That seems like a simple question - yes, they are poor. It would be miserable and horrific, and they'd be happy every day they were healthy because it would be a pleasant surprise.

And there is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant at the same time. Even if hot running water is now considered a colonial luxury.

The book “Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging” examines this in detail. By looking at places where people were thrown back from civilization (wars, famine) and historical examples where pre-industrial civs lived alongside colonial powers. Quite fascinating really.

For example the book explores the fact that much more europeans went into the indian tribal societies in colonial America than the other way around. As well as people longing for the times they were under siege (Saraevo) as they remember the closeness and belonging those situation caused. Fascinating really.

And it also has the virtue of being short - recommended.

Why do you assume tribes living off-grid are miserable? That doesn't seem to be the case unless they are stricken by a particular disease / natural events, usually they appear to be very content with a simple life. That you would be miserable in their condition does not tell us anything about happiness.

This relativism isn't good for anything. They are poor and also underdeveloped in every sense. That's a fact.

If you romanticize them you are not doing them any good. You simply cannot understand what being in their position is like. Any slight inconvenient to a modern society is a very serious event for them, eg. disease, drought, famine, etc. while you have most conveniences in life and most problems solved.

As I said in a previous comment, if you consider yourself a Marxist or a leftist you really aren't. Societies do advance, humanity goes forward. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress and it surely isn't any good. Stagnating isn't either.

That is no argument. Not only you're again dismissing it based on opinion alone, now I'm being personally judged for it... I'm not going down that line.

Practically every research study on happiness associates it with health, family, culture, friends, purpose, religion. Comfort, physical goods, wealth are always at the bottom.

Living in simple conditions doesn't mean forfeiting health or basic sanitation. The question is still valid: you have a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare; but no TV, Netflix, car, laptop. You'll never afford even a mobile phone. Are you poor?

If not having internet, a phone or computer has a detrimental impact on your quality of life - which it most likely does for the vast majority of people who live in the city, have a normal job and bills to pay - then the answer is yes. If you go homeless, hungry or sick because of not having one of these things, yes. But what if it doesn't? It's not as black and white as you imply. This is much more of a philosophical question than socioeconomics (or marxism).

First of all, I'm not judging you, where did I? I'm arguing against your ideas, which are harmful. Second, how am I basing anything on opinion alone?

I never mentioned modern day commodities or technologies, you are arguing against things I've never said, and are completely omitting my main points.

According to your own arguments and words, do "tribes living off-grid" have "a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare"? It seems like you're completely changing what you're saying on the go.

I'll just say this: that's precisely your error, it is not a philosophical question, it is a material one. It is not ideas we're talking about, it's people and their living conditions.

There's a problem in your assumptions though.

Modern examples of tribal living are after the vast majority of fertile lands have been colonized by "civilization".

Imagine judging the wealth of a place like America by its Indian reservations.

The (vast?) majority of pre-industrial tribes I remember studying in anthropology live in very fertile areas like the Amazon, Pacific islands, and the mountainous jungles of central Africa or Papua New Guinea. These areas can support small scale agriculture but for various reasons are impractical to exploit economically.

Anthropologists have gone to great lengths to study tribes that have had little to no interaction with the outside world so our understanding of their quality of life isn't as biased as you'd think.

Because I have thought carefully about my lifestyle and, like pretty much everyone, decided that if I have the option of being grid-connected I will take it.

It is an open-and-shut case. If people are given a choice, it would be a good day when 1 in 100 would choose to live a life in absolute poverty. If these hypothetical secluded tribes had a choice, they would say the equivalent of "wow, antibiotics! Reliable food! Houses! Sign me up for this please, I want to be a part of it! This will make my life better!" in their local language.

Are there any downsides of being connected you can think of?

Lots, obviously. It isn't utopia. But not being connected would make you impoverished. Like how monks might disconnect by taking a so-called vow of poverty.

And people who voluntarily do that? Vanishingly rare.

It is interesting that it is obvious to you. Did you grow up in an unconnected region and then become connected later in life? How would your perspective change if that was true. Is this speculation or have you spoken to someone who had that story? I find it fascinating what facts are assumed by societies. That the current way of life is the best is a reoccurring theme amongst societies with very different conditions. To me it is more of a defense mechanism that rationalizes it more than anything else, but that's just my opinion.

I was born on perifery of comunist country during at the time when regime started to colapse. All the people worked either at local state farm or one of few factories that were around.

We all were equaly poor and even if you had money there were few things you can buy anyway. You had a house (build by yourself) and food. If you were in good standing with government, you might get a chance to go to international holiday (in other eastern bloc country). Going anywhere in west would be totaly cost prohibitive even if they allowed to do it. Buying coffee in Vienna (closest big city) would easily cost 3 months of your paycheck.

So you were poor and you know you are poor, but it doesn't matter that much. 30 years later you can easily spot the difference in what does it means to be poor in developed economy: easily available loans and brain drain destroyed the periphery communities as whole. Now people are poor, they know it and they can compare to more well off everyday.

What I want to say, there is poverty and poverty.

It is very different being poor in functioning community of similarly poor people, where people barther among themselves and being poor in developed country, where you are isolated from wide society or living in society with widespread drug/alcohol/mental illness problems in debt and no way out.

All the fantasy of cotagecore, simple life, #vanlife, home steading is basically trying to get into former type of being poor: not being stressed by work that much, having little societal asspiration, living with other similary minded people (even if that means watching each other posts on social media) and such.

Well they lack basic medical care so no they don't have everything they need.

There are many things I would like to reply to this comment but I'll be brief and direct.

If you consider yourself in any way a Marxist or a leftist, you _aren't_, you are pretty far from it. You are not making a rational analysis of society, humanity or reality based on historical materialism. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress. Period.

Clearly, underdeveloped tribes living primitive lives are poor in almost every sense of the word. They may not be poor spiritually, which is debatable, but that's it. There is no colonialism boo-hoo here. Their means, technologies and knowledge are primitive compared to most current day humans. You are romanticizing them based on tedious with current day lives, but if you analyze their situation they _are not_ in a good position compared to humans in more advanced places in the world.

If you think you would like being one of them just think what their average lifespan is, or what their access to drugs, medical treatment, etc is, or what happens to them when there is a drought.

There is nothing to romanticize about it. They have it very rough and they are poor. You shouldn't based your world view on the "noble savage" myth.

To be free of the spectacle of the modern world, what a delicious treat!

I don't think anybody is stopping you from living like a hermit in a cabin in the woods, right? But still, you don't.

I would very much like to be free of spectacle without having to live in the woods. What is it that makes society and spectacle inseparable in your mind? I like these questions because they directly address social assumptions.

Because human existence, and happiness, presupposes a social existence for the vast majority of humans.

Hermit in the woods is an erroneous analogy to primitive tribes.