anti-civ.net forum
The infant mortality question - Printable Version

+- anti-civ.net forum (https://anti-civ.net)
+-- Forum: Discussion (https://anti-civ.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Anthropology & History (https://anti-civ.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The infant mortality question (/showthread.php?tid=563)



The infant mortality question - JUGENDHOC - Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:21:16 +0000

I don't like the fact that in primitive society (in some cases) almost half of all kids died very early. 
https://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

How do we respond to this? It's a common man critique of reversing Industrial society


RE: The infant mortality question - @demon - Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:04:04 +0000

This issue is so often exaggerated. The highest credible number I've seen is 20%, not 50%.

Less kids is a problem, why? Lol.


RE: The infant mortality question - Odin - Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:05:43 +0000

Infant and child mortality rates (IMR and CMR) vary quite a bit from culture to culture and region to region, anywhere from about 14% to about 40% (IMR) and 22% to 58% (CMR) from current limited cross-cultural H-G samples. The chances of making it to adulthood are about 50-50.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hunter-gatherer-infant-mortality-rates-IMR-and-child-mortality-rates-CMR_tbl1_256641936

There is a relatively high infant mortality rate in the wild for most animals.

I think this boils down to a moral question. Is civilization and all its evils (one evil being overpopulation) worth drastically reducing infant and child mortality? Of course a lot of mothers would say yes. But I don't think the long term benefits outweigh the negative long term consequences of having all the other associated technologies, governments, authority, etc that go along with reducing infant and child mortality.

It's a bullet anti-civers may have to bite, since there is no real response to the facts other than to admit this is one negative aspect to an anti-civ perspective. No way of life is perfect.


RE: The infant mortality question - JUGENDHOC - Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:21:29 +0000

Understandable. It really is a hard ballet to bite though. I've realized now over some days that primitivism doesn't have to be a paradise, it just has to be better than civ, and it is.


RE: The infant mortality question - @demon - Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:55:24 +0000

Scared of your children dying? Can't handle the potential anguish?

Don't have any children.

Problem solved.

Contraception isn't as difficult as you'd think, either.


RE: The infant mortality question - Odin - Thu, 25 Jul 2019 21:25:11 +0000

Accidents happen, and I don't want to be in the business of policing sex.

That said, there is a silver lining to IMR and CMR within an anti-civ context. Our modern knowledge of childhood diseases due to bacterial, viral, and pathogenic causes is quite extensive. Presumably most of this knowledge will not be lost, even in a worse case catastrophic collapse scenario. We know more about sanitation, germ theory, virus theory, and medical complications than do traditional hunter gatherers. We know what symptoms to watch for, and how to treat more kinds of conditions.

Even in a worse case scenario, there would be some basic modern medical materials laying around after a collapse to treat common infectious diseases, and perhaps even slightly more advanced conditions. And if we didn't have the materials or drugs we could make our own (e.g. make penicillin) or trade for some. If not, then at least our basic modern knowledge would likely still lead to better IMR and CMR outcomes than traditional H-G societies. Given this, I'm sure anti-civers could offer better odds than 50-50 of living to adulthood. Perhaps 70%. The rates will not be as high as the current 99% however.

We should be prepared to acknowledge that at least some aspects of anti-civ or post-civ life will be rather harsh.