Look, I think I get what you think your point is (that pre-agricultural* man was somehow essentially different from us,) but you choose some pretty bad examples for it. I mean, the Maasai? They’re nothing if not monoculture farmers, and in no way non-competitive. In fact, very aggressive towards competitors, and always have been. Plus, it’s more than likely nomadic pastoralism (as practiced by the Maasai) developed after the Neolithic Revolution.
And the Kombai? I’d really love a (scientific) cite for their limited competition. Sure, they’re in special circumstances, surrounded by easy-to-harvest sago, but even then, they tightly manage access to their community lands with ritual and taboo. Tell me that’s non-competitive! They’ve simply developed a resource-management system that works for them, same as any other society.
Anyway, IMO, Daniel Quinn’s a flake. Anarcho-primitivism is nutjobbery of the first water. And I say this as an anarchist. It’s a revival of the Noble Savage myth, cloaked in pseudoscience.
*or pre-“totalitarian” agriculture man, but I generally refuse to play semantic games like that.
Thank you for patiently requoting yourself. I did indeed miss that, and I appreciate the reiteration. what would “making judgement calls” entail? I’m uncomfortable with this line of though, if only because it could lead to mandatory castration of people with a low enough IQ. That’s just an absurd example, to be sure, so I’m willing to entertain some more tolerable suggestions.
Except that this is true even in industrialized nations where subsistence isn’t an issue.
“Women with college degrees can be expected to complete their childbearing with 1.6-2.0 children each…”
“For women with less education the total expected number of children are: 3.2 children for those with 0-8 years of education…”
Whoa - huh? - who said anything about non-competition? The law of limited competition I linked to specifically states You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s obviously misinformed . . .
Quinn explicitly disavows notions of a “noble savage”. To ascribe it to him suggests you’ve never read any of his work at all.
From Wikipedia:
Googling Daniel Quinn noble savage will give you more than enough support, and actually reading any of his books will definitey put the final nail in the coffin of thinking he harbors any sort of “noble savage” fantasy.
I can’t think of any. At least, none since Clovis Culture…Man has never lived in harmony with anything, despite what you and Quinn think.
The only people who do, aren’t following the original folkways of primitive man, but are, instead, isolates who’ve lucked on those few tropical environments where H-G and limited horticulturalism actually work. But this is *not *the original environment of H. sapiens, and so in no way can be referenced as the sole precursor to our current societies. The state of nature primitivists revere is as derivative as so-called Totalitarian Agriculture.
Yes, it is not as destructive, I agree, and doubtless more sustainable, but there is zero evidence that it is the only, long-term precursor for our current TA society.
And what, exactly, is declaring large tracts of land either taboo or property, if not denying access to food? And what about the Maasai, who generally walk around armed and ready, and believe all cattle are theirs by right?
Never mind that the so-called “Law” is pseudoscience claptrap. Animals do compete, and kill their rival species and even members of their own species, or drive them off from food. Lions do it, wild dogs do it, hell, chimps do it. And man certainly does it, and always has. Seen any Neanderthals lately?
Or I just don’t believe his denials. I have read a little of his work (It is, after all, available for free), but gave up in disgust.
His “denials”? To accuse someone of denying their own positions - - I think something is clouding your judgement here. Is it your digust for Daniel Quinn that is causing you to misrepresent his and my arguments, attack strawmen, and mightily state your opinions as facts?
No, sir, they were not. YOU were the one who introduced that definition. You are the only person in the thread who has said that that should be the definition of “Society” and the only person defending it. Nobody agrees with you; people have gone out of their way to explain to you that they don’t buy your narrow, pointless definition. Now, prior to your first post, Beadalin did mention “paving roads” as something societies do… but he also says “Wearing clothes,” hardly a unique hallmark of agricultural society, and “participating in society.” “Paving roads” was nothing more than a throw-away part of a three-part set of “things humans do.” Some societies pave roads; many have not. Some societies wear more clothes than others, too. And the person to whom you responded directly, ghardester, did not even HINT at defining society as being restricted to its modern version.
You’ve beaten up the straw man really good, but nobody else has come to its defense, so leave the poor thing alone. Nobody else is saying “Human society” requires iPods and skyscrapers.
And by the way, could you provide some evidence that “The Law Of Limited Competition” is, in fact, supported by evidence that it was ever commonly the case with real world human beings? Or is even universally true of animals? Because a search of the internet suggests that it’s more or less invented from whole cloth by Daniel Quinn.
In fact, I’m starting to wonder if YOU’RE Daniel Quinn.
A favorite SciFi trope of mine is that of the self improving supercomputer, which, given the means to improve itself incrementally, overtakes and soon far surpasses human beings in not only processing power but vision, insight, and creativity. Such a being might be able to make nearly perfect judgment calls. It’s also my pet theory that such a thing may be a source of infinite pleasure in the universe, seeing as it could simulate countless conscious entities better designed then we are to experience happiness, and run those simulations for as long as there was energy. Anyway I’m getting totally off track here… I think my point was that ultimately the answer may lie in technology. As for right now, we could start by genetically screening babies to find those that are breast cancer free, and perfecting the technology that makes lab grown body partsa reality. Any all encompassing, full scale attempt to improve the human condition would also seek to improve the human race. Honestly though, for the big picture, I couldn’t pretend to have a clue. One thought that I’ve briefly entertained in the time it took me to write this post is making changes to the gene pool additively, not subtractively the way Hitler tried. That girl who will be born without the curse of cancer–when you count all of her offspring who will also benefit, it is not a small change.
Now it’s getting late here and this post is probably incomprehensible…tomorrow I hope to come back to see some sense knocked into this post.
No, I never said that should be the definition of society, I said . . . god, why am I bothering? Stick to your pre-conceived notions. You obviously don’t want to have an open and productive discussion. I’ve explained myself more than enough in this thread.
ghardester’s original comment doesn’t make sense under any other context. PLEASE explain how it’s anything more than saying the sun is yellow and the sky is blue under your definition. It’s not. You just want to argue definitions, go argue with yourself. I notice you have no comment on what my actual point is, just on what the word society means, which I started out saying I didn’t care to argue.
I think I summed myself up pretty well in post #51, so if someone has anything open, honest, and productive they want to discuss, I’ll be happy to return, but I’m not sticking around here to participate in a pissing contest. This is ridiculous.
If you don’t think these quotes are referring to modern society in a thread asking about the effects of modern society, then I don’t know what to tell you. I cannot rationally argue with you when you’re not being rational.
"I agree with this post. Some believe that what we call society is separate from the natural world. I think society IS the natural behavour of the human animal.
It is a natural trait of humans to be able to modify their surroundings and organize to achieve goals. That trait has helped natural selection in favor of humans for world wide success.
And I believe that we are evolving at a fairly swift rate. Pressures for reproductive selection manifest itself in the same ways that always have been. Areas of productivity and prosperity exploitation increase survival.
The concept of long periods of time is hard to grasp. So even if thousands of years have passed and changes are not evident, that does not mean the changes are not occurring. "
Nothing in here defines “society” as excluding hunter-gatherer societies, or the Maasai, or anyone else. You’ve got a bee in your bonnet on this issue and are seeing things that aren’t there.
I understand your point. It’s just not relevant, that’s all.
No, that he denies that his position is what it is. Now, perhaps “Noble Savage” is an oversimplification of Quinn’s position, but his “Law” amounts to at least a parallel description, not the direct opposite of the NS, as he claims it does
I’m not the one stating opinions as facts…or making “laws” out of unsupported assertions.
Now, how have I misrepresented your argument? Like you said - post 51 summed it up nicely. You and Quinn think the human race has not always adapted nature to itself, but instead adapted itself to nature, especially via some “Law of Limited Competition”. Is that right?
I haven’t misrepresented anything. I’ve just said the “Law”, and the theory, is bullshit, and can be shown to be bullshit. That’s called disagreeing, not misrepresenting.
This is a particularly funny way for you to demonstrate how ignorant you are of Quinn’s writings. What makes you think that is out of accordance with the law of limited competition? I can’t figure out where your “disgust” is coming from, and I can’t force you to read what he’s written (or what I’ve written - you obviously haven’t read much of what I’ve posted here, or are choosing to pretend like you haven’t) or fight your own ignorance, so I’m afraid we’re at an impasse. I’m open to listening to counter-arguments and adapting my opinion where it seems prudent; you’ve stated and demonstrated that you’re not. You seem to have an anger problem towards the whole issue that literally baffles me. Please start a new thread if you can ever bring yourself to do it calmly and rationally, and are genuinely interested in an open, honest, integrity-based exploration of the topic. I’m not interested in grunting vitriol at each other or dancing a pre-choreographed dance. I think this hijack has gone on long enough and is going nowhere.
And what I mean here is not that I wish I could force you to read it - I don’t care what you read - just that it would be dumb of me to continue arguing about a book with someone who hasn’t read it.
Not really. More money can help enable offspring to survive better, but it isn’t necessary. In general, the higher your income the lower the rate of reproduction. It’s the poor people who are producing a lot of children, and because of advances in society much fewer of them are dying before they can reproduce.
[/QUOTE]
War is and always has been a selective pressure on humans. On chimps, too.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on where the war is and who is fighting, but I don’t think war is a huge influence on human evolution anymore. At least in 1st world countries, anyway.
Humans don’t reproduce when they are 90. Things that make humans live to 90 aren’t selected for, unless they also make humans live to reproduction age.
Only if skin cancer suddenly becomes a major killer of pre-reproduction age humans. Until then, it won’t be.
I hope you don’t mind a lurker jumping in here but I’m reading all this and I’m wondering if you would have been happier if ghardester had said in Post #8
The point that several people are trying to make in this thread is that modern civilisation is no more or less natural than any other behaviour, human or otherwise. To specifically address the summary of your position in Post #51, it doesn’t matter how recent any particular development is - we as humans constantly adapt and change both ourselves and everything around us; that’s sort of our thing. Agriculture is natural, education is natural, computers are natural, and if machine intelligence one day overtakes us somehow, that will be natural too.
I don’t mean to rob the word of all meaning - “natural” is still a useful term to refer to things that are not man-made - but any attempt to draw a strict dividing line, like your link in Post #45, and suggest that certain human activities are in line with nature whilst others are not is always going to be completely arbitrary.
You know what would help me understand your argument better, Cisco? If you could just be a little more hostile.
My reference to wearing clothes, paving roads and participating in society were indeed throwaway comments about “things humans do.” The larger idea I was attempting to support is that ALL human behavior – without exception – is subordinate to the “laws of nature” mentioned in the OP. Humans are not, because of their behavior, somehow circumventing evolution or Nature. We’re part of it. Whether any individual human is part of a “modern” society or the Pirahă or what have you, nothing they’re doing is more or less natural than what any other human or animal is doing.
Then I’m not really sure what the argument is here. I don’t think anyone has been supporting the position that modern culture is the one and only natural human behaviour. I mean, I can see how ghardester’s statement might be interpreted that way, but I don’t believe that that was the intended meaning and I think other posters have been mentally swapping the “the” for “a” as I did above, or slipping a “part of” in there.
Apologies if I have misrepresented anyone, I would be quite happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
Please tell me how this:** but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food** is met by wild animals or tribal humans.