Environmental Thought in Antiquity

   Marshall Sahlin’s depiction of the original affluent society is different than I had always thought. In my mind these hunter-gatherer societies were a dark time in human history. These people would spend their entire lives on the brink of hunger desperately trying to survive in every minute. Sahlin paints a different picture. He describes these societies as being quite easy going and comfortable. The working adults that provided for the rest only worked 15 hour weeks.

  Generally modern society is led to believe that this was a time of scarcity, fear, and death. However, this really was not the case. Food was generally abundant. We view them as being incredibly poor, but they had the materials they needed and knew nothing of the ones we think we need today. I personally am not a “let’s all move to the woods and become hunter-gatherers” type of person, but I do think we can learn a lesson from them and work on implementing a more simplistic lifestyle. 

The hunters only worked on average between 3 or 5 hours. Even tho they did not have much of anything, they were necessarily considered in poverty or being poor. It just did not take much for them to be happy. It just shows how satisfied others can be in comparison with someone else.

The European hunter and gathers had no sort of material valuable possessions. They felt no kind of material pressure except when it came to food and water. Natural resources that could be very pricy today like wood, shelter, and weapons were tools that they share no sense of belonging or greed. This definitely ties into Epicureanism's ideas of natural and necessary desires and how we should limit ourselves to these things if we want to be happy. I think we should focus more on these needs and spend less time focusing on the unnatural and unnecessary desires the world offers.   

This reading draws immediate parallels to Lynn White's thesis on how agriculture may have been the first (and largest) of many steps which led to the inequality and environmental dangers we face today. While the thesis may seem a little too good to be true, it is helpful in establishing the competitive accumulation of resources as the origin of inequality throughout society. While accumulation is an example of wanting more resources than one has, the hunter-gatherer model exemplifies having an abundance of resources relative to the need. This leads to the example of the tribe that does not take care of their belongings. It would seem intuitive that individuals coming from a lower standard of living would prize and preserve their possessions, but the tribe mentioned by Sahlins has no issue tossing theirs to the side or mistreating them. This proves the tribe's perceived abundance, as this sort of behavior is similar to that of the exorbitantly wealthy in a capitalist society.

It is interesting and somewhat profound that the behavior of this tribe mimics the behavior of the wealthy so closely, but the inclusion of this example simply proves Sahlins's point that low means can still generate prosperity.

Another somewhat Biblical reference I picked up on from Lucretius was the description of the plague at the end of Book 6. Because of it’s placement at the end of the book and it’s daunting, almost warning language, this read like something that could possibly be found in Revelation. Although the plague mentioned in Lucretius did not bring about the end of the world, there is a very intimidating tone to the text. The way Lucretius describes it seems to warn those reading about the dangers associated with the plague. Reading this really allowed an insight into just how destructive this plague actually was, both for humankind and for the world around us. The most striking part of this text in my opinion was that “some were so afraid...that they cut off their sexual organs and so prolonged their existence.” This stood out to me because even though these people were suffering terrible symptoms, they still feared death above all else. More than wanting to end their pain, they wanted to live on earth. Going back to our discussion on Monday, this definitely shows the Epicurean belief that fear of death can affect happiness, because these people feared death so much that they would rather suffer terrible pain than cross over. 

It is interesting, people believed hunter-gatherers ate very little or expected the same luxuries of European settlers. Sir George Grey believed native Australians “have small means of subsistence, or are at times greatly pressed for want for food”. A European who is used to having large variety and quantities available may believe hunter-gatherers must eat similar to themselves. Many hunter-gatherers only got enough food for what was needed for the day. They would migrate with the animals to always ensure a food source but they did not require much variety, sort of like modern day meal-prepping, you may not like what you have but is necessary to reach a certain goal.

I think that hunter gatherer societies probably had very affluent and rich cultures in a way that we don't quite understand. Today we are driven to become rich in order to fulfill our seemingly endless amount of desires, but in their society they had the freedom to pursue whatever they wanted that was available to them naturally. We probably won't know to what extent their culture was like, but we can assume that with more free time they had an extremely rich group culture. 

The article, “The Original Affluent Society” raises questions regarding our concept of wealth and its dependence on the material “things” we often want in our possession to be considered accomplished. Typically, we view wealth as an amassment of material or substantial objects we feel that we need or that are resemblant of our success in life. Sahlin provides an example of an interaction between Laurens Van Der Post and the hunter group of Bushmen which exposes our general materialistic tendencies in comparison to the efficient way of life the Bushmen lead. Van de Post was “embarrassed” by his lack of aid he could give to the group because they were genuinely content and thriving from possessing much less than himself. He claimed it seemed that anything he could offer would almost hinder their way of life because of their insistence on minimizing their physical belongings. Not only do the Bushmen not have many possessions, but they do not want them because such excess of unnecessary items would only require extra care and attention to keep up. 

The practice of minimalism is representative of the way in which hunters approach life and is based upon possessing genuine needs rather than succumbing to unnecessary wants. I believe modern society has swayed our perception of affluence and wealth into a capitalistic direction, fueling the unnecessary want for objects with little actual intrinsic value. Our society has convinced us that the accumulation of material objects will somehow fulfill us in comparison to others. Our tendency to associate wealth and affluence with the acquisition of objects only sets us up for comparison and competition between people with the same overall goals of existence. The modern association of minimalism with economic unintelligence stems solely from our society’s push towards advancement through capitalism.

Minimalism versus Capitalism.docx

   I thought this was also interesting about the sounds men would make to communicate and how these sounds are part of our instincts; As for the various sounds of speech, it was nature that prompted human beings to utter them and it was utility that coined the names of things"(smith 164). This suggests that nature is the ultimate contributor to our happiness. Later in the text, it talks about once we get away from these earthly pleasures we start taking for granted what the earth provided. Humans start to live and want the unnecessary and unnatural vs the natural and necessary. I enjoyed Lucretius' views it provided me with an internal look at myself and the things that are really important.