Mentioned in comment 73 above.

Thanks for the discussion, but please share any info on this!

So while I substantially agree with the analysis, I think there are quite a few complexities that haven’t been addressed.

And there always will be. The important part is that these scenarios range from the unlikely (like Creutzfeldt-Jakob on any kind of epidemic level) to the trivial case (nuclear war wiping out all life on the planet–trivial, because in that eventuality, none of us have anything else to worry about ever again).

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is not necessarily going to go away if/when civilization does.

That’s possible, but don’t forget that Creutzfeldt-Jakob also has a fairly low level of occurence. It’s awful, but it’s also thankfully somewhat uncommon–rather like polio.

There are various possible scenarios for nuclear exchanges which end in total human extinction, due to not just cold but radioactivity. Hunting and wandering in an Ice Age is one thing: hunting in a radioactive Ice Age is another. Hunters need strong teeth: radiation-sick folks (and their children and grand-children) can lose their teeth.

All very true, but that gets us to the question of how likely a nuclear war is. I don’t think it’s terribly likely, even with the Resource Wars. Nuclear weapons are only useful against large, civilian targets; i.e., terrorism. “Do as we say, or your population will vanish in the blink of an eye.” This is why nuclear powers don’t threaten each other directly, and why the use of nuclear weapons is not a reasonable response for any party in procuring resources like fossil fuels.

You mention that for someone to join your group they must “bring something”. Why this view? By carrying some that are a burden in the beginning you ensure other qualities will survive.

It’s very difficult to find someone who doesn’t bring something. I think this is a question of semantics; we very much do value skills and assets that are not currently valued, or may not be immediately obvious. One’s own personality can be an asset, as you say. This was actually one of the major reasons that finally forced me to leave my first tribe, Tribal Dawn.

my comment that bottlenecks can make certain types overrepresented did not mean agriculture or “A” type personality. A balanced group includes individuals with variations of reactions to any given situation. A Western ego assumes that it can do it all, and that it makes the best choices. My point was that being exclusive about who should be allowed into a group is not a good survival tactic. Nor is the work to calorie consumption ratio constant through life. Bring some “dead weights” along, you might find they are a steadying anchor when you need one

You mention that for someone to join your group they must “bring something”. Why this view? By carrying some that are a burden in the beginning you ensure other qualities will survive.

If you have a good number of “dead weights” in your society (although I’m sure they can start off picking berries), then the rest of the tribe has to work overtime to provide for them and teach them the basics. Everyone has to work harder just to tread water, leaving them with less time with which to reproduce. So no one passes on their genes particularly effectively.

This is especially a problem if the most advanced (in terms of primitive skills) members aren’t really that advanced. We’ve only got a few years in which to learn these skills, and by the time we’re out there in the forest, I doubt we’ll be like the !Kung, complaining about their excessively long four-hour workdays. In the beginning, we’ll have to work much harder than your average forager because we’ll still be perfecting our skills.

True hunter/gatherer peoples are very careful to include everyone. This is not lovey-dovey thinking, but a survival outlook.

For true hunter-gatherers, this issue never comes up because their tribes are clans. They’re related by blood, and they’ve been living together in this way for as long as they can trace back. The requirements for adding new members simply don’t exist.

An interesting thought in that vein is that bottlenecks can lead to a a certain type of individual becoming over-represented within the group. And that the future of such a group is invariably a cycle of aggressive civilisation and collapse.

I can’t say I agree. First of all, agriculture can only exist within a certain ecology and climate. Essentially, it could only have arisen during the Holocene. And if global warming does kick us out of the Holocene (which it appears to be doing), no one will be able to successfully practice agriculture for millions of years. By the time another Ice Age comes, sits around for a bit, and then has an interglacial period, humans may no longer exist. Or at least, we’ll be a different species. So it’s kind of silly to blame civilization on a personality type (I assume “A”?).

Second of all, I take issue with your assumption that only the most aggressive will survive. With every collapse, the ones that survive invariably form peaceful communities with an emphasis on environmentalism. The Navajo and the Hopi, for instance. The ones that survive do so because they can consider another way and follow it. The free-thinkers, if you will.

A thought: Humans are flock animals with a spread of genetic potential among individuals that increases the groups survival and well-being. You write about people making choices but here I think you are looking at it with Western glasses a la Robinson crusoe - some people who are not as driven to survive may have qualities necessary for the groups survival. You mention that for someone to join your group they must “bring something”. Why this view? By carrying some that are a burden in the beginning you ensure other qualities will survive.
True hunter/gatherer peoples are very careful to include everyone. This is not lovey-dovey thinking, but a survival outlook.

An interesting thought in that vein is that bottlenecks can lead to a a certain type of individual becoming over-represented within the group. And that the future of such a group is invariably a cycle of aggressive civilisation and collapse.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/deer/deermeatkills.html

And most of these warnings seems to include terms like “TSE” (transmissible spongiform encephalitis) and “prion.”

However, once it gets out into the ecosystem, it can persist.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is not necessarily going to go away if/when civilization does.

Similarly with nukes, they don’t have to kill everyone directly: they just have to sicken the ecosphere so that animals, including human animals, are no longer healthy enough to live in the wild.

There are various possible scenarios for nuclear exchanges which end in total human extinction, due to not just cold but radioactivity. Hunting and wandering in an Ice Age is one thing: hunting in a radioactive Ice Age is another. Hunters need strong teeth: radiation-sick folks (and their children and grand-children) can lose their teeth.

If the cities are over-run with rats, for example, some folks will start eating rats.

If, however, the ecosphere of the planet is sufficiently disrupted, there won’t even be rats. So a few nukes here and there could seriously throw off the scenario, as could unforeseen climate shifts.

Another possibility is that degenerative diseases could reduce the intelligence levels of scavenging humans (imagine mad cow disease).

So while I substantially agree with the analysis, I think there are quite a few complexities that haven’t been addressed.