In purely economic terms, a lot of those 3 billion are a lot better off now than they would have been a century ago. The top of the list, Namibia, has US$5500 or so per-capita purchasing-power parity GDP. If your income is US$5500 per year, you're already pretty far up Maslow's hierarchy.
Of course, just because someone isn't starving to death doesn't imply that they aren't miserable; probably most people reading this comment know somebody in a rich country who has committed suicide.
I'm just wondering, if I ate a Chimpanzee would it be considered cannibalism? I'm not sure H. Sapiens sapiens eating H. Neanderthalensis is much different from H. Sapiens sapiens eating Pan troglodytes.
Also, I'm not clear on whether the stigma against cannibalism is mainly based on social pressure or stems from our biological programming.
The only problem with digital copies like this is that I can't underline. Maybe it's just the habit of underlining, but I can't read as well (academic reading) when I can't underline key points, specific words, and particularly interesting passages.
I agree that Preview's annotate feature works well. Still, there something about the physical process of underlining words that helps me connect ideas together as I'm reading.
Totally agree. I don't have an iPhone (can't afford a data plan at the moment) but want one. Something feels wrong about being locked in to any one carrier for service though. My main PC isn't locked into anything. As long as the market I live in gives me choices of internet service providers, I get to choose. Does anyone know if we'll see a more open environment in cellphone service (data, voice, etc) in the near future?
>There's a difference between culture and religion.
That's an interesting statement. Only in the West, and only in the last few hundred years can religion be conceived of as a discrete object, separate from culture.
Indigenous American and Hindu culture, for example, have traditionally had no such division between religion and culture. With the rise of global capitalism we may be starting to see a secular/nonsecular divide in traditionally Hindu areas (India, duh) but this is a very modern development.
edit: I should say, none of the above necessarily negates anything you said. I just think it's interesting.
edit number 2: Also, the above could also be further illuminated in a short description of the differences between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Worth checking out each concept on Wikipedia if y'all are interested.
Lots of Asian countries have a common culture that spans groups following different religions: Indonesia, India (and particular Indian regions), Sri Lanka etc.
Also, most of the major religions spread to different cultures a long time ago: A thousand years ago a Russian and a South Indian could have both not only been Christians, but both Eastern Orthodox, or an Indonesian and a Libyan could both be Sunni Muslims, or a Sri Lankan and Laotian could both be Theravadan Buddhists.
If people of disparate cultures could share common beliefs, sure religion and culture have always been separable. Especially pertinent to your examples are the South Indian Christians who have undoubtedly shared the culture of the Hindu majority for 2,000 years.
What you say is true, as far as I know. It is entirely possible to share the culture of the people who one lives nearby and yet practice a different religion. It is also true that this has been going on for a long time. In the case of the spread of Abrahamic offshoots (Islam and Christianity), a couple of thousand years. In this sense religious expression has always been fluid. However, I think that is different than viewing religion as an object. It is a modern move to split culture into many different categories: public, private, family, government, religion, education, medical, etc, etc. This way of understanding and ordering the world is a particularly Western (some might say Germanic) form.
Furthermore, there are languages that still survive to this day that have no word for "religion" as such, something I talk elsewhere in this thread. This says to me that in some cultures religion cannot even be conceived of as separate from culture because the language does not provide the imaginative capacity to understand it that way.
"Indigenous American and Hindu culture, for example, have traditionally had no such division between religion and culture."
Isn't that just a bias from watching too much discovery channel? We are used to seeing other cultures presented as being preoccupied with fancy rain dances, perhaps because they look good on television. But they must have a "normal day routine", too, which I would consider to be culture as well? It might be the "bag of rice in china phenomenon" - mundane daily life might not make for interesting movies, so we disproportionally often get to see special events from other countries.
I don't think so. I do think there is a problem when we view other cultures from the outside, and when we focus only on the "fancy" aspects of culture because it's more interesting than how people arrange their bedding, or whatever.
However, I think you are focusing too much on religion as ritual specifically. Yes, indigenous Americans, for example, have certain rituals, rites, and special events that stand apart as specific expressions of their unique culture. If those rituals seek to connect the individuals who participate in them, and the community as a whole to an "ultimate reality" or an unseen world, we in the west call it a religious ritual. Most indigenous American people (all, as far as a I know) do not even have a word for "religion," however, so the mundane and the "fancy rain dance" are each simply forms of culture with no defining boundary.
