Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Age of Reason
Once again, you are thinking of depleted, left-over land in a hostile climate.

There is no place left on earth that remains undepleted by overpopulation and which has comfortable weather year round.

There never was such a happy hunting ground. Take the SE of N America, pre columbia. Moderate weather, low population, game competed for fiercely by predators. There are probably more deer in the southern US now than in 1400 AD.

So of course living off the land will be miserable where there are freezing winters or boiling summers and the few remaining game animals have learned to evade poachers with firearms, let alone a guy in a loin cloth with a spear or bow.

Living off the land is miserable wherever you do it.

But if living close to nature were as miserable as you described no matter what the place, then we alone among animals would have evolved to despise the very thing we did to survive for the vast majority of our species' time on earth.

And we have. How many people today would volunteer to give up medicine, housing, plumbing, transportation and abundant food to go live in a skin tent and die of disease or starvation (the two most common causes in primitive cultures)?

While I can admire your romanticism in a weird way, I prefer to base my world in the reality of what is, not what Rousseau or Ned Ludd thought might have been.

80 posted on 01/03/2003 7:34:12 AM PST by LexBaird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: LexBaird
I never heard of that Ludd guy, and Rousseau's silly ideas about primatives being noble don't interest me.
81 posted on 01/03/2003 9:19:03 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: LexBaird
There are probably more deer in the southern US now than in 1400 AD.

If there's such an abundance of deer, why are we forced to ration deer with bag limits?

82 posted on 01/03/2003 9:26:01 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: LexBaird
How many people today would volunteer to give up medicine, housing, plumbing, transportation and abundant food to go live in a skin tent and die of disease or starvation (the two most common causes in primitive cultures)?

LOL.

Not many, I'm sure.

Still, I'm not sure that living off the land must have been the negative experience you describe.

Even as recently as five-hundred years ago, Open-minded European explorers were struck by the handsome appearance and happiness level among many native peoples.

And why not?

Those people lived lives on permanent vacation.

They hunted, fished, gathered, had beach parties--they must have had a fine time, and it showed in their healthy physiques.

Certainly--if by some miracle--some place somewhere in time had been lucky enough to escape the epic suffering visited upon them by continual mile-high tidal waves or lava flows from volcanoes going off all the time or having to always outrun giant iguanas or to avoid falling into crevasses that earthquakes open or dodging the grasping claws of swooping reptiles--not to mention having to placate 50-foot tall apes with sacrificial virgins--then life might actually have been fun.

83 posted on 01/03/2003 9:48:43 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson