do you realize what you've done? xP
Brace yourself for the global warming argument.

Now, I'm always for a bicycle. It's a healthy means of transport (well in one sense...) plus it's fun. Animals though, I stand against. If you utter something like that again I just may have to throw red paint on you.

Seriously though, while things like subsistence farming and giving up gas guzzling machines for something more tranquil might idealistic, that's all it is. It's just not human nature (the race as a whole) to suffer the most minor inconveniences for the sake of the greater good. And having to grow your own produce is no minor inconvenience, I can tell you that.

As a whole we are just too plain lazy (heck, I'm a lazy guy individually...)

As for me adapting to certain changes. Well it really depends on how deep it goes. Are you talking about something minor like recycling my junk or riding my bike to work?

Or something possibly harder like having our computers on for only x hours everyday?

Or maybe a drastic change like digging caves and living in them?

Also, you would need to give me a better reason to change my ways other than to satisfy somebody's sentiment for the "gold old days"

>Do you think life would be better if we had start doing things the it ways years ago.
Life is what you make of it. Of course, you should completely define what you mean by "better".

>How long do you think it could last?
About as long as it takes to realize what kind of conveniences were lost. When people start dying of diseases that are trivial to cure now, or suddenly the workloads and travel times quadruple (or become impractical), that's about how long people will accept the "simple" lifestyle.

>would you embrace such a simple lifestyle??
My life revolves around technology, so no. I think that even those who say that they would embrace it probably aren't considering all of the variables either. What you suggest doesn't sound like cutting back on one or two complexities, more like a whole scale removal of technology. Since technology permeates pretty much everything in our lives, it's easy to misunderstand exactly what you'll be giving up.

>You think you could adjust???
I have little doubt that I could.

> if each of us had planted our own vegetation and food in general and then trade
1. Unless you're already a farmer, or rich enough to own a house with a substantial garden, then very few people have the resources to plant enough crop to sustain themselves.
2. If you dedicated enough time to tending your own crop, what else would you fill your day with? Could you afford the time to go to school for instance?

The human race took a big step forward when trade permitted the specialisation of skills, which started when farmers were able to produce more food than they needed for themselves. Freed from the need to produce all your own food for example, you could trade your skill (say making axes) for some food. Axes evolved from the rock flake tied to a stick because the axe maker could dedicate time to improving the product with specialist knowledge.

From a subsistence base, who for example would have enough time to learn enough biology to create a vaccine for the latest disease which is wiping out the population?
There aren't that many "tree-huggers" who are hard-core enough to forego every single trapping of the modern world.

If the whole planet went back to subsistence farming, then you're looking at massive land and people redistribution, and a significant reduction in world population.

> personally, i wouldn't mind the use of a bicycle or an animal for travel
Well if you replaced all 500M+ cars with the equivalent number of horses, that's an awful lot of feed which needs to be grown (they eat all the time), and the methane coming out the other end is a far worse green-house gas than carbon dioxide. Not to mention dealing with the other by-product. Plus the distance you can go is reduced, and the time it takes to get there is increased.
Also, the cost of horse ownership was considerably higher back then, than it is to own a car today.

Whilst technology might yet kill the human race, it is also the only chance of long-term survival. The number of species to survive multiple mass extinction events is vanishingly small, and humans at the top of the food chain are in a very weak position.
Only when a permanent and self-sustaining off-earth base is established will this position change.

Sometimes I wish for the days of old when the world was undiscovered. When times were like that of LOTR. I personally would love to be a wizard who has great knowledge, or an elf because of how close they live to nature. I would love to lay down in a field of grass, blowing with the wind, the sun shining on my face filling me with warmth. Without the hectic lifestyle that we live in. I would not miss my computer if it had never been thought of. It is but a dream and one should not dwell on dreams, and forget to live.
(Who knows where i got the line that is green?)

Hmm well I certainly hope you know that the Lord of the Rings is not historically accurate lmao...

To the original poster: You are a damned fool if you think we can go back to life pre-industrial/technological revolution. The reason we could live happily like that in the past was because we didn't know better. We didn't have the same knowledge that we do now... and if you think people would be happy going back to the 'good ol days' then you are truly ignorant. Subsistence farming takes a lot of work, and keep in mind that not everyone is good at farming.. not every land is fertile enough to farm, etc. If we were all subsistence farmers then life would be terrible. Only those who were great farmers and who lived on fertile land would be naturally selected to live.. millions of people would perish..

As Salem said, technology has affected the human race both negatively and positively. We are now so technologically advanced that globalization of economies and societies as at our finger tips. Technology has reduced communication, travel, ended influenzas, etc.. Technology is what enables humanity to continue to grow at such a rapid rate... perhaps too quickly.. b/c technology is also the cause of overpopulation, overfishing, using all the earth's resources, and ultimately will lead to us not being able to live here anymore (assuming we do not change our ways).

> Do you think life would be better if we had start doing things the it ways years ago. Think

nope. We abandoned those ways because they were bad. Starvation, disease, low life expectancy, etc. etc.

> about it...if each of us had planted our own vegetation and food in general and then trade, would it be better?

Nope. We'd live shorter, die younger, be poorer, less healthy.

> How long do you think it could last?

They tried it in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Lasted a few years, by which time 30% of the population was dead.

> Do you think we could gradually, become that way...or has the world become too advanced....too complexed...to greddy and too competetive to do so???...

Nothing greedy and competitive about it. Given the current population of the world the system you propose is impossible to implement.
There's just not enough land to go around for one thing.
Of course the introduction of such a system would rapidly cause the vast majority of the world population to die of exposure, disease, and starvation, curing that problem.
The rest would end up living in a feudal society, similar to the 1100s in Europe. Regional overlords with total control of everything, the population effectively their slaves.

> I want your honest opinion...would you embrace such a simple lifestyle?? You think you could adjust???

Noone living in a city today, and hardly anyone living in any modern society, would survive for more than a few years. Most would not survive for more than a few weeks or months at most, until the supplies they stashed away before it happens run out that is.
The survivors in modern societies will largely be small and midsized farmers, who already live something akin to such a lifestyle today (and have for centuries).

But effectively humanity would revert to the level of subsistence farmers, similar to jungle tribes in the Amazon and Congo basins and on New Guinnea.

> Well, let me start off....personally, i wouldn't mind the use of a bicycle or an animal for travel...no gas pumps for me...

And never travel more than a few miles from your home?

Your position is completely indefensible and just as equally asinine. Not only is your position so ridiculous and inane, but your presented argument is extremely weak. Do you realize how much work farming requires? Do you realize the poverty and deprivation an agrarian society creates? (for most that is)

>How long do you think it could last?

Anarchy, chaos, and destruction? Quite a while. You act like this is a good thing.

>I want your honest opinion...would you embrace such a simple lifestyle??

A backbreaking brutal lifestyle with murder, rape, and theft rampant? Call me a hedonist, but I enjoy technology and the amenities it provides us with.

>Well, let me start off....personally, i wouldn't mind the use of a bicycle or an animal for travel...no gas pumps for me...

Would you enjoy the aforementioned?

>Do you think we could gradually, become that way...or has the world become too advanced....too complexed...to greddy and too competetive to do so???..

No, most people would not want to "become that way" as you so eloquently put it. I suspect the reason for this is that the majority of the world is more intelligent than you. (not that that's saying much, for you or the world)

I suggest you try using your brain before you post, it might have a positive impact on the quality and content of your writing.

EDIT: You are a perfect example for my sig.

You can get quite rude xP

Most people didn't live happily... In fact only those who didn't need to farm because they had serfs to do it for them and ruffians to terrorise those who objected to that who knew happiness...
We now call those "nobles", in fact they were little more than highway robbers with a sense for dramatic architecture.