Borneo Tribes Offer Insight Into Urban Life - It Sucks - AFP

[hatrack]

MALINAU, Indonesia (AFP) - Many of us suspect it as we trudge to work in the morning, but scientists studying some of the last primitive tribes in deepest Borneo say they now have proof -- modern life is, indeed, rubbish.

A team of experts has spent months comparing the lives of the Punan people, who still live as hunter-gatherers in the forest of Indonesian Borneo, with those of tribe members who have been lured away by civilisation. Not surprisingly, many of the Punan's dreams are dashed on arrival in the big city, however the scientists say that even basics like food, health and quality of life also turn out to be much worse in town than the forest.

While it is unlikely the findings will encourage jaded office clerks to shed their suits and head for the jungle, researchers hope they might preserve ancient traditions by warning the Punan and other tribes what they risk losing. "They want modern life, they want to wear T-shirts and jeans and drink Coca-Cola, they are attracted to all these things," says Edmond Dounias, of Centre for International Forestry Research team. "But what they underestimate is what it will cost them in terms of their way of life, their culture and the benefits they gained from the forest."

Only a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers remain on Earth, among them the Punan who roam the lowland forests of East Kalimantan in Indonesian Borneo, which despite its lush appearance, is no garden of Eden. Hazards such as malaria and parasites ensure that only one percent of women and two percent of men reach the age of 65. Infant mortality rates are some of the highest in the world, with a third of children dying under the age of five.

EDIT

But, says Dounias, once they arrive in the city, many Punan find themselves treated as second-class citizens, unable to afford the healthcare they aspired to and exposed to problems like drug and alcohol abuse. "They have lost benefits of the forest such as clean water which has become a real problem near the cities because of pollution and use of pesticides," he says. "They also no longer have access to their culture of mutual aid." Robbed of the rich resources of their forest environment, the diet of many Punan also suffers, with their choice of varied bushmeats, fruits and nutritious roots replaced by a limited diet of rice and low-quality meats. Their tradition of eating regular snacks found in the undergrowth is replaced by consuming unhealthy pre-packaged food such as potato chips or fat-laden cakes, leading some young Punan to develop weight problems."

EDIT

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050505/ts_afp/afplifestyleindonesiasociety_050505082452

[bemildred]

1. I've been thinking of starting a consultancy business where

highly paid hunter-gatherers jet around the world and
teach yuppies that are tired of the rat-race how to take
care of themselves without money and plastic junk.

[phantom power]

2. It sounds more like their problem is...

they can't obtain any of the benefits of civilization. They move to the city, get all the problems, with none of the perks. The equation might be different if they had access to the big benefits too, like modern health care.

I try to imagine my kid having a 33% chance of not seeing her 5th birthday, and that's not such a great thing. And I don't mind having a good shot a living past 65, free of parasites (yuck).

But it's true, a class on living with fewer plastic trinkets wouldn't hurt me either.

[bemildred]

3. The problem is that that's how civilization is.

You can't have the "perks" without the drawbacks.
Civilization has always been built on a large underclass that
would have been better off, on the whole, without it.

[phantom power]

4. I suppose.

(reaches for the soap-box...)

Something about the practice of pointing out that civilization is inferior, in some ways at least, to primitive hunter/gatherer cultures, rubs me the wrong way, and the older I get, the harder it rubs.

This makes me feel like a heel, since the subject is always brought up with good intentions. And it's no secret that civilization, as it currently works, is sucking the planet dry.

I'm not exactly sure where this irritability comes from, except that I don't see where this line of reasoning leads us. I don't know what conclusion to draw from it. Yes, the rise of civilization did not represent "pure progress", it has been a vast sequence of trade-offs. A few people made out big, and most of the rest maybe broke even, or lost.

So... now what? Even the people who champion the virtues of tribal living do not, when pressed, actually advocate that all 6.5 billion of us return to living off of nuts and berries. Which is wise, since that isn't even remotely possible.

And although tribal living was certainly not all "nasty, brutish and short", it was a hard life. Quality of life depended a lot on what particular environment the tribe lived in. Disease and starvation were periodic realities.

These days, I'm mostly interested in trying to figure out where we go from here, and I don't see how hunter/gatherer societies hold any answers for a planet of 6.5 billion people, which is dependent on organized agriculture, industry, etc.

[bemildred]

5. I'm not saying we can't do better.

I'm saying we have not.

On the more narrow question, already when you get to tribal life things
can get rather unpleasant; however not having a state apparatus at
hand, tribal cultures leave open the possibility of voting with one's
feet. Also, tribal cultures seem to collapse in short order when they
indulge in ecological stupidity, probably because of their limited
ability to stave off reality.

Already, with the great hydraulic civilizations of old, one has a
situation where the state can stumble along for centuries decrepit and
inept without ever being threatened from within.

The only real solution that I see is to have immediate, direct, and
dependable accountability of our "leaders" to the led. How you go
about organizing that is a matter of some dispute, of course.

[phantom power]

6. I wish I knew.

It seems as though the kind of progress we need requires that we coordinate large changes. Keeping changes in sync between new infrastructures, and new industries. And doing it quickly.

That kind of change implies government. Cooperation. Centralized authority. That's very bad news for the United States, since our country is currently in the grip of an ideology that unconditionally believes exactly the opposite -- that government should not be used to solve any problems of society (except maybe coordinating our efforts to kill other people).

For that reason, I have much more hope for societies like the EU, where they emphasize socialism more, and consumerism less. Or societies like China, whose government is draconian, but does have the advantage of being able to mandate huge, sweeping changes.

Here in the US, I'm at a loss. We can always hope for a major sea-change in government, which is possible, but I'd hate to bank on it. Or, since corporations are given more and more authority to dictate our national policies, maybe the best pressure points are the corporations themselves. But they appear to be led by cretins adhering to the same ideology as the federal government.

[bemildred]

7. I think we're screwed.

I don't see how you reverse this without going all the way down
into the mud for a while. American's these days think "freedom" is
something the government gives you.

[thegreatwildebeest]

8. That's the last thing we need....

Centralized authority my ass. The last thing we need is more government, which inevitably will be corrupted by the same people who run corporations now, except they will have an even bigger economic gun in their hand. What is needed is the absolute decentralization of everything. Not just putting authority in the right hands, or more hands, but destroying authority altogether. If the new boss will eventually turn into the old boss (as it almost always does), its time to get rid of the boss altogether.

[thegreatwildebeest]

9. Somethigns gotta budge somewhere...

So... now what? Even the people who champion the virtues of tribal living do not, when pressed, actually advocate that all 6.5 billion of us return to living off of nuts and berries. Which is wise, since that isn't even remotely possible.

While its true that the current population numbers can't go back to primitive lifestyles, its also true that we really can't live off this current one. Things are rapidly edging towards more and more ecological disasters and just plain crap living conditions. Somethings gotta budge somewhere.

And although tribal living was certainly not all "nasty, brutish and short", it was a hard life. Quality of life depended a lot on what particular environment the tribe lived in. Disease and starvation were periodic realities.

True. But at the same time when you "worked" it was directly for your food. There was no fundamental disconnect. Now I can work a whole week and not even be able to afford myself a whole weeks worth of food. That's absurd on its face.