NationStates Jolt Archive

To my mind most of human history right up till recently has been shit. As in we started to make progress in bettering our survival through science and our social organization in Europe since the renaissance, but only up until the 20th century are we really starting to realize our potential, especially after the second world war.

Broadly speaking in Europe and America (to some extent), people enjoy more civil rights and a sense of freedom, a rethoric of peaceful co-existence and tolerance is subscribed to at least in theory. Ask a normal person of the street do they subscribe to an ideology of hate and they will probably answer no.

Contrast how society is run now with how it was run in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries and most of the people considered conservative now would be die hard liberals then (except for the creationist republicans in southern america).

Now I accept there are many holes in this argument, but as a very general pattern is it not the case that right now we're really starting to make some proper headway, with science and increased freedom of expression within rationally defined bounds ie where freedom of expression does not involve harm to others? And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?

as long as we dont let the remnants of the past let our new technologies kill us all before our newer/better ways of thinking take full hold.

Human peace can never happen. However, with the gigantic advances we're having in science and medicine, I don't see the any sign of slowing down. (Except for the bird flu, and global warming.)

To my mind most of human history right up till recently has been shit. As in we started to make progress in bettering our survival through science and our social organization in Europe since the renaissance, but only up until the 20th century are we really starting to realize our potential, especially after the second world war.
Undoubtedly, if we don't wipe out ourselves out with climate change, war or a post antibiotic plague, we will undoubtedly think that the people of the 2000s live in squalor and comparative poverty. That's the way it has always been.

Broadly speaking in Europe and America (to some extent), people enjoy more civil rights and a sense of freedom, a rethoric of peaceful co-existence and tolerance is subscribed to at least in theory. Ask a normal person of the street do they subscribe to an ideology of hate and they will probably answer no.

Firstly, asking whether you subscribe to an 'ideology of hate' is a completely loaded question which would always get a negative response, whether it be from Illinois or Iran. Surely, though, you must recognise that many of these civil rights and freedoms are, and always have been, under attack? That notwithstanding, we however claim to have and want these in theory, even if we tend to waive them in practice.

Contrast how society is run now with how it was run in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries and most of the people considered conservative now would be die hard liberals then (except for the creationist republicans in southern america).
That's how it works. Societies do seem to get more little-l liberal over time, although some more so than others.

Now I accept there are many holes in this argument, but as a very general pattern is it not the case that right now we're really starting to make some proper headway, with science and increased freedom of expression within rationally defined bounds ie where freedom of expression does not involve harm to others? And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?
Progress will always continue as it has always done. Scientific development today, though, will be easier with increased freedom of expression and ideas - something both under threat in countries like China, and from anti-intellectualism in the USA (and in some circles the UK) and religious dogma.

Science is a useful tool, a wonderful approach of inquiry.

Unfortunately, Enlightenment efforts to promote scientific study as a salve for religious problems, have created an atomistic, mechanistic, individualistic outlook of the world; one that is unsuitable, indeed harmful, for many of the humanities.

Science is not the end to all problems, and cannot tell us everything about every area of life. It is not omnicompetent, and it is dangerous to think so. We have, mostly, manged to extract ourselves from the mire of religious fundamentalism, but we are in danger of laying down before a new fundamentalism; that of science.

Life is better than it has ever been at any previous point in history.

A larger portion of the total population lives in comfort and relative happiness than every before, science is more advanced, liberty and democracy are the paradigms within which states strive to act and war is less common than ever before.

It's the best time to be alive that we've yet experienced. This is a golden age.

To my mind most of human history right up till recently has been shit. As in we started to make progress in bettering our survival through science and our social organization in Europe since the renaissance, but only up until the 20th century are we really starting to realize our potential, especially after the second world war.

Broadly speaking in Europe and America (to some extent), people enjoy more civil rights and a sense of freedom, a rethoric of peaceful co-existence and tolerance is subscribed to at least in theory. Ask a normal person of the street do they subscribe to an ideology of hate and they will probably answer no.

Contrast how society is run now with how it was run in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries and most of the people considered conservative now would be die hard liberals then (except for the creationist republicans in southern america).

Now I accept there are many holes in this argument, but as a very general pattern is it not the case that right now we're really starting to make some proper headway, with science and increased freedom of expression within rationally defined bounds ie where freedom of expression does not involve harm to others? And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?

Earth will never have a utopian society. It's just not in human nature.

Human peace can never happen. However, with the gigantic advances we're having in science and medicine, I don't see the any sign of slowing down. (Except for the bird flu, and global warming.)
Yes... if we eliminate all FRENCH:mp5:
















-1

Earth will never have a utopian society. It’s just not in human nature.
Neither is penicillin. Doesn’t mean it can’t become compatable with human life.

However, I take the point. A truly utopian society seems somewhat unlikely. But a society devoid of many of the problems that afflict us today is possible; though low death rate, high birth rates, longer-living individuals and advances in technology bring their own problems.

Since people are reluctant to acknowledge what human nature is (even now, in many forms), the question of what constitutes taking off is an open one.

I'm sure the effete, decadent Romans thought they were the pinnacle of society before their fall. Perhaps the same is due to come with us.

I would define this animal as a mixture between religious fundamentalism, value imposition and old style social conservatism. As bad as this animal is, what is our current animal? Nihilism, lack of willpower, moral and intellectual weakness? These traits are prevalent in Western society. The bad old animal is prevalent in much of the rest of the world, but the West's malaise is unique.

Incidentally, to those complaining about anti-intellectualism - there are many forms, including those coming from the supposedly "enlightened". Think the suppression of research on racial and sexual differences.

Undoubtedly, if we don't wipe out ourselves out with climate change, war or a post antibiotic plague, we will undoubtedly think that the people of the 2000s live in squalor and comparative poverty. That's the way it has always been.


Firstly, asking whether you subscribe to an 'ideology of hate' is a completely loaded question which would always get a negative response, whether it be from Illinois or Iran. Surely, though, you must recognise that many of these civil rights and freedoms are, and always have been, under attack? That notwithstanding, we however claim to have and want these in theory, even if we tend to waive them in practice.

Yes, they certainly are under attack, everywhere. But the intensity of those attacks varies in different countries. And I would state that in countries like Ireland and England, at least in my experience, the attitude of free thought and expression within commonsensical limits, is one that prevails. I would say it prevails though less so in America. There have been efforts to completely ignore the constitution and what it says on theocracies and free speech but most of the population there is concentrated in the blue states no? And I would warrant a more enlightened attitude prevails there too?The loaded question though would reveal that people dont naturally tend towards hating their fellow human, that co-operation is preferable to conflict. That freudian slip would proffer some hope.

Progress will always continue as it has always done. Scientific development today, though, will be easier with increased freedom of expression and ideas - something both under threat in countries like China, and from anti-intellectualism in the USA (and in some circles the UK) and religious dogma.

Yes, faith based schools should be shut down. I bet some people would go nuts over hearing that, but theyre basically indoctrination centres and its disgraceful that Tony Blair would set up a scheme whereby they can exist. And thats in Britain, which would be considered I guess to be more open to science and free expression than America anyway. But I also think that these developments may be the last dying kicks of an animal that is desperate to cling onto its past glories. I would define this animal as a mixture between religious fundamentalism, value imposition and old style social conservatism.

Science is a useful tool, a wonderful approach of inquiry.

Unfortunately, Enlightenment efforts to promote scientific study as a salve for religious problems, have created an atomistic, mechanistic, individualistic outlook of the world; one that is unsuitable, indeed harmful, for many of the humanities.

Science is not the end to all problems, and cannot tell us everything about every area of life. It is not omnicompetent, and it is dangerous to think so. We have, mostly, manged to extract ourselves from the mire of religious fundamentalism, but we are in danger of laying down before a new fundamentalism; that of science.

Yes, but thats when people confuse science with ideology, science is a method and nothing more. But it can and will improve our understanding of nature and our quality of life. I agree, that it should not be the case that people should start worshipping science as a religion, it would be missing the point for a start!

I would like to think that while utopia is unachievable reaching for that standard all the time will greatly improve how societies operate, a continual striving for total perfection, which may never be attained but which will keep us afloat

Science is a useful tool, a wonderful approach of inquiry.

Unfortunately, Enlightenment efforts to promote scientific study as a salve for religious problems, have created an atomistic, mechanistic, individualistic outlook of the world; one that is unsuitable, indeed harmful, for many of the humanities.

Science is not the end to all problems, and cannot tell us everything about every area of life. It is not omnicompetent, and it is dangerous to think so. We have, mostly, manged to extract ourselves from the mire of religious fundamentalism, but we are in danger of laying down before a new fundamentalism; that of science.

Science, help us! :p

I would like to think that while utopia is unachievable reaching for that standard all the time will greatly improve how societies operate, a continual striving for total perfection, which may never be attained but which will keep us afloat What is Utopia?

That's a serious question. One person's utopia may be another one's dystopia. In the 30s utopia was happy families and subservient fuzzies with wide grins in the big pyramid hierarchy of life. Now it's everyone living in harmony in a rainbow world that, bizarrely, includes neither green nor blue.

Yes, they certainly are under attack, everywhere. But the intensity of those attacks varies in different countries. And I would state that in countries like Ireland and England, at least in my experience, the attitude of free thought and expression within commonsensical limits, is one that prevails. I would say it prevails though less so in America. There have been efforts to completely ignore the constitution and what it says on theocracies and free speech but most of the population there is concentrated in the blue states no? And I would warrant a more enlightened attitude prevails there too?The loaded question though would reveal that people dont naturally tend towards hating their fellow human, that co-operation is preferable to conflict. That freudian slip would proffer some hope.



Yes, faith based schools should be shut down. I bet some people would go nuts over hearing that, but theyre basically indoctrination centres and its disgraceful that Tony Blair would set up a scheme whereby they can exist. And thats in Britain, which would be considered I guess to be more open to science and free expression than America anyway. But I also think that these developments may be the last dying kicks of an animal that is desperate to cling onto its past glories. I would define this animal as a mixture between religious fundamentalism, value imposition and old style social conservatism.
I'd say that is generally true in principle.

Science, help us! :p
It can help us. But many social engineers, educators or political prophets have hailed science as a cure-all, and still continue to do so; a way to solve all our problems. The world is littered and scarred with failed social experiments, foolish crusades in which public officials believed that all they had to do to was to apply the scientific method to human society, and all problems would be straightened out.

Or futhermore, at times scientists and their fundamentalist supporters have claimed that all we needed to study was science; that the humanities and the arts were superfluous. Science could reveal all knowledge, and art or philosophy were mere distractions.

The promotion of the Selfish Gene thesis, and the individualism it supports is one small part of this cutting down of humanity to nothing but genes and DNA; the ridiculous fallacy that the part is greater than the whole. So to is our refusal to acknowledge our part in nature we occupy. We have promoted ourselves above nature, and are the worse for it.

the lives of the people who live now in the western world are probably the best since 10 000 years ago. i only hope that we can maintain this way of life without further exploiting natural recources and other people who aren't yet as fortunate as us.

And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?

no not really, i wouldn't hate it to live as a hunter/gatherer. but only if i were born as such. going back would be impossible.

(if i understood your question correctly that is, i found it quite confusing)

the lives of the people who live now in the western world are probably the best since 10 000 years ago. i only hope that we can maintain this way of life without further exploiting natural recources and other people who aren't yet as fortunate as us.



no not really, i wouldn't hate it to live as a hunter/gatherer. but only if i were born as such. going back would be impossible.

(if i understood your question correctly that is, i found it quite confusing)

sorry, I often get slated for being overly wordy. You see I would hate to live as a serf in a medieval town or a king for that matter because their lives were crap compared to now. Or a hunter gatherer, it would just be such a difficult existence, filled with hardship. I envy those who will be born in the next million years, because they will get to see things that we will never see like different planets and such. Theyll probably have greatly extended lifespans and will be happier and more content. Nonetheless the present is pretty cool with tv programs such as south park, spaced and star trek. Its a very superficial reason to like now but its still cool.

Its interesting though, I think that while we belong to different types of humanity, you have the go getters, the outsiders, the political radicals, the politicians etc etc, and as a larger manifestation of ourselves, we live on in them, in that such strands of humanity precede our existence and will continue after it. Humanity as an organism, as a personality, that would be interesting to define on the evidence that history can give us. I would think humanity as a personality has been confused, violent, unstable, hypocritical and selfish, but also benevolent to some degree, similar to the behaviour of any animal in the animal kingdom then. Which kinda reflects the meanness of the universe. But what marks us out, I think, is the fact that we are aware of this meanness (or whatever it is, I dont want to anthropomorphize it) and that we seek to transcend it.

I must state though that science just gives us improved living conditions. It does not provide wisdom which is required to run a state.

Life is better than it has ever been at any previous point in history.

A larger portion of the total population lives in comfort and relative happiness than every before, science is more advanced, liberty and democracy are the paradigms within which states strive to act and war is less common than ever before.

It's the best time to be alive that we've yet experienced. This is a golden age.
Hardly. The economic bit is true, but several technological areas that require long-term commitments (e.g. fusion, cryogenics) of research before they can turn a profit are only now getting serious support; when it just might be either too late or close to it. Too much short-term thinking by corporations and governments, the latter's problem only compounded by "democracy" since term limits and electoral cycles mean you literally have to be in campaign mode all the time. At least in Louis IV's absolutist France or the USSR's communist dictatorship, lifetime tenure meant you could rule long enough for your policies to really take effect; however poor or they may or may not have been. And were secure enough in that tenure to seriously consider such policies beforehand in the first place.
And as for war, frankly I think we're utterly wrongheaded there. True it is only justifiable in defense in theory, but by formally criminalizing offensive war and territorial conquest, we have taken the honor out of war. And in taking the honor out of war, I think we have only taken the honorable warriors out of the practice, ensuring that it is monopolized by the proverbial Saddam Husseins and Foday Sankohs of the world. In short, the UN Charter has only institutionalized a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than some fundamental truth. Would Alexander the Great be allowed to be "Alexander the Great" in a world where the global assembly must juridically and ethically consider him a criminal aggressor? Would he even find a world as petty as ours worth trying to unify if it would only hate, resist and spite him unto the grave for it?

A larger portion of the total population lives in comfort and relative happiness than every before

excluding the vast swaths of time before a majority of the world population took up agriculture

Hardly. The economic bit is true, but several technological areas that require long-term commitments (e.g. fusion, cryogenics) of research before they can turn a profit are only now getting serious support; when it just might be either too late or close to it. Too much short-term thinking by corporations and governments, the latter's problem only compounded by "democracy" since term limits and electoral cycles mean you literally have to be in campaign mode all the time. At least in Louis IV's absolutist France or the USSR's communist dictatorship, lifetime tenure meant you could rule long enough for your policies to really take effect; however poor or they may or may not have been. And were secure enough in that tenure to seriously consider such policies beforehand in the first place.
And as for war, frankly I think we're utterly wrongheaded there. True it is only justifiable in defense in theory, but by formally criminalizing offensive war and territorial conquest, we have taken the honor out of war. And in taking the honor out of war, I think we have only taken the honorable warriors out of the practice, ensuring that it is monopolized by the proverbial Saddam Husseins and Foday Sankohs of the world. In short, the UN Charter has only institutionalized a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than some fundamental truth. Would Alexander the Great be allowed to be "Alexander the Great" in a world where the global assembly must juridically and ethically consider him a criminal aggressor? Would he even find a world as petty as ours worth trying to unify if it would only hate, resist and spite him unto the grave for it?

You win. I would have posted something like the same, but I'm ill, and haven't eaten since yesterday.

the Selfish Gene thesis, and the individualism it supports

how can the selfish gene support individualism? individuals are just giant lumbering vehicles that genes use to promote copies of themselves. in fact, selfish genes can easily lead to altruistic individuals.

excluding the vast swaths of time before a majority of the world population took up agriculture

That's nothing more than mythical, primitivist bullshit.

That's nothing more than mythical, primitivist bullshit.

not really - it's grounded in anthropology and archaeology. agriculture is terrible for human health and happiness. and we've still got huge numbers of people living utterly shitty lives because of it.

That's nothing more than mythical, primitivist bullshit.

Mythical? No, it is incontrovertible that a pre-agricultural epoch happened.

In any case, try and take yourself out of the paradigm in which you write. All of the ideals you cite as evidence of progress could be contested as subjective, and thus to employ them as guarantors of progress is ignorant.

not really - it's grounded in anthropology and archaeology

No medicine, irregular food supplies, no science, no permanent residence.

That sounds pretty shit.

To my mind most of human history right up till recently has been shit. As in we started to make progress in bettering our survival through science and our social organization in Europe since the renaissance, but only up until the 20th century are we really starting to realize our potential, especially after the second world war.

Broadly speaking in Europe and America (to some extent), people enjoy more civil rights and a sense of freedom, a rethoric of peaceful co-existence and tolerance is subscribed to at least in theory. Ask a normal person of the street do they subscribe to an ideology of hate and they will probably answer no.

Contrast how society is run now with how it was run in the 19th, 18th and 17th centuries and most of the people considered conservative now would be die hard liberals then (except for the creationist republicans in southern america).

Now I accept there are many holes in this argument, but as a very general pattern is it not the case that right now we're really starting to make some proper headway, with science and increased freedom of expression within rationally defined bounds ie where freedom of expression does not involve harm to others? And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?

Well, humanity has always had to sturggle, and struggle hard, we didn't get to where we are today by fucking around, and not doing anything. We got here through, pain, suffering, conflict ect... And it will always be this way, we are always going to have to fight nature, and ourselves. Humanity will always always war against itself. It is our nature. It is our future.

No medicine, irregular food supplies, no science, no permanent residence.

That sounds pretty shit.

no modern medicine. plenty of herbal stuff that actually works (check out all the fuss over indigenous traditional knowledge going on recently). but more importantly, almost none of the terrible diseases that have haunted us since we domesticated ourselves.

a much better diet that actually is vastly less prone to disturbances and catastrophe than agriculture.

science is nice, but it wasn't anything of a detraction from comfort and happiness. it still isn't in most respects.

and living in one place amongst your own shit and garbage is what modern foragers point at as one of the biggest idiocies of our way of life. and really, you agree with them on this point. we go to extraordinary lengths to hide how bad it is, and it still stinks up the place.

no modern medicine. plenty of herbal stuff that actually works (check out all the fuss over indigenous traditional knowledge going on recently). but more importantly, almost none of the terrible diseases that have haunted us since we domesticated ourselves.

Come one, you know that herbal remedies are worthless for things including cancer, viruses, bacteria and fungi. Now we can actually treat these things. Let's see virtually any field in which indigenous medicine has done anything useful at all.

a much better diet that actually is vastly less prone to disturbances and catastrophe than agriculture.
And beholden to the movements of animals, climatic changes and countless other factors. With agriculture, you can take these factors into account and deal with them. You've far more control than do foragers.

science is nice, but it wasn't anything of a detraction from comfort and happiness. it still isn't in most respects.
Ignorance is bliss? Is that your argument? Fuck that. Knowledge and understanding make me happy, not being content. I hate being content. Being content is boring.

and living in one place amongst your own shit and garbage is what modern foragers point at as one of the biggest idiocies of our way of life. and really, you agree with them on this point. we go to extraordinary lengths to hide how bad it is, and it still stinks up the place.

No, I don't agree with them. I'd rather have stuff than having nothing. They're just compensating for the fact that they have jack-shit.

We're better off than we've ever been before, and it's only going to get better, not just for us here in the developed world but people in nations that have been marginalized and impoverished in previous eras. Disease, poverty, hunger, suffering, even death itself are all going to be conquered in the next century, and humankind will begin its expansion in to the solar system and beyond.

Well, it depends what we mean by "take off". The world, even int the nicer parts, is still far behind my idea of a (realistic) utopia.

Science is a useful tool, a wonderful approach of inquiry.

Unfortunately, Enlightenment efforts to promote scientific study as a salve for religious problems, have created an atomistic, mechanistic, individualistic outlook of the world; one that is unsuitable, indeed harmful, for many of the humanities.

Science is not the end to all problems, and cannot tell us everything about every area of life. It is not omnicompetent, and it is dangerous to think so. We have, mostly, manged to extract ourselves from the mire of religious fundamentalism, but we are in danger of laying down before a new fundamentalism; that of science.

I am unaware of an approach superior to empiricism. Any suggestions?

is it not the case that right now we're really starting to make some proper headway

"Proper headway" at what?

And in that case would it not be the case that most of human history has been a misreable long hard struggle to reach this point where we can begin to coast through nature on an automatic gear?

How utterly futile and pointless.

no modern medicine. plenty of herbal stuff that actually works (check out all the fuss over indigenous traditional knowledge going on recently). but more importantly, almost none of the terrible diseases that have haunted us since we domesticated ourselves.

a much better diet that actually is vastly less prone to disturbances and catastrophe than agriculture.

science is nice, but it wasn't anything of a detraction from comfort and happiness. it still isn't in most respects.

and living in one place amongst your own shit and garbage is what modern foragers point at as one of the biggest idiocies of our way of life. and really, you agree with them on this point. we go to extraordinary lengths to hide how bad it is, and it still stinks up the place.

Utter nonsense. If you forage, you're limited to what you can find within your range, which is likely to be very limited indeed, and not a balanced diet at all. Not to mention, natural crops are just as prone to things like drought and disease as planted crops.

If you're injured while foraging or hunting, you will most likely suffer an infection and die. Herbal remedies do nothing except maybe cause the placebo effect, which isn't much use when you've just been gored by a wild pig.

Pre-agricultural people lived in desperate, brutal, borderline starvation their entire lives, so it was probably just as well they were most likely to die by the age of 30.

Come one, you know that herbal remedies are worthless for things including cancer, viruses, bacteria and fungi. Now we can actually treat these things. Let's see virtually any field in which indigenous medicine has done anything useful at all.

The Value of Plants Used in Traditional Medicine for Drug Discovery (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/suppl-1/69-75fabricant/fabricant-full.html)

And beholden to the movements of animals, climatic changes and countless other factors. With agriculture, you can take these factors into account and deal with them. You've far more control than do foragers.

it took agriculture to invent mass starvation. it comes from basing the vast majority of your diet on a tiny number of species. makes you ridiculously vulnerable to even minor ecological changes. unlike foragers, who have a huge number of other food sources if one is low. and if things get really bad, they just go elsewhere, unlike those poor starving fools who have to stick it out or lose the only land they have.

Ignorance is bliss? Is that your argument? Fuck that. Knowledge and understanding make me happy, not being content. I hate being content. Being content is boring.

hey, you are the one that brought up comfort and relative happiness. my point is that knowledge of quantum mechanics is not required for either. and it is a trivially true point at that.


No, I don't agree with them. I'd rather have stuff than having nothing. They're just compensating for the fact that they have jack-shit.

yeah, cause it's not like we weren't dying in droves until we started investing billions of dollars into sanitation to move our shit and garbage 'away'. and now we have so much shit and garbage sitting around that we are running out of 'away' entirely.

Utter nonsense. If you forage, you're limited to what you can find within your range, which is likely to be very limited indeed, and not a balanced diet at all. Not to mention, natural crops are just as prone to things like drought and disease as planted crops.

If you're injured while foraging or hunting, you will most likely suffer an infection and die. Herbal remedies do nothing except maybe cause the placebo effect, which isn't much use when you've just been gored by a wild pig.

Pre-agricultural people lived in desperate, brutal, borderline starvation their entire lives, so it was probably just as well they were most likely to die by the age of 30.

how about you get back to me when you've done even basic research into the subject?

the anarcho-primitivist bible? :rolleyes:

That comes afterward. ;)

From reputable sources or the anarcho-primitivist bible? :rolleyes:

1) i ain't a primmie
2) everything i've said here is directly in line with the anthropological lit. go look, you'll see.

how about you get back to me when you've done even basic research into the subject?

From reputable sources or the anarcho-primitivist bible? :rolleyes:

OP SNIP

We haven't begun to take off yet; the airplane's designs have only just been finalized.

Utter nonsense. If you forage, you're limited to what you can find within your range, which is likely to be very limited indeed, and not a balanced diet at all. Not to mention, natural crops are just as prone to things like drought and disease as planted crops.

If you're injured while foraging or hunting, you will most likely suffer an infection and die. Herbal remedies do nothing except maybe cause the placebo effect, which isn't much use when you've just been gored by a wild pig.

Pre-agricultural people lived in desperate, brutal, borderline starvation their entire lives, so it was probably just as well they were most likely to die by the age of 30.

It was animal husbandry that really brought down our lifespans. Diseases from cattle and sheep brought diseases (smallpox specifically from cattle) to humans and settling down meant we were living in our own filth instead of moving on and not destroying one area.

Not to mention the fact that settling down allowed the beginning of true human government which I'm sure many would argue was quite unfortunate. :p

It was animal husbandry that really brought down our lifespans.

Not just. The malnutrition and increased population density were significant contributors as well.

I'm sure many would argue was quite unfortunate. :p

I have absolutely no doubt that the development of social forms that required human government at all resembling the present forms was extremely unfortunate.

It was animal husbandry that really brought down our lifespans. Diseases from cattle and sheep brought diseases (smallpox specifically from cattle) to humans and settling down meant we were living in our own filth instead of moving on and not destroying one area.

Not to mention the fact that settling down allowed the beginning of true human government which I'm sure many would argue was quite unfortunate. :p

And organized religion! Who imagined being able to support a larger population would turn out so bad? :(

We haven't begun to take off yet; the airplane's designs have only just been finalized.

unfortunately, it's one of those flapping-wing designs

unfortunately, it's one of those flapping-wing designs

WHAT??!!! They decided to use the corporate design????!!!!!

Not just. The malnutrition and increased population density were significant contributors as well.

Certainly they were all factors, I never said that the domestication of animals was the main reason for the decline in human health just one of the many.

And organized religion! Who imagined being able to support a larger population would turn out so bad? :(

And when you combine the two you have an increase in human conflict. So now humans are dying in wars to compete for the territory they have settled on. It was quite a price to pay for becoming "modern". I suppose it worked out in the end though... :)

It was animal husbandry that really brought down our lifespans. Diseases from cattle and sheep brought diseases (smallpox specifically from cattle) to humans and settling down meant we were living in our own filth instead of moving on and not destroying one area.

Because of course, humans didn't suffer from diseases before then, nor are there any other factors influencing lifespan...

Prior to the advent of civilisation, the human population was limited to a few hundred thousand individuals at most, and frequently went through bottlenecks. How you can argue that something which has led from this situation, to a population in the billions, has reduced life expectancy is beyond me.

Because of course, humans didn't suffer from diseases before then, nor are there any other factors influencing lifespan...

Prior to the advent of civilisation, the human population was limited to a few hundred thousand individuals at most, and frequently went through bottlenecks. How you can argue that something which has led from this situation, to a population in the billions, has reduced life expectancy is beyond me.

It was their dealing with animals on a constant basis that increased humans contact with disease so now we suffered from ailments like smallpox, something that wasn't a problem before. While our population increased by settling it didn't make us any healthier. We simply worked our asses off for little reward, we lived in our own filth and instead of being able to forage, something that was quite dependable, now we were dependent on how well the crops fared, if they failed we starved. It is only the advancement of medical technology that allowed our lifespans to rise again.

While our population increased by settling it didn't make us any healthier. We simply worked our asses off for little reward, we lived in our own filth and instead of being able to forage, something that was quite dependable, now we were dependent on how well the crops fared, if they failed we starved.

Hunter-gatherers didn't live in a magical funland of inexhaustible resources. They were dependent on the availability of natural resources just as much as a farmer was dependent on his crops, which is why their populations went through boom-bust cycles like all other animal populations. The whole point of agriculture was to combat this by making food more regularly available and building contingency stores, and evidently it worked, as can be seen by the resultant population growth. Settled populations may have suffered famines, but so did foragers, and when it happened to foragers, they didn't have the palace grain stores to fall back on, and had nothing to trade for the surplus of another community.

They were dependent on the availability of natural resources just as much as a farmer was dependent on his crops,

Only the farmer's dependence and the hunter-gatherer's dependence are of a different sort.

The farmer depends on a highly-limited set of plants. The hunter-gatherer does not.

which is why their populations went through boom-bust cycles like all other animal populations. The whole point of agriculture was to combat this by making food more regularly available and building contingency stores,

Which is why agriculture increased malnutrition hugely?

Which is why agriculture increased malnutrition hugely?

That's because early (and modern subsistence) agriculture was very labor intensive, which meant more people were needed to produce the food and consequently the food demand was far higher. Of course, if the harvest were to fail you had a lot of people, and the effects of a food shortage were considerably magnified.

Also, agriculture produced a lot of people not involved in producing food; you had merchants, nobles, priests, metalworkers and others that produced other goods and services for these societies but didn't produce food themselves, and when the food ran short you had more mouths to feed than the people directly involved in food production.

So, in other words, the malnutrition is a consequence of the population growth and economic diversification that agriculture brought.

but we are in danger of laying down before a new fundamentalism; that of science.

How is this bad?

So, in other words, the malnutrition is a consequence of the population growth and economic diversification that agriculture brought.

So, not only did agriculture cause harm by replacing a life of leisure with one of toil, by replacing a varied diet with an exclusive, unhealthy one, and by increasing disease through population density, but it generously added to these troubles additional ones: populations so high that they strained the supply of food and a class society that deprived those at the bottom of the scale (that is, the vast majority) of the means of substinence (not to mention freedom and dignity.)

Hmm, seems a pretty strong indictment to me.

Only the farmer's dependence and the hunter-gatherer's dependence are of a different sort.

The farmer depends on a highly-limited set of plants. The hunter-gatherer does not.

Like I said, the Hunter-gatherer does not have access to inexhaustible resources. A certain area of land only produces enough natural resources to support a certain number of people. When the population exceeds this limit (and it will, because people like having sex), there is mass starvation. What limited resources exist are claimed by the strong, and the weak die off. Good for evolution, but pretty crap if it's your life. You could try moving on to another area - the children, the sick, and elderly likely won't survive a long journey with limited food though, and when you come into contact with another tribe who claim the resources in the next valley for themselves, well, it's fight or die, because there isn't enough food for the both of you. Wild animals stake out a territory and defend it for a reason.

The settled population produces much more food from a much smaller area, hence more people survive. Most settled communities were able to produce more food than they needed, allowing a surplus for hard times, and giving rise to aristocracy and such. Weighed against having all your children starve, it probably wasn't such a bad trade off.

So, not only did agriculture cause harm by replacing a life of leisure with one of toil, by replacing a varied diet with an exclusive, unhealthy one, and by increasing disease through population density, but it generously added to these troubles additional ones: populations so high that they strained the supply of food and a class society that deprived those at the bottom of the scale (that is, the vast majority) of the means of substinence (not to mention freedom and dignity.)

Hmm, seems a pretty strong indictment to me.

Dolphins are smarter.

How is this bad?

Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. It causes whatever it infects to stagnate and decline, and quite possibly die as a consequence of its stagnation. I don't want science to become dogmatic and bogged down in scientism, because that would be nothing more than an affront to the generations of scientists who have worked to bring us to where we are today.

Weighed against having all your children starve, it probably wasn't such a bad trade off.

Unfortunately, the "trade off" you propose here is simply not consistent with the empirical evidence.

Starvation, malnutrition, and similar signs of food scarcity are far more evident in the remains of ancient agricultural societies than they are in hunter-gatherer societies, and hunter-gatherer societies today, in the most desolate places on Earth, maintain a calorie intake significantly higher than much of the world's agricultural population.

So, not only did agriculture cause harm by replacing a life of leisure with one of toil, by replacing a varied diet with an exclusive, unhealthy one, and by increasing disease through population density, but it generously added to these troubles additional ones: populations so high that they strained the supply of food and a class society that deprived those at the bottom of the scale (that is, the vast majority) of the means of substinence (not to mention freedom and dignity.)

Hmm, seems a pretty strong indictment to me.

But is it?

The life of lesiure that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle could offer depended entirely on the local environment; if things changed, as they often have in the past, you could have years or generations of hardship as your band migrated to better conditions, and there was no guarantee that it would ever happen. You might die of starvation before you found a new place to settle.

Agriculture and urbanization provide the stability that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle doesn't; you might not be able to achieve the kind of leisure that they had at first, but as society develops you will be capable of attaining leisure time combined with the added security of the agricultural system.

A certain area of land only produces enough natural resources to support a certain number of people. When the population exceeds this limit (and it will, because people like having sex), there is mass starvation.

no there isn't. mass starvation requires mass overshoot and mass food source failure. those sorts of conditions are reliably produced by agriculture, but not by foraging.

What limited resources exist are claimed by the strong, and the weak die off.

i see you have done extensive research into the food sharing practices of the various foraging societies...

The settled population produces much more food from a much smaller area, hence more people survive. Most settled communities were able to produce more food than they needed, allowing a surplus for hard times, and giving rise to aristocracy and such. Weighed against having all your children starve, it probably wasn't such a bad trade off.

of course, the farmers children actually were starving

Starvation, malnutrition, and similar signs of food scarcity are far more evident in the remains of ancient agricultural societies than they are in hunter-gatherer societies, and hunter-gatherer societies today, in the most desolate places on Earth, maintain a calorie intake significantly higher than much of the world's agricultural population.

The thing is, though, they have to consume more calories in order to survive. They don't have the things we do that would enable them to do more work with less energy; if they consumed less, they'd quite possibly sicken and die due to the demands of their lifestyle.

The Value of Plants Used in Traditional Medicine for Drug Discovery (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/suppl-1/69-75fabricant/fabricant-full.html)
What I get from this is they found that limited effects can be derived directly from the plants, but you get far better effects if you concentrate the chemicals in a system akin to modern medicine.

Furthermore, this offers no references to concepts such as vaccination, which was unheard of until modern medicine began to develop.



it took agriculture to invent mass starvation. it comes from basing the vast majority of your diet on a tiny number of species. makes you ridiculously vulnerable to even minor ecological changes. unlike foragers, who have a huge number of other food sources if one is low. and if things get really bad, they just go elsewhere, unlike those poor starving fools who have to stick it out or lose the only land they have.
Or not.

In agriculture, mass starvation was typically prevented if farmers were willing to forgo tradition and switch to newer crops, the classic example being the time during the miniature ice-age in Europe. During this time frame, German, English, Scottish, Scandinavian and Irish farmers switched from grain as their primary staple crop to potatoes. The French peasantry refused to eat something that they viewed as "dirty", and therefore starved. You don't have to tear up your roots, just change your crops.


yeah, cause it's not like we weren't dying in droves until we started investing billions of dollars into sanitation to move our shit and garbage 'away'. and now we have so much shit and garbage sitting around that we are running out of 'away' entirely.

No we aren't. We've got plenty of "away" that we can put stuff in.

This will be interesting...

if things changed, as they often have in the past, you could have years or generations of hardship as your band migrated to better conditions, and there was no guarantee that it would ever happen. You might die of starvation before you found a new place to settle.

Fortunately, hunter-gatherers have shown far more talent than agriculturalists in adapting to a wide variety of climates, so this is hardly a problem... and how often to you suppose the kind of radical change that would necessitate a major shift in territory would occur?

Let's not forget that this problem is not settled by agriculture, which makes you far more sedentary and thus more dependent on your local environment, and then proceeds to make this problem even worse by ensuring that if your crop gamble fails, famine ensues.

Agriculture and urbanization provide the stability that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle doesn't;

No, they simply don't. (And I haven't even mentioned organized violence yet, or ecological catastrophe....)

as society develops you will be capable of attaining leisure time

Leisure time, maybe. So? Leisure time constrained by a schedule; leisure time mostly encompassing an attempt to forget about the work you have been forced to waste your time on in the periods where you don't have leisure time.

They don't have the things we do that would enable them to do more work with less energy

So? The intensity of labor is irrelevant to how awful it is. Sitting at a desk for eight hours doesn't require much energy, but it isn't much fun.

they'd quite possibly sicken and die due to the demands of their lifestyle.

You mean the way agriculturalists have repeatedly sickened and died due to the demands of their lifestyle? Perhaps. Fortunately, a hunter-gatherer's diet can actually cope with it.

Unfortunately, the "trade off" you propose here is simply not consistent with the empirical evidence.

Starvation, malnutrition, and similar signs of food scarcity are far more evident in the remains of ancient agricultural societies than they are in hunter-gatherer societies, and hunter-gatherer societies today, in the most desolate places on Earth, maintain a calorie intake significantly higher than much of the world's agricultural population.

You clearly have no idea of what empirical evidence exists.

Settled societies today, even in poor countries, are filled with many obese people who consume 20,000+ calories per day, whereas in many hunter-gather cultures the calorie intake is so low that women don't even begin to menstruate until they are 18-19 years old.

As for the remains of ancient societies, there are vastly more remains of settled societies, whereas remains from hunter-gatherers are extremely rare, due to differences in burial customs and the fact that hunter-gatherer populations were simply much lower. Not to mention that 'evidence of malnutrition' is next to impossible to detect in 10,000 year old skeletons.

Also, population growth = more people surviving, less people dying. FACT.

no there isn't. mass starvation requires mass overshoot and mass food source failure. those sorts of conditions are reliably produced by agriculture, but not by foraging.

Funny how they exist in most animal populations, then. Unless you are suggesting that foxes and rabbits practise agriculture.

i see you have done extensive research into the food sharing practices of the various foraging societies...

Sharing doesn't work when there isn't enough food to go round. One tribe won't share with another if it means they both starve; survival dictates an us or them attitude, which is present in pretty much all life.


of course, the farmers children actually were starving

Not with quite the same frequency, or there wouldn't have been population growth, would there?

Settled societies today, even in poor countries, are filled with many obese people who consume 20,000+ calories per day,

In poor areas of rich countries, yes (somewhat). Among peasant populations in the developing world, no. (The elite in poor countries might eat well... so what?)

whereas in many hunter-gather cultures the calorie intake is so low that women don't even begin to menstruate until they are 18-19 years old.

If that's true, I doubt that the cause is a low calorie intake.

As for the remains of ancient societies, there are vastly more remains of settled societies, whereas remains from hunter-gatherers are extremely rare, due to differences in burial customs and the fact that hunter-gatherer populations were simply much lower.

Yeah, so?

Not to mention that 'evidence of malnutrition' is next to impossible to detect in 10,000 year old skeletons.

Not really... you can learn the height, you can learn the age, you can examine the bones for defects indicative of malnutrition, and so on.

Also, population growth = more people surviving, less people dying. FACT.

Or just a higher birth rate, which makes a good deal of sense for non-sedentary populations for whom many children were more trouble than they were worth.

Funny how they exist in most animal populations, then.

no they don't. except in special circumstances, population growth tends to look something like this:

http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/carrying_capacity_deer.gif

Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. It causes whatever it infects to stagnate and decline, and quite possibly die as a consequence of its stagnation. I don't want science to become dogmatic and bogged down in scientism, because that would be nothing more than an affront to the generations of scientists who have worked to bring us to where we are today.

What do you mean 'bogged down' in science? None of what you said makes much sense to me. These generations of scientists you mentioned devoted their lives to science... Please explain what you mean.

Also, population growth = more people surviving, less people dying. FACT.

Actually...I'm not definitely sure on this one but isn't pop. growth also taking into account immigration and emigration? Maybe I'm just nitpicking...:p

Also, population growth = more people surviving, less people dying. FACT.

two groups with equal initial numbers. in this particular time period group x has 2 offspring and 1 death, and group y has 7 offspring and 5 deaths. which has the higher rate of population growth?

Actually...I'm not definitely sure on this one but isn't pop. growth also taking into account immigration and emigration? Maybe I'm just nitpicking...:p

How the hell do you immigrate to Earth?

What do you mean 'bogged down' in science? None of what you said makes much sense to me. These generations of scientists you mentioned devoted their lives to science... Please explain what you mean.

Scientism. The belief system that advocates science as superior to all other fields and which ignores any other considerations.

Scientism. The belief system that advocates science as superior to all other fields and which ignores any other considerations.

What other fields can come anywhere near to science in being able to give ACTUAL answers? Not religion nor philosophy. If you want to know how something works you go to a scientist not a theologian. What other fields are you referring to?

What other fields can come anywhere near to science in being able to give ACTUAL answers? Not religion nor philosophy. If you want to know how something works you go to a scientist not a theologian. What other fields are you referring to?
Theology and philosophy may not be able to help in scientific experiments, but this does not mean that they are therefore not useful. Science itself cannot tell us everything about ourselves and the universe around us.

Philosophy, art, poetry, theology, literature, etc, illuminate parts of our lives that science has no chance of even touching upon. The fundamentalism of many prominent figures in the field of science is not only misguided, but potentially damaging and dangerous. Merely applying the scientific method to all areas of our life is not just wrong, but harmful.

See the ridiculous theses of Behaviourism, Fatalistic Determinism and Individualism.

What other fields can come anywhere near to science in being able to give ACTUAL answers? Not religion nor philosophy.

of course, scientists spend an awful lot of time arguing philosophy. it's sort of fundamental.

Unfortunately, the "trade off" you propose here is simply not consistent with the empirical evidence.

Starvation, malnutrition, and similar signs of food scarcity are far more evident in the remains of ancient agricultural societies than they are in hunter-gatherer societies, and hunter-gatherer societies today, in the most desolate places on Earth, maintain a calorie intake significantly higher than much of the world's agricultural population.

What are you? Retarded? Your arguments are just baffeling, it seems as if your arguing against the reality of air. Agriculture is one of the greatest fundemental steps of human history towards achieveing civilization. There would not be any at all other wise. The nomadic hunter gatherer life sucked... thats why people settled and tamed the land.

Your arguments are just baffeling, it seems as if your arguing against the reality of air.

it's our fault that you haven't kept up with the anthropological research of the past 150 years?

I feel quite the contrary; That human society is about to be completely and absolutely humbled. None too soon, I might add...

What are you? Retarded? Your arguments are just baffeling, it seems as if your arguing against the reality of air. Agriculture is one of the greatest fundemental steps of human history towards achieveing civilization. There would not be any at all other wise. The nomadic hunter gatherer life sucked... thats why people settled and tamed the land.

actually the only advantage of agriculture is that it allows a lot of people to live in a relatively small place. the living conditions were a lot worse than those of hunter gatherers. but because the farmers had a lot more soldiers they could easily take over the land of hunter gatherers. that's probably why almost everybody nowadays is a farmer, not because farming is so much easier.
also remember that there was a long time between the first farmers and now. while nowadays western agriculture isn't really backbreaking labor, it was for 99% of the time.
and what was so great about civilization up until now? the last 50 years were nice, but befor that it was mainly slavery, war, oppression and back-breaking labor etc.

in the sense of growing up i think humanity is only just graduating from childhood to adolescence. it still has a looooooooooooong way to go before reaching adulthood.

=^^=
.../\...