QUOTE(Cucu Mucu @ 19 Jun 2008, 08:16 PM)
Pai tocmai de aceea societatea lor nu a evoluat de doua mii de ani.
Ce ma amuza pe mine tot felul de naivi care au impresia ca doar pentru ca au mobil, se sterg cu hartie igienica si beau Coca-Cola traiesc intr-o societate „civilizata”, care, nu-i asa, a progresat, pe cand oameni ca bosimanii sunt niste salbatici inapoiati pentru ca se sterg cu frunze si, evident, nu au Ipod.
In realitate, „progresul” de care ignorantii vorbesc nu e decat un mit.
Iata ce spune faimosul academician Jared Diamond, legat fix de cazul bosimanilor:
QUOTE
While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it’s hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"
(...)
While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen’s average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.
(...)
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U. S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an élite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be iimproted from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?
Pe langa marirea orelor de munca, deteriorarea hranei, a mediului inconjurator si dependenta tot mai crescuta de resurse naturale, „civilizatia” a mai adus una din cele mai mari calamitati posibile asupra societatii umane: inegalitatile socio-economice. Conform lui Diamond, „Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions.”
http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/Intr-adevar, oricine observa monstruasa repartitie a resurselor intre oameni, la scara mondiala, va intelege imediat ca o lume ce permite inegalitati atat de mari intre bogati si saraci nu se va putea niciodata sa fie considerata „civilizata, progresista sau superioara” in vreun fel. Kirkpatrick Sale scrie foarte bine:
QUOTE
E.E. Cummings once called progress a "comfortable disease" of modern "manunkind," and so it has been for some. But at any time since the triumph of capitalism only a minority of the world's population could be said to be really living in comfort, and that comfort, continuously threatened, is achieved at considerable expense.
Today of the approximately 6 billion people in the world, it is estimated that at least a billion live in abject poverty, lives cruel, empty, and mercifully short. Another 2 billion eke out life on a bare subsistence level, usually sustained only by one or another starch, the majority without potable drinking water or sanitary toilets. More than 2 million more live at the bottom edges of the money economy but with incomes less than $5,000 a year and no property or savings, no net worth to pass on to their children. That leaves less than a billion people who even come close to struggling for lives of comfort, with jobs and salaries of some regularity, and a quite small minority at the top of that scale who could really be said to have achieved comfortable lives; in the world, some 350 people can be considered (U.S. dollar) billionaires (with slightly more than 3 million millionaires), and their total net worth is estimated to exceed that of 45 per cent of the world's population.
This is progress? A disease such a small number can catch? And with such inequity, such imbalance?
In the U.S., the most materially advanced nation in the world and long the most ardent champion of the notion of progress, some 40 million people live below the official poverty line and another 20 million or so below the line adjusted for real costs; 6 million or so are unemployed, more than 30 million said to be too discouraged to look for work, and 45 million are in "disposable" jobs, temporary and part-time, without benefits or security. the top 5 percent of the population owns about two-thirds of the total wealth; 60 percent own no tangible assets or are in debt; in terms of income, the top 20 percent earn half the total income, the bottom 20 percent less than 4 percent of it.
All this hardly suggests the sort of material comfort progress is assumed to have provided.
http://www.primitivism.com/facets-myth.htm
Ce face antropologul este sa inteleaga niste mecanisme culturale si sa le explice deoarece i se par interesante, atata tot.
Poate peste vreo 2 saptamani o sa incepi sa-l si intelegi. A spune "intentionam sa nu lasam vreun individ sa se creada/devina superior celorlalti" sau "intentionam sa conservam egalitarismul comunitatii noastre" sunt afirmatii perfect sinonime. 
). Daca vrei insa poti sa te gindesti la intentionalitatea din spatele operelor artistice, etc. Oricum despre oameni si interactiunile lor discutam.. Sigur, ar fi mai usor daca am reduce totul la ratiune insa toate ar fi ca moarte. 
