two books, one point

I just finished two books which merit comparison and discussion. They seem to make the same point but from different perspectives and with different conclusions. One is called "The Spell of the Sensuous," by David Abram, an ecologist and philosopher at Stony Brook in New York. He discusses the modern separation of the mind from the body and the mental pain of living in a world that has been reduced to include only human desires and voices. He is a professor now, but he spent several years in Bali training as a local Shaman and, therefore, has a lot of experience with living a non-modern lifestyle.

The other book is called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. He is a biologist and paleontologist at the University of Chicago. His book discusses more scientifically the specific evolution of the human body from aquatic origins. It's fascinating. My hand has the same structure as a fin. I wouldn't be able to do push-ups (I can barely do push-ups anyway actually) if it hadn't been for a little critter that developed specific joints in his forearms millennia ago.

Anyway, Shubin concludes his book with the idea that we have evolved to live a life very different from the one we have created for ourselves. We are not living it; hence hemmerrhoids, obesity, other fat diseases, and all the major health problems that plague us. The human arse was not MADE to sit in a soft seat for a long time. Eyes were not made to watch computer screens for eight hours a day (THESIS COMMITTEE!!). it's bad for bones, guts, brains, skin, and just about everything else.

The essential point of Abram's book is roughly the same thing, only he suggests that our souls may also have evolved along these same lines and be facing these same kinds of problems and lacks. Language evolved along with bird-song; it's no coincidence that people no longer speak with the sophistication of earlier centuries. Language always changes, but the modern vocabulary has dropped and dropped and dropped to a fraction of what it used to be.

Their final conclusions are, however, interesting. Dr. Shubin seems to blame the evolution of our human bodies for these problems, calling it the "curse" or "burden" of the past. He seems to fall along typical scientific body-bad mind-good lines (if only our bodies were large flubbery masses so I could sit in comfort at my computer all day!). Dr. Abram suggests it is the structure of modern culture, not our bodies that are the curse, and here I tend to agree.

So let me ask you all a hypothetical. The questions are not realistic, but they are a summation of the two positions, so don't pick apart the questions, just choose one. To take the two positions to their logical extreme: would it be better if half the population of the world had to be die, including some of your family and maybe yourself, but everyone left would lead wonderful, lovely, healthy lives (this is more or less the romantic position)? Or is it better if everybody out there lives, nobody starves anymore, but everyone's lives were dull, unhealthy, and mediocre (the modern position)?

Curious to hear thoughts. Highly recommend both books.