Which do you prefer? And why?
>>1279288
/HISTORY/
>>1279295
Thanks for the bump.
>>1279304
Glad someone enjoys this board being filled with unrelated trash
>>1279288
Civilization
Especially a highly hierarchical one.
>>1279309
>discussion of the two different human societies across history is not a discussion about history.
Thanks for the bump again.
>>1279288
Civilization is the only correct choice.
>>1279354
It's the winning choice, it's not the correct choice though. Some of the oldest civilisations to exist were ones filled with savages.
>inb4 might is right.
>>1279288
Civilization, without it I couldn't sage your shitty thread
>>1279288
You didn't even define both groups and the key differences.
>>1279410
>differences
>>1279452
>Define "savage"
Thoreau's definition of a savage being happiness equating to ease of survival.
>"civilized" then we talk.
Something classical like the Romans.
How retarded are the both of you that you cannot into simple semantics? Holy shit, end yourselves.
>>1279375
If they can't read or write, they don't farm, and they don't live in one place, they aren't a civilization.
>>1279538
"Simple semantics" make the thread pointless and basically just a mess where everyone gets a cherrypicked version of [insert here the option they like].
>>1279538
Yet these same romans would be savages to us in the modern days, my point is, there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes "barbarism" and "civilization" and any attempt to categorize people as such is a waste of time and effort.
>>1279584
>Yet these same romans would be savages to us in the modern days,
Lucky that's not what is happening here. Why the fuck are you bumping this thread? If you want to attempt to derail it fucking sage it, holy shit you're retarded.
>>1279596
Did you even read the rest of the post? What i meant is there's no need for this thread to exist because what it asks is completely pointless. There can't be a serious discussion about "savage vs civilized" because there's no way to define "savage" or "civilized"
>>1279626
You are still going, holy shit. Define anything and I will tell you how you are wrong, that's how semantics works. You retard. Read a fucking book.
There is an appeal to both.
Higher Living Standards, Less Disease, More food, better technology, and many other things>Living in dirt
Most of the people here claiming they would be savages are just larpers, and if they were true to their ideals they could easily live such a life by getting rid of as many modern amenities as possible, and living in the woods as much as possible.
>>1280135
>and living in the woods as much as possible.
OP here. Inc dump.
>Most of the people here claiming they would be savages are just larpers
Who claimed to be?
>>1280154
Blegh rotation is shot. That's view of the ocean (though the camera is shot and the sun was out)
Here is a better shot of the view.
>>1280162
Close up of the island (scouts hat island).
I want to lead my own savage tribe full of beautiful women. Of course we'd die within a month but the orgies will be worth it.
>>1280163
View of the outside.
there's something about how fucking crazy savage people are that I like them
wouldn't want to be one though
>>1280168
We are yet to catch any food. We sleep up there, would recommend doing it to anyone who is bored most of the time.
>>1279288
Complex societies can exist without the signs of cultigens. Pacific Northwest, Jomon, Victorian Eel Aboriginals and California acorn nations are evidence of that.
It's strange to even see civilization to mean massive stone buildings
>the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.
Within anthropological circles that's how the term is used
Civilization.
Celts/Germanics had the best civilisation. Not quite fully civilised but not quite savage either.
>>1280408
This desu.
>tfw no limited agriculture while still practicing hunting and gethering in sustainable levels.
>tfw no having a semi-centralized government while still being able to live in small autonomous holdings.
>>1279288
unless by civilization we mean modern civilization (20th century onwards), than I would chose savage. I'm also assuming that I would be an average Joe, not an aristocrat or something.
the average ancient hunter-gatherer probably had a much easier life then most civilized folks. we know they worked much less then even contemporary humans, had a fairly rich diet, much better then the people in agricultural societies. the human mind also evolved for life in small tribes, so they were probably more content.
also, hunter-gatherer tribes that existed in modern times do not represent what most hunter-gatherer societies were like in the stone age. the ones that existed or still exist in modern times are all living in harsh environments: jungles, deserts, shitty barren islands. the majority of ancient hunter-gatherers lived in much more fertile lands, mostly near major rivers. of course, these people were able to advance to agriculture, so hunting-gathering persisted only in remote areas.
>>1280429
Most fertile alluvial lands and low lands before the advent of dikes, levees and other earthworks were flood prone, malarial and/or highly sought after places groups constantly warred for.
I also find the "less work" statement to not be factual. While daily food gathering itself is low the need for material manufacture and maintenance preoccupied much time itself.
>>1280442
you don't exactly need Schwarzerde (black soil perfect for growing grains) for wild onions, berries, nuts and wild game to be plentiful. most uncultivated lands in the temperate zone is fine. basically, hunting-gathering was a really efficient way to sustain small groups of people in most areas in the stone age. but if you want to have thousands living in a single community, that's when you need agriculture and really fertile soil, which is rare.
hunter-gatherers don't own that much stuff to begin with, so I doubt that repairing those would occupy too much of their time. let's say you need to make about 10 new arrows every weak. that can't be more than an hour's work/week. other tools would need to be changed, let's say every other month, which probably won't take days, so that's negligable work. you also need to occasionally (let's say every two months) fix your hut, which can probably be done in a day.
meanwhile, you would be hunting and gathering from about 7-11 am, for no more than 4 days a week.
>you don't exactly need Schwarzerde (black soil perfect for growing grains) for wild onions, berries, nuts and wild game to be plentiful.
The seasonality, caloric input/output ratio and abundance of said wild foods makes your statement "plentiful" to be rather educated.
>most uncultivated lands in the temperate zone is fine. basically, hunting-gathering was a really efficient way to sustain small groups of people in most areas in the stone age. but if you want to have thousands living in a single community, that's when you need agriculture and really fertile soil, which is rare.
This ignores the fact that even wild plants have soil requirements and preferences that lean toward friable and fertile soils. Not having high enough densities of said plants hinders the necessary caloric requirements of even the forager much less the village.
>hunter-gatherers don't own that much stuff to begin with
Baseless claim
>so I doubt that repairing those would occupy too much of their time. let's say you need to make about 10 new arrows every weak. that can't be more than an hour's work/week. other tools would need to be changed, let's say every other month, which probably won't take days, so that's negligable work. you also need to occasionally (let's say every two months) fix your hut, which can probably be done in a day.
You literally have no experience sourcing and fletching shafts, sourcing stones and knapping arrows much less understand the material cultures of various non-agrarian people.
>meanwhile, you would be hunting and gathering from about 7-11 am, for no more than 4 days a week.
Before I take the time really showing you how wrong you are can you please post sources backing up your own statements
>>1280402
>NSW?
QLD.
>>1280670
Southeast QLD then, it looks like you're on the great dividing ridge
Look into transplanting Ipomoea costata in clearings. Australia seems to have many novel plants I seem to stumble on out here but looking at how it grows and it's tolerance for higher rain in cultivation makes it seem like a worthwhile thing to spread.
Considering what happens to savages in the wake of civilization, I'd rather be civilized.
>>1279288
Civilization. Because I'm civilized.
I was reared for this, man.
Savages. At least they aren't the goyim who pays their Zionist overlords with their tax money.
In fact, I may have to say that they are smarter than the goyim.
>>1283304
Stormfags in a nutshell.
>you stupid sheep
>you're a part of a society that gives you health care, education, housing, and access to every product or service that human technology can devise
>I'm so much smarter than you, that's why I make sure not to succeed in life
>>1279375
Much like the rest of Australia's fauna, the Aborigine way of life only existed so long because of how remote Australia is.
Marsupials are obsolete, and so are Hunter Gatherers
>>1280175
Hey anon, mind posting more about what you do and why :)
>>1279309
anthropology is both humanities and history dipshit
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
- Robert E. Howard
>>1283381
Marsupials are primitive, but far from obsolete. Take the kangaroo for example - hopping is more efficient than four footed ungulate locomotion, when faced with extreme heat their temperature regulation is greater than most placental mammals, and only require 10% as much water as sheep (Dawson 1995).
Although marsupialian reproduction may seem primitive it allows roos to produce young far quicker than placental mammals, and a female roo can produce different amounts and concentration nofmilk young of different ages.
Marsupials are highly specialised animals, able to thrive in environments that many mammals can't survive in
>>1279565
>Thanks for bump
Not an argument
>>1279288
>civilisation
>starting sentence with "and"
at least we know which one you prefer, >>> And why
