What does 'rational' (or 'irrational') even mean anyway?

[padraig (u.s.)]

So ultimately, less people = higher standards of living. Since there were obviously less people sharing the same set of resources, living standards were higher for primitive hunter-gatherers

pretty much. extrapolating from this, if h-g becomes impossible beyond a certain # of people, and increase in population (at least in pre-industrial societies) & depletion of resources are inevitable then it's kind of a doomed endeavor over the long run. which is indeed kinda sad. to get back O/T, that doesn't mean there aren't all kinds of interesting & valuable things which can be learned from studying/interacting with h-g peoples, or that it's a way of life which shouldn't be preserved if that's how people want to live (& no wonder, when the alternative is grinding poverty in subsistence farming).

 

[zhao]

I'm thinking of the basic Malthusian Trap model, which states that, because resources are essentially fixed, for any pre-industrial society (and it need not necessarily be human), population levels will reach equilibrium at the subsistence wage. Any gradual positive technological change will simply increase the net birth rate and return living standards to subsistence. For example, one of Africa's tragedies is that thanks to advances in medical science, the modern subsistence wage is quite a bit lower than it was in the past.

EDIT: So ultimately, less people = higher standards of living. Since there were obviously less people sharing the same set of resources, living standards were higher for primitive hunter-gatherers than for medieval peasants.

right, the move from A to B is the crux of the matter.

but i tend to see agriculture as less the fulfillment of the conditions of over-population, but rather farming created the possibility to over-populate.

pretty much. extrapolating from this, if h-g becomes impossible beyond a certain # of people, and increase in population (at least in pre-industrial societies) & depletion of resources are inevitable then it's kind of a doomed endeavor over the long run. which is indeed kinda sad. to get back O/T, that doesn't mean there aren't all kinds of interesting & valuable things which can be learned from studying/interacting with h-g peoples, or that it's a way of life which shouldn't be preserved if that's how people want to live (& no wonder, when the alternative is grinding poverty in subsistence farming).

other social models fundamentally different from ours do exist, and do work, work very well, is currently working, and have worked for, literally, ever - since the dawn of humanity.

 

[vimothy]

right, the move from A to B is the crux of the matter.

Sorry, what do you mean by A to B?

but i tend to see agriculture as less the fulfillment of the conditions of over-population, but rather farming created the possibility to over-populate.

I don't think that's consistent with the model. Reproduction (Gaia hirself?) created the possibility of overpopulation.

 

[zhao]

Sorry, what do you mean by A to B?

from the before lifestyle to agriculture/bigger socieites.

I don't think that's consistent with the model. Reproduction (Gaia hirself?) created the possibility of overpopulation.

sure, but various groups seemed to have been entirely successful with limiting their population for, i think millions, some think 500,000, but anyhoo a fuck of a long ass time, before the thought of organized power and labor entered the picture.

(was going to say "enter the game" but should be "enter of the game")

 

[nomadthethird]

but i must admit to having been very sexist here on this forum:

because the only reason Nomad has many times gotten away with her ugly, vile behavior is because she's a girl.

use personal information i disclose in good faith to condescend and patronize, just because you disagree with my ideas on sprituality? that is simply the behavior of a massive CUNT, of whatever gender.

and of course it doesn't stop there. since the beginning of the "Mysterious" thread, i have received 3 private messages, none of my initiative, from long time active members, in regards to the constant stream of nasty shit coming from you:







what we have on this forum is a unique chance for some good discussions to occur, because there are a few here who come from different backgrounds, and bring different perspectives. nomad, you should realize that your hostility on a personal level destroys what might have been much more fruitful dialog.

and before you give us the bullshit accusations of me being the one who is hostile, just re-read the original "mysterious" post again: my impatience with what i perceive as "western rationality" is a fair statement of opinion, and a valid starting point for a discussion, and bare no resemblance to the "insult" that you try to paint it as.

but the fact that you, and Padraig, and Tea, the same few people who always have a problem with my posts, see what i said as a personal insult, well that right there is indication of some deep insecurity and deeper rooted issues.

in all sincerity, i understand you are all very much invested in your chosen perceptual paradigm, and that is why it is so threatening to you when someone presents another, or even present that there is more than 1 valid way to perceive the experience of humans on earth.

but the fact remains that your view is not the only "correct" one, and there are scientists who disagree with your vision of a dog eat dog world, and eternal slavery as the "natural" "fate" of humanity, etc, etc.

remember this little exchange? and the only reason i bring it up is because your bahavior has not changed in the slightest, and is just as annoyingly closed minded now, as then:





but all of that is beside the point. which is this: i am giving up on you, Nomad.

because you have shown clearly, one last time, that you are, ironically, incapable of a rational, reasoned discussion, and will go to any length, willfully ignore, falsify, mud sling, in other words, act like a rude little brat-bitch, to try to prove that your world view is the only acceptable one.

so go on believing what you want, and dismiss those with other ideas as "unscientific" "new age" "hippies", hahaha makes zero difference to me it is for sure the more popular position at this point in time anyway, as pathetic little slaves like grizzleb is too happy to demonstrate. this will help you feel smart as you go along, and become even more calcified in your views, for you will find many who agree with your rigid, fundamentalist notions, and you can all gang up and hate "mystics" together.

you will reap what you sow, and everything in the universe will be, just as it was before.

LOL.

Zhao, you've talked openly on the board about your problems with your parents beings scientists, how you resented them for their overly rigid values and views, and how they mistreated you.

Want links?

I like how you accuse me of somehow bringing to light some "private" correspondence (which I didn't), and then you go ahead and PUBLISH someone's PM as "proof" that I'm a big bad meanie.

Do you somehow think other people were not simultaneously PMing about what a gigantic douchebag you are during that "Mysterious" thread? Because they were. I could've published those, but I tend not to publish PMs.

Zhao, you are hilarious. Seriously. It's always hilarious to watch you try to argue a point. It's like watching a child try to read the newspaper. Upside down, sideways, dropping things all over the floor...

 

[nomadthethird]

if you want to ignore scientific data gethered during the last 100 years, just because they cause problems with the way you see the world, that is your choice. but it is sad that someone so young can be so blindly invested in a particularly rigid world view that it would make one as stubborn, irrational, and unscientific as you.

apologize to everyone else for going over well covered territory, but this silly person apparently has major blocks in her mind, caused by rigid adherence to a particular world view, which makes it near impossible for her to rationally consider scientific evidence on subjects which anthropologists world wide agree unanimously -- groups of band level societies, which are numerous, such as the Dobe Ju/'hoansi:

• gather 70 percent of their food (roots, nuts, fruits, etc.)
• no hierarchy and no authority, only "temporary leaders"
• no private property
• work 20 hour weeks with only division of labour being between sexes
• does not distinquish between work and play
• zero starvation: 100% of population fed compared to 30% starving in the "civilized" world
• superb health (relative to ours)

Zhao, we can look at fossils and skeletal remains of early humans and immediately see that people were not in "superb" health just because they lived in less economically stratified societies.

What is clear is that you have no real understanding of the actual scope of the topic you've made your pet one--you've only cherry picked one guy who happens to be an internet message board cult hero in New Age circles but who a) doesn't even sort of imply that the life was "easy" before agriculture, just that society was more egalitarian, b) who is unfortunately being identified with a bunch of woo that he'd probably rather avoid.

Survival is a tough row to hoe for any species, it always has been, it always will be. I don't particularly care whether you don't like that. Kiss my ass. Go suck a mime's dick. I don't care if you don't like me.

 

[Mr. Tea]

but i tend to see agriculture as less the fulfillment of the conditions of over-population, but rather farming created the possibility to over-populate.

But there's a yawning inconsistency here, don't you see? Surely if life is as good for the Dobe Ju as you claim it is (and please note than I'm not doubting you here), then "the possibility to over-populate" is there all the time: they just have to start having lots of babies! Abundant resources and the absence of war, predation and epidemic means populations will rise exponentially unless some specific measure is taken to prevent this; in technological civilisations this is done through artificial contraception, while apparently the Dobe Ju rely simply on abstinence from sex apart from at particular prescribed times. Fine, whatever works. But the threat of over-population is latent and omnipresent; all it would take is a breakdown of the taboo against out-of-hours nookie or whatever system they have and there'd be a huge explosion in population. Resources per head would drop, leading to competition, scarcity, strife, war...note that all of this has nothing at all to do with agriculture.

Edit: there's a couple of other points I might as well raise while I'm at it. One is your insistence that the Dobe Ju live a life that's more or less the same as "our ancestors" lived all over the world. Whereas there is no reason to think that any two societies, widely separated in space and time, were/are particularly similar just because they were both "primitive", pre-agrarian or however you want to put it. I've raised before the example of human bones from Europe dating from the palaeolithic (almost certainly a band-level society, and certainly well before farming or settled living) which show evidence of human-on-human violence and even cannibalism - surely the ultimate calling-card of competition for resources? Clearly this was an environment not as conducive to peaceful co-existence as where the Dobe live; consequently, it led to cultures of a quite different nature.

The other is simply that a culture which is not holding back from population growth is likely to out-compete a neightbouring one which exists in stasis with its environment - this may sound a bit Darwinian, and I'm not trying to use it to justify the fact that this happens, just to point out that it seems kind of inevitable. Inevitable unless some other social force comes into play (as it did in the developed world over the course of the 20th century so that we now see largely stable populations in developed countries).

 

[nomadthethird]

But there's a yawning inconsistency here, don't you see? Surely if life is as good for the Dobe Ju as you claim it is (and please note than I'm not doubting you here), then "the possibility to over-populate" is there all the time: they just have to start having lots of babies! Abundant resources and the absence of war/epidemic means populations will rise exponentially unless some specific measure is taken to prevent this; in technological civilisations this is done through artificial contraception, while apparently the Dobe Ju rely simply on abstinence from sex apart from at particular prescribed times. Fine, whatever works. But the threat of over-population is latent and omnipresent; all it would take is a breakdown of the taboo against out-of-hours nookie or whatever system they have and there'd be a huge explosion in population. Resources per head would drop, leading to competition, scarcity, strife, war...note that all of this has nothing at all to do with agriculture.

Exactly. Zhao subscribes to the "vacuum" theory of evolution. Where evolution happens in a vacuum. And you can simply hop, skip, and jump populations back and forth from era to era in order to have more fun with the shaman on the savannah.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but i tend to see agriculture as less the fulfillment of the conditions of over-population, but rather farming created the possibility to over-populate.

yes, a lot of people have read Ishmael, dude.

so, why did people ever abandon their idyllic h-g lives to till the soil? it is certainly true that agriculture leads to a sharp rise in population growth - abundant (for large #s of people) food supply = population growth - but clearly there was some kind of impetus to do so. presumably it was a choice made out of necessity. places where h-g still exists or existed until recently - i.e. the Kalahari, the Australian Outback, parts of Irian Jaya - are places where environmental and/or geographical conditions make agriculture extremely difficult or impossible. absent such conditions, humans have always, always, always chosen agriculture. the consequences of that decision aren't choices so much as inevitable, but nonetheless.

other social models fundamentally different from ours do exist, and do work, work very well, is currently working, and have worked for, literally, ever - since the dawn of humanity.

until people come up with a different social model out of necessity, or until they come into contact with a different social model that changes or annihilates theirs. dudes like you always have this idyllic, unchanging vision of Stone Age peoples, but none of that shit happens in a vacuum. that way of life has been almost entirely supplanted, for better or worse. once again, that's not to say that it's not worth preserving; it's just unlikely, in the extreme, that any large # of humans will be returning to it.

I swear to God, it's bad enough to hear you whinge on about the mysterious, but at least that had some kind of spiritual aspect to it. I just can't handle some urban hipster harping on about the glories of h-g peoples from his chic Berlin flat. do much foraging on the Friedrichstrasse lately?

 

[nomadthethird]

yes, a lot of people have read Ishmael, dude.

so, why did people ever abandon their idyllic h-g lives to till the soil? it is certainly true that agriculture leads to a sharp rise in population growth - abundant (for large #s of people) food supply = population growth - but clearly there was some kind of impetus to do so. presumably it was a choice made out of necessity. places where h-g still exists or existed until recently - i.e. the Kalahari, the Australian Outback, parts of Irian Jaya - are places where environmental and/or geographical conditions make agriculture extremely difficult or impossible. absent such conditions, humans have always, always, always chosen agriculture. the consequences of that decision aren't choices so much as inevitable, but nonetheless.



until people come up with a different social model out of necessity, or until they come into contact with a different social model that changes or annihilates theirs. dudes like you always have this idyllic, unchanging vision of Stone Age peoples, but none of that shit happens in a vacuum. that way of life has been almost entirely supplanted, for better or worse. once again, that's not to say that it's not worth preserving; it's just unlikely, in the extreme, that any large # of humans will be returning to it.

I swear to God, it's bad enough to hear you whinge on about the mysterious, but at least that had some kind of spiritual aspect to it. I just can't handle some urban hipster harping on about the glories of h-g peoples from his chic Berlin flat. do much foraging on the Friedrichstrasse lately?

Dude... you're cruising for a three-year dissensus balk and stalk...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The other is simply that a culture which is not holding back from population growth is likely to out-compete a neightbouring one which exists in stasis with its environment - this may sound a bit Darwinian, and I'm not trying to use it to justify the fact that this happens, just to point out that it seems kind of inevitable.

this is it exactly, as evidenced time & time & time again. & complete with the divorcement of acknowledging a fact from justifying it.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Dude... you're cruising for a three-year dissensus balk and stalk...

as long as it ends with Craner asking me to marry him I reckon it's all to the good.

 

[nomadthethird]

this is it exactly, as evidenced time & time & time again. & complete with the divorcement of acknowledging a fact from justifying it.

Evidence?

Jared Diamond's three bittorrented lectures from 10 years ago ARE the evidence.

 

[Mr. Tea]

do much foraging on the Friedrichstrasse lately?

Bwuhahaha, "zing!", as they say.

 

[zhao]

Zhao, you are hilarious. Seriously. It's always hilarious to watch you try to argue a point. It's like watching a child try to read the newspaper. Upside down, sideways, dropping things all over the floor...

What is clear is that you have no real understanding of the actual scope of the topic you've made your pet one

Zhao subscribes to the "vacuum" theory of evolution. Where evolution happens in a vacuum. And you can simply hop, skip, and jump populations back and forth from era to era in order to have more fun with the shaman on the savannah.

I worry about your intellectual capabilities.

the imbecilic character of my every word and sentence is evident: i know next to nothing about my "pet topics", which are rehashed cliche Kooky Kalifornia New Age Nonsense anyway.

clearly.

so... bare with me here...

why don't you stay out of them then?

sounds like life would be much better for you, without the lame grade school bullshit which constantly issues from my mouth. no?
certainly would be better for me.

i mean... here is another, related idea:

you should go and start your own threads, well researched, peer reviewed, and just full of scientific rigor!

and i can stay out of them!

how is my logic here? faulty or no?

i wish i had some intellectual capacty, even just a little, then i would know...
...

edit:

oh! ...... right!

(slapping forehead silly)

should have thought of it earlier! damn it! ....

it's all a joke to you! none of it means anything! you're just here for entertainment, to have a laugh at the stupds! me!

of course!

see if i was just slightly less idiotic i would have realized much earlier...

 

[nomadthethird]

Ativan. Chillpill. Relax. Some people on a message board disagree with you. It's not the end of the world.

What the hell do you expect? That everyone should instantly defer to your authoritaaay?

I couldn't possibly care less if everyone on here disagrees with me on every topic, although there are a few people whose posts are interesting and thought provoking.

Just enjoy it when it's good and post your opinions and forget about converting everyone.

 

[zhao]

wow you are super annoying dude. congratulations on being the best flippant little snot nosed piece of shit ever.

 

[nomadthethird]

i.e. the Kalahari, the Australian Outback, parts of Irian Jaya

Aren't the Australian indigenous peoples actually horticulturalists? If so, they'd be different from foragers, substantially in some ways...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Aren't the Australian indigenous peoples actually horticulturalists? If so, they'd be different from foragers, substantially in some ways...

I think "the" Aborigines comprise hundreds if not thousands of distinct groups, some of whom may be h/g, others may be horticulturalists of some kind, I don't know...those that still exist, I mean. And that aren't just utterly socially and culturally FUBAR.

 

[nomadthethird]

Interesting that Sheldrake should come up in a thread about rationality...

I met the guy's son once at a party organised by the Chap magazine. He seemed nice enough, I hope I didn't come across as unpleasantly sceptical when we was talking about his old man's ideas.

Anyway, re. IQ tests: surely it wouldn't be too hard to compare, year on year, results from people who are taking an IQ for the first time? You'd have to take their word for it, I guess, though that'd probably be a fair assumption if you were testing young kids. Or you could even compare figures for people who'd taken the test loads of times and were practised at it. As long as it was a fair comparison, you could draw meaningful conclusions.

Edit: Ohhh, I see: he means that because a large minority of people have done the tests a lot, that's making everyone better at them. Um, yeah OK...

I didn't see this before.

What is it with Mixed Biscuits and IQ tests... ?

First, the idea that increase of a few points in "IQ" amounts to a significant increase in cognitive capacity is highly suspect. The Flynn Effect may well be real (I have no idea), but it still has nothing to do with our basic cognitive capacities and whether these differ significantly in degree or kind compared to other primates.

What we have that other primates don't are large frontal lobes. This makes us more verbal, basically. And that's about it. The cognitive "bedrock" that controls a large percentage of brain function is something we share in common with lizards, rats, dogs, chimps.