By Ruben Bolling at 11:10 am Wed, Sep 21, 2011
Perhaps Percival Dunwoody filled the vacancy Charley left in the Pliocene. Assuming he’s not overqualified.
Sometimes I wonder if the solution of this crisis resides in returning to hunter, gathering and farming the shit out of modern economy…
Good look with hunters, gatherers and farmers providing the tech for a coronary bypass or a heart transplant.
Which of course would not be needed given diet and exercise. The real difference is not in late life interventions, it is in infant/child and maternal mortality (http://bit.ly/rhplFY for h/g, see also recent work on falling life expectancy in the US from 1790 to 1850 summarized in http://1.usa.gov/q1qeCv ). Anyway, there’s increasing evidence that dramatic surgical interventions like bypass and stent are no better than diet/exercise and pharma therapy, see the recent stent trials (http://bit.ly/pIFgKV ). More treatment is not better treatment.
“More treatment is not better treatment.”
If the average malpractice jury was made up of boingers rather than australopithecenes (or as close an equivalent as the selection process can achieve) this idea might catch on.
Meh, I can’t afford either now.
If the Uber rich don’t cough up some wealth to those who don’t have as much as society programs them to think they should have, there might be some hunting/gathering in the future that the Uber rich wont be to thrilled with.
It only takes one Madam Defarge and something sharp and or slightly pointy.
Let’s at least try to tax the hell out of multinationals first.
The nice thing about working for Charley are the benefits. All health care is covered as long as the employee’s condition can be cured by trepanning. I guess those sharp rocks have to go to use somehow .
“wait, you have beef jerky?”
“and a leaf nest?”
“are you hiring?”
now that’s funny.
I’m sure there are people in the world who unhypocritically advocate a return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, but it is impossible by definition to find any on the internet.
It’s not necessarily hypocritical to advocate for a lifestyle that you’re not currently living, or living imperfectly.
For example, I’m not part of a cohousing community. I’d love to be a part of one, and can prattle on about the benefits of a more shared, communal form of living. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don’t think so. Now, if I mocked people for doing the exact same thing I am, that would be hypocrisy.
Aye, perhaps hypocritical is the wrong word. Although your analogy is not perfect, as arguing about stuff online is something almost nobody can’t avoid doing – you just don’t do it. Finding your ideal living situation is a good deal more difficult.
I do believe that almost all of the more extreme back to nature types don’t really grasp the implications of what they are arguing for, and happily making use of the internet – which really, really isn’t nature – is evidence of that.
‘Unnatural’ is an oxymoron. Everything obeys its nature.
That’s not to imply systematically converting wilderness into toxic garbage is a good idea, though
Mail (will not be published) (required)
charley the australopithecine, Comics, human evolution, job hunting, Tom the Dancing Bug, tomthedancingbug, unemployment
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin