Pretentious Crap
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
to roman, to mayan (just saw Apocalypto - amazing)...
some say dwindling resources / small ice-age... some like this prof fischer says it was the drive for power itself... i lean toward the former at the moment.
vimothy
yurp
I'd say the former sounds more plausible as well. Have you ever heard of the expression 'Malthusian'? Broadly, it means that your living standard is a function of your resources over your population. Increased population, lower living standards. There is a view which holds that Malthusian logic has governed humanity since day one, but then only until a particular point in the last few centuries, when humanity has broke free, if not everywhere equally.
uh yeah right, "backed up by archeological evidence" my ass. Cite for me one -- just one -- example of an archeological artifact, object, sign, or any other cultural or human item securely dated from 150.00 years ago which provides evidence of social structure, levels of violence, availability of resources, or human organization.
Simple question. I will repeat it. Cite for us ONE object or item, just one, aecurely dated to 150,000 years ago which incontrovertibly demonstrates evidence for human social organization and levels of violence ... to say nothing of your claims about 1 million years ago...now, back to my fave AOL CHAT ROOM.
vimothy
yurp
Zhao: I think so. Certainly, arguments over resources is a major cause of conflict, if less so now than in the past. But there is/was a kick in the Malthusian tail. The implication is, if you, say, improve in health or agricultural yield (or whatever), population will catch up and you will reach equilibrium (between resources and population) at exactly the same level you started at. But that relationship no longer dominates everywhere.
whatever: What you saying -- that there is no evidence, of any kind, of the social organisation or level of violence of pre-historical man, whatsoever?
Craner: could well be. I guess Malthus describes one kind of relationship, but not necessarily the kind of relationship (if you know what I mean). At least at my reading.
whatever: What you saying -- that there is no evidence, of any kind, of the social organisation or level of violence of pre-historical man, whatsoever?
Craner: could well be. I guess Malthus describes one kind of relationship, but not necessarily the kind of relationship (if you know what I mean). At least at my reading.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
What on earth does hunting necessarily have to do with how egalitarian a society is? Apparently, according to Fischer, band-level societies were hunters, so that has nothing to do with "ideology" and everything to do with the subsistence of a species, similar to many, many other species, which also eat meat.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I can't even find a single anthropology website online that claims that band-level societies were a) somehow not tribal because they had a different form of "leadership" that fluctuated rather than remained static over time, or b) that band-level societies are less violent than other societies.
In fact I can't even find a wikipedia page for band-level societies, at least not through a google search.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Right, and like you said before, why couldn't leadership or leaders be a sort of functioning role within a cooperative society? Why is it one or the other? As Fischer himself points out, there are rarely any societies that fit squarely into a "typological" model...
haha what is this? a popularity contest? i want to talk about some things that i'm interested in, and this place sometimes is more like a playground with snot nosed toddlers.
nothing. but there are different views on how much food came from hunting -- according to Fischer and his sources, and many others like i cited upthread, significantly less than half.
the only times i have mentioned "ideologies" was in connection to our society's (distorted, i believe) depiction of our ancestors.
you are willfully misconstruing and falsifying again. according to Fischer, band-level societies were GATHERER/hunters. IN THAT ORDER. with gathering being much more important than previously thought.
so, just as i predicted, this lecture which cites many peer reviewed works, all supportting my position, contrary to previously held notions and challenging "conventional wisdom", did nothing to cause as much as a mere acknowledgement of the existence of other valid points of view.
willful ignorance, dishonesty, and closed mindedness wins the day. again. surprise!
nothing. but there are different views on how much food came from hunting -- according to Fischer and his sources, and many others like i cited upthread, significantly less than half.
the only times i have mentioned "ideologies" was in connection to our society's (distorted, i believe) depiction of our ancestors.
you are willfully misconstruing and falsifying again. according to Fischer, band-level societies were GATHERER/hunters. IN THAT ORDER. with gathering being much more important than previously thought.
so, just as i predicted, this lecture which cites many peer reviewed works, all supportting my position, contrary to previously held notions and challenging "conventional wisdom", did nothing to cause as much as a mere acknowledgement of the existence of other valid points of view.
willful ignorance, dishonesty, and closed mindedness wins the day. again. surprise!
however this is a fair point -- but i would think that any kind of permanent leadership/centralized power necessarily means subjugation, servitude, and slavery. and with all of this comes all the rest: war, state sanctioned violence on a big scale, etc.
vimothy
yurp
Stop trying to be superior Eden, you pretentious bastard!
yes craner.
reason is often more tedious than unreason; civility much less entertaining than rudeness; and logic and consistency a lot more boring than slander, lies, and name-calling.
in days past i would have surely stooped down to the level of the ignorant and joined in the mud fest, but i'm glad those days are almost completely past.
so if it is entertainment in the form of spitting contests that you want, i suggest you look else where; and in a "conversation" like this one where at least one of the participants is serious, either say something useful, or piss off.
Nomad,
you have made some admirable posts in the past; spoken intelligently and passionately on topics like race, mental illness, class, etc. and i consider you over all worthy of respect.
but in this thread you time and again behave in a dishonest, nasty, and closed minded way; making unfounded accusations, throwing personal insults, misconstrue, falsify, and straight out lie.
and all for what? in defence of the status quo, protecting "conventional wisdom", fighting for a story told by patriarchy, law and order, civilization, capitalism.
i do not want apologies for all the unjust things you have called me, all the condescension, all the insults and unfounded accusations. no.
the only thing i ever wanted from you in this thread is an admission that there are more than one valid ways to look at the collective ancient history of our species; that the version of the story you subscribe to is not the only conceivably true one, and that there are others worthy of consideration.
that is all.
but it does not look like i will get it. which is of course fine, if a bit disappointing.
i will continue to study and make further inquiries into all of this, and hopefully find a forum for anthropology nerds, a place better suited for this conversation.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
I think that the precise relationship he suggested between exponentially growing populations and more constrained food growths has proven not to be correct - but the term Malthusian is more generally used to describe any limit to growth of societies (or their happiness) that is caused by resources.