>
> Pre-modernism is a silly and basically conservative vewipoint. It's very,
> very, very clear that the world's population cannot live without modern
> technology. Those who are forced to tend to die in large numbers and no
> reasonable person would want to live that way.
>
that is one way to see it. those who are taking the opposite position are not ignoring this and have countered your demand to go live in the woods by pointing out that indeed it may not be desirable for a modern person to just take off and live in the woods (though there are some examples, arent there, even of that?) but that in itself does not establish that the modern lifestyle is objectively preferable to tribal living. that tribals resist assimilation (if true) shows that there are people who do prefer that lifestyle when confronted with the wonders of modern technology and their benefits. are these stories untrue? are these tribals ill-informed?
doug makes the point that for the all of us, including in his viewpoint (i am guessing) *all* tribal societies, this "pre-modern" form of living is no longer a viable option. that is a pragmatic argument and a debatable one. the claim that "modern" life is just [objectively] better
and preferable to "reasonable" persons is of a different order, isnt it? i would almost say its gratuitous but perhaps i am too sensitive a plant.
--ravi