At 12:03 AM 7/24/01 -0700, you wrote:
>To me, a state of nature occurs only before the advent of agriculture,
>and the other technologies developed about 10,000 years ago. In this
>state, humankind is thought to have lived in small bands of hunter-
>gatherers. I don't think that people under this condition have a
>tradition of liberty, either. They're usually used to doing what
>the head man, or couple of men, say. The kind of "tradition of
>liberty" that I had in mind was what the early colonists of the U.S.
>had, and what the colonists to all other English speaking countries
>carried with them to new shores.
>
>Lee
Has anyone considered that a "state of nature" can include technology? Is
it not "natural" for an intelligent race to evolve tech?
Our environment has evolved such that "nature" has fitted many species into
urban settings, for example. Remove the cities, and many critters will lose
homes.
It can also be considered that evolving political systems are "natural".
This does not mean that they are "right" - just that they are inevitable at
some point.
I say nature is whatever we want it to be. Why should hunter-gatherer
societies be any more natural than modern life?
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:55 MDT