Poverty is closer to our *natural* state

[bilby]

A hunter-gatherer has his entire continent as 'means of support'.

A subsistence farmer has his land as 'means of support'

A tenant farmer has the whim of his lord as 'means of support'

A labourer has the whim of his boss as 'means of support'

What was that about hunter-gatherers being 'poor' again?

The distinction between a hunter-gatherer and many people living today is that the hunter-gatherer is at the whims of weather and predatory-prey cycles.

Crop fails? Thousands die.

Buffalo goes extinct? Thousands die.

Hunt was unsuccessful? I guess you're not eating tonight.

Today this is mostly not the case for the majority of people, and for those who are on the lower fringe of society, they are at the whims of things like job availability, and government safety nets, so you can make a pretty good analogy between the poor of today and early humans.

One only needs to read a little history to understand that life fucking sucked for pretty much everyone in reference to the modern day prior to the late twentieth century.

Of course. But the fact remains that by reference to the resources available, the typical person in a pre-agricultural society had more options and flexibility, most of the time, than the typical post-agricultural person.

Agriculture ties people to the land; Feudalism ties people to their lords; and Industry ties people to their bosses. Hunter-gatherers always have to option of simply walking away from a bad situation. Whether there is anywhere better to go to is another question, and given that many of the causes of 'bad times' for hunter-gatherers are also widespread, life may well often suck, and death is only ever a few failed hunts away.

I am not arguing that things were always better for hunter-gatherers than they are for people in the first world today; but I am arguing that things were often better for hunter-gatherers than they were for the vast majority of peasants in post agricultural history.

Society has the ability to 'smooth out' the booms and busts - In return for giving up the ability to roam freely across the landscape, eating huge quantities of fresh meat once in a while, but with the constant risk that a few bad weeks will kill your entire tribe, you can instead live on a poor diet of mostly bread, but with the security that at least some people from your village will survive even if the crops fail two years in a row.

The former approach is less unpleasant most of the time, but is much more unpleasant - to the point of being fatal - in the hardest of times. As a result, nomadic lifestyles are rarely able to compete with agricultural ones over the long term; it is evolutionary - what is selected is not the 'best' way of life as determined by the happiness of those living it; but rather the 'best' way of life as defined by that system's ability to survive.

A society with a feudal lord ruling over thousands of peasants, a few dozen of whom die each year of starvation, malnutrition and disease, and half of whom die in a once-in-fifty or once-in-a-hundred year weather event, is better able to persist than a society of thousands of nomads, most of whom have full bellies most of the time, but who may see 90 or 100% mortality due to a once-in-fifty or once-in-a-hundred year weather event.

 

[DBT]

The market fails and people starve.

''Between 1996 and 2001, population living below the poverty line in Zambia rose from 69 percent to 86 percent. Twenty-eight million people, or 51 percent of those living in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, live below the national poverty lines. And we know that the face of the poorest 10 percent is likely to be black and female: since women are responsible for 70 percent of food production in Africa, the shift away from food production toward export production has been extremely detrimental to them.''

''Famine is not caused by a lack of food, but by poverty. For example, according to the World Food Programme (WFP) there are no shortages of food products in the markets in Lesotho. However, two-thirds of the population live below the poverty line and half are classified as destitute. Purchased cereals comprise 75 percent of annual food needs for Lesotho's poor, and over 70 percent of the households classified "very poor" in Lesotho have no cereal in reserve. Rapidly escalating prices and vanishing incomes are a lethal combination. The people of Lesotho cannot afford to buy the food that is available.''

 

[rousseau]

To reiterate, though, the argument in question isn't whether nomadic tribes or modern day poor are worse off, but instead that humans in general tend toward a state of life without an excess of wealth, which is more or less the case for both nomadic tribes and the modern day poor. The argument in question is whether the world post 19th century is a massive bubble or not.

 

[Bronzeage]

To reiterate, though, the argument in question isn't whether nomadic tribes or modern day poor are worse off, but instead that humans in general tend toward a state of life without an excess of wealth, which is more or less the case for both nomadic tribes and the modern day poor. The argument in question is whether the world post 19th century is a massive bubble or not.

Humans tend toward a state of life with increasing wealth. If and when we reach an excess of wealth is a subjective discussion. If humans did not accumulate wealth, in the form of technology, we would be restricted to the parts of the planet which allow us to survive all year around. The natural habitat of the larger primates is a good map. When we mastered the use of fire, it increased the diversity of our diet, in terms of plant and animal matter. Fire and practical clothes let us move all across the surface of the planet. Nomads can only own what they can carry with them, so accumulation of wealth beyond that, is pointless. The best store of a nomad's wealth is an asset that walks. Nomads once followed herds and now they lead them. It's not a great difference and you still have to walk to keep up with your wealth.

If the post 19th century world is a bubble, it's a bubble that has been increasing in size for many years before 1800. Technology is a multiplier. Less effort feeds more people. A little more effort creates a surplus, which means someone no longer needs to work for a little while. If there is any natural tendency in humans, it would be this, because it has been repeated over and over again.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Before you flame away, hear me out and try to get a gist of what I'm saying. I can see that the term *natural state* is problematic, but I'll try to explain.

For almost the entirety of human history people had a basic, subsistence lifestyle. That is the balance between finding enough food to survive and dying was a much thinner one, many people literally did starve, babies died, injuries killed. In a sense we were not far removed from any other animal. Let's just say that this period of human history represents a good..say.. 99.9999999999% of it.

So in that context we can see that the period of *prosperity* that we're experiencing now seems to be an outlier. Suddenly we have the appearance of progress and rationality because people have nice, warm houses, we have movie theatres, and the like. And in that type of lifestyle and environment we've suddenly re-framed poverty as an *unnatural* state. When people don't have enough to eat, are barely surviving, there's something *wrong* about that .. those people should be rich like the top 1% or whatever.

And ok, maybe there is something wrong with people being poverty-stricken. In reality we want everyone to be more comfortable and happier, that's a goal we can agree on. But the elephant in the room that we're not asking ourselves is the cost of everyone in the world living in excess of poverty. This seems to be something that ends up on posters, but everyone ignores as long as they have a movie theatre to go to.

So to take that analogy down to an individual level, imagine person [x] has 100 000 dollars which can easily get him to the end of his life if he only spends 10 000 per year. But because it takes him 25 000 per year to be comfortable and happy, he has four really great years, and six really fucking destitute ones. To me that seems to be what's happening in human history right now.

The obvious question is how do we change our course so living in excess of poverty is sustainable? The harder question is, is this even possible?

There are two basic problems with this theory.

1) In the "natural state" for human beings, most of our physical activity had a 1 to 1 ratio of effort to benefit. You spend X hours foraging for food, you get Y amount of food (varies depending on time of year and your foraging skills). This means that physical activity and to a certain extent physical fitness become MUCH more important, which would eliminate a lot of the dietary/health effects affecting poor people. OTOH, lack of access to healthcare would also shorten the lifespan of those poor people so none of them would live long enough to contract heart disease or diabetes anyway.

2) Humans in the "wild" had only natural limitations to their search for sustenance. Humans in an urban setting have other forces limiting their actions: they cannot openly hunt or fish without proper permits, cannot build shelters in suitable areas that are marked off as "public property," cannot directly defend themselves against theft or threats of violence, cannot freely chop down firewood nor even build a fire for warmth.

IMO, the closest condition to humanity's "natural state" is probably the post-zombie apocalypse where basic survival becomes the driving impulse behind literally all decisions and actions.

 

[rousseau]

To reiterate, though, the argument in question isn't whether nomadic tribes or modern day poor are worse off, but instead that humans in general tend toward a state of life without an excess of wealth, which is more or less the case for both nomadic tribes and the modern day poor. The argument in question is whether the world post 19th century is a massive bubble or not.

Humans tend toward a state of life with increasing wealth. If and when we reach an excess of wealth is a subjective discussion. If humans did not accumulate wealth, in the form of technology, we would be restricted to the parts of the planet which allow us to survive all year around. The natural habitat of the larger primates is a good map. When we mastered the use of fire, it increased the diversity of our diet, in terms of plant and animal matter. Fire and practical clothes let us move all across the surface of the planet. Nomads can only own what they can carry with them, so accumulation of wealth beyond that, is pointless. The best store of a nomad's wealth is an asset that walks. Nomads once followed herds and now they lead them. It's not a great difference and you still have to walk to keep up with your wealth.

If the post 19th century world is a bubble, it's a bubble that has been increasing in size for many years before 1800. Technology is a multiplier. Less effort feeds more people. A little more effort creates a surplus, which means someone no longer needs to work for a little while. If there is any natural tendency in humans, it would be this, because it has been repeated over and over again.

There is definitely something to the theory that we tend toward increasing wealth, given enough energy input and the laws of thermodynamics, although I have to think this period is still somewhat of a bubble, and that this particular bubble hasn't been growing since the end of the Roman era.

Yes, society has been growing in a relatively stable manner for a long time, but I think the exponential change we've seen in the past 4-5 decades has to eventually regress back to mean. Then, more than likely, the world will see absolutely unparalleled change that we now can't dream of over the next few centuries.

 

[Davka]

rousseau, I think you've got a potentially cogent idea here, but it's being needlessly poisoned by the use of the word "poverty." Homo Sapiens are pretty much like any other species, and a look at the natural world tells us that there are no successful populations for whom the natural state is one of poverty. Instead, the natural state of animal populations is one of adequacy.

One problem we have in the modern world is that our notions of wealth, poverty, and adequacy have become skewed. It seems to me that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs could be useful to this conversation. Here's the hierarchy, for those who may not be familiar, or may have forgotten it...

With the most important needs listed first, Maslow argues that human needs (in order of importance) are as follows: Physiological; Safety; Belongingness and Love; Esteem; Self-actualization; Self-transcendence.​

In the animal kingdom, poverty might be said to be a condition in which the most basic needs are scarce and difficult to fulfill. A population with insufficient physiological resources - insufficient food and water - would not thrive, and might even die out. Many species thrive so long as their physiological needs are taken care of, even in the absence of safety - think of antelopes in lion country, or ants in anteater country. This is not a state of poverty, but rather one of adequacy. The species will go on, and most members of the group will live quite well, with the predators (or environment) preying on the weakest members, culling the herd and making the population as a whole healthier.

Homo Sapiens, however, have been living with our physiological needs taken care of for so long that we see poverty as a lack of those things further up the ladder: safety, or even belongingness and love. Many people in the developed world have shifted what they consider "basic" even further up the ladder, to the level of esteem; if you cannot afford a new car and a middle-class house, you are seen as "poor." In reality, of course, people who have their basic physiological needs (healthy food, clean water, adequate medical care) met, as well as safety (living in a low-crime area) and belongingness/love are anything but poor.

I have lived all of my adult life well below the poverty line, but have only considered myself to be "poor" during those years when I lived on the streets. Food, clothing, and shelter were sketchy things in those days, and safety was often a matter of hiding from various threats. Today I live in a home that is secluded and cozy, although far from middle-class. I'm in a position of having the luxury to work on self-awareness, since all my other needs are met. Yet financially I am living well below the poverty line. I see this as evidence that the term "poverty" has been badly skewed in American society.

Like other animals, the natural state of Homo Sapiens is one of adequacy. It is only due to our materialistic culture that adequacy is seen as inadequate. Most westerners consider adequacy to be poverty, but it's not. If we could shift our mindset away from the current primacy of materially-driven esteem and back to what is actually important, perhaps we could eradicate true poverty in the process.

 

[Bronzeage]

Humans tend toward a state of life with increasing wealth. If and when we reach an excess of wealth is a subjective discussion. If humans did not accumulate wealth, in the form of technology, we would be restricted to the parts of the planet which allow us to survive all year around. The natural habitat of the larger primates is a good map. When we mastered the use of fire, it increased the diversity of our diet, in terms of plant and animal matter. Fire and practical clothes let us move all across the surface of the planet. Nomads can only own what they can carry with them, so accumulation of wealth beyond that, is pointless. The best store of a nomad's wealth is an asset that walks. Nomads once followed herds and now they lead them. It's not a great difference and you still have to walk to keep up with your wealth.

If the post 19th century world is a bubble, it's a bubble that has been increasing in size for many years before 1800. Technology is a multiplier. Less effort feeds more people. A little more effort creates a surplus, which means someone no longer needs to work for a little while. If there is any natural tendency in humans, it would be this, because it has been repeated over and over again.

There is definitely something to the theory that we tend toward increasing wealth, given enough energy input and the laws of thermodynamics, although I have to think this period is still somewhat of a bubble, and that this particular bubble hasn't been growing since the end of the Roman era.

Yes, society has been growing in a relatively stable manner for a long time, but I think the exponential change we've seen in the past 4-5 decades has to eventually regress back to mean. Then, more than likely, the world will see absolutely unparalleled change that we now can't dream of over the next few centuries.

If we don't tend toward increasing wealth, a bad winter means we die. Increasing wealth is a survival mechanism. We must never forget, the human species is a tropical animal. Take away fire and we cannot live on the majority of the surface of this planet. Surplus wealth is a relative term, but it is the the only reason we have managed to make it this far.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The natural state of the "hairless" apes is to improve their environment, to increase options in experiences, and to increase stimulations to emotions and intellect. We need not go into the distant past but only down the hall to nursery to see that this is so. Babies kick blankets off when hot, stare at and hold and taste new toys or old shoes (whichever they can get their hands on) and rejoice in laughter and repeating over and over the newly learned game of Peek-a-boo. The natural state of humans if to learn and then teach. Our natural state is love and be loved. We strive and fail and strive again and even when we succeed, we seek out new striving to overcome. The is the nature of human beings and it is not one that can be described as impoverished.

 

[rousseau]

There is definitely something to the theory that we tend toward increasing wealth, given enough energy input and the laws of thermodynamics, although I have to think this period is still somewhat of a bubble, and that this particular bubble hasn't been growing since the end of the Roman era.

Yes, society has been growing in a relatively stable manner for a long time, but I think the exponential change we've seen in the past 4-5 decades has to eventually regress back to mean. Then, more than likely, the world will see absolutely unparalleled change that we now can't dream of over the next few centuries.

If we don't tend toward increasing wealth, a bad winter means we die. Increasing wealth is a survival mechanism. We must never forget, the human species is a tropical animal. Take away fire and we cannot live on the majority of the surface of this planet. Surplus wealth is a relative term, but it is the the only reason we have managed to make it this far.

I don't doubt it at all, and if anyone's read up on the past 10-15 centuries this should be pretty clear. Like I was saying: thermodynamics. The idea that with energy input (solar + massive amounts of fossil fuel) entropy is going to decrease. But the laws of equilibrium I would think *should* also be another powerful force in the coming century. Right now we're riding a high, and it's possible that we're going to have a pretty big come-down, or rather the level of excess we've achieved right now may not be sustainable.

But we will see if the old invisible hand will lead us out of disaster faster than things start breaking down.

 

[Bronzeage]

If we don't tend toward increasing wealth, a bad winter means we die. Increasing wealth is a survival mechanism. We must never forget, the human species is a tropical animal. Take away fire and we cannot live on the majority of the surface of this planet. Surplus wealth is a relative term, but it is the the only reason we have managed to make it this far.

I don't doubt it at all, and if anyone's read up on the past 10-15 centuries this should be pretty clear. Like I was saying: thermodynamics. The idea that with energy input (solar + massive amounts of fossil fuel) entropy is going to decrease. But the laws of equilibrium I would think *should* also be another powerful force in the coming century. Right now we're riding a high, and it's possible that we're going to have a pretty big come-down, or rather the level of excess we've achieved right now may not be sustainable.

But we will see if the old invisible hand will lead us out of disaster faster than things start breaking down.

It's a great temptation to look at current times as exceptional, but when the curve is increasing, we are always riding a high. Your observation could be valid at almost any time in history. I remember an article which cited a report written about sanitary conditions of London in the late 1800's. The report said at the current rate of increase in horse traffic in the city, the city's capacity to keep streets clean would be overwhelmed and in 30 years, London would be buried under 7 feet of horse manure. The story is probably apocryphal, but still a great story.

The horse drawn wagon was the first great technological advance over the wheelbarrow, but eventually we reached the limit of it's utility. The practical problems of using horses in a city was one of the great driving forces of automotive technology. Every advancement brings it's own problems, and every problem has either a solution or an alternative. To say otherwise is to imagine the species which has managed to live at the South Pole and at the same time find a treatment for almost every fatal disease which afflicts us, will blindly walk off a cliff because we didn't know any better.

 

[Keith&Co.]

will blindly walk off a cliff because we didn't know any better.

Well, when you say it like that, it seems clear.

But what if it was packaged as the 'Walk Off A Cliff Diet?'

A 'walking off a cliff selfie' fad?

The ice-bucket off a cliff challenge?'

 

[Nexus]

The practical problems of using horses in a city was one of the great driving forces of automotive technology. Every advancement brings it's own problems, and every problem has either a solution or an alternative.

To continue with this thought, as cars became more widespread people rejoiced at how much cleaner this new internal combustion technology was. And besides there being less "pollution" ie less feces everywhere, it was also a quieter technology. Hundreds of shoed horses going about on cobbled streets is much nosier than cars.

 

[Davka]

will blindly walk off a cliff because we didn't know any better.

Well, when you say it like that, it seems clear.

But what if it was packaged as the 'Walk Off A Cliff Diet?'

A 'walking off a cliff selfie' fad?

The ice-bucket off a cliff challenge?'

Great ideas, all. Cull the herd!