It's interesting that they stumbled on the persistence hunting technique so naturally. Indirect evidence to support the Endurance running hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis).
: I don't remember my source for this, sorry. But this is interesting for similar reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon
Edit: I should say, wolves/dogs can run for long distances too, at a slower gait. But they can only out-pace human marathon-distance runners for a few miles before overheating.
Edit 2: Found a source: "Dogs can gallop for only about 10 to 15 minutes before reverting to a trot, and so their distance-running speed tops out at about 3.8 meters per second." As commenters below have pointed out, yes, if it's cold enough, this doesn't matter ;-).
Also, here is a video of a modern persistent hunter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
As you can see, even though the overall distance is 25.1 km, the straight line distance between the start and finish is less than a mile.
Between the barefoot hunting and the persistence hunting, this story seems like it's tailor made for Born to Run.
> A couple of kettles served them well for many years, but when rust finally overcame them, the only replacements they could fashion came from birch bark. Since these could not be placed in a fire, it became far harder to cook.
they did not replace their kettles by a leather cauldron.
A simpler alternative is "brain tanning", there's an old saying that each animal has enough brain to tan its hide which is probably true enough for basic purposes. Brain tanning is still the way native americans do their tanning (colonists brought vegetable tanning to the americas, and modern mineral and chemical tannings arose during the 19th century)
It would be interesting to know how do we measure up against other mammals in terms of... uh... I forgot the technical name, it's the ability to absorb and metabolize oxygen. It's determined by lung size among other things, and it's a strong predictor of endurance.
Add to that a large brain, capable of planning, and driven by purpose and by an understanding of the concept of time in general and future in particular.
Large legs, oxygen metabolism, brain capable of long-term planning - well, that's the perfect trifecta that could produce an excellent endurance runner.
It's also possible that potential prey in this area is not well adapted for outrunning endurance hunters, which might make them easier to run down than animals that have been hunted by runners for thousands of years.
I found this quote interesting, and I think shows how hard it may be to predict such things:
"What amazed him most of all," Peskov recorded, "was a transparent cellophane package. 'Lord, what have they thought up—it is glass, but it crumples!'"
When I was around 15, he showed me a video of their first encounter with her, and to this day I cannot get the image of the pure terror on her face out of my mind. She had multiple visitors before, but something about this visit scared her so much that she hid inside for hours.
It turned out that this was the first visit where someone in the crew had brought video equipment (one of those big shoulder-mounted VHS cameras), and Agafia would later tell my grandfather that she thought this thing would 'steal her soul.' She wasn't shocked in amazement at the new technology, this was pure fear.
Reminds me of one of the early silent film The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station , which allegedly was so realistic that people ran out of the movie theater screaming.
Sorry? It might as well have been a log on his shoulder.
Now, if it was viewing video of herself on this camera that brought a look of "pure terror" to her face (that you can't get out of your mind to this day, no less) I could begin to understand, but if she was watching a video replay on the camera, then how was it being recorded?
With no prior knowledge of video or photography what basis would she have for belief that the random equipment on a videographers shoulder would "steal her soul"?
This is vague recollection at this point, but I do believe that the family did have knowledge of photography (my grandfather visited her 10+ years after this family became 'famous' through Russian press) and the father did not approve of their pictures being taken at first. I can see how that, combined with their deeply religious and isolated world view, could have been a cause for her superstition.
"...the sin of television, which they encountered at the geologists' camp, proved irresistible for them..."
I agree that the account in the comments here did not give sufficient detail to determine if she had reason to connect something on a man's shoulder with the images she had seen in the television earlier, but she had some sort of prior exposure to video.
That's a bit Crocodile Dundee isn't it?
Indigenous Australians to this day have very different beliefs about photography and filmography than most hn users would. Even though many of them live fairly modern lifestyles, it is considered fairly offensive in their culture to show images of people who have since passed away. Television broadcasts which include film of aboriginal people who have passed away are usually accompanied by a disclaimer that viewers may not want to watch.
Many Australian tribes don't name the dead by first name [1, 2], as a sign of respect and because it's too painful for the family. The no-images-rule has just very recently been derived from that practice. It isn't about photography or filmography, it's about names only.
It'd really be great to know what people mean when they say that.
I remember reading a book from an american guy who recalled what happened to him when he was travelling in another country. He suddenly realized that he had lost his wallet (it was stolen) and it contained pictures of his children inside. Those were just simple pictures and he could have made copies once coming back home, but instead he wandered in the dangerous quarters of the city to try to find back the pictures from his wallet. He could have been robbed or worse, but he explained he was not aware of those risks at that time because the only thing he was thinking about was that "I have to find my kids back". He made a clear association between the pictures and the persons.
He then said he could understand the saying regarding pictures and souls, since he went through this experience.
In an NPR interview someone mentioned that right after the words 'mother' and 'memory', in 1940 "the American public voted 'cellophane' as the third most beautiful word in the English language". Cellophane revolutionized food storage, and the gentleman in the OP recognized its usefulness.
It suffers a little from some heavy editing, but is very interesting. There's also a video that airs on PBS every so often, which is worth watching. He died in 2003, but left his cabin to the National Park Service.
I've been to his cabin, and it's been preserved as he left it. It's amazing what he was able to make with simple tools. The door is particularly neat - the hinges and bear-proof lock are made entirely of wood.
Sometimes it makes me want to move to Alaska and build a cabin. Internet connectivity is a bit of a problem, but I suppose that's the point.
Part 2 was just released in 2012, and PBS have said they will release Part 3 this year or next.
Outwardly it sounds like he lived a lonely existence, though in part 2 we learn his brother was a bush pilot in Alaska, and they would spend summers together flying around, camping and hiking.
Dick also received many visitors at his cabin.
Dick's capabilities (he had been a carpenter when living in civilization) were amazing, though he remained in periodic contact with the rest of civilization, including receiving regular supplies.
It's also interesting to note his reliance on steel tools that he wasn't capable of replacing: saws, adzes, planes, axes, stove, pots and pans. He did pack in many of these, most without handles (he fashioned those from wood on site). While creative and highly independent, Proenneke was by no means self-sufficient.
I agree 100%. He also had a rifle, canoe, hiking boots etc that all would have been replaced from the outside world over the years.
I loved his comment about solo canoeing in his lake:
"I always knew that to swim was to die, but I never had a problem".
The water is so cold up here, you'll be dead in less than a minute if you swim in the middle of any lake - about 5 people die up here every year like that.
The two biggest dangers are panic and shock when you first enter the water, hypothermia after leaving the water, and even sudden death as the body re-warms after leaving it. For that last, I read (but can't find) a story of several survivors of a shipwreck who died after drinking a hot beverage which warmed their bodies too quickly -- all the survivors died, one after the other, on the rescue ship.
My first summer up here it was a beautiful sunny day and my friends were telling me about how people die in the lake every year. Being a very strong swimmer and from Australia, I didn't believe them.
They bet me $1000 I couldn't stay in the water 5 minutes, which I thought I would have a good go at. I've swum in water below 40F before. I honestly didn't last 30 seconds before I was scared I would not be able to get out again, because I could not feel my extremities at all. It was surreal.
I know it sounds crazy, though it's worth noting more than one professional canoer / kayaker has died in the Yukon from capsizing their craft only a few hundred meters from shore.
We had a guy die not 5 minutes from town last summer, and some local Alaskans did the same thing just over the border.
I was trying to ford a river once, to retrieve a canoe I'd put into a logjam. Had two friends with me, holding one end of a long rope from shore while I had the other end looped under my shoulders.
Got maybe halfway across before the current was just to strong (and I was too exhausted) to keep my footing anymore - it's just unbelievable how quickly being submerged in cold water and fighting against the current like that sucks the energy out of you.
It was all I could do to keep my head above water and kick myself back to shore, I doubt I'd have been able to drag myself out of the river if I'd been by myself.
And that river (north fork of the Chena) wasn't even glacier fed, like a lot of rivers in Alaska are...
That said: if you are acclimated to the shock (and possibly have a genetic propensity to survive colder water), it's definitely survivable.
Capsizing a kayak is something you need to know how to deal with to execute properly anyhow, and yes, cold water makes appropriate response and motor control much more challenging.
I've done extended swims (30+ minutes) in ~54F water, and shorter dips in colder (40s, high 30s). That last was more a dash, plunge, and run back to the hot tub, truth be told. Even in the 50s, the cold shock and numbing are quite noticeable, though once you get your head in the right space, it's very tolerable.
The story you read was likely from Bill Bryson's book "A Walk in the Woods", which talks about 12 Danish fishermen, but that story doesn't seem to be correct in its details.
In fact, many hypothermia victims die each year in the process of being rescued. In "rewarming shock," the constricted capillaries reopen almost all at once, causing a sudden drop in blood pressure. The slightest movement can send a victim's heart muscle into wild spasms of ventricular fibrillation. In 1980, 16 shipwrecked Danish fishermen were hauled to safety after an hour and a half in the frigid North Sea. They then walked across the deck of the rescue ship, stepped below for a hot drink, and dropped dead, all 16 of them.
Reddit has some discussion of this, largely dismisses the 16 Danish fishermen story as a myth (though points to a couple of published sources as well).
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/othpdf/500-599/oth519.pdf (UK compendium of sea immersion rescue issues, no mention of Danish sailors).
Basic Essentials: Hypothermia, by William W. Forgey, 1999. Does include a mention, but includes no citations, references, footnotes, or endnotes.
Having read several of Bryson's entertaining works, I know that he is not a rigorous researcher of the details.
The link I gave was to "Hypothermia and Cold Stress" by Evan L. Lloyd, 1986. It shows a citation to Lee and Lee 1971. I am unable to track down that reference based just on free internet searches. According to Lloyd's recounting, the rescuees did drink some alcohol. I can see how upon retelling that might be turned into a "hot drink."
I am quite willing to say that the previous poster heard about the Bryson story and the false details from that. However, I would rather state that the details of the story - that being of Danish fishermen - were wrong rather than the point of the story, which is the death of people after they have been rescued. In any case, the parent poster said nothing about Danish fishermen.
Even if "Lee and Lee 1971" citation I pointed to is too vague of a confirmation for you, the HSE report gives many examples of "post-rescue collapse and death" from both Allied and Axis sources, including from ship-wreck survivors (Critchley 1943).
I think it's unsafe describe the situation in a way that could be described as implying an urban legend, which is why I've specifically said that the details are wrong, and pointed to places where the details are correct. (To be sure, you are not doing that. I write this to explain why I wrote it as I did.)
There was a longer documentary, called Ceiling, online, but it was removed unfortunately.
Hahaha. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. As someone who has been in the taiga in the summer, it's absolutely horrible. The air is alive with mosquitoes. There are clouds of them around you 24/7. The place is just permafrost and swamps. It's really pretty, but a miserable place to live. That's why there is no on there.
(I live above 60 degrees north - it's well past -40 here today)
 Unless he's using Kelvins.
[*] Sometimes negative temperatures are used to represent temperatures ABOVE infinity. That's when high-energy quantum states are MORE populated than low-energy quantum states... it's useful for things like making a laser. But I still think it's unreasonable to believe that the temperature outside is -40 kelvin.
Even the digital ones just say "-40.0C" at about 6pm, and won't show anything else until 17 hours later when the sun comes back, and they creep up a few degrees.
I rode my bike in yesterday at around -45C. The snow drifts were too big today, so I walked for 35 minutes instead.
I don't think anyone would ever ride a road bike in the winter, it would not be possible with the snow the way it is (deep, often drifting, rarely cleared)
Tons of people up here ride "fat tire" winter bikes with up to 4.5 inch tires. They ride the downhill trails right through winter.
(I used a cordless drill and just drove them through - took 30 minutes all done)
It's not clear why your thermometers don't register below -40, unless it's a legacy of the mercury thermometer limitation baked into the product (or frozen in, so to speak).
I also ride my bike to work every day, and I ski patrol at the local mountains on the weekend.
I went camping in -35C two weekends ago, it was great!
One of the hardest things to deal with is condensation and sweat - anything even remotely damp (socks, sleeping bag, boots, gloves) will be frozen rock solid in the morning.
I have no experience of camping in temperatures as low as -35C. However, I have found that camping in Scottish mountains it is much more pleasant when it is in the range 0 to -10C than just above freezing.
[source - lived in southern taiga for several years].
The growth of the population was very slow. Someone suggested that at their peak there were 100 million bison worldwide, but it seems to have taken most of human history to catch up with the bison -- we seem to have hit that number only when we began agriculture. As late as the year 1300, the historian Fernand Braudel estimates a world wide population of only 500 million people. We became one of the most successful species in the history of the planet, so why wasn't there faster growth, for such a long time?
That question interests me, so it also interests me that a family, living alone, with fanatic Christian fundamentalist beliefs and no access to contraceptives, still only ends up having 3 surviving children -- not a whole lot in excess of the replacement rate.
Something similar to this must have been going on for many thousands of years.
Add in subsistence existence with poor food storage and little means to store surplus, and life was tenuous. Civilization and the formation of cities helped get around the food store problem, but introduced disease, particularly with poor management of human wastes and garbage.
Improving available food, energy, sanitation, acute medical care, obstetrics, decreased criminal and military violence, all contributed to an explosion of population beginning in the 19th century, and rapidly accelerating through the 20th.
It was not actually true historically, most of the time people did not have poor nutrition. Sure during "events" like war etc, things got bad.
But most of the time it was not so.
Fanatic Christian fundamentalists are everywhere, and this family fits the stereotype we have perfectly.
I probably misused the fundamentalist label. I'm sure there are differences between them, but they look all the same to me, and I try to avoid them all.
Another factor is that crops have changed vastly since the start of agriculture, which is also a major factor in the relative growth rate of human population (along with disease, which arose hand in hand with agriculture, of course) - see Teosinte vs. Corn, and Emmer Wheat vs. Durum. Same plants, shaped by man's hand since time immemorial by selective breeding.
So, yeah. These guys actually had it really well off compared to historic humans, as they had agriculture, but it doesn't function well in isolation, particularly in such a harsh environment as the taiga - don't forget the place used to be inundated with hunter-gatherers before everyone migrated for the cushy disease and war-ridden life agriculture offers.
Survival was a bitch until we figured out farming and trade - and it's improved over the last 150 years or so due to modern medicine (lower infant and adult mortality), improved crops (green revolution), improved productivity (industrial revolution), and all the rest.
Cushy unless youre a peasant.
>Survival was a bitch until we figured out farming and trade
I think this is a misconception leftover from earlier eras. But I don't think it is the commonly accepted scientific viewpoint anymore. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
I think carrot seeds can survive more than a year if you don't plant them. Wiser methods of conservation might have prevented them from losing their carrots and almost rye.
The 1950 ones would have been a lot harder to spot, of course, but might at times have reflected the light of the below-the-horizon sun.
And done with Bootstrap ;)
But honestly, the tradeoffs I would have to make to move somewhere with even blue sky or green sky at this particular point in my life are large enough that they might as well be in Siberia. And I expect it to get worse as I age and entrench. Hence, a bit of jealousy.
What I'm surprised about is that they came up with the theory of "man-made fires" all by themselves.
Yes, you can see a number of satellites from even the densest urban areas. I could usually see three planets from Manhattan. But I never once had the desire to go lie in Central Park after dark and stare at the sky. Compared to that, even yellow sky is amazing. I frequently find myself stopping on the way from the car to the house at night to stare at the sky, and I think to myself: "And this sky isn't even that good."
So I hear about this family, isolated, zero light pollution, probably far enough north for good Northern lights, and it's no wonder to me that they would have noticed satellites. How could they not be staring at the night sky constantly? It must be heart-achingly beautiful there.
And he might very well have at least passing knowledge of the ideas from contemporary descriptions inspired by the writings of Tsiolkovsky on exploration of space starting from 1903 or so onwards, or any number of other sources.
Though, my own recently re-ignited interest in astronomy has taught me that you can actually see quite a bit, including satellites in even thoroughly light polluted areas as my back yard rates red on these charts .
I really recommend it. The people survive their arduous living conditions by continually preparing for the next season. They've done the same things more or less for generations, always working, and pretty much cut off from modern civilization. Makes you realize how happiness is a fairly relative value. Their lives are completely defined by the need to survive, and as long as that's accomplished things are good.
> trying to recruit church followers to live in the mountains with her
She's recruiting (enlisting) a willing church member to a difficult task.
I read the Russian original post and the following is my translation of the excerpt from her letter:
"... I bow to you down to the raw Earth and wish unto you from God good health, the most spiritual salvation and all sorts of good luck, and let God save the sacred [several kinds of] Church until the end of centuries from all division and heretics, [bearing evil thoughts]..."
"I plead to you with a great request: I need a helper, as I won't survive alone, and it is also not good to live so, weeklong remaining in loneliness. Do not leave me [...] the orphan [...]."
"... a sincere believer is needed here, an Old Believer, a person of male gender is needed to chop wood, cut hay. <...> I have weakened in health and in strength."
Bits marked as [...] I couldn't understand.
I bow to the ground before you and wish you in the name of the Lord good health, above all salvation and well-being, and may God save the fatherly Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church till the end of time from discord and herecies, the devious webs of enemies...
I bow before all with a great big request: I need someone to be my helper, I cannot survive alone, and it's not proper to live this way, spending whole weeks alone. Do not leave me for Christ's sake, have mercy on this miserable orphan, suffering in hardship.
A true believer is needed here, believing in Christ as the Old Believers do, and a male is needed to chop wood, cut down hay ... My health and strength have deteriorated.
The interesting thing to note is the terminology she uses in her first sentence to specifically define the church she believes in using the Four Marks of the Church (though she leaves out one), thus proclaiming the orthodoxy of the Old Believers' beliefs (also note that the term "Catholic" here in no way means "Roman Catholic"). One may even infer that the "devious webs" are being cast by the reformed Russian Orthodox Church.
I would also note that the archaic nature of some the terms she uses ("наипаче", "многокозненных сетей вражиих", "не добре", "седмицу"), and the archaic sentence structure is more consistent with the language used in the Russian Bible, rather than with the conventions of the early 20th century. The English equivalent would be the language found in the King James Bible.
A note to astral303: I noticed that you translated "сырая земля" as "raw earth", which is interesting, because while "сырой" means both "raw" and "damp", it most certainly is meant as "damp" when describing the earth. I know "raw earth" sounds more natural in English, but I think simply saying "ground" is the best equivalent, since I can't think of an English turn of phrase that invokes the connotations of describing the ground as damp in the intended manner.
I had heard a version of that story where the brother who returned to the traditional life was believed to still be out roaming the desert, and if they saw smoke in the distance they knew it to be him but they'd stay away and leave him be.
That version of the story also had someone explained the terror of seeing a motor vehicle for the first time, followed by (relatively) fat people coming out - believed to be cannibals (how else could you get so fat?) - and their first sighting of a white man. That's quite a lot to take in over a few minutes.
Some children were absolutely horrified and ran away screaming and crying! They have a very superstitious culture and have many different types of 'aswang' which translates roughly to 'monster'. We had learnt the local dialect(s) and that terrified them even more, oddly enough, at first. Most of them warmed up to us pretty quickly though not all.
It's interesting how isolation does to a spoken language in only one generation. I'm guessing they had nobody but themselves to talk to, so any mispronunciation would be greatly exaggerated.
I feel true sadness for the Lykov's, being 'discovered', then somewhat forced by the intrusion of others to be aware of their greater surroundings and soon thereafter the father and sister seeing the rest of their family felled in quick succession.
They'd be going along clearing out land for a road and they'd come across a hollow with residents who had been isolated for decades, if not a century or more. He said they knew nothing about the world at all, though they would have basic tools from way back. Of course, that was 80 years ago now.
Only vaguely related, but after his time in the CCC, my grandfather became a pentacostal preacher, which he remained for the rest of his life. His first "church" was a brush arbor he built himself. Funny how different life was then.
Brush arbor information:
In some cases, they might have had a less than pleasant experience when they were first contacted by explorers or loggers. Nowadays, while they'd be in danger should they meet illegal loggers and the like, it shouldn't be dangerous for them to contact the authorities. However, their memory from the initial encounter might have been passed on for generations.
Also, as you say, the Brazilian agency in charge of documenting and protecting the Indians has a policy of not forcing contact. So those tribes can remain uncontacted indefinitely.
The page below has more info. Use your favorite translator.
Perhaps more interesting is the case of the Sentinelese, who live on islands in the bay of bengal, and may have had literally no spoken contact with outsiders in hundreds of years:
Seems to me this applies for people living in civilization, as they again and again leave it to live as noble savages. Looks a lot like "grass will always be greener on the other side".
There's absolutely nothing sexist at all about the post. It was a compliment, geez.
> Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'?
No, men are generally stronger than women; it's why we have different classifications in sports. Would you rather we lumped them together?
"This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman".
I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.
Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you made. Among male traits, strength has historically been prestigious. How on earth is that implying female-only traits are inferior? Give me a first-order logic chain or something here because I'm not seeing the inferences.
> Whether or not you think sexism is insulting
I do think sexism is insulting. His post was not sexism.
What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".
> This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now absolutely ALONE? One word: Wow.
> Being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing.
And I'm not sure what is wrong about my original inference. The story is of a woman being "more of a man". It is "amazing", "wow". It's not a huge leap to see that being more of a man is portrayed as a positive attribute.
Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?
No, you're missing this completely.
Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued separately in its own classification (men and women race separately). However, the fact that my sister was good enough to actually compete with the men (who are overall much faster than women), came across as a compliment.
I would go so far as to invoke "isomorphic" as the most apt term in describing the type of compliment involved in mine and scrapcode's scenarios.
> Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best.
Useless at best? I see this phrase a lot on the internet lately, and it must be a fad because it wasn't in popular usage a few years ago.
Men and women have different traits. It is a completely, scientifically, undeniable fact. Men will be better at certain skills, and women will be better at other skills. The latest social trend cannot change that.
If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL, great for her, we'd all be glad to see that! But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are ridiculously stacked against her being capable of doing such a thing. Maybe start a separate women's NFL? Alright, but since no one's done that, let's use common sense and say football is a man's sport. What is an activity that's typically only associated with females only: ballet dancers. Sure, there are male ballet dancers but until the ratio is close to 50/50, the term "ballet dancer" will continue to be associated with females, and for good reason.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort.
You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist.
To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?
Yes, men are more likely to live in the woods by themselves than females. I haven't looked up this fact anywhere, but I guarantee I can find you a reference if you want one.
> But saying that she is "more of a man"...
... means she is better than most men at something they typically perform "better" (in a quantitive sense, mind you) than females. Which is completely the same as the situation I provided above. Perhaps you are getting confused by common American phrases. I might guess that you are not a native (American English) speaker?
EDIT: Just checked out your Twitter from the link on your HN profile and confirmed what I thought with regards to American vernacular.
And "somebody dunk that nerd's head in a toilet. It'll put hair in his chest. Like a real man!" Wow, seriously? This kind of hypocrisy? May I ask why it's okay to discriminate/oppress only certain groups?
I am certain your (and your friend's) views are highly abnormal, OR you are both greatly misinterpreting what scrapcode said (hint: this is the more likely explanation).
Check out the definition of sexist:
"Discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men"
I do not adhere to this definition one bit, and quite frankly, I'm upset that you are having fun at my expense (with something that is not true) on Twitter. Anonymous HN users on are people too.
Attributing gender as a broad label is sexist because it creates a gender definition where there is not one. There are women stronger than the average man, it does not make them "more of a man", it makes them "stronger than the average man". There is an important distinction.
Again, nothing would have been lost if the original post described her as "strong" instead of "more of a man".
(And yes, I understand American English perfectly, thank you. It is not difficult.)
I don't think the OP was being sexist on purpose, or maliciously, or even consciously. I just wanted to bring attention to it, because this is the sort of casual sexism that pervades a lot of people's thinking without them even realizing it.
No, but being strong interdependent person in modern civilization is different than living alone in the wilderness.
It is inherently easier for a man to survive for years alone in the wilderness, without the aid of technology, than it is for a woman. The extra size, strength, and endurance is handy.
What do you mean?
For example - I can not do many repairs to my car and so I take it to a mechanic. To a great many people, this makes me less of a man.
One thing I didn't realise until I talked to my grandma is how famous she is in Russia, but it makes sense.
Vasily Peskov. Lost in the Taiga: One Russian Family's Fifty-Year Struggle for Survival and Religious Freedom in the Siberian Wilderness. New York: Doubleday, 1992
ps. YMMV. You could call withdrawal from the rat race a comfort that makes the lack of physical comforts seem small in proportion.
In this case, with the people being heavily religious (and not knowing much about their religion), it may have been handled differently. It just didn't need to be.
Because of the incest taboo.
That's just my take on the matter.
On the other hand, it's not obvious at all that resisting breaking that taboo would be as easy as not using modern technology. This was hinted in one of the book's reviews on Amazon:
> A spectra haunted this group, as well as other remote old believers - incest! Peskov never can definitely state this is the reason why the two brothers established separate dwellings six kilometers from the main housing unit, but certainly it is high on the speculation list.
Poor nutrition reduces the sex drive and delays maturation, so it probably wasn't as tough as you might think.
Everyone will extinct at some point, to avoid it, stop fighting it.
Google text cache
How can someone survive that?
I'm no scientist, but I don't believe frost forms until 32 degrees. Maybe this was a mistranslation...?
"One degree of frost was one degree below freezing Fahrenheit. An explorer might write in his journal of fifty degrees of frost - negative eighteen degrees Fahrenheit"
Perhaps it was under 10 atmospheres of pressure? ;-)