Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 141

Thread: Will we return to this life?

  1. #1

    Default Will we return to this life?

    As a boy this is how I remember Alaska natives and saw thier transistion into modern civilization. They still have subsistence rights as do I through my wife but it is not the same. You primative survivalists will like this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-XP30aG8bE
    Last edited by crashdive123; 07-06-2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Restored Post


  2. #2

    Default

    I have friends that are Athabaskan.
    The language was taught on the rez even when the children were stolen by the government and reeducated in the 30s.
    Now only a handful can even mutter words. Most are down here in Seattle.

  3. #3

    Default

    I saw how rapidly native culture has deteriorated (mostly since the 70's) with exposier to modern technology and in a relatively brief time from the stand point of history the times it has brought all humanity to the brink of extinction and wonder what level of industrialization would be safe or sustainable. There may be some future that we can achieve a balance though technology but I consider the odds very slim and continueing down the wrong path so I try to look into the past to see at what point there was balance. I think the plains Indians was the peak of human civilization and we have been going down hill since. There may have been a point of the westward expansion that we went past sustainability. The railroad was the begining of loosing our self reliance and shipping our sustanence from elsewhere becoming weaker in the process. I guess what I am asking is what point in the past should we return to that worked or where did we go wrong?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    The railroad was the begining of loosing our self reliance and shipping our sustanence from elsewhere becoming weaker in the process. I guess what I am asking is what point in the past should we return to that worked or where did we go wrong?
    I'm not sure what you mean by "weaker." Today we live far longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives than any other people in history. We do not suffer from diseases that devastated entire nations in the past. We enjoy a level of infant mortality lower than was ever thought possible. Millions of people with "disabilities" (including such simple things as bad eyesight) who in the past would have been relegated to a life of begging are able to enjoy productive and contributory lives. We enjoy opportunities to learn, to experience, to travel, etc. that would have been unfathomable to our ancestors. Indeed, even the ability to "commune with" and appreciate nature which so many of us find appealing and sustaining is largely a function of our not having to battle against nature on a daily basis for our survival.

    The popular perception of Native/Aboriginal practices and their "balance" with nature is highly romanticized and inaccurate. "Native" peoples tended to suffer much from exposure, disease, bad hygiene, malnourishment, and lack of medical care, etc. and they almost always died before reaching 40 yrs. old.

    Any of you at or above say, 50 yrs old should consider that a true return to an ancient, "traditional," non-industrialized, "at-one-with-nature" lifestyle would mean that you would almost assuredly already be dead.

    Just sayin...
    Last edited by lucznik; 03-12-2010 at 12:25 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    The point is where is the proper balance? After the advent of penicilian? Before nuclear bombs? I romantize nothing I am strictly talking about balancing consumption with renewable resources. I can't believe you feel the world has that balance now. Soon nothing will be left.

  6. #6
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    The point is where is the proper balance? After the advent of penicilian? Before nuclear bombs? I romantize nothing I am strictly talking about balancing consumption with renewable resources. I can't believe you feel the world has that balance now. Soon nothing will be left.
    I have often wondered this my self.
    Having some interaction with the Amish and Mennonite communities, they too seemed to have picked out a time period, that they feel is "right" for them.
    From what I can gather, late 1700's and early 1800's. ( why not 1957? '57 Chevys, B&W TV, Am radio.....)
    This includes their religion, a way of life, customs, tools etc.

    They do have problems relating to the modern world, as do the native Americans, and some of the methods/solutions aren't exactly the answer.
    As they choose to continue to live their lives, in they own way, they achieve their balance, as best as they can.

    I do believe that there is a balance, but it's kind up to you in what you believe, and what you do about it.

    If you choose to press on in your own customs, and beliefs, I believe YOU can reach a balance in your life.

    If you choose to lament the passing of older beliefs and customs you are going to be disappointed and disillusioned.

    Just how good were the "good old days"?
    Last edited by hunter63; 03-12-2010 at 01:08 PM. Reason: splin'
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  7. #7

    Default

    It is not that life was perfect, it was isolated. One problem did not affect as many. Interdependence subjects us to global collapse not just a regional or personal problem. What happens in the middle east today can change the world. 200 years ago, who cared? Problems where isolated.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    I can't believe you feel the world has that balance now.
    NO, your are definitely correct in asserting that the world is "out of balance." I'm just not sure it is reasonable to assert that it ever was "in balance." There certainly is no evidence to support such a supposition. As Hunter63 put it; "just how good were the 'good old days?'" And even if there was a time when there indeed was "balance," it's too late now. Pandora's box, so to speak, has already been opened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    What happens in the middle east today can change the world. 200 years ago, who cared? Problems where isolated.
    Yes, they were isolated. But, they were also more acute. If you lived in Haiti today when the big earthquake hit (and presuming you survived the initial damage), there are all sorts of sources for aid, relief, and help that you can access. Your life is still changed and it certainly won't be easy, but at least there is help available. 200 years ago if you lived in Haiti under similar post-disaster circumstances, you died.
    Last edited by lucznik; 03-12-2010 at 01:56 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucznik View Post
    NO, your are definitely correct in asserting that the world is "out of balance." I'm just not sure it is reasonable to assert that it ever was "in balance." There certainly is no evidence to support such a supposition. As Hunter63 put it; "just how good were the 'good old days?'" And even if there was a time when there indeed was "balance," it's too late now. Pandora's box, so to speak, has already been opened.
    By the most conservative estimate man has been here over 6000 years not consuming faster than the planet could regenerate. Studies indicate a balance at current levels would require 2/3's of the population to die off. Shortages of comodities will close pandora's box. How good or bad it was is not the issue. Start another thread for that. The question is at what point in our past should we return to for our survival. No time was perfect but which time period was best or most in balance with continued existence.
    Last edited by Alaskan Survivalist; 03-12-2010 at 02:18 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    What 2/3 of the population are you wanting to kill off? Do you think they'll go willingly?

    A few weeks ago I ate a pomegranate. It's my favorite fruit in the whole world. I anxiously await their arrival in the store every year. They don't grow where I live; pretty much no fruits grow where I live. "Returning" would mean giving up my pomegranates - and all other fruits.

    This morning when I woke up I immediately put on my eyeglasses. With them I see. Without them I would be all-but-completely blind. "Returning'" would mean giving up my eyesight.

    On Monday morning my 4 year old daughter is having surgery. It is (by today's standards) a minor thing; easily fixed. "Returning" would mean she would just have to spend her childhood suffering.


    Thanks, but no thanks.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucznik View Post
    Thanks, but no thanks.
    That's how I feel about you humping my leg. You'll have to get your pleasure elsewhere. I just lost interest.

  12. #12

    Default

    You can't possibly be so insecure about your own ideas that your only option is to degenerate into gross personal insults; can you?

  13. #13
    Super Moderator crashdive123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    43,062
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Watch the video if you like, but this has quickly gone down hill. I think it has reached the bottom. Let it go. Walk away.
    Can't Means Won't

    My Youtube Channel

  14. #14
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    56,179

    Default

    I have to agree with lucznik on this one. I'm not certain there was ever a balance. I understand and appreciate the point you are trying to get across but there are popular theories that man was at least part of the cause for the demise of the Saber Tooth Tiger and Woolly Mammoths along with a host of others. It's known as the "Overkill Hypothesis". There are even some theories that Neanderthal either became extinct at the hands of Home Sapiens or was bred extinct by him (us).

    Obviously, there were other pressures placed on these animals but pressure from man can not be overlooked. Had they not been hunted who is to say they would not have survived?

    So to say that man ever achieved a balance with nature is incorrect, in my opinion. Man has always exploited nature to his benefit with little overall regard for the impact. To use lucznik's term, romanticizing about some period of man being in tune with nature is also incorrect. There just weren't enough men around to devastate to the degree we do today. But it's always been "you die, me eat" when it comes to man vs. nature.

    Source for Overkill Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatern...tinction_event

    Source for Neanderthal Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

  15. #15
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    56,179

    Default

    Sorry, Crash. I was typing when you posted.

    I do agree, there is no need to get personal.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southern California, High desert
    Posts
    7,436

    Default

    Good Video, Thanks

  17. #17

    Default

    I thought that was a cool video. I didn't watch the whole thing though, will go back and finish.

    The "balance" is a good point. It's not so much that modern technology is a bad thing. What's bad is putting that technology into primitive hands. Which is what most of us do on a daily basis.

    There's nothing wrong with modern medicine either other than the fact that we use it blindly and haphazardly.

    It's kind of like going back in time and giving grenades as gifts to the cavemen, without instructions.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    I have to agree with lucznik on this one. I'm not certain there was ever a balance. I understand and appreciate the point you are trying to get across but there are popular theories that man was at least part of the cause for the demise of the Saber Tooth Tiger and Woolly Mammoths along with a host of others. It's known as the "Overkill Hypothesis". There are even some theories that Neanderthal either became extinct at the hands of Home Sapiens or was bred extinct by him (us).

    Obviously, there were other pressures placed on these animals but pressure from man can not be overlooked. Had they not been hunted who is to say they would not have survived?

    So to say that man ever achieved a balance with nature is incorrect, in my opinion. Man has always exploited nature to his benefit with little overall regard for the impact. To use lucznik's term, romanticizing about some period of man being in tune with nature is also incorrect. There just weren't enough men around to devastate to the degree we do today. But it's always been "you die, me eat" when it comes to man vs. nature.

    Source for Overkill Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatern...tinction_event

    Source for Neanderthal Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
    I think that's a good point. We get better everyday at being more out of balance with nature than we ever were.

  19. #19

    Default

    the reason im here is that at least 20% of people in my country live bellow the limits of poverty... and this is Europe i dont even imagine the ROW... official statistic is a little different but 20% at least is the prediction i most think its correct... all my survival curiosity comes from the fact that i see more crime in areas that had none and seems the balance is going way off way fast.
    i hope that only 2\3 of worlds pop has to go and i wanna be on the remaining 1\3... i remember seeing mad max and think "this could never be science will make it work, now im not so sure...

    so i also dont think we never had a balance, we need to get technicians in charge of stuff and put our efforts to resolve worlwide issues instead of just fooling around, problem is people not always agree and thats were politics fails, change must come from the individual to the whole and not the other way around and today we have little heroes to get inspired upon and to teach us a "new" or sustainable way of living....

  20. #20

    Default

    Of all the threads I posted THIS is the one you choose to resurect? The whole discission was off topic because they did not get the basic premise. As a doomer I sometimes forget that most the world remains unaware of what is coming and want to remain that way. I also know they may as well because it is too late to change anything. Even those that just play at survival will have an edge. They can figure it out after it happens. Why you prepare is not as important as that you prepare. You would be better prepared if you knew what you were preparing for....Oh well.
    Last edited by Alaskan Survivalist; 07-07-2010 at 02:24 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •