Are you independent?

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 7:37am #1

I'm certainly not, if other people didn't help me I'd starve to death as I don't know how to hunt or prepare the animal after it is killed. I don't think I would know where to start looking to find some berries or fruit growing on trees. I'd have a look but how long will you live on berries and fruit. I can't fish either and I've no idea how to make clothes. I'd freeze to death. So in summary I am highly dependent and think those who claim to be "independent" are talking rubbish.

Dravokivich · 14-09-2011 7:39am

Aren't you describing being Self Sufficient as opposed to being Independant?

FatherLen · 14-09-2011 7:39am

all the women, who independent!

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 7:41am

Dravokivich wrote: »

Aren't you describing being Self Sufficient as opposed to being Independant?

I'm talking about not being dependent on other people. If you die without the help of other people I think you can safely you depend on them therefore you are independent.

I think it's a buzzword people like to call themselves to feel better but in reality it's a delusion.

Mena · 14-09-2011 7:42am

I spent 2 years (conscription) and another two (by choice) in the military, so I'd say yes I am based on your criteria in the op.

We're not all molly coddled pansies

stupidusername · 14-09-2011 7:44am

It's hardly being molly coddled,it's the developed world.

Caoimhín · 14-09-2011 7:46am

I already live like that up here on Caoimhin Mountain.

Mena · 14-09-2011 7:49am

stupidusername wrote: »

It's hardly being molly coddled,it's the developed world.

Nope, molly coddled.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 7:50am

stupidusername wrote: »

It's hardly being molly coddled,it's the developed world.

Don't fool yourself though, without the help of other people you would die. What would you wear to get through the winter if other people didn't make your clothes for you to wear? How warm would the cave be if if other people didn't build your shelter for you? Can you independently light a fire?

Dravokivich · 14-09-2011 7:52am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about not being dependent on other people. If you die without the help of other people I think you can safely you depend on them therefore you are independent.

I think it's a buzzword people like to call themselves to feel better but in reality it's a delusion.

I don't really understand what you mean by that line.

But isn't the buzzword you're looking for "synergy?" There's always going to be some aspect of trading or requirement to exchange between people. Even before the big industry there is now with a consumer market, people had specialist abilities and bartared based on that.

It doesn't make you any less independent.

stupidusername · 14-09-2011 7:54am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Don't fool yourself though, without the help of other people you would die. What would you wear to get through the winter if other people didn't make your clothes for you to wear? How warm would the cave be if if other people didn't build your shelter for you? Can you independently light a fire?

No cant do any of that,doesn't mean i'm molly coddled. Wealth has lead to the development that we have which is why the vast majority of westerners couldn't do any of it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong,but it's happened that way.we dont need to know that stuff because we've advanced further than that.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 7:54am

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't really understand what you mean by that line.

But isn't the buzzword you're looking for "synergy?" There's always going to be some aspect of trading or requirement to exchange between people. Even before the big industry there is now with a consumer market, people had specialist abilities and bartared based on that.

It doesn't make you any less independent.

How would you define someone who is dependent?

stovelid · 14-09-2011 7:55am

Most people in the midlands live like that anyway.

bnt · 14-09-2011 8:05am

Never mind food & clothing: without a good supply of clean water, you will not last a week. After the apocalypse, that's the first order of business: secure the water supply.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 8:07am

stupidusername wrote: »

No cant do any of that,doesn't mean i'm molly coddled. Wealth has lead to the development that we have which is why the vast majority of westerners couldn't do any of it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong,but it's happened that way.we dont need to know that stuff because we've advanced further than that.

Completely agree, but can we really say we are independent.

stupidusername · 14-09-2011 8:09am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Completely agree, but can we really say we are independent.

Well then of course not,not a single person on earth is independent

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 8:19am

stupidusername wrote: »

Well then of course not,not a single person on earth is independent

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are independent. For a start there are people in tribes who would be independent then there are people in modern society who just have the skills to make their own clothes,shelter, food etc so they don't depend on other people but they do use other people's help.

I think if people did learn these skills they would become happier, more confident and more stressfree in life.

Dravokivich · 14-09-2011 8:21am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How would you define someone who is dependent?

Not really something I've put much thought into before, off hand I'd say:

- Someone with a disability that impedes them and requires assistance from another. (Mental and/or Physical)

Additionally, I'd probably consider someone who is unable to be personally responsible for their own well being as dependent. Such as:

- Unable to cook their own food.

But that can go back into the bartar thing I referenced above as you can trade for cooked food.

So possibly being unable to provide anything that would be of benifit to yourself. I'm employed, my employment provides me with money I can trade with. I can cook, clean and generally look after myself. From that point I would consider myself to be independent as once I'm employed I can provide for myself.

Although we've got people on Social Welfare who are unable to gain employment, they are dependant on the Social Welfare to provide them with a means to trade. But once they have that means to trade, they can still be farely independent from there as they would be in a position that would allow them to be responsible for their own well being.

RedXIV · 14-09-2011 8:28am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think if people did learn these skills they would become happier, more confident and more stressfree in life.

Actually, if you think about it, if everyone had to learn these skills, there's no way we would have evolved as well as we did. I remember reading a fact somewhere that in around 1100AD was the last time when one person could learn all the knowledge garnered by our species, its an estimate but it provides a valuable insight. The reason we're so successful as species is that we can communicate and delegate. I'd be able to skin and prepare meat but ask me to weave or make clothes and I'd be lost. So we delegate.

So as a result, its a good thing not to be independent, in your definition. It allows us to be more sophisticated creatures

Big Nasty · 14-09-2011 8:30am

I'm a Times man myself! :pac:

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 8:32am

Dravokivich wrote: »

Not really something I've put much thought into before, off hand I'd say:

- Someone with a disability that impedes them and requires assistance from another. (Mental and/or Physical)

Additionally, I'd probably consider someone who is unable to be personally responsible for their own well being as dependent. Such as:

- Unable to cook their own food.

But that can go back into the bartar thing I referenced above as you can trade for cooked food.

So possibly being unable to provide anything that would be of benifit to yourself. I'm employed, my employment provides me with money I can trade with. I can cook, clean and generally look after myself. From that point I would consider myself to be independent as once I'm employed I can provide for myself.

Although we've got people on Social Welfare who are unable to gain employment, they are dependant on the Social Welfare to provide them with a means to trade. But once they have that means to trade, they can still be farely independent from there as they would be in a position that would allow them to be responsible for their own well being.

So are you saying as long as you are not disabled/sick etc. and have money you are independent?

NothingMan · 14-09-2011 8:37am

FatherLen wrote: »

all the women, who independent!

\0/

Apocalypse? Better drink my own piss.

I'm sure I'd be fine. I've learned from the best.

Wibbs · 14-09-2011 8:40am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Don't fool yourself though, without the help of other people you would die. What would you wear to get through the winter if other people didn't make your clothes for you to wear? How warm would the cave be if if other people didn't build your shelter for you? Can you independently light a fire?

While I'm no Ray Mears, I can light a fire without matches or a firestick(Bear Grylls you cheater:D), I can cobble together stone tools, I have hunted and fished and I know how to prepare hides so I suppose I could make clothes. I'd need to brush up on edible plants and the like and I'd rather do it somewhere like northern spain, southern france mind. Ireland is a bit barren of dacent wild food these days. That all said a stone age hunter gatherer wasn't independent either. Yes he'd last a lot longer than some doughy modern bloke searching for his inhaler, but he had a tribe around him. A tribe which was a storehouse of info on food and culture.

Snakeblood · 14-09-2011 8:43am

I've read Stig of the Dump, picked up a few pointers. I'd be fine.

Latchy · 14-09-2011 8:48am

Post -Apocalyptic , as long as we can keep the zombies at bay we'll be fine ...facking cannibals

yeppydeppy · 14-09-2011 8:51am

No man (or woman -keep it up Stan) is an island.

But I reckon I could survive if left destitute.

Azureus · 14-09-2011 8:52am

If you wanna be pedantic about it, nobody is independent-whatever about being able to make our own food/clothes/shelter,if the stuff wasnt there to make it from then no matter what we're screwed. In that way we're dependant on water to live,dependant on food to survive...its not really a pratical way of thinking.
Id consider myself independant because I dont rely on other people to survive in the developed world-but if I was pushed to a place without shelter and warmth for long periods of time then yeah-Id probably die, there's only so much pillow forts taught me as a child

14-09-2011 9:01am

Language is a tool to communicate. If the meaning of "independent" has changed to what we all know it now as, so be it.
No one is independent by the OP's shlte logic.. I am independent by my own and the rest of the world's logic. So I win.

14-09-2011 9:04am

The point is we don't need those skills in modern society so we have forgotten them. In the 14th century a large proportion of people could not read and write, but a large proportion could kill and prepare meat. Skills that are important change as society changes.

If you are really concerned why not buy survivalist book and have a go at some of the skills you need to survive.

Practice on a table covered in newspapers in the garden at first, the blood, fur, feathers are very messy, start with gutting and filleting fish or skinning a rabbit they are not to difficult to do.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 9:08am

mariaalice wrote: »

The point is we don't need those skills in modern society so we have forgotten them. In the 14th century a large proportion of people could not read and write, but a large proportion could kill and prepare meat. Skills that are important change as society changes.

If you are really concerned why not buy survivalist book and have a go at some of the skills you need to survive.

Practice on a table covered in newspapers in the garden at first, the blood, fur, feathers are very messy, start with gutting and filleting fish or skinning a rabbit they are not to difficult to do.

I perfectly happy being dependent, just think people talk too much about being "independent".

I think what people mean when they say they are independent is that they can get by without the charity of other people.

A small child is dependent on the charity of their parents to survive.

jester77 · 14-09-2011 9:11am

By applying the logic of the OP, then no, not until the day I can succeed in giving myself open heart surgery will I be independent

Snakeblood · 14-09-2011 9:15am

I think it should be noted that if Ray Mears was in a heavily industrialised city like Singapore, naked and unable to avail of universally available facilities or tv producers, I think he'd be pretty boned.

ash23 · 14-09-2011 9:15am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are independent. For a start there are people in tribes who would be independent then there are people in modern society who just have the skills to make their own clothes,shelter, food etc so they don't depend on other people but they do use other people's help.

I think if people did learn these skills they would become happier, more confident and more stressfree in life.

People in tribes wouldn't be totally independent. They are in tribes for a reason. There will always be the best hunter, the medicine man, the one who builds the best shelter, the chief etc.
That is why people (humans) form tribes. There aren't many who are totally independent as in, able to live alone and do everything for themselves.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 9:16am

jester77 wrote: »

By applying the logic of the OP, then no, not until the day I can succeed in giving myself open heart surgery will I be independent

If you were to eat the diet of a hunter gatherer you wouldn't need open heart surgery, probably wouldn't need a dentist either.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 9:18am

ash23 wrote: »

People in tribes wouldn't be totally independent. They are in tribes for a reason. There will always be the best hunter, the medicine man, the one who builds the best shelter, the chief etc.
That is why people (humans) form tribes. There aren't many who are totally independent as in, able to live alone and do everything for themselves.

I'd say there would still be the odd tribesperson who would be skilled enough in each area to get by though.

People say they are independent like it is a great accomplishment. There's not much to being "independent" in our society, we are basically big spoon fed babies, not that I have a problem with that.

NothingMan · 14-09-2011 9:22am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you were to eat the diet of a hunter gatherer you wouldn't need open heart surgery, probably wouldn't need a dentist either.

They only lived til like 30 or so though. Independent maybe, but not the same kind of life or lifespan we enjoy.

14-09-2011 9:23am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd say there would still be the odd tribesperson who would be skilled enough in each area to get by though.

So there's only ever been the odd tribesperson who's been fully independent.. And you told us a few posts back that you think we should learn these skills ourselves? Just change the definition of the word in your head.. It's a lot easier.

"Completely self sufficient" is doing everything yourself.
"Independent" is making your own way in the world.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 9:29am

NothingMan wrote: »

They only lived til like 30 or so though. Independent maybe, but not the same kind of life or lifespan we enjoy.

More like 60 or 70. Hunter gatherers were far healthier than us and suffered less from disease in old age.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 9:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

So there's only ever been the odd tribesperson who's been fully independent.. And you told us a few posts back that you think we should learn these skills ourselves? Just change the definition of the word in your head.. It's a lot easier.

"Completely self sufficient" is doing everything yourself.
"Independent" is making your own way in the world.

I don't think we should try to be completely indepedent, that would be madness and making life more difficult than it needs to be. I said learning some of these skills would be good for you.

Describe someone who doesn't make their own way in the world.

Son Of A Vidic · 14-09-2011 9:32am

If ever a thread needed to be re-titled this is it. Maybe asking could we survive/what are our suvival skills like ect, might be more helpful?

Anyway I'm not good with the berry/plant identifying thing, but otherwise I'd do fine.

hondasam · 14-09-2011 10:06am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm certainly not, if other people didn't help me I'd starve to death as I don't know how to hunt or prepare the animal after it is killed. I don't think I would know where to start looking to find some berries or fruit growing on trees. I'd have a look but how long will you live on berries and fruit. I can't fish either and I've no idea how to make clothes. I'd freeze to death. So in summary I am highly dependent and think those who claim to be "independent" are talking rubbish.

You ever hear about shops, plenty of berries and fruit there.

Logical Fallacy · 14-09-2011 10:17am

NothingMan wrote: »

They only lived til like 30 or so though. Independent maybe, but not the same kind of life or lifespan we enjoy.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

More like 60 or 70. Hunter gatherers were far healthier than us and suffered less from disease in old age.

The long lived hunter gathers lived to be about 60 or 70.

A huge percentage...about 50-60% of their kids didn't live past 15, and about 30 % of those 15 year olds wouldn't make it 45.

Richard Hillman · 14-09-2011 10:39am

Bear Grylls taught me everything I know.

jonnny68 · 14-09-2011 10:46am

Well i voted Independent in the last election if that counts:P (would do so again or vote for people before profit.)

Android 666 · 14-09-2011 10:51am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

More like 60 or 70. Hunter gatherers were far healthier than us and suffered less from disease in old age.

Suffered less from old age I'd say, being that they were already dead.

I'd rather take my chances with me telly and me type 2 diabetes if it's all the same with you. Being a hunter gatherer must have been no craic at all...

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 11:02am

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The long lived hunter gathers lived to be about 60 or 70.

A huge percentage...about 50-60% of their kids didn't live past 15, and about 30 % of those 15 year olds wouldn't make it 45.

Infant mortality was a lot higher but they suffered a lot less from cancer,alzheimers cardiovascular disease etc. I'd say broken bones and infection caused a lot of the early death but if they avoided such accidents and infant mortality they lived long lives. Just look at todays tribes, they are healthier and happier (don't suffer from depression I believe).

Android 666 · 14-09-2011 11:32am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just look at todays tribes, they are healthier and happier (don't suffer from depression I believe).

But they have breasts like satchels, weird teeth and no box sets of the Wire.
Modern man 1. Ancient man 0

Also, what about operations we take for granted to fix club feet, cleft palates, heart murmurs and the like.

Scanlas The 2nd · 14-09-2011 11:36am

Android 666 wrote: »

But they have breasts like satchels, weird teeth and no box sets of the Wire.
Modern man 1. Ancient man 0

Also, what about operations we take for granted to fix club feet, cleft palates, heart murmurs and the like.

let them die. Don't know what club feet are though.

revell · 14-09-2011 12:01pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about not being dependent on other people. If you die without the help of other people I think you can safely you depend on them therefore you are independent.

I think it's a buzzword people like to call themselves to feel better but in reality it's a delusion.

Nonsense I ever heard for a year at least. If I pay my money to other people for cloth or food, are they helping me or I am helping them?

Android 666 · 14-09-2011 12:07pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

let them die.

Classy…

RedXIV · 14-09-2011 12:12pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Infant mortality was a lot higher but they suffered a lot less from cancer,alzheimers cardiovascular disease etc. I'd say broken bones and infection caused a lot of the early death but if they avoided such accidents and infant mortality they lived long lives. Just look at todays tribes, they are healthier and happier (don't suffer from depression I believe).

Your assuming here. just because they couldn't diagnose these diseases, it doesn't mean they didn't suffer from them

Are you independent?

Comments