POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> The Question for humans is: what kind of life do we want to lead? And

if we

> figure that out, how do we get there from here? We are fortunate in

that

> for the first time in history, we really have the choice.

But the answer is simple: " We " don't want anything. You want to lead one

kind of life, I want to lead another kind, and never the twain shall

meet. What kind of life a person wants to lead is an intensely personal

question, and the only question that's really fit to be decided by all

of humankind, or even all of a nation or all of a village, is how we can

coexist peacefully while pursuing the lives which we choose for

ourselves.

[Guest guest]

there is 1 BIG problem with this. SOCIETY

i was at an unemployment agency recently for some course they wanted me to do.

i was asked the question wqhat kind of life do i want to lead. So i told them

and they asked the question again thinking i did not understand it. ( i was also

asked the " WHO ARE YOU " question and they not like those answers either.

Infact they got right pissed of with my answers to that 1) To virtually all of

society due to reasons you are a product of your surroundings believe having a

career, being a good little cunsumer and workin u ass off for the man THAT is

leading a life. its a matter of what kind of job.career do you want for your

" life " ect. they are not really asking you what kind of LIFE would you REALLY

want to lead.

POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> The Question for humans is: what kind of life do we want to lead? And

if we

> figure that out, how do we get there from here? We are fortunate in

that

> for the first time in history, we really have the choice.

But the answer is simple: " We " don't want anything. You want to lead one

kind of life, I want to lead another kind, and never the twain shall

meet. What kind of life a person wants to lead is an intensely personal

question, and the only question that's really fit to be decided by all

of humankind, or even all of a nation or all of a village, is how we can

coexist peacefully while pursuing the lives which we choose for

ourselves.

[Guest guest]

See, that is what I was trying to say earlier ... our life in

this society is defined by economics ... earning, consuming.

That is a new thing in history. A pioneer woman was

defined by how she raised her kids and did needlework.

An Indian male was defined by how well he could hunt

and fight. But in neither case was there the need to

work " for " anyone, or to work every darn workday

for most of your life.

-- Heidi

>1) To virtually all of society due to reasons you are a product of your

surroundings believe having a career, being a good little cunsumer and workin u

ass off for the man THAT is leading a life. its a matter of what kind of

job.career do you want for your " life " ect. they are not really asking you what

kind of LIFE would you REALLY want to lead.

>

--

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Byron " <anthony.byron@...>

> there is 1 BIG problem with this. SOCIETY

> i was at an unemployment agency recently for some course they wanted

me to do.

> i was asked the question wqhat kind of life do i want to lead. So i

told them and they asked the question again thinking i did not

understand it. ( i was also asked the " WHO ARE YOU " question and they

not like those answers either. Infact they got right pissed of with my

answers to that 1) To virtually all of society due to reasons you are a

product of your surroundings believe having a career, being a good

little cunsumer and workin u ass off for the man THAT is leading a life.

its a matter of what kind of job.career do you want for your " life " ect.

they are not really asking you what kind of LIFE would you REALLY want

to lead.

What did you tell them?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 5:49:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> And here is where the differences issue of reasoning and economics is. Who

> or what gives man the right to control anything that is not man made?

> Especially food and the other dignities needed for human life. This is not

> how everyone has always thought and some still do not see receiving a gift

> from creation as an economic exchange or a hierarchial right.

Isn't food produced by farmers?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 6:12:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Sure, all of life is, in that respect. But there is a big difference

> from finding a deer and eating it, to working for a company.

Right-- if you work for someone with capital, you immensely increase the

value of your labor, hence, the computers you and I are communicating with, the

freezer you keep your steer in, and the up-to-code house you live in.

> The main difference is the invention of money, of ownership ...

> I'm not AGAINST those things, I just don't think we have adapted

> to them. Our way of life isn't consistent with how we are made.

That's not true. Archeological evidence indicates that humans have been

trading since pre-historical times. Since it's impossible to trade with no

theory

of ownership, humans have clearly spent the bulk of their existence with some

concept of ownership. The concept of ownership may not have been as refined

as that in liberal economic theory, but it existed. And the refined version

is much better for us, just as the scientific method is better than the crude

elements of reason humans have always used, because the right to property is

essential to the idea of civil rights. The foundation of the women's rights

movement, for example, was securing a woman's right to own property, which

released her from slavery to her husband.

> The simplest example, and the most basic, is the care of children.

> In a hunter/gatherer society, a baby is carried by the mother or

> relatives, always. It is breast fed for years. THAT simple thing

> is a huge complication for women in our society, primarily

> because of the way economics is set up. A woman today is

> expected to work or be supported by a mate (the latter being

> less and less common). Most workplaces will not allow the

> woman to carry and breastfeed her baby. Hence the workplace

> is not adapted to the basic fact we are mammals.

That's clearly not an inherent function of capitalism, since it was by and

large not true several decades ago.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 6:33:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

anthony.byron@... writes:

> there was not pressures like you had to sell so many clothes a day to eat

> or the hunter woudl let u starve.

Actually, the most basic form of exchange, reciprocity, requires a given

value to be exchanged for an equal value. This is the fundamental method of

exchange in hunter-gatherer societies. The main difference between this and our

society is that prices or values were considered inherent in a particular good,

rather than set by markets. Although obviously market mechanisms existed in

some unrefined form, since a rare good or one harder to acquire/make would

certainly be considered of higher value than an abundant, easily acquired good.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 4:40:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> The notion that humans

> have ever lived in any kind of paradise is absurd. If you really wanted to

> live at a subsistence level, you could probably do it on twenty hours per

> week. Never in history have we had it so good.

I don't know about " paradise, " but it isn't true that 20 hours a week

subsistence is the best human condition. The !Kung San, an h & g group in the

Kalahari, subsist on about 14-21 hours per week, with no shortage of calories,

and

children do no work at all.

However, the San have continuously refused to adopt agriculture even though

they are well aware it exists. The evidence seems to indicate that almost

universally humans have adopted agriculture as soon as they had the chance. So

it

is likely that such an easy subsistence is very, very rare, and

exists/existed only in certain pockets of environmental abundance.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> See, that is what I was trying to say earlier ... our life in

> this society is defined by economics ... earning, consuming.

> That is a new thing in history.

No it isn't. This is how life has always been defined in every society, and

even before societies existed. When you kill and skin a deer, you're

producing. When you eat the meat and wear the hide, you're consuming. All

life everywhere is governed by the laws of economics.

> A pioneer woman was

> defined by how she raised her kids and did needlework.

> An Indian male was defined by how well he could hunt

> and fight. But in neither case was there the need to

> work " for " anyone, or to work every darn workday

> for most of your life.

What do you want to do? Let 99% of the world's population die off so that we

can go back to being stone-age (maybe we could keep metallurgy)

hunter-gatherers with life expectancies of 20 years? The notion that humans

have ever lived in any kind of paradise is absurd. If you really wanted to

live at a subsistence level, you could probably do it on twenty hours per

week. Never in history have we had it so good.

You also don't have to work " for " anyone. If you want to go live in the

mountains and hunt, no one's stopping you. It's a choice I make because, at

this particular point in my life, I believe that I can make more money

working for " The Man " than I can on my own.

You're always complaining about how " society " is horribly broken and needs

to be remade. Well, what's your solution? How does it need to be remade?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 8:17:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It's true folks have traded, etc. forever. But, to use the hunting

> example, as soon as the forest became the property of the King,

> peasants could not hunt a deer when they were starving. Today

> water, land, etc. is ALL controlled, so a person must work at

> certain jobs to get the basics of life. That was not so true

> in the past.

That's odd. I know a lot of people who hunt.

> Nor did I say it was an inherent function of capitalism.

I'm sorry, I'd thought you were saying that what produced that dynamic was

the development of ownership and money. But the " domestic woman " was at one

time dominant among middle class Americans, so the current situation must have

other factors.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 8:25:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Or had it forced on them -- re Guns Germs and Steel. The grain-eaters

> could field a bigger army and wiped out the meat-eaters.

That's true, but one of the fundamental points of the book is that societies

were restrained much more by environment than culture, and that most societies

took advantage of agricultural advance when they were available. The other

side of the coin is that those who didn't were conquered, as you say.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

And here is where the differences issue of reasoning and economics is. Who

or what gives man the right to control anything that is not man made?

Especially food and the other dignities needed for human life. This is not

how everyone has always thought and some still do not see receiving a gift

from creation as an economic exchange or a hierarchial right.

> No it isn't. This is how life has always been defined in every society,

and

> even before societies existed. When you kill and skin a deer, you're

> producing. When you eat the meat and wear the hide, you're consuming. All

> life everywhere is governed by the laws of economics.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>No it isn't. This is how life has always been defined in every society, and

>even before societies existed. When you kill and skin a deer, you're

>producing. When you eat the meat and wear the hide, you're consuming. All

>life everywhere is governed by the laws of economics.

Sure, all of life is, in that respect. But there is a big difference

from finding a deer and eating it, to working for a company.

The main difference is the invention of money, of ownership ...

I'm not AGAINST those things, I just don't think we have adapted

to them. Our way of life isn't consistent with how we are made.

The simplest example, and the most basic, is the care of children.

In a hunter/gatherer society, a baby is carried by the mother or

relatives, always. It is breast fed for years. THAT simple thing

is a huge complication for women in our society, primarily

because of the way economics is set up. A woman today is

expected to work or be supported by a mate (the latter being

less and less common). Most workplaces will not allow the

woman to carry and breastfeed her baby. Hence the workplace

is not adapted to the basic fact we are mammals.

>What do you want to do? Let 99% of the world's population die off so that we

>can go back to being stone-age (maybe we could keep metallurgy)

>hunter-gatherers with life expectancies of 20 years? The notion that humans

>have ever lived in any kind of paradise is absurd. If you really wanted to

>live at a subsistence level, you could probably do it on twenty hours per

>week. Never in history have we had it so good.

Heck no, and I've said so in the past. We have the ability

now, for the first time, to remake life into something that

fits who we are AND to have the technology, medicine,

good food, etc.

>You also don't have to work " for " anyone. If you want to go live in the

>mountains and hunt, no one's stopping you. It's a choice I make because, at

>this particular point in my life, I believe that I can make more money

>working for " The Man " than I can on my own.

And I've also said that " living on your own " isn't really part

of who humans are either. We are social creatures.

Living out in the wilderness is hardly ideal

>You're always complaining about how " society " is horribly broken and needs

>to be remade. Well, what's your solution? How does it need to be remade?

Like I've said before:

A. Figure out who we are and what works for humans.

B. Figure out what kind of life works best for humans.

C. Figure out how to get from A to B.

It's not an insolvable problem, and one that can be

tackled scientifically. We are already doing that with

diet -- instead of saying " well, Americans eat processed

food so that must be the right thing to eat " , we in

this group are trying to figure out what kind of food

works for humans in general AND for us in particular.

So we are choosing food that works for US, not for

the food producers, and not what the FDA or the

commercials tell us is good.

Sooooo ... I'm trying to figure out what works for humans

socially/economically too, not just accepting what

the economists etc. say has to exist. For starters,

my model of society would include mother raising

their babies without becoming " poor " in the process,

and parents being able to spend lots of time with

their kids. My model would also include good access

to modern medicine, so a person who has a heart

attack won't have to mortgage their house to

pay. My ideal society would include good child rearing,

ability to handle sociopaths, schizophrenics, old and infirm

people humanely, access to modern medicine, access

to good food, and access to good housing, for " average "

and " below average " human beings. I'm not sure how

the economic model of such a society would LOOK ...

but I'm sure it wouldn't look like what we have now.

And yes, I think all this can be studied scientifically,

without resort to philosophizing ... your " ant "

study was part of the system analysis that is

already being done in some sectors (like economics).

There is a great article about that, in fact ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Futurology gets a little more exact

From the way we drive to how we vote, physicists reckon they can forecast human

behaviour. Philip Ball explains the so-called 'physics of society'

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1133229,00.html>http://www\

..guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1133229,00.html

Thursday January 29, 2004

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I said i woud like to practive my martial arts for whatever time during the day

i feel fit and 1 day teach it. Choose the times i feel like eating. ( IE not

forced breakfast/lunch times ect ) Inbetween gathering food/hunting and

bartering some items with others for food i do not have avail and vice versa.

Living my day with the things I choose to do at the times i choose to do.

Possibly live on someones big property while doing a few chores to cover what

would be considered rent.

( like build a little shack out back somewhere )

I was told this is completely impracticle way to live and was a defensive angry

way to have answered the question lol

( like i was trying to rock her boat ect by being a smartass ) when infact i was

dead set truthfull in what i said.

I was watching last samurai the other week. That little village the samurai

lived in woudl have completely ROCKED as a way of life. They trained, ate,

hunted lived a REAL life imho. Todays life of from teh tim eu abotu 3 years old

beign sent to school and primed for a " career " to me is just all bullshit. It

is nto living. i mean damn imagine dying at 30 and all you have done is work

your ass off for some corporation while not experiencing what the world really

has to offer. I think that sux

Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

----- Original Message -----

From: " Byron " <anthony.byron@...>

> there is 1 BIG problem with this. SOCIETY

> i was at an unemployment agency recently for some course they wanted

me to do.

> i was asked the question wqhat kind of life do i want to lead. So i

told them and they asked the question again thinking i did not

understand it. ( i was also asked the " WHO ARE YOU " question and they

not like those answers either. Infact they got right pissed of with my

answers to that 1) To virtually all of society due to reasons you are a

product of your surroundings believe having a career, being a good

little cunsumer and workin u ass off for the man THAT is leading a life.

its a matter of what kind of job.career do you want for your " life " ect.

they are not really asking you what kind of LIFE would you REALLY want

to lead.

What did you tell them?

[Guest guest]

yeah. due to an injury right now im unemplyed ( almost better figners crossed

only a cpl more months )

( i am doign aprt time web deisgn at home though )

however this has given me much thinking time and i have caught myself awake in

middle of nights sometimes with anxiety attack i suppose where ive dreamt of

being under mass pressure to get that next sale ect.

once im back to fitness again im not sure what i am going to do. i cannot go

back to sales anymore i do not think mentally i can any longer do it.

Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

See, that is what I was trying to say earlier ... our life in

this society is defined by economics ... earning, consuming.

That is a new thing in history. A pioneer woman was

defined by how she raised her kids and did needlework.

An Indian male was defined by how well he could hunt

and fight. But in neither case was there the need to

work " for " anyone, or to work every darn workday

for most of your life.

-- Heidi

>1) To virtually all of society due to reasons you are a product of your

surroundings believe having a career, being a good little cunsumer and workin u

ass off for the man THAT is leading a life. its a matter of what kind of

job.career do you want for your " life " ect. they are not really asking you what

kind of LIFE would you REALLY want to lead.

>

--

[Guest guest]

yes but it was with a community spirit. everyone just helped each other in what

was needed fro the day

the man hunted so ppl could eat in the small village.

someone did theri bit to cloth people.

there was not pressures like you had to sell so many clothes a day to eat or the

hunter woudl let u starve.

there was no cheif saying every 3rd piece of clothing u make goes to me so i can

sell it and tha tis the law

from what i see small villages worked as best as they could in unison

todays society is about false help. WHen i was doing sales that is what i was

told by a state manager once.

he siad that when someone walks through that door you are to help them make a

decision as best as you can.

and that means they walk out of here borke. I dont care if they cant eat

tonight, sales sales sales. THe bottom lien is what will have you keep your job

so you can eat.

now this goes against me as a person. But this is what society has become.

constant constant push

and because they try to squeeze everythign dry we have also gone from great

innovation in the original advent of our cities to mass greed that has

invariably lead to some right shit products on the market, real innovation that

coudl help society held back ect ect.

Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> See, that is what I was trying to say earlier ... our life in

> this society is defined by economics ... earning, consuming.

> That is a new thing in history.

No it isn't. This is how life has always been defined in every society, and

even before societies existed. When you kill and skin a deer, you're

producing. When you eat the meat and wear the hide, you're consuming. All

life everywhere is governed by the laws of economics.

> A pioneer woman was

> defined by how she raised her kids and did needlework.

> An Indian male was defined by how well he could hunt

> and fight. But in neither case was there the need to

> work " for " anyone, or to work every darn workday

> for most of your life.

What do you want to do? Let 99% of the world's population die off so that we

can go back to being stone-age (maybe we could keep metallurgy)

hunter-gatherers with life expectancies of 20 years? The notion that humans

have ever lived in any kind of paradise is absurd. If you really wanted to

live at a subsistence level, you could probably do it on twenty hours per

week. Never in history have we had it so good.

You also don't have to work " for " anyone. If you want to go live in the

mountains and hunt, no one's stopping you. It's a choice I make because, at

this particular point in my life, I believe that I can make more money

working for " The Man " than I can on my own.

You're always complaining about how " society " is horribly broken and needs

to be remade. Well, what's your solution? How does it need to be remade?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

ah thanks for what you just wrote below wanita

that has given me an idea to help fight the ban of raw milk by our polititions

here

Ant

Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

,

And here is where the differences issue of reasoning and economics is. Who

or what gives man the right to control anything that is not man made?

Especially food and the other dignities needed for human life. This is not

how everyone has always thought and some still do not see receiving a gift

from creation as an economic exchange or a hierarchial right.

> No it isn't. This is how life has always been defined in every society,

and

> even before societies existed. When you kill and skin a deer, you're

> producing. When you eat the meat and wear the hide, you're consuming. All

> life everywhere is governed by the laws of economics.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>> The main difference is the invention of money, of ownership ...

>> I'm not AGAINST those things, I just don't think we have adapted

>> to them. Our way of life isn't consistent with how we are made.

>

>That's not true. Archeological evidence indicates that humans have been

>trading since pre-historical times. Since it's impossible to trade with no

theory

>of ownership, humans have clearly spent the bulk of their existence with some

>concept of ownership. The concept of ownership may not have been as refined

>as that in liberal economic theory, but it existed.

It's true folks have traded, etc. forever. But, to use the hunting

example, as soon as the forest became the property of the King,

peasants could not hunt a deer when they were starving. Today

water, land, etc. is ALL controlled, so a person must work at

certain jobs to get the basics of life. That was not so true

in the past.

>> The simplest example, and the most basic, is the care of children.

>> In a hunter/gatherer society, a baby is carried by the mother or

>> relatives, always. It is breast fed for years. THAT simple thing

>> is a huge complication for women in our society, primarily

>> because of the way economics is set up. A woman today is

>> expected to work or be supported by a mate (the latter being

>> less and less common). Most workplaces will not allow the

>> woman to carry and breastfeed her baby. Hence the workplace

>> is not adapted to the basic fact we are mammals.

>

>That's clearly not an inherent function of capitalism, since it was by and

>large not true several decades ago.

Nor did I say it was an inherent function of capitalism. I said our

society does not function in a way that works for a lot

of human beings -- this is true for our diet obviously, and

it is also true of our social and family structure. Personally

I think it is possible to have a society pretty similar to what

we have that is a lot BETTER -- without going back to being

cavemen. Kind of like we are doing with diet in this group ...

our diet IS a lot more " paleo " than the average Americans,

but we still use titanium cookware and have freezers ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>However, the San have continuously refused to adopt agriculture even though

>they are well aware it exists. The evidence seems to indicate that almost

>universally humans have adopted agriculture as soon as they had the chance. So

it

>is likely that such an easy subsistence is very, very rare, and

>exists/existed only in certain pockets of environmental abundance.

>

>Chris

Or had it forced on them -- re Guns Germs and Steel. The grain-eaters

could field a bigger army and wiped out the meat-eaters.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

<<yeah. due to an injury right now im unemplyed ( almost better figners

crossed only a cpl more months )

( i am doign aprt time web deisgn at home though )

however this has given me much thinking time and i have caught myself awake

in middle of nights sometimes with anxiety attack i suppose where ive dreamt

of being under mass pressure to get that next sale ect.

once im back to fitness again im not sure what i am going to do. i cannot go

back to sales anymore i do not think mentally i can any longer do it. >>

----

Hum. Seems like we are in similar positions. I was hurt last November and

can't do my regular job. Workman's Comp has made life more difficult as it

seems they are not on the workers side and so having to fight them also.

At this time i have no idea if i will be able to go back to my old job and

chances are that once WC has a final decision my employer will fire me. Its

like being in limbo in a no win situation. Can't even file for unemployment.

Last week my Dr. told me that my BP has skyrocketed (stress) and wants me

on meds, which at this time i have turned down. But it did bring things to a

head.

So, The " how do i want to live today question " fits very nicely into my

dilemma right now. I am having to rethink what it is that may be best for me

and jobwise just exactly how does a middle aged person get there.

Good luck

Kathy A

[Guest guest]

Yep that is right. If I was to go out into the bush and hunt and kill an

animal for food

Id be put in jail via some rediculous law if I was starving myself or even

feeding a family with the kill

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 11:17 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - How do you want to live today?

>> The main difference is the invention of money, of ownership ...

>> I'm not AGAINST those things, I just don't think we have adapted

>> to them. Our way of life isn't consistent with how we are made.

>

>That's not true. Archeological evidence indicates that humans have been

>trading since pre-historical times. Since it's impossible to trade with no

theory

>of ownership, humans have clearly spent the bulk of their existence with

some

>concept of ownership. The concept of ownership may not have been as

refined

>as that in liberal economic theory, but it existed.

It's true folks have traded, etc. forever. But, to use the hunting

example, as soon as the forest became the property of the King,

peasants could not hunt a deer when they were starving. Today

water, land, etc. is ALL controlled, so a person must work at

certain jobs to get the basics of life. That was not so true

in the past.

>> The simplest example, and the most basic, is the care of children.

>> In a hunter/gatherer society, a baby is carried by the mother or

>> relatives, always. It is breast fed for years. THAT simple thing

>> is a huge complication for women in our society, primarily

>> because of the way economics is set up. A woman today is

>> expected to work or be supported by a mate (the latter being

>> less and less common). Most workplaces will not allow the

>> woman to carry and breastfeed her baby. Hence the workplace

>> is not adapted to the basic fact we are mammals.

>

>That's clearly not an inherent function of capitalism, since it was by and

>large not true several decades ago.

Nor did I say it was an inherent function of capitalism. I said our

society does not function in a way that works for a lot

of human beings -- this is true for our diet obviously, and

it is also true of our social and family structure. Personally

I think it is possible to have a society pretty similar to what

we have that is a lot BETTER -- without going back to being

cavemen. Kind of like we are doing with diet in this group ...

our diet IS a lot more " paleo " than the average Americans,

but we still use titanium cookware and have freezers ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > The simplest example, and the most basic, is the care of children.

> > In a hunter/gatherer society, a baby is carried by the mother or

> > relatives, always. It is breast fed for years. THAT simple thing

> > is a huge complication for women in our society, primarily

> > because of the way economics is set up. A woman today is

> > expected to work or be supported by a mate (the latter being

> > less and less common). Most workplaces will not allow the

> > woman to carry and breastfeed her baby. Hence the workplace

> > is not adapted to the basic fact we are mammals.

>

>That's clearly not an inherent function of capitalism, since it was by and

>large not true several decades ago.

What does the world today OR several decades ago have to do with the

inherent functions of theoretical capitalism?

That aside, you're wrong, because capitalists must by needs seek to

maximize the value they derive from their workers. Their workers' children

can't be directly monetized, at least unless we repeal all kinds of child

labor laws and other worker protections.

-

[Guest guest]

>> It's true folks have traded, etc. forever. But, to use the hunting

>> example, as soon as the forest became the property of the King,

>> peasants could not hunt a deer when they were starving. Today

>> water, land, etc. is ALL controlled, so a person must work at

>> certain jobs to get the basics of life. That was not so true

>> in the past.

>

>That's odd. I know a lot of people who hunt.

I do too ... they hunt on public land, because in this

country that land is available for hunting. IF they get

a license etc. (and things like moose licenses are

done by lottery and are really difficult to get). But

in Europe, a lot of the forests were disignated as

" King's lands " or " private parks " and only nobility

was allowed to hunt there. A starving peasant who

killed a deer was likely to be hung, if he were caught.

Contrast this to the Indians -- anyone who could

hunt a buffalo could take a buffalo. Privatization of

the " commons " is what started to lead to poverty --

privatization allowed for the concept of the " haves "

and " have nots " . Indians had the concept of private

property, but not nearly to the degree the Europeans

did.

>> Nor did I say it was an inherent function of capitalism.

>

>I'm sorry, I'd thought you were saying that what produced that dynamic was

>the development of ownership and money. But the " domestic woman " was at one

>time dominant among middle class Americans, so the current situation must have

>other factors.

There IS a dynamic going on, but I'm not sure of all the factors.

The " domestic woman " only existed for a short time

period, during the postwar boom, really. Women for the

most part worked before that, albeit the " work " was food production,

textile production, and watching kids. (people tended to make their

own cloth, sew their own clothes, grow their own food, etc.).

A farm wife IS a worker, creating eggs, milk, butter, cheese,

clothing ... but making those things isn't incompatible with

carrying a baby around. In most pre-industrial societies,

women (and children) do perhaps the majority of

the food finding/production.

In the 1800's, " Middle class " households

had an at-home wife and a couple of servants,

but again, " running the house " was a sort of production

as many products were made at home, and the husband of such

a household was very well paid by the standards of the day.

That was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and

the bankers and factory overseers could be much better paid

than the workerbees, so they could afford servants and

an idle wife, and a wet nurse and a nanny. THAT sort of wife

got idolized in many novels, but really it was sort of a glitch

in time, she was a sort of nobilty being supported by the

efforts of many underpaid workers and the newness

of automation.

The '50s wife got to send her kids off to school,

and had machines to help with the work,

and bought her milk and cheese and bread at

the new supermarkets, so she was very

much underutilized. Plus with birth control she could stop

at only a few kids. But she got bored and depressed, sitting

all alone at home with little to do, which might be why the

feminist movement started.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>That's true, but one of the fundamental points of the book is that societies

>were restrained much more by environment than culture, and that most societies

>took advantage of agricultural advance when they were available.

Historically, MOST of the world never did jump into

agriculture though. It started in the Middle East, and

then people did a lot of counquering (notably the

Romans, who " civilized " most of Europe). It also

started with corn in America and rice in Asia, and

the corn and rice eaters did a lot of conquering

too (though I'm not well versed in that history).

But Africans and Australians and most of South

America was still hunting and gathering or doing

very small scale farming until they got " colonized " .

Also re the Harper's article ... the grain farmers

seem a lot different from the other farmers. The

Hawaiians planted taro and made poi, but their

culture wasn't really a " farming " culture. Similarly

the Brazilians have made tapioca forever, but again

it was a lot different in scale and effect on their

culture.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 12:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Historically, MOST of the world never did jump into

> agriculture though. It started in the Middle East, and

> then people did a lot of counquering (notably the

> Romans, who " civilized " most of Europe). It also

> started with corn in America and rice in Asia, and

> the corn and rice eaters did a lot of conquering

> too (though I'm not well versed in that history).

> But Africans and Australians and most of South

> America was still hunting and gathering or doing

> very small scale farming until they got " colonized " .

Austrailians did use agriculture, but had dropped it. And, in fact, Africans

have been using agriculture long, long, long before they got colonized, and

it's now believed by many that they developed agriculture indepdentently,

whereas it was formerly thought that they developed it under the influence of

Middle Easterners. I've never heard anyone propose that Africans were not using

agriculture until colonization, which essentially defies all the evidence.

(Unless you just meant *some* Africans?)

Are you suggesting that most folks actually *chose* not to engage in

Agriculture? Because, while it's true that some groups could and would choose

that,

Diamond's entire book is a well-supported refutation of that being a driving

force of history.

Two other things are worth noting: 1, " small-scale farming " is " agriculture "

by definition. 2, hunter-gatherers didn't just hunt and gather, but often

engaged in extensive modification of their environment, so the dividing line is

rather blurry.

Chris