There is a type of inequality that has nothing to do with morality,ethics or interpretations of certain types of actions but merely manifests itself by quantity and the abundance or lack of in regards to natural resources.
What am I speaking about? Overpopulation.
Is it a coincidence that smaller pre-civilized communal groups of hunter gathering peoples didn’t face the amount or level of violence and inequality as we do today?
Civilization is the hallmark or origin of overpopulation and gatherings of large numbers of people living amongst a single center.
I shall illustrate a point and example:
When a single individual goes to a river by himself in secluded isolation everything is free, simple and convenient to his disposal.
When small groups of people goes to that same very river in secluded isolation it is much easier to be mutual amongst each other in that there isn’t much to fight about in number of resources available.
Yet when millions of individuals goes to that same very river everything automatically isn’t free, simple or convenient but instead inevitably leads to competition, violence and conflict where value, worth and identity then becomes a issue by that of bigotry.
I believe overpopulation is the origin of inequality in that when nomadic hunters no longer roamed about but instead came together in one place to a form of a overpopulated center inevitably lead to the beginning of a higher level of in-group conflict.
That is not to say that inequality wasn’t a issue in pre-civilized eras of history but I feel it is safe to say that it grew to be more when civilization arosed in overpopulated centers.
Even more interesting is that technology and invention has not caught up to handle these sort of situations not to mention that most social institutions ignore this understanding or even remotely acknowledge this factor as having anything to do with our present existence.
The joke is funny but on a serious note overpopulation is a guarantee of ongoing violence, conflict and in-group fighting exponetially and indefinately is basically what I’m saying.
Technology, innovation, and invention which creates luxory or convenience for a steady population growth acts only as fuel for overpopulation not to mention it has yet to find any solution at all to this.
( Which it probally won’t.)
And social institutions refuse to acknowledge overpopulation as a actual problem.
( Probally because they know that it is too late to doing anything about it which reverts them to denialability.)
It’s true on an objective level the doo is hitting the fan right now.
Many tribal people ( the ONEs who have an ongoing communication with our
subjective 'oneness via de ingestion of certain plants ) say many planetary changes are coming in the next four years…but I don’t want to sound too crazy here.
These are false, stupid, ignorant claims which I have corrected you about time, and time, and time again. You continously come here and lecture all of us about us being naive about human psychology and the human psyche. [size=150]Then you rant about the noble savage constantly, like an ignorant liberal anthropologist. You’re jumping on an idiotic bandwagon that has long since burned down congradulations.[/size]
Its a shame that ingroup violence was/is statistical higher in hunter-gatherer groups, and the in-group/outgroup violence (violence against other groups of humans) so outnumber our wars, that its absurd.
(As in the % of people who die in a population.1 out of 30, or whatever, apply that to a population of a billion it’d be thousands and thousands of people)
Go read a book. Try “The most dangerous animal”
Maybe the first hand accounts of hunter-gatherers/tribes-men beating legions of babies off of rocks/trees will convince you otherwise. How about the mass ancient graves with people’s heads caved in?
The cave paintings at morella la vella, perch merle, cougnac, paglicci cave,combrel, gourdan, Sous grand lac, australia, allthese cave paintings about human’s butcheringeach other.
Ceremonial battle perhaps?
You sicken me joker.
They were violent. every shred of evidence points towards a level of savagery (and sophistication) in that savagery.
I have this page of statistics about hunter-gatherer warfare across quite a few bands of hunter-gatherer and tribal groups, done by legitimate researchers from places like harvard.
I don’t really think you give a fuck, though.
Seriously, i’m just looking at pages of information, thats peer-reviewed, and supported by every shred of objective evidence, and it doesn’t matter, because the truth isn’t what you want to hear.
Ask yourself if you really care about hunter-gatherer violence levels, or if its an emotional support beam for your ‘theory’ about ‘human nature’.
But in communal levels. Yes I guess but I won’t call it as overpopulation but overcrowding.
I must agree with you Joker. I think overcrowding in a single patch of land do create social, economic and health problems, and those in charge of that community are blinded by the concept of “dearth” as discussed by Ierellus. I don’t think we must read Dicken’s to understand such concept. Right?
On Cyrene I would also agree with you that violence had been part of humanity ever since, but I think Joker’s point is that as a society rise in complexity it is funny how we also increase our savagery. To this observation I think Joker hit the mark.
The level of violence has not changed that much, the percentage is about the same from small primal tribes to now. It just seems like there is more violence because there are more humans. Now the ability to kill has risen since we now have technology. If anything we have more control over violent tendencies since most countries make it unlawful to a point. Our media just loves to tell stories of morbid doings, they do not tell about all the good things. So this also may throw perception of violence out of whack. Someone being kind is not titillating or exciting, it does not get good ratings.
World wide Primal tribes/clans were just as nasty and violent as their descendents are today. give me a town of people today rather than one from 600 years ago, I would more likely not get killed, same with you or anyone or eaten for that matter. There has been scant evidence but, it is probable that even some European clan/tribes practiced cannibalism.
Where the fuck do you get off saying this? Have you spent years researching the statistical occurance across human societies and compare them to the statistical occurance of those found in modern hunter-gatherer societies? Did you examine it for errors in methodology and etc? have you examined the archaelogical evidence?
If you seriously think you’ve spent enough time doing that, to off-handedly comment that they weren’t more violent, hit the books again, you’re wrong.
Though I do tip my hat to you, for ignoring joker’s rant about the ‘noble savage’ and at least saying that the ancients were as violent.
Cannablism may be rare, but I seriously doubt its so rare as to be reduced to survival, insanity (single people) or like, one-to-twice seen religious beliefs.
It may be really rare, but its not rare as in unseen, or unheard of. Common enough to be horrifying.
Did hunter gatherer savages bomb southern Iraq with 300 tonnes of depleted uranium?
Cyrene, I take your point but try not to get angry. After all, we don’t have that much evidence that humans ever were hunter-gatherers in the manner typically described.
No one is saying that the fact that say, 3000 people die in one bombing isn’t horrible. The only claim that i’m making is that all evidence points towards hunter-gatherer’s killing a higher percent of their population, its an important distinction and point to make, because they were not more peaceful than us by any stretch of the imagination, they had many less people, and much less of a capability for destruction, and they still wiped out more of their population % than we do in modern wars.
because the actual numbers don’t add up is not surprising the size of modern citizies and populations cannot compare to the size of hunter-gatherer bands.
I assure you we don’t. We have a lot of theorising and speculation based on scraps of evidence.
How do we know how many people were alive back then? Hell, how do we know how many people are alive now?
Such comparisons between an age where almost everything is recorded, and an age where if things were recorded, the records haven’t survived, are fruitless. One impression is based on a surplus of evidence that no person or group could ever hope to compile together. The other is based on a surfeit of evidence.
Assuming they ever existed, yes. But that’s a massive assumption. Like I say, the predominance of evidence may well point to a proportionally more violent society 10s of thousands of years ago than the one we have now, but the comparison is fruitless because we aren’t comparing like evidence (in quantity or quality) with like.
Unfortuantely I know your ‘assurances’ are foolish and nonsensical.
Theres not ‘scraps’ of evidence that hunter-gatherers were violent. Far from it.
Modern hunter-gatherer studies, primate studies, comparative ethology, evolutionary neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, archaelogy, evolutionary biology and and results from many other sciences lend ‘scraps’ to the picture, and the overall painting is exactly as i’ve depicted it. anthrpology (good anthrpology with objective standards)
Cave paintings, the number of prehistoric human skeletons found with injuries or their heads caved in, human muscle protein in ancient human feces.
Not, its not scraps, so don’t claim otherwise. Its just… absurd.
