheel killed the Stone Age and MQs arguments with it.

The villages that are most successful at trading and/or are on large navigable rivers, harbours or cross roads tend to grow in size, because that’s where trade is concentrated.

History shows overall development was limited because of the time it took to travel from one place to another, so we invented machines to trade further a field. As we cannot prevent people from thinking and coming up with ideas and as we cannot un-invent things this trade and development will go on, unless limited by energy.

So the question we should be asking is how much energy can we get from sustainable sources and how much development shall we have? There’s a balance to be struck.