From: JoshCahoon@cs.com
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 21:10:58 MDT
In a message dated 8/5/01 4:07:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, loreetg@yahoo.com
writes:
<< --- JoshCahoon@cs.com wrote:
>
> I'm no longer certain that people have "better"
> lives today than they did in
> prehistoric times. We are not biologically adapted
> to the worry-prone,
> insecure, estranged lives that are part and parcel
> of American society today.
> Chronic stress, anorexia, depression, obesity--these
> are a few maladies that
> are likely much more prevalent today than in
> prehistoric times. Maybe the
> anarchists are onto something. >>
>>I suppose we have to define what makes one type of
>>life "better", but part of my definition is living
>>long enough in a safe enough environment that those
>>maladies you mention become significant... rather than
>>simply subsumed in a continuous (and short) struggle
>>for day to day existence.
>>
>>One measure of "better" is lifespans.
>>
>>Loree
Actually, I don't think a long life is necessary for the particular maladies
I mentioned. I think they're products of how our psyches interact with the
culture we find ourselves in. And, of course, I agree that it usually good to
live longer. But also obvious is that quality is more important than
quantity.
By the way, I hope nobody interprets me as essentially anti-tech; I'm a
technophile thru and thru.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:29 MST