Cavemen
 

I wonder why there are so many people in this world still living like they are in the stone age. Or in other words, just like cavemen.

There is much of Africa.

There is the middle east.

There are the Indians in the USA.

There is 3/4 of China.

There is much of South east Asia

There is a lot of people in Mexico and South America.


Has the world really evolved beyond the stone age? Why do these people still exist?

The stone age people and Cavemen are about the same. They use stone implements, they live in mud huts or caves, they are subsistence farmers and or hunter gathers. They cannot adequately feed themselves, let alone others.

Are they living proof of he missing link?

Just wondering....

Wow, so you really think much of Africa, middle east, native indians, 3/4 of China, much of South East Asia and "a lot" of people in Mexico and South America live like cavemen with stone tools?

Maybe you should get out more, or read a book for a change.

The world is an incredible place isn't it? rich in all sorts of cultures and societies! It is truely a garden with all sorts of varities adding to the beauty.

I'm sure if given the opportunity and chance to have a Honda, a widescreen and a lawn they would jump at it - oh ya, it would help to learn how to read and write as well.

Then again, do we really have it better? does the fact that we have all these creature comforts and toys and our thoughts make us that much better or more evolved? Most of these "cavenmen" live everyday to just to survive. How many of these "cavemen" ruin the forest, desert, jungle they need to survive?

Makes me wonder who really knows the true meaning of life. Is the meaning of life to influence and change your environs to make life more comfortable or is the meaning of life nothing more then living? Just living. Think about it.

I live in a mud hut...

http://www.lasplash.com/uploads/1/adobe_home_001.jpg

Those cavemen do more damage to the environment than any modern man. If we all lived that way we would not only be starving, but the world would be an absolute cesspool.

I do get out a lot, and thats how I know there are a lot of cavemen living in the world today.

Sorry to here that. You helped me make my point.

OK, I'll take that bait. I don't get out as much as you I guess. Please teach me. I have an open mind and am willing to entertain new ideas. What tribes, societies and cultures that live off the land are the ones you are talking about? Besides human waste and some ashes, what energy do they consume, what by-products do they emmit, what things do they throw away that take decades for the Earth to digest?

Now, add up your carbon foot print and pollution quotant? SmileWavy

I help support a villiage in Nicaragua.

They are growing crops, the biggest being shade-grown coffee. They are building simple houses. They just finished building a water system for the villiage.

Everything they are doing is sustainable.

While the land is rich, the political system they have suffered under for decades has prevented them from thriving. I was there. I met former Sandanistas working side-by-side with former Contras.

For the first time, they are able to purchase land, and provide adequately for their families. Their future is bright. While they have few material goods, they are happy. At least to this outsider, they appear more happy than many Americans.

No ipods, no video games, no cell phones, no teen angst. The kids work hard at school. Many of them, I suppose, will eventually end up living in Managua, a modern city.

I'm not sure what my point is, but I have no clue what yours is, either.

"living proof of the missing link"? Absolutely not! They are as intelligent as you or I. We just have the great privilege of living in the USA.

Then why are they still living in mud huts? Political oppression has been significant in every country in the world, yet these people are still cavemen! Why isn't the rest of the world in the same sorry condition?

The so called sustainable life lived by these tribes, if extended to the rest of the world would result in a calamity of sludge and pollution and lack of food that would result in starving most of the current population. Its a simple fact that is taught in 2nd or 3rd grade in good schools, never in present day govt schools.

Huh??

I really don't have a clue where you're going with this.

I think that what he is trying to say is there are massive efficiencies of modern man. That there does indeed still exist a large portion of our population who live with very poor sanitation, education... Of course our education here consists of 'carbon footprint" as the earth-ending all-scary manbearpig. Yet, If our population had to live the simplistic style that so many seem to advocate, that we would be elbow deep in shiet.

At 2002, an estimated ~33% of the world's population, or around 2B people, had never used a phone; certainly this number has changed radically since, but it's still significant (see http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=20411 )

---------------

From the 2008 World Bank Global Monitoring Report, At 2005 about 25% of the world's population, or 1.6B people, have no access to electricity.* From the same report:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210314107.jpg

*(290 page PDF report: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGLOMONREP2008/Resources/4737994-1207342962709/8944_Web_PDF.pdf )

----------------

Below are some charts from the World Bank's 2007 Annual Report - the blue line is percentage of the population living under $1/day and the greenish line represents under $2/day:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210314951.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210314975.jpg

Source: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTANNREP/EXTANNREP2K7/0,,contentMDK:21507855~menuPK:4187926~pagePK:64168 445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:4077916,00.html

---------------

Now we have some stats, as Snowman asks, "why?"

FYI.

Best,

Jack,

Sounds like you are back. When are we going to finish the deal on the Dillon press?

Joe

(who is just back from India and really wishes that they would institute massive birth control there. They simply have far too many people in that part of the world)

Some more stats, according to the 2008 World Bank report cited earlier:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210315833.jpg

How about World internet usage and penetration as of now?:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210316220.jpg

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Finally, a picture of a really tiny teapot from China:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210316451.jpg

Goodnight folks!

Best,

One more thing. I'll take a stab at the "why" question posited by snowman, not listed in order of significance:

1) Rule of law, which is generally followed;
2) General freedom and liberty;
3) Capitalism/entrepreneurship; and
4) Ownership.

They want to live like cavemen. It's more fun eeking out an existence than living large on credit card debt. No worries about depreciation on the value of their cars and boats and RVs. No need to agonize over whether or not to save a few bucks hiring illegals to maintain their lawns. No pressure to have the largest McMansion or send their kids to private schools. I envy them. :cool:

You're serious, aren't you. Wow.

Well, maybe in certain environments, mud huts are good houses. Maybe it's because mud is what they can afford. (no credit cards)

Again, are you really serious about this statement? Good grief, yes, you are exactly correct. If you took the population of the world exactly as it is, and had some way to remove all electricity and fuel besides natural, collectible fuel (wood, dung, peat moss, etc...) from the world, it would quickly result in chaos and after we got done killing each other, lots of folks would starve to death. There would also be horrible pollution from human waste. In that highly unlikely scenario, you are exactly correct. :rolleyes:

Of course, if we had never developed electricity or discovered and refined fossil fuels, I doubt we'd have cities like New York, LA, Tokyo, London in their current form, we also wouldn't have the population per area concentrations that we do these days, so if we had always lived these sustainable lifestyles, the world in some ways would be a much cleaner place with more remaining natural resources. We'd probably have a lot fewer people running around too. Basically, the world would be a radically different place than it is today, and your point would be moot.

You may as well pose another silly question for us thinking that you'll sound really impressive, "if all the metal in the world turned to jello, the world would collapse and there would be anarchy" It makes as much sense as your above assertion.

What flavor of Jello are you suggesting?

cherry

cherry...RED...anarchy...hmmmm...must be a commie plot!

One interesting hypothesis is raised by Gregory Clark in his book "A Farewell to Alms". Some humans appear to have undergone genetic selective pressure (evolution) within the framework of civilization and specifically capitalistic cultures suggesting that there is some "genetic" component to the success of western culture/economies. Those "stone-age" tribes may be still better suited culturally (and emotionally) to there ancestral practices since their genetic legacy did not include exposure to capitalism.

There may be genetic pressure, but I expect that if you were born and raised in a mud hut you would not be living the same life as you are here.

I think the original poster, bless his heart, is implying that if these "cavemen" would get a clue they could lead a full productive life like we in the U.S. He would do well to save his trash for a year just to see what *he* is doing to the environment, and then compare that to what a "caveman" generates in the same time period. I suspect in a couple months he would exceed the trash output of the "caveman's" lifetime.

There's going to be a shock when "caveman" China follows the same progress that the U.S. did since WWII. All the steel, petroleum, etc is going to the highest bidder, and that is not going to be US.

Snowman: I find your comments to be offensive and narrow-minded. You are looking at the world through "ethno-centric" glasses. Quite frankly, your attitude towards 'cavemen' is why the rest of the world often views folks from the United States as arrogant, narrow-minded and just plain clueless.

I have been to some very remote parts of the world, including South Africa, Liberia West Africa, and Costa Rica. To put it plain and simple: the people who you label as "backwards cavemen" do not have the same opportunities as you and I do. Now you may say, "Then they should just move to a place where they can do better." Even THAT opportunity is not available to them. They simply cannot afford it! I am uncertain of the costs, but for a man and his family to move out of Kenya to the United States would probably cost the man his lifetime earnings. They are stuck in their lot, and do the best to survive with what means they can survive with.

These people can't afford plywood and nails, so they use what the earth has given them -- mud and straw, and thatch. Don't underestimate their ability to think -- they may not be able to code in HTML, but they know what plants and animals are good to consume, and which ones are poisonous. They know how to fend for themselves without the need to use a credit card, a gun, or the internet. I have seen this FIRST HAND.

Further - I suspect that most of the cavemen who have made a life for themselves and their family are probably happier and more content than you or I, or most of the western 'civilized' world. Riches don't always equate to happiness.

In many parts of the world, there aren't programs like 'government subsidized food programs' or welfare, or ANYTHING. Again - I have seen this first hand. Add to that the fact that there are civil wars, strife, rebel combat occurring all over -- things aren't as peaceful in this world as we ignorant Americans believe.

If you are so troubled by how much the cavemen are destroying our world :rolleyes: then instead of posting something so far from the truth and ignorant, why don't you do something about it -- go out into the world and see for yourself what's going on, and try to make a difference.

-Z-man.

American children are the unhappiest in the world. American adults are also very unhappy. Maybe living in the "stone age" is not all that bad. Living in poverty is bad. I think we get a biased opinion of what the rest of the world is like living here in the land of oppurtunity. I prefer it here and am blessed that I was born here.

My mud hut has been standing since 1905 and will still be standing when your pre-fab stucco look-a-like is being condemned for termite infestation. I use no A/C (evaporative cooling) and minimal heat, as the 24" walls are better insulation than anything you can buy.

Don't be sorry for me. Worry about your own over-bought, perpetually depreciating asset(s).

And, it's "hear", genius, not "here".

Damascus Syria is the longest consistantly inhabitied place on earth - some 7000 years. Chinese civilization is at least 5000 years old. Until 1500 or so years ago - northern Europe was covered with forest with a patchwork of hamlets connected by trails. The life of the inhabitants was short and brutish. No literacy, no organized education, no nothing. From the end of the dark ages till now it has been a pretty good run..but that could come to an end. It is an confluence of history and events - nothing to do with any "evolution" or special genes..

Wow



Just "Wow!"

snow is just bitter because his mudpies taste awful and none of the girls like him because he has cooties.

What a thing for a conservative to say. I do not draw the conclusion that my life is better than the life of someone in a small village. They have family, extended family and community. We have TV. We also have cell phones, commutes in aggravating traffic and a maximum of two hours of "quality time" with our loved ones each weekday. They have fresh air and daily exercise together. Meals together. I eat fast food at my desk.

I'm guessing they smile more than we do.

A valid issue here is that a very large number of humans don't have clean water, electricity or access to medicine.

I think one could argue that these things are generally considered "good".

2¢

I don't think anyone is implying that "racial superiority" by virtue of selection is operating here. Only that there may have been some selection that has shifted the "curve slightly" (Gaussian). These are very complex social, cultural, geographic, and political issues.
I think genetics do play a role and I think there is reasonable evidence for this. If you look at our recent human history including western civilization, you see very high reproductive mortality rates up until just this last century (and even today among certain sub-populations). This means that there has been significant selection operating via differential reproductive success even in the "civilized". However, cultural and technological co-evolution concurrent with reproductive selection makes it difficult to assign a weighted "value".
Remember, recent genetic studies show modern "stone-age" humans to be "healthier" genetically than those of us of western descent.

nature vs. nurture. I think the genetic role is trivial if even at all relevant.

If you are really interested you should take a look at this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210356190.jpg

Here we have these "cavemen" living a step above bees and not much past 40 and then you Have Jack looking at then in distain. I get the feeling Jack would like to see them off'd.

They ain't harm'n no one - take out your angst on the gang bangas and the frat boys who do the real damage to what we hold dear...

Was it PJ O'Rourke (Or did I hear this at PJ Clarke's???) said that "if you take and African baby from the bush and adopt him into a suburban Westchester family - in 22 years he will be applyng to dental school."

That is so true. Very, very few real differences between peoples around the world. Great cultural differences, but not much else.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210358615.jpg

"The usual amount?"

humans share 40-50% of their DNA with cabbages.

there are some, howvever, among us even now, who share up to 90%.

liberals will force you to share that cabbage with your poor caveman neighbor even if you don't want to. Conservatives will sell that cabbage for as much as they can while underpaying the person who picked it. Libertarians will let the market sort it out.

oh wait, wrong thread.