On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:35:49 -0400, Juergen Botz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> The moment man started placing value on efficiency he stopped
> being a hunter-gatherer.  From there it's a slippery slope to
> civilization.

Disagree. The least effort/risk to get food seems efficient to me.
>
> Many of my neighbors here in Southern Bahia (Brasil) are only a
> few generations removed from a bona-fide hunter gatherer life-
> style.  And although for those few generations they have been
> living at the fringes of civilization, they still don't give a
> fig about efficiency.  The forests have gone, and there are too
> many people now, and what few animals are left are protected.
> But if they could they'd rather hunt than herd.

I wonder if they know something we don't? Maybe hunted food tastes better?


>
> Civilization is efficient.  Agriculture is efficient.  The Roman
> Legions were efficient.  Free markets are efficient.  Corporations
> are efficient.  Globalization is efficient.

All those are destructive. Efficiency doesn't apply to the insane.

>
> A good hunter is /effective/.  He may superbly skilled, and he may
> more brilliant than Einstein, but he has no use for efficiency.

IMHO the inefficient hinters all starved.

>
> Understand this or understand nothing about the difference between
> where we came from and where we are now.

I think we are using the word differently.
The Inuk sitting on the ice for hours by a seal's breathing hole is a good  
example of efficiency - he is not using energy beyond that needed to stay  
conscious and warm.
The modern Inuits' dependance on government handouts, while efficient in  
terms of energy, results in suicide.
Game over.

William