@vivify saidYou keep repeating a fundamental error. From your link:
From that BBC article:Warfare is an intrinsic part of being human. War isn’t a modern invention, but an ancient, fundamental part of our humanity. Historically, all peoples warred. Our oldest writings are filled with war stories. Archaeology reveals ancient fortresses and battles, and sites of prehistoric massacres going back millennia.
[b]The entire worl ...[text shortened]... es of the year (like rainy seasons, dry seasons, etc.). This fact led to competition for resources.
"Historically, all peoples warred."
Again, history records a very small fraction of our species' existence. And your OP makes assertions about our "natural state" which history says little about (and what it does say is invariably hostile due to the prejudices and ignorance of the authors from "civilized" societies).
The evidence for wide scale violence between human bands is slim to non-existent. It would hardly be an effective evolutionary strategy given the conditions on Earth at the time.
@vivify saidActually, it kinda was like "switching gyms". As I already showed, cooperative interactions between bands was the norm and these interactions created familial ties between bands. So it would be relatively easy to move from band to band:
That's an oversimplification. Leaving a band or tribe is not so straightforward.
In primitive times the primary interests of any individual were survival. Individuals whose "interests" weren't "adequately provided for" had risk losing the protection of that group if they left, whether from dangerous animals or other humans. Individuals may put with going through period ...[text shortened]... 't like it. Individuals will indeed remain if it means basic needs like protection or food are met.
"One assumption was that small bands consist of related individuals. In fact, band societies consist of mostly unrelated individuals. And anthropologists now know that hunter-gatherer bands are not closed social units. Rather, they maintain extensive social ties across space and time and sometimes assemble in large groups."
https://theconversation.com/the-origins-of-human-society-are-more-complex-than-we-thought-179137
1 edit
@vivify saidThey didn't need oil or farmland; is that a poor attempt at humor?
From that BBC article:Warfare is an intrinsic part of being human. War isn’t a modern invention, but an ancient, fundamental part of our humanity. Historically, all peoples warred. Our oldest writings are filled with war stories. Archaeology reveals ancient fortresses and battles, and sites of prehistoric massacres going back millennia.
[b]The entire worl ...[text shortened]... es of the year (like rainy seasons, dry seasons, etc.). This fact led to competition for resources.
There were plenty of animals, vegetation, water and land on this planet for the small population of humans on it in prehistoric times. Why would they risk their lives fighting for things so easily available? That would be a ridiculously poor survival strategy and would be evolutionarily disfavored. Also, as I have shown, the closest bands, the ones you think they would be likely to engage in deadly violence with in the name of "competition" would most likely have individuals in it with extensive family ties to the other band.
Your assertions are illogical and contrary to anthropological evidence and standard evolutionary theory.
@vivify saidHave a look into spiral dynamics.
Most of human history has been right-wing, following a patriarchal, nationalistic structure.
Humans naturally create social hierarchies, whether within the family or a school lunch table. Humans originally existed as tribal beings who prioritized their own culture and belief system over others, as well as the preservation of that system as superior to others.
Whenev ...[text shortened]... ncept of leaning right:
https://theconversation.com/five-signs-that-you-might-be-rightwing-221930
Very interesting.
@no1marauder saidBoth cooperation and war between bands were the norm. This is no different from today, where cooperation between nations exist and so does war. Only war was more prevalent in primitive times. Again, see that BBC article.
As I already showed, cooperative interactions between bands was the norm and these interactions created familial ties between bands. So it would be relatively easy to move from band to band:
Even your article discusses about egalitarian bands acknowledges hierarchies within bands that hunted for food.
@no1marauder saidOkay. Egalitarian societies may exist in small bands that rarely exceed 100 members.
Actually, it kinda was like "switching gyms". As I already showed, cooperative interactions between bands was the norm and these interactions created familial ties between bands. So it would be relatively easy to move from band to band:
"One assumption was that small bands consist of related individuals. In fact, band societies consist of mostly unrelated individuals. ...[text shortened]...
https://theconversation.com/the-origins-of-human-society-are-more-complex-than-we-thought-179137
But as societies become larger there is a shift toward right-wing traits, like rigid hierarchies, nationalism, etc.
If small bands are egalitarian, that may simply be because there's no practical way to implement hierarchies in numbers that small.
History is written by members of societies with much larger numbers than the small bands you speak of. Most societies didn't develop into communists. In fact, there's never been a truly communist nation to this day.
That should tell you something.
@vivify saidAdmixed right wing-left wing politics in the same government is healthy. Indeed it seems rooted to human biology, almost as if we need a little of both perspectives to maintain balance in the universe.
Most of human history has been right-wing, following a patriarchal, nationalistic structure.
Humans naturally create social hierarchies, whether within the family or a school lunch table. Humans originally existed as tribal beings who prioritized their own culture and belief system over others, as well as the preservation of that system as superior to others.
Whenev ...[text shortened]... ncept of leaning right:
https://theconversation.com/five-signs-that-you-might-be-rightwing-221930
It's kind of like night owl vs. early bird brain chemistry. In early hunter-gatherer societies it was good to have people standing watch at all times, so much that this selective advantage persists in modern societies.
@vivify saidWhat you are really saying is that the type of hierarchical societies most men have been corralled into throughout history can only be maintained by large enough levels of force that are not available in our Natural State. That's true enough but it hardly supports the argument in the OP. Subservience to our betters is the central idea of right wing philosophies, but it's hardly a natural human trait; rather it's something which must be spoon fed from birth and backed by sanctions esp. violence when members of society reject it.
Okay. Egalitarian societies may exist in small bands that rarely exceed 100 members.
But as societies become larger there is a shift toward right-wing traits, like rigid hierarchies, nationalism, etc.
If small bands are egalitarian, that may simply be because there's no practical way to implement hierarchies in numbers that small.
History is written by members of ...[text shortened]... fact, there's never been a truly communist nation to this day.
That should tell you something.
And when one examines not only the distant, prehistoric past (when hierarchical systems didn't exist or, at the very least, were abnormal) but recent developments where colonial empires have been toppled and much of the globe has moved away from kings, emperors and the like to democratic structures, it's hard to see the validity of an argument that makes Man a joyous recipient of a boot on his neck.
Our Natural State was free and we still yearn for that; our brains are still pretty much on the savanna. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201002/the-savanna-principle?msockid=17b4b52994316743009fa715954f666b
1 edit
@no1marauder saidRemember, even your own source about small bands of people said hierarchies develop among those who hunt for food.
What you are really saying is that the type of hierarchical societies most men have been corralled into throughout history can only be maintained by large enough levels of force that are not available in our Natural State.
My point is that as human populations grow larger, human history shows hierarchies become more likely and more pronounced.
And when one examines not only the distant, prehistoric past (when hierarchical systems didn't exist or, at the very least, were abnormal) but recent developments where colonial empires have been toppled and much of the globe has moved away from kings, emperors and the like to democratic structures, it's hard to see the validity of an argument that makes Man a joyous recipient of a boot on his neck.
Hierarchies don't exist because humans like authority.
Hierarchies develop because people with power dominate those who are weaker. Again, see your article's point about Inuit women being "subordinate" to men.
Empires and kingdoms collapse when those being ruled finally gain the power needed to overturn the system. Those revolutionaries end up creating their own hierarchies, often as or more oppressive than the ones they overthrew. America is a prime example of this; they rebelled against British rule while being slave owners.
There's a reason why to this day there's never been a truly communist nation.
@vivify saidI think it requires a peculiar kind of stubbornness not to recognize that events in the last few hundred years have led to a wide scale overthrow of most rigid hierarchical political systems in favor of ones which are generally democratic.
Remember, even your own source about small bands of people said hierarchies develop among those who hunt for food.
My point is that as human populations grow larger, human history shows hierarchies become more likely and more pronounced.
[quote]And when one examines not only the distant, prehistoric past (when hierarchical systems didn't exist or, at the very least, ...[text shortened]... being slave owners.
There's a reason why to this day there's never been a truly communist nation.
And of course yapping about "nations" doesn't have anything to do with your original insistence about Man in his "Natural State". For most of Man's existence, there were no nations and the type of primitive "communist" social structures was overwhelmingly dominant.
Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that our brains retained a preference for equalitarian structures (it's easy enough to find statistical evidence to back the truism that People don't support massive inequality of wealth and even easier to find psychology studies which show this principle like the Ultimatum Game https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/one-among-many/202003/trust-and-power-in-the-ultimatum-game?msockid=17b4b52994316743009fa715954f666b).
Why is this generally true despite the hammering of propaganda to the contrary fed us since birth (see any AJ post where he claims those with greater wealth got it because they "worked harder" )? Evolutionary Psychology provides the answer:
"Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.
Natural selection, the process that designed our brain, takes a long time to design a circuit of any complexity. The time it takes to build circuits that are suited to a given environment is so slow it is hard to even imagine -- it's like a stone being sculpted by wind-blown sand. Even relatively simple changes can take tens of thousands of years.
The environment that humans -- and, therefore, human minds -- evolved in was very different from our modern environment. Our ancestors spent well over 99% of our species' evolutionary history living in hunter-gatherer societies. That means that our forebearers lived in small, nomadic bands of a few dozen individuals who got all of their food each day by gathering plants or by hunting animals. Each of our ancestors was, in effect, on a camping trip that lasted an entire lifetime, and this way of life endured for most of the last 10 million years.
Generation after generation, for 10 million years, natural selection slowly sculpted the human brain, favoring circuitry that was good at solving the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors -- problems like finding mates, hunting animals, gathering plant foods, negotiating with friends, defending ourselves against aggression, raising children, choosing a good habitat, and so on. Those whose circuits were better designed for solving these problems left more children, and we are descended from them.
Our species lived as hunter-gatherers 1000 times longer than as anything else. The world that seems so familiar to you and me, a world with roads, schools, grocery stores, factories, farms, and nation-states, has lasted for only an eyeblink of time when compared to our entire evolutionary history. The computer age is only a little older than the typical college student, and the industrial revolution is a mere 200 years old. Agriculture first appeared on earth only 10,000 years ago, and it wasn't until about 5,000 years ago that as many as half of the human population engaged in farming rather than hunting and gathering. Natural selection is a slow process, and there just haven't been enough generations for it to design circuits that are well-adapted to our post-industrial life."
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/EP-primer.html
So quite simply our nature remains equalitarian and a few thousand years of repressive social systems aimed to benefit the few and maintained by force have not changed how we think at a level even below conscious thought (though obviously it informs that thought).
A long time ago on this Forum we had a very detailed discussion on the Ultimatum Game. It works like this:
"The famous Ultimatum Game dramatizes this situation (Güth et al., 1982). In its experimental form, this game neutralizes the usual real-world economic constraints. One person, the designated proposer, receives free cash, typically $10, to be shared with another person, the receiver. Classic game theory predicts that the proposer offers the smallest amount possible to the receiver, and that the receiver accepts it. Professor Güth foresaw the failure of this prediction. Indeed, the modal offer is $5, the average about $4, and offers of $2 or $1 are typically rejected. When the receiver rejects an offer, neither player gets any money, which makes such a veto a costly signal to, and perhaps punishment of, a greedy proposer. Many receivers rather have nothing than be competitively exploited."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/one-among-many/202003/trust-and-power-in-the-ultimatum-game?msockid=17b4b52994316743009fa715954f666b
The results are a rejection of "Economic Man" theories which were, and to some extent still are, the philosophical building blocks of laissez faire capitalism.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNice strawman
I think it requires a peculiar kind of stubbornness not to recognize that events in the last few hundred years have led to a wide scale overthrow of most rigid hierarchical political systems in favor of ones which are generally democratic.
You just quoted me referencing America overthrowing rule by a monarchy. Then you attack me for not acknowledging overthrow of such systems.
Not sure how you old you are but get checked for dementia.
You keep saying humanity is older than written history; of course it is. I only bring up written history because we have incomparably more data of what people were like during these times than in prehistoric ones. Based on that evidence, right-wing mentally was the most prevalent one throughout humanity.
@no1marauder saidThe hierarchical structured society that relies on an alpha male for instruction is readily apparent in wild chimpanzee families, which diverged evolutionarily from humans 6 million years ago. Sure, it's learned behavior but it's ubiquitous. They're not learning it from us.
I think it requires a peculiar kind of stubbornness not to recognize that events in the last few hundred years have led to a wide scale overthrow of most rigid hierarchical political systems in favor of ones which are generally democratic.
And of course yapping about "nations" doesn't have anything to do with your original insistence about Man in his "Natural State". F ...[text shortened]... ged how we think at a level even below conscious thought (though obviously it informs that thought).
That's not to mention all the other mammalian species that have hierarchical society built into their DNA. Even bugs mate.