The Best Kept Slaves
by Benjamin ShenderWhen I try to talk to people I know about many of the issues facing the world they often use counter-examples to debunk my claim. These examples are uniformly limited to people in the middle and upper classes of Western Civilization.
When I claim that Paleolithic people had a life expectancy in the 60s and older, they reply that the life expectancy is 70 now.
When I claim that people were healthier in the Paleolithic, they reply that they can go to the hospital when they get sick.
When I claim equality, I either hear that we are equal in the United States (a reply to that will require a second article) or an evidence-deficient claim that tribes and bands were hierarchal.
When I claim lower levels of stress and a higher quality of life, the most common reply is a reassertion of Hobbes claim, without even the fallacy-driven argument that he was kind enough to supply us with.
I could, and often do, refute each point made with studies, argument, and example, but what I will instead do is point out that these counter-points are only relevant in a Western-centric view of the world. For the vast majority of modern societies these counter claims are simply not valid.
The CIA World Factbook has data on every country in the world and accumulative data on the world. But, while Western Countries have a relatively high life expectancy, when you take into account places like Swaziland, with a life expectancy of 33, the world as a whole is well below average, even by modern standards. And this data is based on estimates, and may not be wholly inclusive of all people in a country. For instance, many poorer places lack the resources, and the Western World lacks the motivation, to collect detailed data in rural areas of China, African Countries, North Korea, and the like.
Hospital care is rare in most of the world, especially the kind that one can expect in Western Countries. But disease, cancer, and parasites are far from rare. Even though, in the Paleolithic, these things were unheard of. We knew how to deal with parasites, which mostly like water that most people would tend to consider unfit to drink except in the more dire emergencies. Cancer was surprisingly rare in a world free of carcinogens. And disease has difficulty becoming a problem when population density is too low to spread the virus. Indeed, it is arguable that the only organisms served evolutionarily by the spread of civilization are viruses.
As for the Hobbian claim of “nasty, brutish, and short,” I will not waste more time on it then to merely suggest that I occasionally break into spurts of maniacal giggles when someone uses this argument in my hearing. For a more detailed treatment see Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short.
But, despite all this it is not as bad in the Western Civilization, including the United States. When you know what it could be, it is still awful. But, equally true is that, when you know what it could be, it is not that bad. As Giuli discussed previously, it is a question of those under us in the pyramid. We buy our good fortune with their blood. And yet, we are a part of the pyramid as well. Even at the top, we are slaves as well. In the old South, house slaves often thought themselves better than the field slaves. The masters did not care, they knew the truth.
The questions are then only: who are the Masters, and where do they sleep? This is often where people become confused and miss the point. When looking for Masters they look up the pyramid. They see Bush, Gates, Cheney, Queen Elizabeth, etc. And the slaves saw the plantation owner and said, “He is the Master.” But the Master was not at the top, he was under richer plantation owners, the government, religious leaders, etc.
Even once you reach the pinnacle of a hierarchy, you still find a slave. Perhaps he is not a slave to a person, but he is still a slave to the construct of civilization itself. He may do anything he wants, and wield power unimaginable to most of us. And yet he is not able to do something as simple as refuse to be in charge. Perhaps the truest freedom of all: to be able to take charge and to have the freedom to say “no” without fear. But, if the person at the top of a hierarchy says no, he is no longer at the top. History is rife with examples of what happens to Emperors and Kings who become viewed as weak.
Ultimately, society itself enslaves us. And, ultimately, a society is nothing but the people that make up that society. And this means that we can sign for our own emancipation. We are slaves merely because we choose to be slaves. We do not need a proclamation from on high. All that we need is a choice. Another advantage of being the best kept slaves: they will not kill us for leaving.
“they will not kill us for leaving”
what makes you so sure of that? looking at the track rechord of civilization and it appears that many times H\G ’s have tried to just coexist, but have inveribly forced into to war with civilization for their survival as an autonimous H\G group(s). unless of course this is not true, but i doubt that.
Comment by PrimalAnarchy — 9 December 2005 @ 6:11 PM
I’ve seen this statistic used on Anthopik and I’ve heard Jason quote it many times. I’d like to know where it’s from. I tried googling it, and the only statistics that I could find on Paleolithic life expectancy from a reputable source was in Cohen (1989), giving a maximum of figure of 34. Robins (2004) gives a life expectancy of around 30 for a fairly small Mesolithic group.
I only spent about 15 minutes on this, so it’s certainly possible that I’m missing something significant.
Citations:
Cohen, M.N. (1989) Health and the Rise of Civilization. New York: Yale University Press.
Robbins G. (2004) Dental Histology and Paleodemography. In: Human Skeletal Remains from
Damdama: An Indian Mesolithic Site, Lukacs, J.R., Pastor R., Robbins G., and Nelson G. John and
Erica Hedges Ltd., U.K.: BAR International Series.
Cheers,
Justin Case
Comment by Justin Case — 9 December 2005 @ 7:20 PM
They won’t kill us, it would be politically inexpedient. They’ll only kill “wackos.” As long as we continue to make it clear that we are unusual, but not “bat-shit insane,” we’ll be fine. So, keep the cult vibe away, don’t stock firearms, pay your taxes, and they won’t care. Notice that groups that form communes are only bothered with when they become cults, armed, or don’t pay tribute. But, yes historically H/G groups do not coexist well with civilization. Also, H/G groups have never been in a position to coexist well with civilization. Remember, we share language, and understand their economy and systems. Survival schools are certain permitted, as long as they pay their taxes. They might look down on gather your own food, but they won’t arrest you over it, as long as the food isn’t “owned.” They have no problem with you hunting and eating your kill, as long as you have a permit. Pay lip service to their game, and you’ll be fine. I was saying that we could live non-hierarchally. Although we would still need to be attached in some way to stay off the radar screen. But they won’t send in the police to drag us back to the fields. Or shoot us if we resist,
Sixty years is an estimate based on several bits of data. This includes some studies in which bones from a woman a century old from before the European contact were found. And also, an understanding that many of things that account for that 34 year life expectancy weren’t around in the Paleolithic (disease, etc). Also, those studies were done on people who live in harsh environments many years after contact. We killed everyone living in plush forests a long time ago, before we cared to ask. Healthier people who live low stress lives and don’t take outlandish risks live longer then the average person in civilzation. Why would entire cultures made up of such people live such short lives? Also, medicene only encurages the body to heal itself. It does nothing else. If we couldn’t live to 70 anyway, how are we now?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 9 December 2005 @ 7:43 PM
Robbins’ and Cohens’ studies were done on period skeletal remains.
Where can I find the studies that you reference? If your conjectures couched as rehtorical questions hold, I’d expect there to be extensive forensic evidence supporting them.
Comment by Justin Case — 9 December 2005 @ 8:08 PM
Yeah, I’m not buying it either, Justin.
I think it’s probable that humans did live long lives living as hunter-gatherers in a lush, unpolluted earth. But I seriously doubt that scientists would ever admit it. The study that Jason once linked to showed a life expectancy from birth at around 30.
Comment by Anonymous — 9 December 2005 @ 8:48 PM
What if people don’t want their emancipation?
What if people are content being slaves?
Freedom means the right to one’s emancipation. But doesn’t freedom also mean the right to be enslaved?
Comment by Anonymous — 9 December 2005 @ 9:30 PM
who invited Donald Rumsfeld?
“But doesn’t freedom also mean the right to be enslaved?”
i don’t think Benjamin was advocating *forced* liberation, here…that sounds more like PNAC rationale.
it’s more like realizing that you already have the power to be free, if that’s what you want. and even if you did get killed for walking away, you’re going to die of something sooner or later, no matter what you do or don’t do.
Librarian
Comment by Librarian — 9 December 2005 @ 9:40 PM
Justin, anon… I’ve always wondered as well. I think it’s entirely possible and believable that people lived those long lives, but I’ve never seen any real source.
In fact, the only one I can really remember is from “The Worst Mistake…” by Jared Diamond –
“Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was about twenty-six years,” says Armelagos, “but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive.”
(and I realize now, that’s not actually something that Diamond himself said)
Now, I’ve heard it said that the 26 year figure is based on an average that includes infantacide, so the real average would be much higher. Either way, it’s always confused me.
Ben, I always hate having the burden of proof on me when I talk about things like that. And if I say something that contradicts “common knowledge”, people pretty much stop listening.
(and a completely random side note… Justin, some friends were in a band called “justincase” a few years ago, and that’s the first thing that popped into my head. Funny)
-Mike
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 9 December 2005 @ 9:57 PM
i am still skepitical that we should not really be worried about state repression. is it not concievable that like for instance the spread of privatization ever deeper. for instance the genetic encoding of property into new GMO plants; i remember reading about the patenting of plants in the amazon, i do not think it is inprobable that that could spread to the north (i.e. “intellectual property”). one thing that i think is kind of lost on this AP mileu, and i think is opitimized in this article, is that one revealing aspect of AP theory that it is a conflict theory (hence the “primal war”). by conflict theory i mean that it makes clear an inherent antagonism between two parties(life, health, freedom vs. the totality of civilization). so what i am getting at is that the interests of rewilding, or whatever you want to call it, is inherrently in confllict with those of civilization. all this is to say that what you are saying benjamin is not nessisarity wrong but your contension seems rather sweeping in its implications yet short on its supporting evidence/detail. i could be wrong, but you(all yall) think so? why?
Comment by PrimalWar — 9 December 2005 @ 10:14 PM
CORRECTION: i realized that my first sentince is a little gramerically fucked up, i hope it is clear despite that.
Comment by PrimalWar — 9 December 2005 @ 10:19 PM
i apologise for the fragmentary milti posts, but whatever. that things are “politically inexpidient” is not a given i think because it is dependent on the assumption that someone is watching who not just cares, but is able to do something about it if they do. no matter how much we try our best to be clear that we are reasonable level headed people, as soon as one is put into the spotlight of the mass media (specticle) ones control over what they mean is lost and the spin machine then can insert any meaning they like, even “bat-shit insane”. i would realy like you to be correct in saying that we can just walk away and that will be that, done and done. but i fear it will not be so simple. what if, for reasons of self-preservation, those with much to loose will redirect blame from themselves to a convinient scapegoat as civizational collapse plays out? like maybe primitivists. i realy do not want such things to happen, but i cannot afford to overlook any possibilities.
Comment by PrimalWar — 9 December 2005 @ 10:42 PM
We may never find studies, empirical evidence, research, whatever, to settle the question of the “short” part of “nasty, brutish and short.” However, we might try reading the system and see what we know about human lifecycles has to tell us.
First off, average life expectancy at birth is really not the same as what people will perceive as life expectancy. That is, birth and the beginning of life are fairly high-risk. Infant mortality was felt as “just one of those things.” Likewise, in a more natural world, childhood may have had a rather higher risk, since your powers are generally ahead of your ability to use them responsibly and safety, plus you’re less able to get away from bears or even fend off non-primary predators (I’m being a bit glib here, so don’t argue that one).
Life expectancy at age one for a given population may really tell more about the viability of their way of living. I chose Choosing another age may make more sense, but would be informed by cultural anthropology that I sure don’t have at my fingertips just now.
Raising the age from which one starts evaluating life expectancey is a nice start to looking at human lifecycles.
Humans are one of the only, if not the only, animals that’s fertile once a month. Human babies just aren’t that viable. They are probably the most dependent, helpless lifeforms on the planet.
We sure are attached to our infants in this society, and we consider it natural, but history tells us that it hasn’t long been a good idea. They just died a lot in the past. Both my grandmothers lost infants and it was only ever mentioned as a sort of footnote. They didn’t seem as destroyed by it as one would expect with today’s mothers. That may have been somewhat due to the fact that they were in the thick of the anti-breastfeeding age, but who knows? There was a lot of infant mortality in other ages too.
This viability and dependency problem continues for probably longer than any other lifeform, too. Sure, one could imagine a five year old being able to survive on nuts and berries in the woods, but not too much younger than that, it’d be bit of a stretch of imagination, and it’s still implies longer dependency than any animal I can think of.
At the other end of the spectrum, look at the end of fertility. Men are able to impregnate women until the day they die. Of course, the likelihood goes down (or fails to get up) in the latter days.
Women are fertile until, probably on average, somewhere in their forties. So that suggests that an established human should have a life expectancy of at least that long.
I remember reading a review of a book about the evolutionary importance of grandmas. I don’t remember a lot about it, but the hypothesis made a whole lot of sense: fertile women are way too busy procuring food to be the best caretakers. Also, grandmas are great at passing on wisdom, which is pretty important to an animal that seems to depend pretty heavily on thought, as opposed to instinct.
Just my two cents on why “life expectancy AT BIRTH” might not be the most informative measure, and what the evidence in the human lifecycle tells us about life-expectancy.
Comment by Sam — 10 December 2005 @ 4:38 AM
Sam already outlined why the overall average is tricky. Most hunter-gatherers consider life to begin at age 2, but we quibble over conception or birth. So, we include infanticide in their averages, but not our own abortions. Seems like ethnocentric skewing, to me.
At any rate, “Justin” (he’s a friend of mine who’s afraid to have his name appear on this site, lest he ever be found out by the gub’mint :)), because of that, I’ve found damn few studies that tease out any meaningful numbers from the data. The ones I have found are done on extant hunter-gatherers, in the Kalahari. Kaplan, et. al. “A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity,” Evolutionary Anthropology, 2000, p. 156-185. [PDF] There, you’ll find a very useful table on p. 158, comparing various demographic numbers among modern Kalahari hunter-gatherers, showing that the forager mean expected age of death at age 15 is 54.1. When we consider that these are foragers living in one of the most barren, desolate locales on the planet, I feel confident rounding up to “about 60.” Such an assumption is bolstered by Jones, et. al, “Antiquity of Postreproductive Life: Are There Modern Impacts on Hunter-Gatherer Postreproductive Life Spans?” American Journal of Human Biology14:184–205 (2002), [PDF] where you will find another table on p. 185, showing that at age 45, women of the !Kung could expect to live another 20.0 years for a total of 65 years, women of the Hadza could expect to live another 21.3 years for a total of 66.3 years, and women of the Ache could expect to live another 22.1 years for a total of 67.1 years.
But, you would be correct to point out the debate over whether extant hunter-gatherers are any kind of reliable guide to the lives of past hunter-gatherers. As a cultural materialist, my assumption is that the essential pressures and demands of a foraging lifestyle have remained basically the same, and that Paleolithic foragers would fit into the wide spectrum of known, extant foraging diversity, but you could easily muster any number of anthropologists who would disagree with such an assertion. As I said, forensic evidence from the Paleolithic itself is more difficult to work with, largely because it is dealt with only in aggregate, without respect to such known cultural issues as we have with extant foragers. The acceptance of infanticde has strong materialist roots, just as our shirking of it does, so I would expect that Paleolithic foragers, bound by the same material pressures, had similar beliefs. That said, Karen Rosenberg’s “Living longer: Information revolution, population expansion, and modern human origins,” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 27;101(30) argues that we can trace a trend of longer life expectancies (minus a disastrous Neolithic mortality crisis from which we have only recently recovered, thanks to said trend) to the Upper Paleolithic, rather than the Neolithic or Industrial Revolutions.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 December 2005 @ 11:10 AM
It would be interesting to know the hunter gatherer aproach to the idea of death. Living to 80 is so important nowadays because we’re scared of dying, it freaks us out. Maybe hunter gatherers don’t mind living shorter lives since they have different attitudes about death. Who cares if you live a shorter life if you’re not afraid of what happens next.
Comment by Lope — 10 December 2005 @ 7:22 PM
Cohen’s 34 year old statistic was, if I remember correctly, for females at 4.5 years of age. The problem with using an age like 15 for life expectancy leaves open the possibility that life was so rough for children, that only the strongest fraction survived. Infanticide is one thing, but deaths at ages 3-10 have to be incredibly traumatic for everyone involved. That’s where you can get the nasty and brutish aspects.
Comment by Justin Case — 10 December 2005 @ 11:01 PM
You said you found these in a Google search. Do you have a link for Cohen? I must admit I’ve never read Cohen’s book, but only the except (pp. 131-141) featured at Primitivism.com, which does not include the figure you cite, but merely makes the case for the Neolithic mortality crisis and the massive drop in life expectancy that accompanies the Agricultural Revolution. I would be very interested in reading the rest of it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 December 2005 @ 2:12 AM
I found it on Google scholar. I can’t seem to locate that passage right now, but I’ll get back to you.
Comment by Justin Case — 11 December 2005 @ 3:19 AM
Though I’m as guilty as anybody for the sidetrack, now I’m thinking it might be nice to examine the actual subject of the post.
To sum up, we’re all slaves to the construct of civilization. We can check out any time we like (but we can never leave?). Non-hierarchical society wouldn’t really devolve into bloody chaos. Hierarchical society wouldn’t be bothered by our leaving. Then there’s a sort of appendix in Benjamin’s further post saying we have to keep doing the minimum things that don’t really matter, and that’ll keep us off the radar.
I agree we’re all slaves to the construct of civilization, and that life in non-hierarchical civilization wouldn’t generally be nasty, brutish or short. I’m not so sure about the checking out or the bare minimum parts.
Also, on the arguing with friends and family front, I think there’s often an unspoken problem of different views of human nature. Political conservatives have always viewed people as inherently venal, selfish, and lazy without the carrot of “profit” and of course the stick of deprivation. Progressives have always viewed people as basically caring, community-oriented, and industrious, even without the carrot and stick. The fact that it’s unspoken is why even (rare) earnest political debates are so pointless. People are basically rotten unless they’re controlled vs. people are basically good. I’ve always found people to be basically good, but easily manipulated into rottenness. How do you deal with that one?
Now to the “checking out” part:
So you can decide you’re not going to be a slave from this day forward. What does that mean? How the heck do you do that?
If you have a family, there are some people you’re going to have to convince first. I’m imagining “Honey, I would have gotten you an Anniversary present, but I feel that such ritualistic economic behavior supports the current oppressive system. Plus, anything I would have bought you would have been made in a part of the system even more cruel than ours, thus enabling further inter-societal exploitation. I would like for my gift to you to be to engage you in a thorough-going and honest discussion and critique…” Yeah! Might be even more fun with my 12-year old at Christmas.
Flippancy aside, trying to implement my own true freedom presents enough problems, then I have three other people and a couple of cats to work on. Keeping this crew going occupies all my wife’s and my time. Sure, I can give up some sleep and write in the middle of the night, but by the time the kids are in bed, community-forming opportunities are over for the day. OK, maybe not all flippancy aside.
The point is, people whose every minute is occupied trying to keep the bare necessities provided for their families can say they’ve signed for their own freedom all they want, but it’s not going to have a whole lot of meaning. How ’bout we work on what that freedom might look like?
It’s getting to the point where just “paying lip service to the game” is precisely what occupies all one’s productive time. The game just keeps getting more and more complex, pervasive and time-consuming.
I really don’t agree that you’ll be able to stay off the radar screens, and that dominant civilazation won’t kill object to your leaving. Your movements on the web are tracked. Your library selections can be subpoenaed without due process. If somebody (not sure who it has to be) decides to call you a terrorist, you can be disappeared. Trying to make your life the way you want it might make it easier to lump you in with people like those at Ruby Ridge, or Mr. Kuzinski, or the Atlanta Olympics bomber.
In the end, I don’t necessarily disagree with the basic ideas of the post, but I think they sure need some fleshing out.
Comment by Sam — 11 December 2005 @ 3:50 AM
Sam,
Oh man, brother, am I there! Wife, 3 kids, half-brother and father-in-law all under the same roof with me and I’m the only primitivist. And holidays are sheer hell
I’m trying to get over by a number of different methods, the one most relevant to this conversation is that I’m building an eco-village. Using the terms “Intentional community with a sustainable base” really opens up some doors among my more intellectual friends than “Oh shit! Civilization will kill us all unless we get out now!”
Funny thing about it, once I started seriously looking into an eco-village path, you make all sorts of interesting contacts. Seems like a lot of people are fed up with this crap we call culture.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 11 December 2005 @ 5:28 AM
Benjamin,
I just finished reading my second Quinn book after first hearing of him on this site. A month ago, I read Ishmael and then further explored Quinn’s ideas in The Story of B.
While I’m in agreement with him about everything that’s wrong with Taker civilization, I couldn’t help but notice my failure to feel enthusiasm for a fast collapse and return to a Paleolithic Leaver lifestyle.
I mention this not because I believe my personal reaction is all that interesting, but because I think Quinn has failed to convince the majority that it really would be better than the mess we have today.
There seems to be a dearth of data on just how well people lived back then. I’m sure that they were fitter and that obesity was unheard of. But I guess it all comes back to human nature: we’d rather deal with the devil we know than the one we don’t know.
That’s why most people will continue to respond to you as if you had gone temporarily insane when you bring this subject up.
In a nutshell, more evidence is needed to make the sale.
Comment by Peter — 11 December 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Don’t like to Quinn for catastrophic optimism; Quinn’s goal is to avoid a collapse by “changing minds.”
Of course, the only time you can “change minds” on that kind of scale, is during a catastrophe, which is where I begin to move away from Quinn.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 December 2005 @ 2:04 PM
I’m just surprised that despite the fact that Ishmael is mandatory reading in many high school and some college courses, it’s had negligible impact on the masses. Almost everyone is staying the course: more growth and more technology will solve the problems created by growth and technology.
Comment by Peter — 11 December 2005 @ 4:09 PM
In my experience, most high school students who are assigned to read Ishmael don’t take that much away from it. They think it’s just a story about a talking gorilla.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 December 2005 @ 4:43 PM
People are very good at massaging the evidence to fit their preconception of the world. Our basic understanding does not change easily. Only when shocked by some massive trauma do we become receptive to such a “paradigm shift.” If you really on personal trauma to make people receptive, then your conversion rate will be very, very low. That’s what we see with Ishmael.
For Quinn’s program to work, everyone, without exception, must be convinced inside of the next 10 years.
To convince people on that kind of scale would require everyone to be traumatized, and the only thing that can do that is a society-wide catastrophe. Like the collapse of civilization.
The Native American tribes of the southwest were the reformed survivors of the Hohokam and the Anasazi, but they couldn’t change their minds while their civilizations were still in working order. It was only in the context of collapse that their new vision meant anything.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 December 2005 @ 4:48 PM
Jason,
re: Southwest tribes, that’s probably why the Uto-Aztecan speaking tribes that ended up in California embraced diversity without expansion as much as they did — they saw what civilization did and mythologically rejected it.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 11 December 2005 @ 6:30 PM
Just a couple of things to say.
What if you founded a survivalist school? Basically people pay you money to set everything up and take them out camping and hiking for a couple of days, maybe a week. You pay your taxes, you fill out all of your disclaimers and waivers. You live as a tribe with everyone working at the school. What exactly is the government going to do? Why would they even notice you? They might audit you when your number comes up, that’s why you keep your records. Now, if you just started living in the woods, the rangers would probably notice you after awhile. And as long as you didn’t break any rules, would consider you wierd and ignore you. Busy people rarely bother with wierdos if they’re obeying the rules and keeping a low profile.
What do you have to do to be free? Refuse to live within a heirarchy. There are different levels of this, and different difficulties associated with them. But you are only a slave when you live in a system that allows for slavery.
As for presents: kill a couple rabbits and make her a pair of moccasins. Make stew for dinner. And give the right rear foot to your daughter for good luck. Nothing handed to civilization but a couple of bucks for the hunting license, to keep them off your back. Yes, it’s still paying tribute. But as long as you pay and don’t have anything they want, they’ll leave you alone. Remember, they have to think they’ll get something out of it worth more than what they put into it inorder for them to confront you. Don’t let them think they’ll get more from you than the tribute you hand out willingly.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 11 December 2005 @ 11:16 PM
THIS IS NOT A CRITIQUE
Well, for starters, I sure as hell wouldn’t call it a “survivalist” school. Maybe “suvival,” but probably something more watered down. Survivalists are just behind “Islamic Fundamentalists” in reputed terrorist killings.
I think a it’s a reasonable corollary of the main post that it’s not just government that insists on tribute - it’s the rest of the pyramid, too. Mortgage or rent, which must be in a “decent” neighborhood with a “good” school system if you have kids; health insurance; car payments, insurance, gas, etc.; and daycare are just the beginning basics for a family. People without cable or satellite are probably even suspected wackos in most circles.
These are all forms of tribute.
Furthermore, they keep two parents so busy working, moving all the people around, and procuring food and clothing, plus all the administrivia that go with modern life, that there’s really no time or energy left over for thought, much less working on the skills necesary for an alternative. Even maintaining vibrant friendships is just about impossible.
Benjamin, I think you’re too dismissive of the pyramid’s interest and ability in keeping you, too. Some subgroup of Google mines the content of this site to put up ads, for instance. Granted it’s kind of a hoot that there are always mortgage ads, but it’s probably a pretty basic mining operation, too. Now don’t you think the National Security Agency might just have the capability to keep stats on people who hit sites that contain the words “National Security Agency?” Enough of those hits, with the right nearby key words and you might achieve the status of somebody whose library records could use closer scrutiny. What might your financial transactions tell about your interests and intentions? If they can catch you at anything even technically illegal, with all the backstory they’ve collected you’ll be a great case of prevented terrorism, to help keep everyone else in mortal fear.
The system’s also highly interested in keeping you on the straight and narrow so you’ll consume to your fullest potential. It NEEDS all 300,000,000 of us in this country to keep buying the latest toothpaste and plasma TV’s to keep the whole house of cards aloft.
Oddly enough, I’m really not intending to be critical. I’m trying to draw out ideas about how to NOT “live in a system that allows slavery.”
For my part I’ve:
- Spent the past year educating myself about food, biodiesel, fair trade, Peak oil, New Urbanism, liveable communities, sustainable communities,Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Anarchy, and historical survival techniques.
- Driven my family’s diet towards first organic, then organic and locally-produced food.
- Done as much as possible of the work on our two used cars.
- Instituted going to the farmers’ market as the big day out for the family.
- Taken my son to work on an organic, CSA farm.
- Kept the thermostat turned down to 66, instead of the 72 which allows most of the house to be warm.
- Bought a teeny bit of gold.
- Started contributing longish replies to this blog.
My next plan is to start a blog that works on solutions or even just baby steps in the right direction. I’m already down to five hours of sleep a night just with all the above, so we’ll see how fast this gets off the ground.
It still doesn’t feel like I’ve chosen to live free, though.
Comment by Sam — 12 December 2005 @ 4:11 AM
Yeah, but Sam, you go from being alone to working with your family, from working with your family to working with friends, from working with friends to being a tribe.
Your burden will become easier when it’s shared. That’s the hope we all hold out for and it’s more than just wishful thinking.
It’s the way we were made.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 12 December 2005 @ 4:46 AM
Sam, there are hundreds of millions of people visiting billions of websites every day. Google has an unmatched capacity in datamining and they are being lavishly rewarded for their efforts. Government bureacracies are not interested in doing tons of extra work for minimal or no reward at all. The intelligence gathering organizations are already deluged with data. They couldn’t handle the real threats because they are so strained, chances that they’ll have enough manpower to devote to all these people visiting interesting websites are close to nil.
This is Jason’s main point. Increased complexity means everybody has to work extra hard for a diminishing return.
Comment by _Gi — 12 December 2005 @ 11:49 AM
Hmmm, not to my knowledge. But then again, I have a more open-minded view of who the terrorists are. But I think you’re talking more about people termed by the media as “environmentalist wackos.” Not survivalists. Survivalists are considered kind of odd, but not nessesarily dangerous. But if the worst you could come with against the idea is the name, it looks like it might be a good one.
Hmmm, who cares if they think you not haven’t satellite TV is wierd? That’s certainly not something that they’ll kill you for. “Home School” the kids in the tribe, that keeps the educators off your back, just obey the rules. Who wants a morgage or rent? Who needs one? Stay in your means and you don’t need to borrow outside of them. Go in on a place together with your tribe a split the cost. Don’t drive, or make your own biodesiel. Etc. The rules bend pretty far. And as long as you obey them they don’t have the time or energy to care about you being a little odd.
Sorry, sounds like an excuse to me. I work and school full time. I make next to nothing. I’m still the best salesman at the store, on the Dean’s List, and am learning how to acheive those alternatives. All the while, I keep in contact with my friends, hang out, and help them whenever they need me. And yes, I buy food and clothing too. Although yearly, washing the clothes takes more time than buying them. And those skills for an alternative don’t need to be primitive. Try a tribal business as a stepping stone. And when I read further down your comment, I see that you are doing a bunch now. Despite not having anytime to do any of it. Freedom is of dear cost. It can mean your money, your life, even your honor. But it is gauranteed to mean a certain lack of sleep.
Yeah…that’s why I said don’t break the rules. Don’t even speed. If your name doesn’t pop-up as being a bad guy because you broke the rules, they simply don’t have the resources to know you exist. I am rather dimissive of civilization’s ability to catch me. Why? They can’t even catch a six foot tall Arab on dialysis. And they’ve been trying to find him with all the resources they can muster for years. And they’re going to arrest or kill me when I haven’t broken a rule? Just for being a little odd? Nope, I’m below their radar unless I put myself on their radar.
Yep. Luckily the 300,000,001 person is irrevlevant. Sorry, snide Ben has been kicked out of the room. But, really? They won’t notice until a large segment does it. A couple will be meaningless, it’s only when a very large group walks out amass that civilization collapses (perhaps deflates). Which is the one issue with “Changing Minds” as a solution. It would require nearly everyone to do it at once to be soft. And some significant percentage (15? 25? I don’t know) to instigate a collapse. Remember, war is another source of income for a civilization. Something to keep them afloat. WW2 got us out of the Great Depression.
Don’t be in a heirarchy. Or be out of it as much as possible. Work tribally. Don’t treat situations like they are heirarchal…hmmm, that last one might require a whole article to deal with completely. But for now I’ll just say that how you treat a situation alters the reality of that situation.
Great! Keep it up. Not a big fan of the Gold idea myself, but more power to you.
Do you work for a coorporation or other heirarchal business? Do you still call for votes? Do you look for someone to be in charge? Choosing to change your mind is easier than changing it. But it sounds like you’re doing great. Perhaps choosing one night a week to be your “sleep in night” might reduce stress levels though.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 12 December 2005 @ 1:28 PM
Excellent, now we’re talking! Or at least typing.
Thank you, but I wasn’t really looking for therapy. I was more pointing out how enmeshed many, many people are. I think we need to keep an eye to showing many, many people that there are other ways, and that they are viable.
In fact, I can actually see where I have time to hang out with people. The problem is that there’s no casual contact in car culture America. You can’t just run into people and decide to go have a beer, or even decide to go have a beer and run into people you know. The system’s been so successful at shutting down that kind of casual contact that we’re all thinking typing at two a.m. is a step towards building community. True, there are people who are fortunate enough to live in a real community, but I’m just saying what’s held up as the norm and really is increasingly the norm is all about isolation - “divide and conquer.”
About the gold…circumstances made it necessary to cash in my old 401(k). I wanted to set aside a little to make sure the extra taxes would be covered. Given what I think the economy’s going to do in the next few months, and the crappy interest rates offered by banks, a little gold seemed like the best place to put it. Plus it’s just illiquid enough that I’m not going to accidentally piss it away before tax time. So I got a little skin in the game. In the three weeks since my purchase, it’s gone up about eight percent.
Comment by Sam — 12 December 2005 @ 2:20 PM
Oops, I forgot to mention…Seems to me “survivalist” is a word that’s already been taken to pigeonhole Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kuzinski, etc., so is best avoided. I’m certainly not supporting the validity of that usage. I’m really pretty skeptical about anything attributed to terrorists.
Comment by Sam — 12 December 2005 @ 2:30 PM
Ah, you see, I’ve only ever heard them refered to as “wack-jobs” by people who don’t know much, “schizoids” by those who know next to nothing, and “schizophrenics” by people who know the difference.
I have something of an advantage as for as people are concerned. College Campuses are still communities. Granted they’re putting more and more of that on the web. Perhaps they intend to remove people from there as well?
Break the isolation then. People still want to talk to others. To be with others. I just takes some effort to knock the wall down. But once you’re in, you’re in.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 12 December 2005 @ 4:47 PM
Gold is cool because it isn’t controlled by governments. No matter what a happens to the dollar or the yen, gold will always have value. Also, up here in Canada you don’t have to pay tax on holding the metal, nor capital gains on it.
Comment by Lope — 12 December 2005 @ 6:16 PM
Steven Lagavulin’s latest entry, “A Crisis of Confidence,” has some really insightful comments about the nature of gold:
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 December 2005 @ 7:20 PM
Hmmmm. I’m unconvinced that Gold would have value post-collapse. Unless you find a culture that likes it, of course. But there will be many fewer people, so the people to gold ratio till increase drastically.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 12 December 2005 @ 7:44 PM
Ayup. Gold has value because we say it does. Elsewhere in the world, it was seashells. Once upon a time in our own culture, you could do it with iron….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 December 2005 @ 8:35 PM
One can’t eat gold.
Comment by Somebody — 12 December 2005 @ 9:02 PM
‘course, money’s not particularly useful after a collapse either… so what’s the difference, ‘cept that gold is actually a real thing.
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 12 December 2005 @ 9:46 PM
At least you can burn the paper money…
As for how to make yourself free, I agree with Benjamin that there are many small and not so small changes you can make to remove yourself from the hold of society. But, college students have more license to practice alternatives to mainstream living; once you enter ‘the real world’ you are expected to stop your childish ways, and live as a responsible adult.
Change things small, and never stop changing. If the ball and chain is a mortgage, the only way you’ll ever realize how much of a chain it is until it’s gone. Jobs? Cut back, even if it means new job, lower pay, backing down the ladder. By all means, you lose face when you ask for a reduction in job responsibility, time, and pay. But if it is face you are after, why even post on a primitivist site?
Comment by Geoff — 12 December 2005 @ 10:42 PM
There are ways and there are ways. I’m now out of college and, to all appearances, “living as a responsible adult.” An apartment, a job, a car, a credit rating, even….
But I forage on the weekends, and I go camping an awful lot, and I’m learning how to make this life merely a transition–all in a way that seems perfectly “normal.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 December 2005 @ 12:19 AM
It just seems to me that you can’t make small changes in order to be free, you have to make several large and dramatic changes that are very difficult to carry out. Kind of like Thoreau - you just got to go out and start living in the bush. What do I know though.
As for gold, sure iron and shells have been used as mediums of exchange in the past, but we don’t use shells anymore, nor iron. Gold is still money though - its made it through thousands of years, used by umpteen societies. That’s where I’d put my money, though admittedly some other medium could emerge. Coke cans, old car tires, compact discs. Paper would go the way of the dodo - governments would print like crazy, flood the system, massive inflation, loss of confidence.
Given a melt-down scenario, do you think we’d still have exchanges between small groups - not only barter - but also money-based exchange? Would a medium of exchange actually emerge?
Comment by Lope — 13 December 2005 @ 12:24 AM
Yes, you need large changes, but very few people can start big–even getting rid of that mind control box in your living room seems like a big step at first, but once it’s gone, the next steps get easier. Then the brain cell killing machine has to go. Then the pollution creating machines.
It’s a good question if any meaningful number of people could ever exit civilization without a cause, since there are so many restrictions these days against living apart–taxes, permits, fees (hmm, money, eh?).
Post die-off there will probably be plenty of salvageable resources ready for the pickings. Long term, post-civilization, I can’t see a need for currency.
Comment by Geoff — 13 December 2005 @ 12:40 AM
Lots of people go camping. Do that.
Maybe bring your friends?
It gets to be a regular thing with the same circle.
Longer camping trips, more frequently…
Until one day, you just don’t come back.
Yes, it’s a big change, but it can be done gradually.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 December 2005 @ 8:10 AM
Can’t imagine any scenario where people would reject gold. Gold is maleable - without using great amounts of fuel to heat it - and can be fashioned into tools and jewelry. It’s value has always been tradeable.
Comment by sevenmmm — 26 December 2005 @ 11:02 PM
Hey –
Yeah, gold will keep some value — so long as people have FOOD. Gold will get you no where if your trading partners really just want to eat;-)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 27 December 2005 @ 11:05 AM
Certainly the majority of the world’s population consists of those on the pyramid below us. But the Vegan Green Organic Biofuel Eco-Groovy Revolution is going to fix all that, right? Right? RIGHT??
{snerk!}
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 5 September 2006 @ 3:53 PM