|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2004 : 18:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
example: The Inuit people used to set their elderly adrift on ice flows when they were no longer able to care for themselves.
Here's the Straight Dope on this:Where it was practiced, senilicide was rare except during famines. As long as there was enough food to go around, everyone got their share, including the relatively unproductive. Given that the usual diet consisted of fairly dependable catches of caribou, fish, and sea mammals, many years could pass between episodes of scarcity. Considering the dangers of hunting, the old and infirm who weren't expected to hunt could outlive a hunter in his prime.
...
The popular legend that the Eskimos put their old people on ice floes and set them adrift is wrong in detail, but it's not terribly far off in the broad strokes. I can't say for sure how this particular idea got started, but it may have come from the movie The Savage Innocents (1959) starring Anthony Quinn or the novel it was based on, Top of the World (1950) by Hans Ruesch... I haven't seen the film, but I've just read the book and found two scenes of interest. In one, the mother-in-law Powtee is put out on the solid sea ice to die, only to be rescued soon after. In the other, the wife Asiak walks across the sea ice to drown herself in the open water. At the edge, a piece of ice breaks free under her weight and she floats along on this small ice floe briefly before drowning herself. It's possible that a conflation of these two episodes led to the popular idea of old people being set adrift on ice floes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 20:09:44 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for your viewpoint satans_mom. Hey, as long as there are mutliple ways to look at one thing it keeps us open to understanding. In addition, I'll wait for you to respond to Valiant's question...which is a good question. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 20:17:53 [Permalink]
|
O btw, satans_mom, do you think that once we have some sort of basis of actions/consequences formed as infants that this would evolve to a more conscience level where certain behaviours/actions are not done for the reward but become more definitive and actions become "selfless?"
EDIT & Note: It's really cool to see that your viewpoint comes close to the Maslow's Pyrmaid of needs. And a question for anybody, if you read the top of the pyramid, do you think that some sort of moral system can be formed here so we can do selfless actions? |
| Edited by - Skyhawk on 09/01/2004 20:31:11 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2004 : 09:27:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
example: The Inuit people used to set their elderly adrift on ice flows when they were no longer able to care for themselves.
Here's the Straight Dope on this:Where it was practiced, senilicide was rare except during famines. As long as there was enough food to go around, everyone got their share, including the relatively unproductive. Given that the usual diet consisted of fairly dependable catches of caribou, fish, and sea mammals, many years could pass between episodes of scarcity. Considering the dangers of hunting, the old and infirm who weren't expected to hunt could outlive a hunter in his prime.
...
The popular legend that the Eskimos put their old people on ice floes and set them adrift is wrong in detail, but it's not terribly far off in the broad strokes. I can't say for sure how this particular idea got started, but it may have come from the movie The Savage Innocents (1959) starring Anthony Quinn or the novel it was based on, Top of the World (1950) by Hans Ruesch... I haven't seen the film, but I've just read the book and found two scenes of interest. In one, the mother-in-law Powtee is put out on the solid sea ice to die, only to be rescued soon after. In the other, the wife Asiak walks across the sea ice to drown herself in the open water. At the edge, a piece of ice breaks free under her weight and she floats along on this small ice floe briefly before drowning herself. It's possible that a conflation of these two episodes led to the popular idea of old people being set adrift on ice floes.
Gak. I sit corrected. I was thinking of the Inuit as being a subsistience culture. (One that made decisions based on the availability of resources.) I find that I incorrectly applied it to the entire population of Inuits and not just those suffering famine on a regular basis. I regret the error.
Ummmmm. OK different tack.
There are situations which present that go against a majority of current societal morals. This is usually situations where the morals have to be violated to ensure survival. Situational cannibalism is one such moral. If stranded in a place where there is not adequate food, people have been known to resort to cannibalism after a period of time. There are some tribal societies where cannibalism is practiced and is morally acceptable. A few of these societies have had problems with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. (The Kuru, if memmory serves.)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2004 : 12:02:35 [Permalink]
|
| I suppose this is a trade off as well. Someone might call the authorities because the percieved reward (social appreciation, feeling good about ones self etc) outweighs the percieved hassal of going to court, being a witness etc. Those who do not get involved may just have a overblown sence of maintaining the status quo and the child's danger is just not important enough to upset this whereas some of us would percieve the removal of the danger to the child as being paramount and worth it. |
Baza |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2004 : 12:43:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally Posted by Val
I think you have a system of determining right and wrong but do not wish to impose that system on society. The question I would have is if you knew that say child molestation was happening and you could contact a law enforcement officer and could prove such acts were happening, would you?
That's a good question, and the example still remains a hypothetical situation on my part and because it is so, I am not sure exactly what I'd do being in that situation. I'd have to learn once it happens. The best response I can provide is that there are many people molesting children, but it's damn near impossible to stop them all from doing so. I know that if a person were molesting a child close to me, say my neice, then I would definitely call a law enforcement officer because I do not want that child to experience that situation. I believe that it brings about horrible "consequences" (she'd be scarred for life). I theorize that at this time, if I was in the situation, I would call the police, because that is what I have been "taught" to do since I was very young.
But, now say, I do not wish to perform the acts which I have been taught. Perhaps I'm being defiant. What motives would I have to stay out of the situation, other than wishing not to get involved? I believe that's most likely the only reason. I would justify that reason, however, with the ideas that "child molestation will occur and there is nothing that can truly stop some humans from wanting sexual intercourse with children. As long as our society functions this way, people will do horrible things, including molesting children." But that brings about a thought-- I too am curious to know of other reasons. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
| Edited by - satans_mom on 09/02/2004 12:46:25 |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2004 : 12:57:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skyhawk
O btw, satans_mom, do you think that once we have some sort of basis of actions/consequences formed as infants that this would evolve to a more conscience level where certain behaviours/actions are not done for the reward but become more definitive and actions become "selfless?"
EDIT & Note: It's really cool to see that your viewpoint comes close to the Maslow's Pyrmaid of needs. And a question for anybody, if you read the top of the pyramid, do you think that some sort of moral system can be formed here so we can do selfless actions?
Probably. Take for example a person entering kindergarden. When this person excels on a spelling test, say, this person receives stars, happy faces, rewards. That motivates the child to excel once again. As the years pass, these stars and happy faces diminish. The teachers are trying to "train" the child, if you will, to perform well on tests without needing these immediate rewards. This is much the same process as training a dog. The dog receives treats when it obeys a command, and when the dog fully understands the command, the treat is no longer needed, for it becomes natural behavior to obey the command.
When a child tells the teacher, "Teacher, I found money on the ground," the teacher will praise the child for "doing the right thing." Naturally, a person will keep his treasured findings, but when developing a system of morals, this person will naturally do away with what he or she has found for the simple principles which have been taught to him or her. These principles are meant to become natural behaviors, therefore, coinciding with the general ways of the social public.
quote:
Originally posted by Baza
I suppose this is a trade off as well. Someone might call the authorities because the percieved reward (social appreciation, feeling good about ones self etc) outweighs the percieved hassal of going to court, being a witness etc. Those who do not get involved may just have a overblown sence of maintaining the status quo and the child's danger is just not important enough to upset this whereas some of us would percieve the removal of the danger to the child as being paramount and worth it.
I believe that is a good response. Something that didn't come to my immediate attention.
quote:
Originally posted by Skyhawk
Thanks for your viewpoint satans_mom. Hey, as long as there are mutliple ways to look at one thing it keeps us open to understanding. In addition, I'll wait for you to respond to Valiant's question...which is a good question. Thanks.
Definitely. After all, this is what this forum is for. To be opposed to any view point without having first coming to understand it is a waste of human reasoning abilities (ahem religion ahem). This is an interesting thread, one that has provoked much thought on my part.
|
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2004 : 13:22:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
A few of these societies have had problems with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. (The Kuru, if memmory serves.)
Just FYI, "kuru" is the name of the disease. The people among whom it spread by ritual funerary cannibalism are the Fore tribe of New Guinea.
More information on kuru |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
