cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/07/86)
> In article <875@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > <Hunter-gatherer societies are also notable for the poor quality of health, > <short lifespans, and a social position for women that would make the worst > <repression of the 1950s seem pretty liberated. > > How do you know that all hunter-gatherer societies had low social positions for > women? There seems to be a lot of evidence that many ancient tribes were > matriarchies. And how do you know what kind of health they enjoyed when > the environment could still support a hunter-gatherer economy? > I didn't say "all" hunter-gatherer societies. But just about all American Indian cultures fit into this category of sexual oppression. (And that's the example you were citing.) As for what kind of health they enjoyed: You are incredibly ignorant if you think the health problems were a function of how well they could support a hunter-gatherer economy. I'm really disturbed at how incredibly ignorant the "Let's all live with nature" sorts are about the health advances made just in the last two centuries. C-sections are a RECENT development. There are NO primitive cultures that had a solution to this problem. Breech delivery? Mother dies. Frequently the child dies. C-section is just ONE example, one near and dear to me because my wife had to have a C-section for our daughter. In a primitive culture, she would have died, slowly and in agony. Use your heads a little bit before you start idolizing primitive living. > <The Indians also didn't pay taxes. > > One more argument in favor of abandoning our present lifestyle... > > <Clayton E. Cramer > > Charlotte Allen No, one more argument in favor of abandoning government. Clayton E. Cramer
cda@ucbentropy.berkeley.edu (07/08/86)
In article <884@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
<I didn't say "all" hunter-gatherer societies. But just about all American
<Indian cultures fit into this category of sexual oppression. (And that's
<the example you were citing.)
Please tell me what you've read that indicates American Indian cultures
were predominately patriarchial and patrilineal prior to the arrival of
the French, English, and Spanish in the New World.
<As for what kind of health they enjoyed: You are incredibly ignorant
<if you think the health problems were a function of how well they could
<support a hunter-gatherer economy. I'm really disturbed at how incredibly
<ignorant the "Let's all live with nature" sorts are about the health
<advances made just in the last two centuries. C-sections are a RECENT
<development. There are NO primitive cultures that had a solution to this
<problem. Breech delivery? Mother dies. Frequently the child dies.
<C-section is just ONE example, one near and dear to me because my wife
<had to have a C-section for our daughter. In a primitive culture, she
<would have died, slowly and in agony.
In spite of the fact that the use of C-sections has increased rapidly in
this country in the past ten years, we have a higher mortality rate for
births than many countries in Europe where home deliveries
are the norm. I don't consider myself especially ignorant about medical
advances, I just don't consider all of modern medicine an advance.
For instance, in spite of the enormous sums of money that have been
poured into cancer research and the wide variety of expensive treatments
that have been promoted for cancer in the past ten years, the cancer
survival rate remains unchanged. And when you balance the few advances
that have been made against the tremendous deterioration of our environment,
and the very brief and unhealthy lives of many people in third world countries,
I have to wonder if the human race as a whole is any healthier (it's certainly
not happier) than it was in a "primitive" state.
<< <The Indians also didn't pay taxes.
<<
<< One more argument in favor of abandoning our present lifestyle...
<<
<No, one more argument in favor of abandoning government.
An excess of government IS our present lifestyle....
Charlotte Allencramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/10/86)
> In article <884@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > <I didn't say "all" hunter-gatherer societies. But just about all American > <Indian cultures fit into this category of sexual oppression. (And that's > <the example you were citing.) > > Please tell me what you've read that indicates American Indian cultures > were predominately patriarchial and patrilineal prior to the arrival of > the French, English, and Spanish in the New World. > Sigh. The text used by my wife's American history class, _Building_A_Nation_ (Littwack, *et. al.*). The text I used in my American history class (name escapes me at the moment). American history books have greatly improved their treatment of the American Indian in the last 20 years. There is now recognition that their cultures had some good to them, and not all Indian tribes were savages like the Apache. And yet the same history books still acknowledge that even compared to European cultures, the status of women was quite low. No, I don't consider self-serving polemics like _God_Is_Red_ (Vine DeLoria) as objective sources for information about American Indian cultures. I just finished reading an interview with Russell Means in the latest issue of _Reason_, and was astonished at how many FALSE statements he made, in an attempt to justify the "Noble Red Man" myth. Honest evaluations of the American Indian cultures do not start out with attempts to boil every- thing down to good vs. evil. > <As for what kind of health they enjoyed: You are incredibly ignorant > <if you think the health problems were a function of how well they could > <support a hunter-gatherer economy. I'm really disturbed at how incredibly > <ignorant the "Let's all live with nature" sorts are about the health > <advances made just in the last two centuries. C-sections are a RECENT > <development. There are NO primitive cultures that had a solution to this > <problem. Breech delivery? Mother dies. Frequently the child dies. > <C-section is just ONE example, one near and dear to me because my wife > <had to have a C-section for our daughter. In a primitive culture, she > <would have died, slowly and in agony. > > In spite of the fact that the use of C-sections has increased rapidly in > this country in the past ten years, we have a higher mortality rate for > births than many countries in Europe where home deliveries > are the norm. I don't consider myself especially ignorant about medical > advances, I just don't consider all of modern medicine an advance. See the posting made a while back to net.med concerning infant mortality rates. You'll find that infant mortality rates are not measured the same here as in Europe, and the difference makes our infant mortality rates appear higher than Europe's. There's also reason to question the accuracy of some of the raw numbers. To quote from Bill Oliver's article: >- As Sepkowitz >- states: >- "These attempts to use crude birth weights and >- birth-weight-specific mortality rates are misleading and inappropriate. >- Many countires report incomplete or provisional data for mortality of >- infants weighting less than 1000g, the weight group in which the >- largest number of deaths occurs. And skepticism shades into disbelief >- when one encounters figures such as those indicating that the West >- Germans have approximately three times the number of live births of >- infants weighting less than 1000g as the East Germans....The crude >- mortality rates of the WHO may fuel political oratory; little of >- medical value is derived from the data or the oratory.(12)" >- 12) Sepkowitz,S (letter), Paneth, N (reply) "Infant Mortality" >- JAMA 248:1451,1982. If you've been following the debate concerning C-sections, you'll see that C-sections have been on the increase for a variety of reasons, including fear of lawsuits, improved diagnostic abilities to determine fetal distress (which may lead to C-sections because doctors are being over cautious), and increased numbers of children of Oriental/non-Oriental parentage (leads to problems with head/cervical mismatch). Incidentally, infant mortality has been falling steadily in this country (and most everywhere else) for a very long time. The rate of decline has slowed of late -- some people for political reasons have tried to give the impression that there has been an increase in infant mortality. > For instance, in spite of the enormous sums of money that have been > poured into cancer research and the wide variety of expensive treatments > that have been promoted for cancer in the past ten years, the cancer > survival rate remains unchanged. And when you balance the few advances > that have been made against the tremendous deterioration of our environment, > and the very brief and unhealthy lives of many people in third world countries, > I have to wonder if the human race as a whole is any healthier (it's certainly > not happier) than it was in a "primitive" state. > I'm not arguing that everything about modern medicine is an improvement -- I'm arguing that part of a technological culture is overall MUCH improved medical care. Cancer survial rate remains unchanged? That runs contrary to what the American Cancer Society has been saying for some time. My understanding is that some types of cancer have DRAMATICALLY higher surival rates than 20 years ago. Remember also, that with the exception of lung cancer (because of smoking) the rate of all forms of cancer are steady or declining. (Source: American Cancer Society.) Some people (again for political reasons) have tried to give the impression that cancer is on the increase. With the exception mentioned above, it is not. Also, the level of health in the Third World is what it is in spite of our civilization -- not because of it. The Third World is a good example of returning to a non-technological society and what it does for health. > << <The Indians also didn't pay taxes. > << > << One more argument in favor of abandoning our present lifestyle... > << > <No, one more argument in favor of abandoning government. > > An excess of government IS our present lifestyle.... > > Charlotte Allen What are you arguing against, government or technology? Clayton E. Cramer