# Could YOU in live in the Middle Ages? Read more: http://www.dai



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ezing-Russian-wilderness-medieval-hermit.html

24-year-old spends eight months living in the freezing Russian wilderness as a medieval hermit


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If I didn't have to come up with a dime of money and only had to worry about food and living, I'd do it in a heartbeat.. I'd rather put all my time towards surviving, then put it towards making money to pay for taxes and such..


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'd be more concerned about lawlessness or how laws are applied than survival from the point of view of taking care of yourself. It depends on where as much as when.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

No- maybe at age 24 but dead by 50. As has been said, the primitive life is short, hard and brutish.
What is certainly missing from this as a true test, is all the other people willing to take from you, including your labor.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

where I want to said:


> No- maybe at age 24 but dead by 50. As has been said, the primitive life is short, hard and brutish.
> What is certainly missing from this as a true test, is all the other people willing to take from you, including your labor.


That must be why people who live the primitive life today all look so unhappy and why all the modern people going to the corporate jobs and factories look so thrilled.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ernie said:


> That must be why people who live the primitive life today all look so unhappy and why all the modern people going to the corporate jobs and factories look so thrilled.


Certainly true at retirement. Actually, I suppose that most of the primatives who decide to stick to their principles are unlikely to be around at 50 to look anything at all. The first serious illness would have eliminated them.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

A lot of people years and years ago lived well beyond 50...


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..............To survive back then , a man should learn to utilize the tools of death\self defense , bow\arrow , all forms of knives and swords , clubs and axes , etc . When the catholic church is going around burning anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs(I think that was going on , 'then')the Law doesn't mean very much . 
...............I should think the common man would form groups for the common protection of themselves , and personally , I'd be slitting the throats of every priest I could catch unawares to pre empt them from barbequing myself or any of my friends . To beable to silence one's enemies whenever possible would be a way of Life as far I'm concerned . No insults meant towards the Catholics of today , but back then they were the Mafia as far as I can tell . , fordy


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> A lot of people years and years ago lived well beyond 50...


But most did not. One of the reasons the Social Security is changing is that life spans have increased beyond the two years on average that a person lived beyond age 65. And that level was only 80 years ago. A couple of thousand years ago, the average was 35 years. Frankly most failed to get out of childhood. 
One of the reasons for old age being equated with wisdom- it took some more than average smarts to live long enough to get old.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

where I want to said:


> But most did not. One of the reasons the Social Security is changing is that life spans have increased beyond the two years on average that a person lived beyond age 65. And that level was only 80 years ago. A couple of thousand years ago, the average was 35 years. Frankly most failed to get out of childhood.
> One of the reasons for old age being equated with wisdom- it took some more than average smarts to live long enough to get old.


You don't know that at all.

We only have records of lifespans from the cities, where life WAS pretty nasty, brutish, and short.

Nobody kept records of lifespans in the rural countryside, but the songs and stories that were passed down sure seem to talk about a lot of old folks. 

And child mortality rates are manipulated pretty heavy today. If the abortion rate were calculated in, America would have a life expectancy rate of below that during the worst of the Black Death years of medieval England.

Modern culture whispers in your ear a lot. "Everything in the past is bad, everything good is now."

But many of us have learned to recognize the lie.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ernie said:


> You don't know that at all.
> 
> 
> But many of us have learned to recognize the lie.


Well, I have always loved to cruise through old cemetaries and the dates in those are pretty much where this opinion was developed. Along with family history. I have never heard otherwise from archeologists or anthropologists.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Well, I have always loved to cruise through old cemetaries and the dates in those are pretty much where this opinion was developed. Along with family history. I have never heard otherwise from archeologists or anthropologists.


You've cruised through old cemeteries from the medieval era?

Or did you just perhaps cruise through cemeteries dating back to the 1800's and then extrapolate that ALL of history EVERYWHERE must have been like that?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ernie said:


> You've cruised through old cemeteries from the medieval era?
> 
> Or did you just perhaps cruise through cemeteries dating back to the 1800's and then extrapolate that ALL of history EVERYWHERE must have been like that?


Well if you have any authoritative sources, I'll happily concede. But either way, I'd like to know the basis for your idea of country longevity in the absence of modern technology like antibiotics. Or frankly that germs existed at all.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Since Roman times the maximum live span has been about 120 years. Yes, the average age of death is increasing however that is due to greatly reduced child mortality. Ages 60 to 75 see most of the deaths outside of children.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US39-01.html

Life Expectancy Graphs


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

We are heading the way of a 3rd world country, does that count?


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Ernie said:


> You don't know that at all.
> 
> We only have records of lifespans from the cities, where life WAS pretty nasty, brutish, and short.
> 
> Nobody kept records of lifespans in the rural countryside, but the songs and stories that were passed down sure seem to talk about a lot of old folks.


My great uncle died of Pneumonia when he was three, that was 1923, and he never lived anywhere but a farm. My Great Grandfather dropped dead of an undiagnosed heart disorder at 60, in the barnyard, that was 1957, my Grandfather spent 2 years in a Sanatorium, for Tuberculosis, that was also in 1957 and he didn't even get to go to his father's funeral...they all lived on this farm, never worked off the farm.

What do you mean "no one kept records", that is absurd!! A., there are census records, B., every family around here has a family bible where births and deaths are faithfully recorded!


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Nope. Would have been dead when I was 10 from appendicitis


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I'd take 25 good years in the wilderness over 47+ years under government oppression.......forever.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Brighton said:


> My great uncle died of Pneumonia when he was three, that was 1923, and he never lived anywhere but a farm. My Great Grandfather dropped dead of an undiagnosed heart disorder at 60, in the barnyard, that was 1957, my Grandfather spent 2 years in a Sanatorium, for Tuberculosis, that was also in 1957 and he didn't even get to go to his father's funeral...they all lived on this farm, never worked off the farm.
> 
> What do you mean "no one kept records", that is absurd!! A., there are census records, B., every family around here has a family bible where births and deaths are faithfully recorded!


The topic is not YOUR specific family. And the topic is not from 1923 onward.

The topic is ancient times.

Did they have a census in the 12th century? The 8th? 

The truth is that you only think these things because modern living tells you to think these things. Just like they tell you to go to the doctor when you're sick, the grocery store when you're hungry, and to call the police when you're scared.

The toxic culture we live in tells us lies to keep us from changing it.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Shine posted this video in the "Who Owns Who?" thread, and it needs to be spread far and wide.

I think it fits well enough, here.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up4VdSb8DGs[/ame]


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> The topic is not YOUR specific family. And the topic is not from 1923 onward.
> 
> The topic is ancient times.
> 
> ...


How in the heck do you think we have history to fill the history books? We have stuff from cave walls to books from through out history. We also have science that can tell you a lot from bones and graves.


----------



## Hobbes (Apr 1, 2008)

During the time of King David, the Bible records that the average lifespan was 70 years old on average, and a few people who were extra strong and healthy made it to the next average of 80 years (Psalm 90:10). Aside from periods of famine, war, etc. they would have about the same lifespan potential as American colonists and pioneers.

However, I do think the Medieval period would see those averages dip due largely to the collapse of the Roman empire civilization and library knowledge. There's a reason it's called the Dark Ages. A lot of knowledge and 'civilization' know-how (proper sanitation, etc.) was forgotten/overlooked and had to be relearned the hard way. What once was formerly managed by Rome, and its engineers, suddenly went to pot. A undue squelching of science and discovery outside of select power-hungry circles didn't help, either.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ernie said:


> The topic is not YOUR specific family. And the topic is not from 1923 onward.
> 
> The topic is ancient times.
> 
> ...


Actually they did. They were catholic church records of birth, marriage and death, taxation records like the Domesday books, wills, charters, titles, etc that provide a lot of information.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Ernie said:


> The topic is not YOUR specific family. And the topic is not from 1923 onward.
> 
> The topic is ancient times.
> 
> ...


I go to the doctor when I need to go to the doctor, if I am hungry, like I was earlier I get a nice jar of canned chili out of my pantry, chili that I made, with vegetables and meat I raised, and I don't call the police when I am scared, generally I don't get to scared, I get the .22 out and take a walk around the place with the dog.

I haven't been to a grocery store in, hmmm a month maybe a bit more, when was the last time you were at a grocery or convenience store?


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Ernie said:


> Did they have a census in the 12th century? The 8th?


Seriously, wasn't that why Mary and Joseph were going to Jerusalem when Jesus was born, for the CENSUS, which was required of all citizens??


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Brighton said:


> Seriously, wasn't that why Mary and Joseph were going to Jerusalem when Jesus was born, for the CENSUS, which was required of all citizens??


I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse since you keep bringing up non sequitur. 

Mary and Joseph were citizens of the Roman empire, which was essentially civilization. They had sewers, roads, sanitation, medicine, oh... and a census, just like what we have today.

So nobody can any longer pretend to get it ...

_Civilization is the disease.

_It doesn't increase your life expectancy. That's one of the lies you've been told. In fact, everything you've been taught and told about civilization is a lie. All of it.

You have to work harder than a medieval serf (who owed his liege 50 days a year whereas your income tax isn't covered until April 18, almost DOUBLE what a serf had to put in), and you're just as likely to be killed in a war. Or a traffic accident, or murdered on the highway. 

High infant mortality rates back then? Sure. There were incurable diseases back then. Oh, there's still incurable diseases now. Many of the same ones. They just give you a pill for it and it kills you a little more slowly, while your quality of life goes downhill. At least the tribal witch doctor only charged you a squirrel or two when he threw some dung in your face, but the modern medical establishment will take your savings, your house, and send the bills to your survivors when they kill you.

The only good thing about civilization that I can see is that it won't last. Primitivism is going to make a big comeback. BIG. 

In the meantime, y'all keep telling yourselves the same lies like you're whistling past the graveyard. Maybe it helps.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ezing-Russian-wilderness-medieval-hermit.html
> 
> 24-year-old spends eight months living in the freezing Russian wilderness as a medieval hermit


Live in the middle ages? Been there, done that, piece of cake next to this thingie called old age. 

No, wait......

My wife and I like to converse about what life would be like going back to, say, the ninth century. Eventually we both put qualifiers on our historical retreat: she claims she won't go without her washing machine, so I won't go without my chainsaw. :viking: ......Oh, yeah, and my shotgun....


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Ernie said:


> [/I]It doesn't increase your life expectancy. That's one of the lies you've been told. In fact, everything you've been taught and told about civilization is a lie. All of it.


Carp, several in my family would have been dead from cancer 15 years ago, if that were true, which I am glad it isn't!

They are happy healthy and living life to the fullest!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ernie said:


> The topic is not YOUR specific family. And the topic is not from 1923 onward.
> 
> The topic is ancient times.
> 
> ...


If there were no records then you have no more proof of these idyllic long lives than everyone else has for short, nasty and brutish do you? 

Every civilization has had censuses we just don't have many of them anymore. So to answer your question yes they did have a census even as far back as 6,000 years ago.

http://www.census.ie/-in-history/the-census-through-history.150.1.aspx


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ernie said:


> I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse since you keep bringing up non sequitur.
> 
> Mary and Joseph were citizens of the Roman empire, which was essentially civilization. They had sewers, roads, sanitation, medicine, oh... and a census, just like what we have today.
> 
> ...



Just like you keep hoping your current way of life is actually the right one and we are all wrong? What happens 20 or 30 years from now when primitivism is still a rarity?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> Just like you keep hoping your current way of life is actually the right one and we are all wrong? What happens 20 or 30 years from now when primitivism is still a rarity?


Thankfully, those voices crying in the wilderness will long ago have been purged from this earth, and only those who are comfortable in their chains will remain to endure "progress".

I can't wait.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse since you keep bringing up non sequitur.
> 
> Mary and Joseph were citizens of the Roman empire, which was essentially civilization. They had sewers, roads, sanitation, medicine, oh... and a census, just like what we have today.
> 
> ...


Ernie, I think you need to relax a bit. I get you feel that civilization is some kind of evil but most of us don't. I like civilization and most of what it provides me. I don't wish to live without roads and the internet and grocery stores. I also don't believe it will go poof. This was an article and post about how it actually is to live by more primitive means, not a platform to rail on your problems with civilization.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Ernie, I think you need to relax a bit. I get you feel that civilization is some kind of evil but most of us don't. I like civilization and most of what it provides me. I don't wish to live without roads and the internet and grocery stores. I also don't believe it will go poof. This was an article and post about how it actually is to live by more primitive means, not a platform to rail on your problems with civilization.


You're absolutely right.

I'll back away then and let you vicious defenders of civilization go back to discussing methods and ways to protect yourself from its interruptions and collapse.

Perhaps if civilization was so good and proper, you wouldn't need to have an entire forum dedicated to discussing what to do when it fails you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> You're absolutely right.
> 
> I'll back away then and let you vicious defenders of civilization go back to discussing methods and ways to protect yourself from its interruptions and collapse.
> 
> Perhaps if civilization was so good and proper, you wouldn't need to have an entire forum dedicated to discussing what to do when it fails you.


Why the word vicious? That feels like an escalation or at least mis-characterizing just because someone is happy with living in a civilization. Being prepared for all eventualities does not mean we expect it to fail. It is just good common sense instilled by our parents and grandparents because we all go through good and bad times and we fare better when we are prepared for what might happen.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Ernie......shouting at the deaf......and goading the blind with a sharp prod in the backside, is as unproductive and unbecoming as it might be entertaining.

Don't you have some bow drill or flint knapping skills to work on, already ? :indif:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> Ernie......shouting at the deaf......and goading the blind with a sharp prod in the backside, is as unproductive and unbecoming as it might be entertaining.
> 
> Don't you have some bow drill or flint knapping skills to work on, already ? :indif:


 I enjoy learning about different ways and methods to be more self sufficient and better prepared for what ever I feel I need to be prepared for. I do not appreciate being called blind or deaf because I don't subscribe to your " the world is falling" scenario.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Everybody on here enjoys civilization.

If you dislike it so much, chuck your computer, your internet connection, your morning coffee, your tractor, your solar panels, your generators, your Kindle, your transportation vehicles, your chain saw, fuel for such things. Your mail delivery service, your drill presses and bench grinders, your stoves..did you make them yourself? How many make ALL our own clothes? Your shoes from scratch from fibers and leathers that you produced? Grow ALL your own animal feed? Get ALL your construction supplies from the forest? How many won't take their child to the hospital if they lose an arm to a farming accident? Get bitten by a venomous snake or react to a bee sting?

Nobody here is primitive. Nobody.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie

Would you really like to discuss this "civilization is bad" idea of yours? We can take it to GC. I don't mind discussing it in a calm way without name calling and put downs for people that see it different. I personally don't understand how you can spend so much time on a site like this and then claim civilization is bad.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> Everybody on here enjoys civilization.
> 
> If you dislike it so much, chuck your computer, your internet connection, your morning coffee, your tractor, your solar panels, your generators, your Kindle, your transportation vehicles, your chain saw, fuel for such things. Your mail delivery service, your drill presses and bench grinders, your stoves..did you make them yourself? How many make ALL our own clothes? Your shoes from scratch from fibers and leathers that you produced? Grow ALL your own animal feed? Get ALL your construction supplies from the forest? How many won't take their child to the hospital if they lose an arm to a farming accident? Get bitten by a venomous snake or react to a bee sting?
> 
> Nobody here is primitive. Nobody.


That's the big lie.

Civilization has destroyed all of the mechanisms by which we could do those things but yet you would condemn me for not being able to do them and think that it undermines my argument.

Like telling a slave in chains that he could be free if he just slipped away into the night, when there is no Canada to escape to and no Underground Railroad by which to take him there.

If I wanted to flee civilization and go into the depths of Borneo to live a tribal life with my family, I still wouldn't fit in. There would still be too much of "Mother Culture" left in me and the natives of Borneo would drive me out before I infected them.

What I crave has been lost and cannot be recovered in a single lifetime.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Ernie
> 
> Would you really like to discuss this "civilization is bad" idea of yours? We can take it to GC. I don't mind discussing it in a calm way without name calling and put downs for people that see it different. I personally don't understand how you can spend so much time on a site like this and then claim civilization is bad.


No, because as Forerunner has said, discussing it with ignorant people is a waste of time. That's not trying to be rude, but it's simply the way it is. If I went back in time to the Ernie of 15 years ago and tried to discuss my ideas with him then he'd think I was a crazy person too.

Read some books and then come back to me and we'll have this discussion.

Derek Jensen's "Endgame"
"Black Elk Speaks"
Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael"

You may be right though. My time on this site may be at an end. I have clearly changed my worldview so much that I cannot either be understood or even sympathized with by others, even when they say they wish to learn all of the old ways.

I don't simply want to learn how to do the old ways in case the new ways fail, I want to learn to do the old ways _because it's a better way of life.

_In person, people think of me as a harmless nutter but on the internet I seem to come across as a dangerous lunatic whose ideas must be attacked before they spread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> No, because as Forerunner has said, discussing it with ignorant people is a waste of time. That's not trying to be rude, but it's simply the way it is. If I went back in time to the Ernie of 15 years ago and tried to discuss my ideas with him then he'd think I was a crazy person too.
> 
> Read some books and then come back to me and we'll have this discussion.
> 
> ...


How do you know people are ignorant if you don't understand or know them?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.................I just hope your dentist keeps using novicane , I wouldn't want a tooth extracted without medication ! , fordy


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> How do you know people are ignorant if you don't understand or know them?


If I sat down with a doctor who then began to use medical terms then it would quickly become apparent to him that I was ignorant of the knowledge he had attained.

You (and others) have made statements to me that clearly illustrate that you are ignorant of the position I hold.

So go read the books I listed. Ignorance can be cured. Willful ignorance not so much.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Ernie said:


> [/I]In person, people think of me as a harmless nutter but on the internet I seem to come across as a dangerous lunatic whose ideas must be attacked before they spread.


Perhaps in person you are less insulting. :shrug:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

fordy said:


> .................I just hope your dentist keeps using novicane , I wouldn't want a tooth extracted without medication ! , fordy


You think you scored a point with that, so let me pop your little bubble.

Dr Weston A Price toured the world and discovered (and documented thoroughly) the health of primitive peoples was almost always GREATER than the health of "civilized man". It was only after primitive peoples adopted civilized ways that their health began to (rapidly) decline.

In addition, are you aware that novocaine (and many other anesthetics) are derived from plants and was discovered because they were being used by tribal shamans as medicine?

So your argument is invalid.

If you lived in a primitive society, you would have access (probably in exchange for a squirrel or rabbit) to the anesthetic, but you would also not be eating the processed sugars and other crap that CAUSE the tooth decay in the first place.

Modern civilization is pretty good at treating all of the symptoms of the problems caused by modern civilization.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

mistletoad said:


> Perhaps in person you are less insulting. :shrug:


Only those who have met me would know for sure.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm going to put my .02 in here. Civilization isn't the culprit, it's when the government takes it over, that things fall apart.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> If I sat down with a doctor who then began to use medical terms then it would quickly become apparent to him that I was ignorant of the knowledge he had attained.
> 
> You (and others) have made statements to me that clearly illustrate that you are ignorant of the position I hold.
> 
> So go read the books I listed. Ignorance can be cured. Willful ignorance not so much.


Derrick Jensen believes that the hunter/gatherer model is what the world needs. That would mean that humans don't farm and don't practice animal husbandry. While he makes compelling points and arguments he does not take reality into account. Hunter/gatherer is not a sustainable way to grow a society. That is why all indigenous tribes have moved past the hunter gatherer model.

Maybe not so ignorant, maybe I just don't see things the same way as you do, given the same input of information.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Derrick Jensen believes that the hunter/gatherer model is what the world needs. That would mean that humans don't farm and don't practice animal husbandry. While he makes compelling points and arguments he does not take reality into account. Hunter/gatherer is not a sustainable way to grow a society. That is why all indigenous tribes have moved past the hunter gatherer model.
> 
> Maybe not so ignorant, maybe I just don't see things the same way as you do, given the same input of information.


You make the logical flaw in your thinking that a society needs to grow, sustainably or otherwise.

And not all indigenous tribes have moved past the HG model. In fact, most of the ones who maintain no contact with civilization are still HG. Once you set foot on that farming/husbandry path, it leads you straight into cities, corporate office jobs, and nursing homes.

Don't get me wrong ... I like my animals and I love my garden, but they are a pale shadow of what I COULD have had. Wild animals and wild plants, living as God intended.

Unlike Jensen, I would accept a somewhat higher form of tribal society, such as the Hebrews had with their nomadic herds prior to their enslavement in Egypt.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> You make the logical flaw in your thinking that a society needs to grow, sustainably or otherwise.
> 
> And not all indigenous tribes have moved past the HG model. In fact, most of the ones who maintain no contact with civilization are still HG. Once you set foot on that farming/husbandry path, it leads you straight into cities, corporate office jobs, and nursing homes.
> 
> ...


You could never have had any of that Ernie. You would not be here if civilization did not move forward as it has. That would be you logical flaw.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

7thswan said:


> I'm going to put my .02 in here. Civilization isn't the culprit, it's when the government takes it over, that things fall apart.


It's difficult for me to split the two.

Where you find civilization, you find government. And all governments are oppressive, so it means that all civilizations are oppressive.

One of the key notes in this argument should be understood:

The CIVILIZATION model has to be forced upon each of us whether we want it or not, and there is no way to escape from it (despite what its supporters claim). The guy in the original article had to retreat to the deep wilderness of Siberia to live like that. Why couldn't he have tried being a hermit in Ohio somewhere? Oh yeah. Because civilization wouldn't allow it.

Someone who opts out of civilization completely still has to live in its midst, surrounded by it, hated by its defenders, and restricted by it.

One should automatically discount any worldview which has to be imposed and supported by violence (or the threat of violence).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> It's difficult for me to split the two.
> 
> Where you find civilization, you find government. And all governments are oppressive, so it means that all civilizations are oppressive.
> 
> ...


Yet, you could still live without civilization if you really wanted to. You don't or you would not put qualifiers on it such as location. Many in history have taken the step and given up location to do just that. They still do it in Alaska.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Yet, you could still live without civilization if you really wanted to. You don't or you would not put qualifiers on it such as location. Many in history have taken the step and given up location to do just that. They still do it in Alaska.


You think they're living a tribal life in Alaska?

I don't know of anyone who has done so. Even the natives tribes in Alaska don't live a tribal life anymore.

But you are sort of proving my point.

Is not the river valley of Ohio a better and more fertile environment than the wilds of Alaska?

Why do those who want to give up civilization have to cede the better lands to the lovers of civilization? Why must we always be pushed into the marginal lands to be free?

It's because civilization cannot handle the competition. The only way civilization will allow someone to live without it is if it can use that person as a model of "see what not to do", meaning that they'll be cold, hungry, and miserable.

You never see pictures of happy Third-Worlders on television. You only see the starving ones who need the "help" of civilization.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

It's easey for me to split the 2. There are some people that like and accept for the goverment(others) to decide what "civil" is. I can't have a home built right here right now that uses an outhouse instead of a septic system. Someone decided that would not be civil, ect,ect. We as an entire country just got a new law passed, because some a small group becided it would be "best" for a small few. Everyone has a different tolerance for the chains of society. I'm sick of those that want to stick me in a box.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> You think they're living a tribal life in Alaska?
> 
> I don't know of anyone who has done so. Even the natives tribes in Alaska don't live a tribal life anymore.
> 
> ...


You can have a tribal life. You just can't take other lands to do it. You also can not expect others to give up what they have because a few don't want to live by that society's rules. You can make your own society if you have the gumption to do it. I don't believe you do. I believe you like belly aching and blaming it on civilization. It is the easy way out.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Yet, you could still live without civilization if you really wanted to. You don't or you would not put qualifiers on it such as location. Many in history have taken the step and given up location to do just that. They still do it in Alaska.


Lots of ex Alaskans in this part of MN. I can assure you no one is making it their without a government or corporation paycheck.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Ernie said:


> You don't know that at all.
> 
> We only have records of lifespans from the cities, where life WAS pretty nasty, brutish, and short.
> 
> ...






Calling BS on this statement: 

"And child mortality rates are manipulated pretty heavy today. If the abortion rate were calculated in, America would have a life expectancy rate of below that during the worst of the Black Death years of medieval England."


The Black death rates are only an estimate but the estimate for Europe was between 30 and 60%. 

It makes a stronger argument if it is within reason and supported scientifically. 


Life expectancy is the US is highest it has been in recorded history but is unfortunately predicted to go down mainly due to obesity related disease. Thus the push from Health and Human Services about exercise/diet.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> Lots of ex Alaskans in this part of MN. I can assure you no one is making it their without a government or corporation paycheck.


They choose to take those checks and live in civilization. There a some that don't.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

painterswife said:


> They choose to take those checks and live in civilization. There a some that don't.


And you have met these people? Not trying to start an arguement, but from my years in Canada and the ex Alaskans that live here and the picture they give me of the last frontier, no one we knew could live in that climate without inputs from modern society. The native cultures have been destroyed by contact with modern society. It's the same all over the artic. At the rate it's going no one will even know how to club harpseals anymore. And that's as easy as it can get. I wonder if society could reverse engineer fast enough if there was some type of collapse. Saying someone from our modern society can live free in the arctic or a desert landscape for that matter is not being realistic. I'll take the midwest any day, with its abundant water, diverse flora and fauna and milder climate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> And you have met these people? Not trying to start an arguement, but from my years in Canada and the ex Alaskans that live here and the picture they give me of the last frontier, no one we knew could live in that climate without inputs from modern society. The native cultures have been destroyed by contact with modern society. It's the same all over the artic. At the rate it's going no one will even know how to club harpseals anymore. And that's as easy as it can get. I wonder if society could reverse engineer fast enough if there was some type of collapse. Saying someone from our modern society can live free in the arctic or a desert landscape for that matter is not being realistic. I'll take the midwest any day, with its abundant water, diverse flora and fauna and milder climate.


I did. The gentleman lived in Northern Canada but passed a few years ago. He traded fish and game for some of the modern day things he liked. He was the grandfather of an old boyfriend and had lived his entire life in a remote camp. He and his wife raised a family there. I think one grandchild lives there now but have not heard anything recently.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ernie said:


> You think they're living a tribal life in Alaska?
> 
> I don't know of anyone who has done so. Even the natives tribes in Alaska don't live a tribal life anymore.
> 
> ...


Do you watch NatGeo? I have seen plenty of happy tribal people on very informative shows. They aren't starving or in need of civilization.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> Do you watch NatGeo? I have seen plenty of happy tribal people on very informative shows. They aren't starving or in need of civilization.


Don't have television.

But will they let me and my family come join them? Would the governments that claim the countries in which they live allow it?


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> But most did not. One of the reasons the Social Security is changing is that life spans have increased beyond the two years on average that a person lived beyond age 65. And that level was only 80 years ago. A couple of thousand years ago, the average was 35 years. Frankly most failed to get out of childhood.
> One of the reasons for old age being equated with wisdom- it took some more than average smarts to live long enough to get old.


Lower life expectancy rates back then were much lower due to the high rate of deaths among infants rather than the fact that most people not living longer...it skewed the rate.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I did. The gentleman lived in Northern Canada but passed a few years ago. He traded fish and game for some of the modern day things he liked. He was the grandfather of an old boyfriend and had lived his entire life in a remote camp. He and his wife raised a family there. I think one grandchild lives there now but have not heard anything recently.


You made my point. We are so OT that I'm not sure what it was anymore. My point is though, we all use goods made by our industrial society to survive or make the job of surviving eaiser. I bet your acquaintance used nylon nets, modern hooks and line, modern firearms, probably an aluminium boat and motor. I bet he had a metal wood burning stove and chainsaw to cut fuel. To suddenly go back to the middle ages won't happen. We have all kinds of modern inventions 
that will carry over that doesn't use electricity and fuel. But even with them it would still be tough. We've lost alot of our original ruggedness and everyday knowledge they had back then. I know dozens of the same kind of people, but I doubt many or even any could survive in the coldest regions without some modern inventions.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Lower life expectancy rates back then were much lower due to the high rate of deaths among infants rather than the fact that most people not living longer...it skewed the rate.


Having spent 5 years in Alaska..I saw many living in the " bush" and pretty subsistence lifestyle..but I never met any that did not collect the permanent dividend check every October..every store would be flooded every October when the government issued those checks with those from the bush buying their supplies...or hiring float planes to deliver their orders to their remote areas..native and non native alike.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> You made my point. We are so OT that I'm not sure what it was anymore. My point is though, we all use goods made by our industrial society to survive or make the job of surviving eaiser. I bet your acquaintance used nylon nets, modern hooks and line, modern firearms, probably an aluminium boat and motor. I bet he had a metal wood burning stove and chainsaw to cut fuel. To suddenly go back to the middle ages won't happen. We have all kinds of modern inventions
> that will carry over that doesn't use electricity and fuel. But even with them it would still be tough. We've lost alot of our original ruggedness and everyday knowledge they had back then. I know dozens of the same kind of people, but I doubt many or even any could survive in the coldest regions without some modern inventions.


Do you believe anyone here would really want to live that lifestyle? They preach it but they could only ever live it if they had no other choice. If they really wanted to they would find a way.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe anyone here would really want to live that lifestyle? They preach it but they could only ever live it if they had no other choice. If they really wanted to they would find a way.


It would be terribly difficult, even for me who knows that it was the BETTER life.

I grew up in civilization. My body craves the things of civilization. No more Tolkien? No more books at all? No more peanut butter cups? It would be a very tough transition into that sort of primitivism. And I would _never_ get there. Even if you dropped me into deepest Borneo and I was accepted by a primitive tribe there, I would not be tribal man. I would be civilized man who reverted to a tribal state. 

But I don't think that undermines the argument, as you seem to want to try to do. 

We have lost something, with the advent of civilization. Think about that when your parents go to a nursing home to die in the care of strangers, or your small children trudge off to school in the mornings, or your adult children only come visit on Thanksgiving and Christmas because they are too busy working. Think about it when you sit in your cubicle tomorrow instead of singing songs with your tribe as you haul in a fishing net, or carry back a boar you have killed.

Civilization is not the boon that you think it is. Despite some interesting things it has produced, it has been a very poor trade for the way of life it destroyed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ernie said:


> It would be terribly difficult, even for me who knows that it was the BETTER life.
> 
> I grew up in civilization. My body craves the things of civilization. No more Tolkien? No more books at all? No more peanut butter cups? It would be a very tough transition into that sort of primitivism. And I would _never_ get there. Even if you dropped me into deepest Borneo and I was accepted by a primitive tribe there, I would not be tribal man. I would be civilized man who reverted to a tribal state.
> 
> ...


First of all my father died at home with his family around him. My 15 your old niece helped prepare him for the funeral home. I was sadly not there because he went downhill fast. My grandparents lived in the same home I did, where my brother and his family now live with my mother so that she is taken care of. I may work in an office but my coworkers and I are a team that may may not literally slay a bear but we work together to keep a business going and feed our families. That is slaying one big bear in the last few years in this economy.

This civilization that you put down so much provides me with so many things of enjoyment and knowledge and enlightenment. If I can't balance that with my work, my needs for shelter and food then I am the one at fault. I don't need things or a lack of things to make me happy. I don't need civilization to make me happy or to make me unhappy. My friends, several of them right here on HT and my family make me happy and work with me to make life fulfilled in all the important ways.


----------



## menagerie momma (Sep 29, 2008)

Ernie said:


> It's difficult for me to split the two.
> 
> Where you find civilization, you find government. And all governments are oppressive, so it means that all civilizations are oppressive.
> 
> ...



Not sure how to word this, except to preface with, I come in peace!! I feel much the same as you, Ernie, and though I lurk most of the time on HT, I enjoy reading your posts. I wonder though, how do you reconcile these feelings with the fact that it was God who set up government (kings and such) because Israel was being a stiffnecked people and demanded a king? I ask, because it is something I (we, DH and I)struggle with. If we are to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's", and obey the rules set by our government inasmuch as we are not disobeying God's laws, then how do we justify to ourselves throwing off "chains of oppression" and attempting to live free from civilization? There's more floating around in my head, but kids are running around and my train of though is derailed - I'll be back later to try to flesh this thought out some more.

Jessie


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

It is unclear to me... is the premise of your argument that in order for one to find enjoyment or to live a long healthy life... one needs civilization as we know it now?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

menagerie momma said:


> Not sure how to word this, except to preface with, I come in peace!! I feel much the same as you, Ernie, and though I lurk most of the time on HT, I enjoy reading your posts. I wonder though, how do you reconcile these feelings with the fact that it was God who set up government (kings and such) because Israel was being a stiffnecked people and demanded a king? I ask, because it is something I (we, DH and I)struggle with. If we are to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's", and obey the rules set by our government inasmuch as we are not disobeying God's laws, then how do we justify to ourselves throwing off "chains of oppression" and attempting to live free from civilization? There's more floating around in my head, but kids are running around and my train of though is derailed - I'll be back later to try to flesh this thought out some more.
> 
> Jessie


Ok, first you should ask yourself ... is this civilization we find ourselves in a Godly one?

Second, you should read 1st Samuel 8.

Finally, you should not consider that living free from oppression means living and doing whatever you want. There are still restraints upon us, placed there by God.

It was not *I* that asked for a king. It was not my father and not my father's father. As God decreed that the sins of the father should pass on to seven generations, I believe that particular sin of asking for a king _has passed.

_What I ask of God is to be a small man, a simple man, and to raise my children in peace and to do His will in whatever form He sets it in front of me to do. I don't need a king for that, and I don't need a civilization. 
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.
22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

God did not condone nor set up kings...... He _allowed_ them, in keeping with allowing free will among His creation.....with a huge warning in 1 Samuel 8 that still very much applies today.

God *gave* no man dominion over another, but made clear the do-s and don't-s by which a man might maintain the direct line of authority, Father to man....without the burden of any go-between.


ETA.......

Go ahead, Ernie.

I'll just sit back and listen, for a bit.


----------



## menagerie momma (Sep 29, 2008)

Thanks Ernie and Forerunner, that makes sense.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

menagerie momma said:


> Thanks Ernie and Forerunner, that makes sense.


It's only a start. 

Revelations 18:4 admonishes us to come out of "Babylon". 

I believe, as do many others, that "Babylon" represents the sinful civilization we find ourselves in today. It is destructive to families, to individuals, and all holy things which God has given to us.

I do not think it is feasible or expected that a person can go from the city to the jungle in their lifetime, any more than the Hebrews went from Egypt to Israel right away. They had to spend some time in the desert to get the Egypt out of their hearts and to bring about a new generation which would not worship the things of Egypt.

But I am farther from it than I used to be, and my children are further still. I hope to live to see how far my grandchildren are from it, but I leave that in God's hands.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> ETA.......
> 
> Go ahead, Ernie.
> 
> I'll just sit back and listen, for a bit.


Heck no! Your turn!


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

life without pizza , or to have driven a 1972 Pontiac gran prix ; I just don't think I would have become the person I am today without it . but to be like a conneticut yankie with my current knowledge I still think I would be a tough life . I did read a study on a native tribe in south America no permanent housing living on roots fish and what ever nature provided day to day seems they had 168 days a year where all they did was celibrate aside from the possibility of getting an infection from a cut and dieing they did fine without owning anything . while the yuppie American with his 9 -5 job and 2 hour commut settled for 10 holidays to be able to garage a bmw


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

arnie said:


> life without pizza , or to have driven a 1972 Pontiac gran prix ; I just don't think I would have become the person I am today without it . but to be like a conneticut yankie with my current knowledge I still think I would be a tough life . I did read a study on a native tribe in south America no permanent housing living on roots fish and what ever nature provided day to day seems they had 168 days a year where all they did was celibrate aside from the possibility of getting an infection from a cut and dieing they did fine without owning anything . while the yuppie American with his 9 -5 job and 2 hour commut settled for 10 holidays to be able to garage a bmw


 ................Their fav hobby(s) are shrunken heads and shooting monkey's out of tall tree's with their blow guns ! , fordy:happy:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Lower life expectancy rates back then were much lower due to the high rate of deaths among infants rather than the fact that most people not living longer...it skewed the rate.


There was a high infant mortality, lots of deaths due to childbirth complications but also quite a few people died of various infections. I have heard if you survived to age 60, you had a good chance of reaching advanced old age probably due to have a naturally tough constitution.
But it is shocking the number of famous people who died in their thirties and forties but still managed to produce a lot of work of value. Mostly due to not wasting time on TV and the internet.


----------



## GoldenCityMuse (Apr 15, 2009)

Don't confuse technology with civilization. And the amount of stuff we own [or is it the other way around?????] with happiness & contentment. 

Back in the day [Noah's day that is], lifespans were multiple hundreds of years. When you know you have 500, 600, or even 700 years ahead of you, one can get quite proficient at living a comfortable life.

Even the Inca had some pretty amazing technology. How did they fit those huge stones together at Sacsahuaman, Machu Picchu, & others. 

see http://travel.nationalgeographic.co...a-ruins-photos/#/moray-peru_36093_600x450.jpg

But even they had some problems with human sacrifice, fairly rigid caste system, militaristic society.

it's tough.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Back in the day [Noah's day that is], lifespans were multiple hundreds of years. When you know you have 500, 600, or even 700 years ahead of you, one can get quite proficient at living a comfortable life.


I'm not sure if you're being serious


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2014)

I can't wait til I get to be middle aged! Then I will be able to complain all the time about "Those darn kids" Being in the prime of late youth is working on me, man. Too much fun being young.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Forerunner said:


> God did not condone nor set up kings...... He _allowed_ them, in keeping with allowing free will among His creation.....with a huge warning in 1 Samuel 8 that still very much applies today.
> 
> God *gave* no man dominion over another, but made clear the do-s and don't-s by which a man might maintain the direct line of authority, Father to man....without the burden of any go-between.
> 
> ...


 I disagree. God did tell them that a King was not what was best for them but he absolutely did set up a system of rule. Moses set it up right after they hit the wilderness. Exodus 18. The Priests were their rulers, they handled the disputes and meted out the punishments from the law and collected the taxes (tithes), etc. The High Priest was the mouthpiece between them and God once Moses was gone. They always had prophets and Judges too.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Many of the early Americans agree with you.

"We have no king, but Jesus".


We do get a choice, as to which Kingdom we will serve.......and I'm sure you are aware that one cannot serve two masters.........


----------



## Andy Nonymous (Aug 20, 2005)

The "modern way of life" is so ubiquitous, so pervasive, so enticing, that once steeped in it, it's hard to get clean of it. Just as it may take several generations of chickens to breed down to ones that can forage for all their needs, but they will be a lot leaner, and lay a lot fewer eggs so it may take several generations to weed out the weak, and wean our descendants from that which is pleasing to the eye and soft to the touch (and toxic to their well being).

To a large degree, the Amish struggle with this problem, of "being in the world, but not of it", and as often as not, fail. Their health is suffering compared to their ancestors, even with a lifetime of exercise with a goodly portion of home raised foods (and only a weak reliance on health care). Of convenience and social necessity, they take advantage of cheap fossil fuels to power their shops (they need the efficiency to get the income to cover their property taxes). They hire the English to get them farther, faster, with more stuff, than horse and buggy can do. Trucks pick up their milk, deliver their livestock feed, flour and sugar, loads of logs, sheet metal, leather...

The 'plain people' would suffer only slightly less going back to the middle ages than most of the hard-core survivalists here, especially those who count fuel and bullets as essential preps. The bigger problem, for all of us, is that "civilisation" does not want us to leave, will do everything possible to keep us from even thinking it's possible to leave for as Bastiat said so well "Government is that great fiction by which one class of men attempt to live off the labour of another". 

Having the hogs leave the pen, they can no longer be harvested for the benefit of the wolves and their kin, so they make sure to toss a bit of corn in the pen to make them think life is better there than in the wilds, where they would have to root for their grub. And it's ok by most sheeple, because they don't see the real cost of the corn being their very lives and that of their progeny. Even worse, they have become accustomed to the stench because the pen isn't cleaned, but it's ok because the corn will come, and those taken are done so for the betterment of all pigs, so we rejoice in their sacrifice (so long as the corn keeps coming).

The assumption behind it all, is that the providence of the keepers (who give little and take all), is more certain than the providence of the Creator, who assures us His yoke is easy and His burden is light, and who allows us the choice in the first place. 

I know I'm not explaining this as well as I could, but I'm short on time - my keeper is goading me on to something else of more pressing need


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Amen.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Andy, again right on.


----------



## Hobbes (Apr 1, 2008)

Andy, I think you have the good kernel there - one can live in any time period or lifestyle that they/their community wants to - as long as a different time period or lifestyle is not linked in the mix. If it wasn't for modern laws, regs, etc. (which can be good or bad), the Amish (or any group) would be able to live and flourish in their community lifestyle and economy. But, trying to live that lifestyle AND still have a part (unwilling) in another lifestyle obligations makes it hard/impossible to really make their lifestyle or community economy flourish, because a sizeable portion of the community labor is taken. It could be seen as a form of tribute, perhaps... How many ancient colonies/city-states could have flourished strongly without the burden of a form of tribute? Thomas Paine, in his Common Sense, laid out similar arguments. Food for thought.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Andy..you are wrong..you explained it quite well


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Hobbes said:


> Andy, I think you have the good kernel there - one can live in any time period or lifestyle that they/their community wants to - as long as a different time period or lifestyle is not linked in the mix. If it wasn't for modern laws, regs, etc. (which can be good or bad), the Amish (or any group) would be able to live and flourish in their community lifestyle and economy. But, trying to live that lifestyle AND still have a part (unwilling) in another lifestyle obligations makes it hard/impossible to really make their lifestyle or community economy flourish, because a sizeable portion of the community labor is taken. It could be seen as a form of tribute, perhaps... How many ancient colonies/city-states could have flourished strongly without the burden of a form of tribute? Thomas Paine, in his Common Sense, laid out similar arguments. Food for thought.


Speaking of the Amish ... the ONLY reason our government has allowed them to survive intact is that they are avowed pacifists.

There have been many other similar groups that wanted to live "separate" that the government destroyed.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Brighton said:


> Seriously, wasn't that why Mary and Joseph were going to Jerusalem when Jesus was born, for the CENSUS, which was required of all citizens??



dont know if this was answered....they were not going for a census...they were going for Sukkot... or feast of booths or feast of tabernacles...take your choice of titles.

Romans were an outside occupying force in Israel.... call it a police action or empire building or colonization....but they were there by force the census you speak of was taken then because it was one of the few times when all the peoples were in one place to get a head count of enemy(the people of Israel).its called keep tabs on number of people that might get tired of being occupied by a foreign power(Rome) and subjected to them.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Ernie said:


> _Civilization is the disease.
> 
> _



:whistlin::bow::teehee::shrug:


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

as far as census goes....empires love them...lol..helps to count taxes.



a census as far as bible/scripture goes...well king David wanted to do one...but YHWH/god told him not to..David did it any how and he suffered because of it.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I think David's sin went beyond census.

He didn't just _count_ the people.....

He *enumerated* them.

Have we been so enumerated ?


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

*Definition of enumerate (vt)*

Bing Dictionary


*eÂ·nuÂ·merÂ·ate*
[ i n&#63507;m&#601; rÃ yt ]
http://www.bing.com/th?id=AEKKR3qbi0Xuz6A100x100&pid=Dictionary
 

list items individually: to name a number of things on a list one by one
count things: to count how many things there are in something
register a voter: to put a voter's name on an official list used in elections


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

4. Give them a social security number......and then tell them that they don't exist without it.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> 4. Give them a social security number......and then tell them that they don't exist without it.


and a marriage license so their children are not their own.

and...

and..


i think we are on the same side of the river....yall just got more brain power than me...lol


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

and you know me......i pick up the paleo hebrew rock and look thru it often...lol.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I _wish_ we was on the same side of the river.........

There'd be a whole heap 'o' work gettin' done in the mawnin's, an' a whole heap 'o' fishin' done come aftuhnoon......






.


----------



## lmrose (Sep 24, 2009)

simi-steading said:


> A lot of people years and years ago lived well beyond 50...


Hi; How many years ago are you speaking of? A cousin of mine traced our ancestors back 22 generations on my paternal grandmother's side of the family. They go back to England and Scotland. The interesting thing was until around the mid 1800's only one child survived in each generation! The parents didn't live beyond 40 yrs and some died younger. Things changed in the middle 1800's and someone lived to 70 yrs and had 9 children. After that it was longer life and more kids until the 1980's and my relatives started having smaller families. Disease, accident and sheer hard work took many lives early.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

lmrose said:


> Hi; How many years ago are you speaking of? A cousin of mine traced our ancestors back 22 generations on my paternal grandmother's side of the family. They go back to England and Scotland. The interesting thing was until around the mid 1800's only one child survived in each generation! The parents didn't live beyond 40 yrs and some died younger. Things changed in the middle 1800's and someone lived to 70 yrs and had 9 children. After that it was longer life and more kids until the 1980's and my relatives started having smaller families. Disease, accident and sheer hard work took many lives early.


That's YOUR family in a specific geographic location.

There are firsthand accounts of the Comanche here in Texas being "exceptionally long lived" in the 1800's. They would often reach between 70-80 and occasionally even into their 90's. I don't know that there was ever a Scottish Highlander or Welshman who had a harder life than a Comanche.

However when the Comanche were pushed out and forced into reservations, their average life expectancy dropped down to BELOW the white man's average.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Have you been to the Scottish Highlands in the winter?! Shudder.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> However when the Comanche were pushed out and forced into reservations, their average life expectancy dropped down to BELOW the white man's average.


That I don't doubt.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

i read recently the average age male life span in u.s. is 74 years...not much as changed.

this from the supposed best medical care in the world.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

where I want to said:


> No- maybe at age 24 but dead by 50. As has been said, the primitive life is short, hard and brutish.
> What is certainly missing from this as a true test, is all the other people willing to take from you, including your labor.


Depends on how "primitive"... I have researched my family back to mid 1600's and there have been a LOT of people lived to be 100. Only 1 died before age 70 and that was during the flu epidemic of 1918. 

I think people could live just as long in primitive conditions as they can today. Maybe it's genetics, maybe living conditions, maybe luck, no way of knowing how they stayed alive so long, but the fact is, they did.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What I don't see being addressed is life in the Middle Ages. Your lot depended on your station in life, Depending on where you lived, chances are you didn't own the land. You were essentially a slave to the owner and depending on time and place subject to rules not acceptable today.


----------

