>>given the pro-industrial pro-modern-world position of most of the posts
>>on this thread (a kind of russellian pooh-pooh'ing of primitivism?) i am
>>curious about what folks think about bodley's work on tribal people (for
>>eg his interesting book: victims of progress) who, if he is to be
>>believed, lived a life without these factories and fancy medical
>>devices, that seem to be inalienable, in a sustainable manner.
>
> I've read Marshall Sahlins too. It's very nice if you want half your kids to
> die before the age of 5 and you yourself don't mind being old at 30 and dead
> at 45 of diseases that could be be avoided by vaccination or cured by
> antiobiotics, or just plain starvation. Anyway, you ever hear about not
> being able to go home again?
>
> jks (a big fan of modern technology, especially anesthetics)
>
no i never heard of not being able to go home again - you have to excuse me for not grasping the meaning. i too love the technology that i surround myself with but i do not know if the tribal people want to or not want to have their kids die at 5 or themselves to die at 45 etc. do you think they too would share your preference for your life over theirs? i am new to this stuff and havent read sahlins, but doesnt bodley try to show that tribals actually have resisted "civilization" and thus shown a preference for their way of life? if he is right, then would you say their choices are uninformed? or does "you cannot return home" mean that the tribal person might have that choice but i do not?
--ravi