Here’s a ROMA in which I talk about some oddities of backwards greetings in Tanzania, driving in Georgia, the financial realities of world travel in 2022, the conundrum of hydraulic toilets seats (and other luxuries), and what it means (and doesn’t) when you say a woman is “beautiful.”
I’ve had the same questioning regarding our creature comforts and how dependent on them we’ve become...
It’s true they can help with freeing up some of our time, but they do complicate things also.
What do we do with this supposed free time?I’d say we work more to pay off all these things we don’t necessary need!
It leads me to question our future generations lack of motivation, and technological advancement. Primarily around virtual reality and how we will connect as a close-net society?
Great conversation Chris, if you can call it that. Your thoughts on Yuval Harari's quote were interesting. I never found his narrative to be particularly compelling. I feel like he sacrifices a lot of scientific nuance and accuracy for the sake of narrative. I agree with you his framing of the topic was hyperbole. I can't help but feel that he distorted a real process into the quote you read. It's true that we can live without the high-tech, and indeed low-tech, inventions that surround us, but when you substitute technology for cultural values and knowledge it makes more sense.
Reading ethnographies on hunter-gatherers I have always been amazed how fast the soul of a culture is lost. In a single generation a population can go from knowing hundreds of plants, and there location and seasonality, to losing that knowledge. In one generation they are capable of living off the land and in the next they rely on government assistance and prostitution. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas documented this in the !Kung, Don Kulick in the Gapuners of Papua New Guinea (A Death in the Rainforest: How a Language and a Way of Life Came to an End in Papua New Guinea), Daniel Everette documented the start of the process (Don't Sleep There are Snakes, and various lectures) and many others have observed the same pattern.
In one study anthropologist Richard Lee describes a field season that happened to be during a terrible drought. He observed that harvest never arrived and the only reason many of the farmers survived is because they went to the hunter-gatherers (the Hadza if I remember right) who directed them where to search and how to retrieve plant foods.
It's unfortunate that Yuval Harari's 21st century spin distorted this process to the point where it is unrecognizable for the sake of narrative and relatability with the main stream audience. I don't think that humans are being grandiose and snobby and refusing to leave a life of comfort. They are just responding to their always changing environment. The path of least resistance the path that evolution adapted us to follow.
Yes, I agree on that last bit about evolution favoring the path of least resistance. But I'm intrigued by the counter-examples, like the Hadza we met who prefer to live (largely) in the same ways rather than shift to supposedly easier options. Inertia? Do they have some sense of what would be lost? You mention Everett as an example of someone documenting the loss of the old ways, but I think he makes a big point of how aware the Piraha are of how good they have it. They know he's there because their world is so awesome. They see how miserable outsiders are, and reject their ways, by and large. It's interesting to think about to what extent anyone is really capable of comparing the options available and making a decision, vs just getting swept along in the currents of history. Have you read At Play in the Fields of the Lord, by Matthiessen? That novel is all about these questions.
I agree that most indigenous groups would likely not abandon their culture or way of life voluntarily.
I have to admit I am not as familiar with the history of the Hadza as I am with the San/!Kung of Southern Africa. I've seen some peripheral research, a DNA demographic analysis and Richard Lee's analysis of their time spent hunting/gathering and the amount of plant food and meat they eat.
But knowing the !Kung's history I've wondered how it is that some of the Hadza persist today when the !Kung quit practicing their traditional way of life by the 1990's. I suspect it has as much to do with the governments around them as anything else.
Even as late as the 1950's, local farmers would kidnap !Kung from the closest camps and force them to work on their farms. But what really put the nail in the coffin was the creation of National Parks. This resulted in the !Kung being prohibited from hunting and killing animals they had hunted since the dawn of time. After this they either persisted off of government rations, prostitution, or if they were "lucky" became farmers or pastoralists. Now tourism is a big job creator but I cringe every time I hear someone defend big game hunting or tourism as helping bring money into the area and expand the economy. In my mind if you would just give these people their land back they won't need money or to dress up and pretend to hunt and gather. The problem is, if their land was returned would they even want to go back to that way of life? Do they even self-identify with that way of life? Are air conditioners, cities, and cell phones now too much a part of their life to give up? Would they know how to live off the land? Obviously they wouldn't be as useless as me or most other Americans but that connection has been severed.
From my perspective it only takes a single generation before much of the knowledge of the land and animals is lost. It's not only what the humans forget that is important but what the animals forget. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas talks about visiting the same area 30 years later and making the mistake of assuming the lions still had a pact of mutual avoidance with humans. They charged her and she had to dive back into her jeep for safety. She also talks about the fact that the Honeyguide bird no longer called to humans to show them the location of a beehive and honey. They did still call to honey badgers though. I think it would be extremely hard to recover these relationships once they are gone. Especially if pastoralism becomes the norm and new adversarial relationships form.
Without really knowing, I have a hunch that the continued existence of the Hadza is likely because the Tanzanian government (and those in surrounding regions) either afforded them large tracts of land or, at the very least, didn't push them off of national parks/public lands.
Your point is well taken that it takes an outside force to shove these societies into changing. In my view, once the first domino falls it becomes very hard to go back. It's almost like a one-way valve. Especially because much of their knowledge and values are not explicitly passed down but are passed down through ritual, tradition, and observation (Daniel Everett would call this the dark matter of the mind).
I think its the end of the documentary The Grammar of Happiness that Everett talks about what's happened since he published Don't Sleep There Are Snakes. The Brazilian government pretty much went in there to "save" the Piraha. They provided government housing, food, generators, and sent the kids off to school. So that seed has unfortunately been planted.
I've had that book recommended to me several times I should definitely get a copy.
Interesting thoughts. The problem with "just give their land back" is that one of the first changes contact with modernity brings is a reduction in infant mortality, which triggers exponential population growth. We saw this with the Maasai around Serengeti. Even if they had "their land" back (is it really theirs if they're migratory and habitually raid other settled cultures?), with population much higher than it was, and growing fast, that land is no longer sufficient to support their way of life, be it h/g or pastoralism. So, IMHO, the point of no return is well behind us and them.
I’ve had the same questioning regarding our creature comforts and how dependent on them we’ve become...
It’s true they can help with freeing up some of our time, but they do complicate things also.
What do we do with this supposed free time?I’d say we work more to pay off all these things we don’t necessary need!
It leads me to question our future generations lack of motivation, and technological advancement. Primarily around virtual reality and how we will connect as a close-net society?
Great conversation Chris, if you can call it that. Your thoughts on Yuval Harari's quote were interesting. I never found his narrative to be particularly compelling. I feel like he sacrifices a lot of scientific nuance and accuracy for the sake of narrative. I agree with you his framing of the topic was hyperbole. I can't help but feel that he distorted a real process into the quote you read. It's true that we can live without the high-tech, and indeed low-tech, inventions that surround us, but when you substitute technology for cultural values and knowledge it makes more sense.
Reading ethnographies on hunter-gatherers I have always been amazed how fast the soul of a culture is lost. In a single generation a population can go from knowing hundreds of plants, and there location and seasonality, to losing that knowledge. In one generation they are capable of living off the land and in the next they rely on government assistance and prostitution. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas documented this in the !Kung, Don Kulick in the Gapuners of Papua New Guinea (A Death in the Rainforest: How a Language and a Way of Life Came to an End in Papua New Guinea), Daniel Everette documented the start of the process (Don't Sleep There are Snakes, and various lectures) and many others have observed the same pattern.
In one study anthropologist Richard Lee describes a field season that happened to be during a terrible drought. He observed that harvest never arrived and the only reason many of the farmers survived is because they went to the hunter-gatherers (the Hadza if I remember right) who directed them where to search and how to retrieve plant foods.
It's unfortunate that Yuval Harari's 21st century spin distorted this process to the point where it is unrecognizable for the sake of narrative and relatability with the main stream audience. I don't think that humans are being grandiose and snobby and refusing to leave a life of comfort. They are just responding to their always changing environment. The path of least resistance the path that evolution adapted us to follow.
Yes, I agree on that last bit about evolution favoring the path of least resistance. But I'm intrigued by the counter-examples, like the Hadza we met who prefer to live (largely) in the same ways rather than shift to supposedly easier options. Inertia? Do they have some sense of what would be lost? You mention Everett as an example of someone documenting the loss of the old ways, but I think he makes a big point of how aware the Piraha are of how good they have it. They know he's there because their world is so awesome. They see how miserable outsiders are, and reject their ways, by and large. It's interesting to think about to what extent anyone is really capable of comparing the options available and making a decision, vs just getting swept along in the currents of history. Have you read At Play in the Fields of the Lord, by Matthiessen? That novel is all about these questions.
I agree that most indigenous groups would likely not abandon their culture or way of life voluntarily.
I have to admit I am not as familiar with the history of the Hadza as I am with the San/!Kung of Southern Africa. I've seen some peripheral research, a DNA demographic analysis and Richard Lee's analysis of their time spent hunting/gathering and the amount of plant food and meat they eat.
But knowing the !Kung's history I've wondered how it is that some of the Hadza persist today when the !Kung quit practicing their traditional way of life by the 1990's. I suspect it has as much to do with the governments around them as anything else.
Even as late as the 1950's, local farmers would kidnap !Kung from the closest camps and force them to work on their farms. But what really put the nail in the coffin was the creation of National Parks. This resulted in the !Kung being prohibited from hunting and killing animals they had hunted since the dawn of time. After this they either persisted off of government rations, prostitution, or if they were "lucky" became farmers or pastoralists. Now tourism is a big job creator but I cringe every time I hear someone defend big game hunting or tourism as helping bring money into the area and expand the economy. In my mind if you would just give these people their land back they won't need money or to dress up and pretend to hunt and gather. The problem is, if their land was returned would they even want to go back to that way of life? Do they even self-identify with that way of life? Are air conditioners, cities, and cell phones now too much a part of their life to give up? Would they know how to live off the land? Obviously they wouldn't be as useless as me or most other Americans but that connection has been severed.
From my perspective it only takes a single generation before much of the knowledge of the land and animals is lost. It's not only what the humans forget that is important but what the animals forget. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas talks about visiting the same area 30 years later and making the mistake of assuming the lions still had a pact of mutual avoidance with humans. They charged her and she had to dive back into her jeep for safety. She also talks about the fact that the Honeyguide bird no longer called to humans to show them the location of a beehive and honey. They did still call to honey badgers though. I think it would be extremely hard to recover these relationships once they are gone. Especially if pastoralism becomes the norm and new adversarial relationships form.
Without really knowing, I have a hunch that the continued existence of the Hadza is likely because the Tanzanian government (and those in surrounding regions) either afforded them large tracts of land or, at the very least, didn't push them off of national parks/public lands.
Your point is well taken that it takes an outside force to shove these societies into changing. In my view, once the first domino falls it becomes very hard to go back. It's almost like a one-way valve. Especially because much of their knowledge and values are not explicitly passed down but are passed down through ritual, tradition, and observation (Daniel Everett would call this the dark matter of the mind).
I think its the end of the documentary The Grammar of Happiness that Everett talks about what's happened since he published Don't Sleep There Are Snakes. The Brazilian government pretty much went in there to "save" the Piraha. They provided government housing, food, generators, and sent the kids off to school. So that seed has unfortunately been planted.
I've had that book recommended to me several times I should definitely get a copy.
Interesting thoughts. The problem with "just give their land back" is that one of the first changes contact with modernity brings is a reduction in infant mortality, which triggers exponential population growth. We saw this with the Maasai around Serengeti. Even if they had "their land" back (is it really theirs if they're migratory and habitually raid other settled cultures?), with population much higher than it was, and growing fast, that land is no longer sufficient to support their way of life, be it h/g or pastoralism. So, IMHO, the point of no return is well behind us and them.