If man was still a hunter and gatherer worldwide.

Imagine a world consisting only of hunter and gatherers only…

There would be no mass starvation as all the food one could need would be in abundance amongst nature.

With there being no need of any statist government whatsoever amongst independent, self reliant, self governing, and free people there would be no conception of poverty around a form of living which revolves around agreed positions of mutuality.

With no statist government there exists no classism.

With no statist government there would be no malign entity disposing people’s entire lives.

Upon this understanding we can come to the conclusion that humanistic “reasoning” is always self defeating.

In the preparation of people coming into this thread yelling out nonsense to my conjecture please take your eyes here to my thesis:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=160310

But we do live in a hunter-gatherer society. It’s just that the prey have changed a bit since “primitive times.” Nowadays we hunt and prey and feed on eachother. Tell me why you think that’s wrong. Why should a person who can outsmart another into working for him not do so? Why shouldn’t a man, if capable, coerce another into giving up their freedom to act. Why shouldn’t one who can dominate, not? What would mankind be today and what would it become tomorrow without a foe so powerful as mankind itself to drive it’s ingenuity? We would atrophy into extinction. There is nothing wrong with cannibalism. I think it’s vital to progress, and indeed to survival.

Do you object on moral grounds, or do you simply find yourself on the oppressed side and are thus pissed (at your impotency). Is that why you cry foul? Is that why you demand equality? I cannot see how or why else you would object. You shouldn’t object. You should rise up to the challenge and play the game. Turn your struggle, your fight, into creativity. Be better than those preying upon you and start preying on them. Let your will be done! Unless…you suck at life. In which case feel free to complain about the rules of the game. Write your book about the big meanies. I’m sure you’ll find a big audience.

I simply object on moral grounds.
I take it as an axiom or a definition that such behavior is evil.

I must take issue with this:

By what reasoning do you call them rules?

By rules I mean the common means by which we go about living our lives in society viz. we all in one way or another depend on eachother; we all coerce one another either through the intellect or through the emotions to get something done. It’s those who get exploited who typically complain about the system in which they are a part of. It is a failure to rise up and conquer, and to then do what you want, rule, coerce others into adopting your will, your morals as theirs. Instead the failures beg to those clearly in a superior position to have their will, their desires, (for equality or rights or whatever) be done. But I digress.

Simply speaking, I equate life with game and the means by which we go about winning the game I call rules. The metaphor “winning the game” translates into “having one’s will be done, uncoerced by another’s more powerful will.”

Why? The writers of a book told you so (through the book)? Your parents? Do you disagree that the world operates as I say it does and find it immoral, or do you find it moral and therefore different than how I described it? Do you think man is not cannibalistic…and hasn’t it worked for him if he is? Personally, I think the reason why man is superior to other creatures is because we are cannibalistic so to speak. I think our greatest strength, self-consciousness, arose out of a need to predict what someone of the same species does.

I guess it all depends on what you want out of life. Romantic images of idyllic nature aside, hunter-gatherer societies have remarkably short lifespans and disease is rampant. That isn’t my cup of tea.

I agree sort of with Erlir, we still are hunter gatherers We just don’t do it quite the same way as the ancients did.

No, I don’t think so. Hunter-gatherer is not what I am. It is likely not what you are. We are market foragers. :sunglasses: We do not hunt and gather. We labor.

The hunter-gather lifestyle provides a remarkably long lifespan for our species and our ecosystem.

Older women are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects.

Most (and likely all) of our diseases came from the animals that we domesticated. We would live in close proximity with our animals and with many other people, perfect conditions for rampant disease. Some examples I can think of off hand are influenza, measles, smallpox, and TB.

I just posted an essay in the essay forum. Give it a read and response, if you want.

Amen to that, brother.

What would the fun and freedom be in that, that everyone is in the same class and can’t rise above it or below it. Thats why we no longer live in a hunter and gather society. We moved past it, to a better form of civilization. Knowing what everyone knows now, no one would be willing to revert back to a ‘primitive’ way of living. If it was capable of lasting and no one wanted to progress. We wouldn’t have, and would be in that same state now.

Please be more explicit and define coercion.
I want to understand how you assert that we are all coercing eachother.

Translation: life = non-coercion
I can accept that.

I find the premise faulty on several counts. What is your basis for this description of ancient life?

Evidence exists of periods of famine in one area or another, contributing to population movements. The assertion that ‘’…all the food one could need would be in abundance amongst nature.‘’ is dependent on location and population.

The assertion that man was ‘‘prodigal’’ and ‘‘improvident’’ is contrary to what is known of the economy, utility, and reverence associated with the hunt. The simple fact that man survived at all indicates that he made provisions for times of scarcity.

The idea that ancient groups were egalitarian is especially difficult for me to accept. No group of anything has ever demonstrated uniform equality. Some pecking order is always established, the leaders and the leaders family get preference.

The classism recognized in modern societies is a manifestation of this natural group dynamic. A statist government is not required for the groups leader, or another group, to dispose of peoples entire lives.

The conclusion that humanistic “reasoning” is always self defeating, is not even supported by your thesis. Where is the defeat caused by what reasoning?

If man was still a hunter and gatherer worldwide, the human population would be much smaller, and we most certainly would not be communicating with computers.

According to scholarly sources, humans would work less hours to get their food. Many think the trade-offs of technology, indoor plumbing …etc are worth it, but your defeat and reasoning might be in here someplace.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to help define our existence.

I liked this post on Jester’s part. :smiley:

Your response is to bring up all the cliches of "Alley Opp, and present them to us as “science.”

Sorry, no, there is a science of Anthropology, and it completely disagree’s with you.

It would be wrong to call hunting/gathering societies as “paradise.” That’s about as far as I can go with agreeing with you. But the incredible frustrating lives that we live, were unimaginable to those people. They were not alientated from their work. They were Not alienated from each other. There were no classes and whatever leadership there was, was arrrived at by group consensus. The wise were the natural leaders, not the “strong.”

If someone was completely anti-social, they were not formally punished, but banished from the group. They would then either die, or find another group to take them in.

NB. Our species in it’s present form is roughly 150,000 years old. Except for the last 10,000 years or so, we lived as hunter/gatherer’s. If our “group dynamics,” as you put it, were so hostile to living together, then tonight I would be upstairs looting my neighbors apartment. I would in fact, do every kind of crime that I could get away with. And both you and I could get away with many. If not great crimes, certainly a plethora of little ones.

While I cannot make the claim that ALL criminal behavior is a product of our times, I can certainly claim that most of it is.

All things considered the compassion, the help, and yes, even the love that strangers constantly show each other, is a product of who we are, and the hate and violence is a product of our society that teaches us to hate and fear the other - And the other is anyone from a different group, or class, or background.

In Hunting/Gathering societies everyone had the same interests. No doubt men and woman would argue about things - When to move on, where to camp - But these were “non hostile” disagreements, easily worked out.

Wisdom was valued, because strenght in and of itself could not guide such a group; nor in such small groups could one individual use strenght to physically enforce a rule, or benefit him or herself.

Evolutionaraly speaking, we are the only primate that collected it’s food to share. Such is the group dynamics that are our evolutionary background.

Dave

When I was a kid, back in the fifites, I read an article in Popular Scieince stating that by 1980, we would all be working three day weeks, for twice the money.

Odd, I’m making “less” now than my first decent job in 1968.

What comforts do you need? Shelter perhaps? Food? Friendship? Surrounded by people that you completely trust?

Yup, they didn’t have cell phones, perhaps they didn’t need them…? :smiley:

But I agree, I only want to return to the psychology of our ancestors, not their technology.

Dave

Well, you are working 3 days a week for twice the money but all that extra money you make is not for you.

No. We live in a idealized simulated reality that revolves around mass consumerism controlled by hysterical vicious moral religious oriented state governments.

With the permission of moral idealisms no doubt.

I don’t think it is wrong. I think that this world has become self destructive and has created more problems than that which it sought to clear out.

If men can outsmart another that is alright but what bothers me is the insistence on morality and the so called “sacred”.

They are mere illusions where men should be able to reject them if they solely choose to.

I believe in domination but you and I both know that today’s form of survival is not one without limits but instead requires metaphysical forms of “justification” in any doing.

Why should men be anything beyond their primitive inclinations?

Why should men accept a ideal over their individual animalism?

Why should men do anything?

What exactly does this statement mean?

I think what you really mean to say is that there isn’t anything wrong with cannibalism so long as it remains within a moral ideal fixture.

You are after all a humanist from my past expiriences in conversing with you.

I admit that individually I feel oppressed everyday.

But on a more deeper fundamental understanding of my perception I see the struggle of men throughout history and even now in the present being entirely self defeating for mythologies of “purpose” or conjectures known as “truth”.

We literally tear ourselves apart for unknown reasons and for mythological destinations of the future that we know nothing about.

My anguish is not about pointing fingers.

In the end I know this globe and all men that comprise it is doomed.

I merely describe my sentiments as feelings of being surrounded by irony which is out of my personal control and everyday through my own individual absurdism I hope that others begin to notice it too.

I already have my individual life planned out and I will let nothing get in my way so in a sense I cannot win or lose in this existence.

Erlir, :slight_smile:

I ask for anything but that…

Infact I demand a return to the original state of chaos that existed in the beginning of existence where men only had a rudimentary form of reason and where the world was entirely limitless filled with endless possibilities.

I only ask for total freedom unbridled and unrestrained where men return to state of nature with the annihilation of idealistic mythologies.

If I feel that the enviroment in which I live in is self destructive with myself caught in between it I really see no reason why I shouldn’t object.

It becomes a matter of self preservation and conserving the natural enviroment that substains me.

I want to destroy the game in its entirety.

I don’t want to create anything.

In time I will… I am very patient and methodical.

Actually I gave up on my book upon the realization that ships of fools have taken root in the world.

There is no point in creating somthing like that amongst a world filled with blind hysterias and surrounding masses guided by various pandemoniums.

The only rule that exists is self preservation.

Religious and governmental laws don’t actually exist beyond the hysterical perpetuating them.

“Rights” and “Justifications” don’t actually exist.

There is no reasoning at all as to why any ideal existence should exist beyond that of blind hysterical faith.

I suspect Erlir supports a idealized existence on the grounds that he can’t possibly imagine a reality so completely devoid of all meaning.

This is a good point.

Today’s existence you mostly work at the disposal of others or some ideal outside of yourself instead of working solely for your own.

In a hunting and gathering lifestyle for the most part you yourself is the sole center of the universe in complete rotation around survivalism and that of nature itself.

The hunter and gatherer lives within themselves and the civilized constantly lives outside of themselves in the clouds.

  1. Disease is rampant today. We create new diseases yearly presently.

  2. Why is living longer “better” ?

We are consumers. There is quite a large difference.

For example:

Most people today don’t acquire things by themselves of their own two hands nor do they expirience survival on a daily basis but instead consume things handed down to them in numerous ways.

Today’s living is almost identical to parasitism.

Could you link your essay in this thread? :slight_smile:

If you can I would like to give it a read.