Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 31 May 2007 15:51:53 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
some |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|