NationStates Jolt Archive

These days, we are keeping everyone alive. I have to say that while I am feeling for the people that need this kind of help, I don't think it's necessarily good for the human race. Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?

Eugenics is bad.

Individually, humans are not very competitive with other creatures. We're mostly soft, pink, and chewy. It is numbers, ie society, that gives us an edge over other species. Whether we are able to keep up, biologically, with how quickly we evolve socially, will go a long way toward determining our ability to survive.

Who needs help to stay alive? Who says who gets the treatment? What treatment is life-saving? If I fall off my bike and break my leg, should I be denied treatment because my clumsiness might be genetic?

Where do you stop?

Why is everything I'm typing ending in a question mark?

really? I thought it was our tools that gave humanity the edge over other species.

But it is society that speads the knowledge and use of tools. This is why we have an expression "Don't reinvent the wheel."

Individually, humans are not very competitive with other creatures. We're mostly soft, pink, and chewy. It is numbers, ie society, that gives us an edge over other species. Whether we are able to keep up, biologically, with how quickly we evolve socially, will go a long way toward determining our ability to survive.
really? I thought it was our tools that gave humanity the edge over other species.

Seeing as evolution apparently is a lie we've really nothing to worry about.

Seeing as evolution apparently is a lie we've really nothing to worry about.

I thought it was the cake that was a lie?

Eugenics is bad.

Not talking about fabricated "races" here, talking about people that would have no chance to survive even if our setup was a little bit different.

Don't know if it matters, since I don't know where the people that answer are from, but I live in a country where there is universal healthcare.

Seeing as evolution apparently is a lie we've really nothing to worry about.

Apparently how?

really? I thought it was our tools that gave humanity the edge over other species.
And they're a product of our brains.

Humans don't compete by breeding. If we did, we'd have more kids per pregnancy and it wouldn't take as long to grow them, like with various rodents which do compete by numbers.

The fact that there's a lot of us isn't due to evolution, it's more due to us being particularly successful and eliminating the things that would keep numbers down. So big numbers isn't the reason for our success, our success is the reason for big numbers.

Not talking about fabricated "races" here, talking about people that would have no chance to survive even if our setup was a little bit different.

Don't know if it matters, since I don't know where the peopel that answer are from, but I live in acountry where there is universal healthcare.

Probably the only universal rule of a good society is, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Universal healthcare is one way of everyone looking out for each other.

Let's not besmirch the good name of cake by associating it with evolution.
Well, unless it's Darknovae, I prefer pie ;)

I thought it was the cake that was a lie?

Let's not besmirch the good name of cake by associating it with evolution.

Well, unless it's Darknovae, I prefer pie ;)

You know, I'm particularly impressed with how you replied before I posted. Good work Jolt.

My main, and only, problem with evolution is the name.

It's just not dramatic enough.

For that reason I fail to believe in it. Something so important wouldn't have such a boring name if it were real.

Apparently how?

Because all the evidence for evolution is just god trying to lead us astray. Goodness, haven't you been paying attention?

But it is society that speads the knowledge and use of tools. This is why we have an expression "Don't reinvent the wheel."
that expression is to cut back on the waste of time going over what has already been done.

it's still our tools, not society that gives us the edge.

And they're a product of our brains.

Humans don't compete by breeding. If we did, we'd have more kids per pregnancy and it wouldn't take as long to grow them, like with various rodents which do compete by numbers.

The fact that there's a lot of us isn't due to evolution, it's more due to us being particularly successful and eliminating the things that would keep numbers down. So big numbers isn't the reason for our success, our success is the reason for big numbers.
you mean, Reason is the reason of our success as shown by our numbers. :)

Because all the evidence for evolution is just the Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to lead us astray. Goodness, haven't you been paying attention?

Fixed.

Fixed.

Burn the witch.

Because all the evidence for evolution is just god trying to lead us astray. Goodness, haven't you been paying attention?

Sorry, my parents and schooling was lead astray

that expression is to cut back on the waste of time going over what has already been done.

it's still our tools, not society that gives us the edge.


And it still takes society to produce our tools. Even the people I know who have built their own houses did not build their own tools, mine the ore for the metal, smelt and cast it. And where would one get the smelters? Yes, one individual can succeed against great odds with the proper tools, but their production, and the leisure to imagine more advanced tools, is a function of the division of labour which is the essence of society.

This is a GREAT conversation, btw. I've always admired your posts, and relish this opportunity to engage your active mind

Burn the witch.

Surely, you mean "pirate"?

These days, we are keeping everyone alive. I have to say that while I am feeling for the people that need this kind of help, I don't think it's necessarily good for the human race. Any thoughts?

I think someone is confusing evolution with natural selection. ;)

BTW, I oppose the Heimlich Maneuver. *nod*

I think someone is confusing evolution with natural selection. ;)

BTW, I oppose the Heimlich Maneuver. *nod*

Doesn't it make a difference where you aim them?

Surely, you mean "pirate"?

Let's call it a witch-pirate.

Burn the witch.

True, Jesus was really a fan of burning people alive

And the whores. He loved the whores.

Let's call it a witch-pirate.

Witch-pirate?

That pirate!

Ba-dum-dum-ching!

Doesn't it make a difference where you aim them?

Nope. When in doubt, aim for the crotch. *nod*

I think someone is confusing evolution with natural selection. ;)

BTW, I oppose the Heimlich Maneuver. *nod*

Evolution is a product of natural selection. I don't understand the problem?

Witch-pirate?

That pirate!

Ba-dum-dum-ching!

Clearly I have met my match for today.

Evolution is a product of natural selection. I don't understand the problem?

Humans will evolve no matter what. Natural selection is nature's way of directing this evolution. Think of genes as dice, and every time a new organism comes into existence, some are the dice are rolled. If the environment were a void, there would be an approximately equal number of organisms with four sixes and two ones as three ones and three twos, or whatever combination you can think of. But the environment is not a void, and natural selection is what kills all organisms with two fives and prevents them from reproducing. Even in our man-made world, natural selection still occurs, the only difference is that it isn't, well, natural. But even if it didn't, evolution would still happen, the dice would still get rolled.

Okay, I just realized that post was much more confusing and less of a neat analogy than I originally thought. But there's no way I'm going to write all that and not post it. Sorry.

It is quite possible that without natural selection genetic deficiencies will become so common that many people will become hopelessly frail and suffer higher levels of morbidity and mortality.

Fortunately at that point only the strongest humans will survive to breed - natural selection. It never really goes away, it just becomes unnecessary.

And it still takes society to produce our tools. Even the people I know who have built their own houses did not build their own tools, mine the ore for the metal, smelt and cast it. And where would one get the smelters? Yes, one individual can succeed against great odds with the proper tools, but their production, and the leisure to imagine more advanced tools, is a function of the division of labour which is the essence of society.

This is a GREAT conversation, btw. I've always admired your posts, and relish this opportunity to engage your active mind

ah, but you are focusing on TODAY's time period. yes, we have companies that make our tools now, but centuries ago, people had to make their own tools.

The spear used to hunt and fish? that was made by the hunter. same with the knives and other tools including the small fishing boats.

homes were also hand built in the past by those who will live in it. now we have construction companies, but long ago it was the owner and their close friends and family.

thanks, I prefere these kind of topics (not counting the spamy ones) than the normal fare of politics and religion.

Evolution is a product of natural selection. I don't understand the problem?

That's kind of like saying that fishsticks are made from batter.

In the case of Evolution, the causes of it not only include natural selection, but genetic drift and (more recently)artificial selection.

The dog is an excellent example of all three working together.

The same is true of humanity's evolution. There's more than one ideal design and a vast number of non-ideal but perfectly serviceable and survivable designs.

Tacos are another example. *nods and munches on a taco*

ah, but is the Soft-shelled Taco an evolutionary product of the crunchy taco or vice versa?

Neither. Both were created by an Almighty God 6,000 years ago.

That's kind of like saying that fishsticks are made from batter.

In the case of Evolution, the causes of it not only include natural selection, but genetic drift and artificial selection.

The dog is an excellent example of both working together.

The same is true of humanity's evolution. There's more than one ideal design and a vast number of non-ideal but perfectly serviceable and survivable designs.

Tacos are another example. *nods and munches on a taco*

ah, but is the Soft-shelled Taco an evolutionary product of the crunchy taco or vice versa?

ah, but is the Soft-shelled Taco an evolutionary product of the crunchy taco or vice versa?

More funding must be acquired to research this. *nod*

ah, but you are focusing on TODAY's time period. yes, we have companies that make our tools now, but centuries ago, people had to make their own tools.

The spear used to hunt and fish? that was made by the hunter. same with the knives and other tools including the small fishing boats.

homes were also hand built in the past by those who will live in it. now we have construction companies, but long ago it was the owner and their close friends and family.

thanks, I prefere these kind of topics (not counting the spamy ones) than the normal fare of politics and religion. My bold above. I think we're chicken/egging here. Individuals create tools. Society supports their use and dissemination. The two seem irrevocably intertwined. Which came first? Without an individual inventor, there would be nothing to disseminate. But without division of labour, there would be no opportunity to invent. Meanwhile, some people who might have died alone, on their own, have instead been able to survive and reproduce, thanks to humanity's superior tools and social structure.

That's kind of like saying that fishsticks are made from batter.

In the case of Evolution, the causes of it not only include natural selection, but genetic drift and (more recently)artificial selection.

The dog is an excellent example of all three working together.

The same is true of humanity's evolution. There's more than one ideal design and a vast number of non-ideal but perfectly serviceable and survivable designs.

Tacos are another example. *nods and munches on a taco*

Exactly. Take away humans, and 90% of domestic dogs die out in a few years, since their short, stubby legs and noses are hardly suited to foraging and hunting. Humans would probably enjoy a similar fate if a magical technology annihilating bomb went off, and we all had to actually grow our own food instead of having it transported to us over thousands of miles.



Clearly I have met my match for today.



I'm not dating you! Maybe Goofballs is up for it...

Neither. Both were created by an Almighty God 6,000 years ago.
ah, but even the Bible says Man was created before Woman. so which was first?

More funding must be acquired to research this. *nod* truely a better cause then some of the other "research" that gets funded. *nod*

ah, but even the Bible says Man was created before Woman. so which was first?
According to Bette Midler, the "taco" was created at the same time as Woman. History does not record of which variety it was (besides "fish")

My bold above. I think we're chicken/egging here. Individuals create tools. Society supports their use and dissemination. The two seem irrevocably intertwined. Which came first? Without an individual inventor, there would be nothing to disseminate. But without division of labour, there would be no opportunity to invent. Meanwhile, some people who might have died alone, on their own, have instead been able to survive and reproduce, thanks to humanity's superior tools and social structure. What "he" said :rolleyes:

ah, but you are focusing on TODAY's time period. yes, we have companies that make our tools now, but centuries ago, people had to make their own tools.

The spear used to hunt and fish? that was made by the hunter. same with the knives and other tools including the small fishing boats.

homes were also hand built in the past by those who will live in it. now we have construction companies, but long ago it was the owner and their close friends and family.

thanks, I prefere these kind of topics (not counting the spamy ones) than the normal fare of politics and religion.

My bold above. I think we're chicken/egging here. Individuals create tools. Society supports their use and dissemination. The two seem irrevocably intertwined. Which came first? Without an individual inventor, there would be nothing to disseminate. But without division of labour, there would be no opportunity to invent. Meanwhile, some people who might have died alone, on their own, have instead been able to survive and reproduce, thanks to humanity's superior tools and social structure.

I would also like to add that physical resources are not the only thing society creates and distributes. What is far more important is knowledge.

Sure, one man could build a house all on his own and he could craft all of the tools that he needs. However, it is important to note that he couldn't do any of this without society, not because of the physical resources, but because he wouldn't know how if he wasn't taught.

Granted, people do figure out things on their own, but society spreads all of these discoveries to the people in that society. Without society the knowledge needed to create things simply wouldn't be accessible.

Seeing as evolution apparently is a lie we've really nothing to worry about.

I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7992/emothawnb8.gif

My bold above. I think we're chicken/egging here. Individuals create tools. Society supports their use and dissemination. The two seem irrevocably intertwined. Which came first? Without an individual inventor, there would be nothing to disseminate. But without division of labour, there would be no opportunity to invent. Meanwhile, some people who might have died alone, on their own, have instead been able to survive and reproduce, thanks to humanity's superior tools and social structure.

I don't think they're that closely intertwined. it would definiately depend on one's definition of "Society". but in theory, the tool would be what made human the top of the food chain.

the first hunters probably used crude spears, bows and arrows.

that allowed their family unit (clan if you will, or tribe.) to survive while others didn't.

as one clan survived and grew larger (due to kids) individuals will migrate to the stronger, larger clans because their chances of survival would improve. yet each 'member' would have to still pull their own weight. While this could be the start of 'society', the tools would still be individually made and used by the families within the clan/tribe.

however as the tribe became larger, you begin to have a spintering of skills. some who are not good in hunting yet masters in tool making would concentrate on making the tools then allowing the hunters to hunt 'for them' using their superior tools (the beginnings of trade and bartering). teams of hunters would also be formed, allowing pack hunting to take down larger prey and provide more food for their clans.

the domestic side would also splinter and fragment. those who liked to cook would cook while those who found pleasure in tanning hides would focus on that. using trade and barter (within the friendly confines of the tribe) to keep each person fed and clothed.

then as one tribe met another you have trade and bartering (and war and fighting but that's not what this thread is about :p ) and eventually, the need for a stable food supply would be great. seeing that the tribe is too large to move, they settled and thus went from hunter/gatherer to the agricultural as they developed agricultural tools and methods.

at this point, society would definitly be born. but it would be baised first on the tools made by the individual that made the hunter the top of the food chain. the division of labor would come later, as the tribe grew to the point where such division wouldn't be disaterous for the tribe.

These days, we are keeping everyone alive. I have to say that while I am feeling for the people that need this kind of help, I don't think it's necessarily good for the human race. Any thoughts?

i, for one, greatly approve of the fact that we have evolved a moral sense that makes us care for others as best we can.

plus, more people = more adaptive mutations = yay

I would also like to add that physical resources are not the only thing society creates and distributes. What is far more important is knowledge.

Sure, one man could build a house all on his own and he could craft all of the tools that he needs. However, it is important to note that he couldn't do any of this without society, not because of the physical resources, but because he wouldn't know how if he wasn't taught.

Granted, people do figure out things on their own, but society spreads all of these discoveries to the people in that society. Without society the knowledge needed to create things simply wouldn't be accessible.

and what you are focusing on is the benefit of society. yet was society established before or after mankind became the 'top of the food chain'?

Sorry if someone has already gone over this but Evolution is in fact still going on today. In the "western World" there is selection for certain traits based on those traits ability to attract a partner generally through having a larger income. Also traits that are found to be attractive are selected for. Evolution has not stopped simply because the people who are not successful don't die. Its more about the ability of any person to successfully reproduce and have their genes carry on too a next generation. I actually have absolutely no Idea what the traits that are being selected for actually are but you are still going to see evolution in progress even if its much less clear cut than it would have been 3000 years ago.

I have to say that while I am feeling for the people that need this kind of help, I don't think it's necessarily good for the human race.

At this point, evolution has little to do with the threats to the survival of the human species... so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

i, for one, greatly approve of the fact that we have evolved a moral sense that makes us care for others as best we can.

plus, more people = more adaptive mutations = yay

Here's to "adaptive mutations" (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/02/08-15/JessicaAlba009.jpg) /cheers!

and what you are focusing on is the benefit of society. yet was society established before or after mankind became the 'top of the food chain'?

Well, I would say that the formation of society is what caused man to reach that state.

So, society was established before the "rise of mankind"...

i, for one, greatly approve of the fact that we have evolved a moral sense that makes us care for others as best we can.

plus, more people = more adaptive mutations = yay

Of course you do. If you didn't, natural selection would kill you, just like that.

and what you are focusing on is the benefit of society. yet was society established before or after mankind became the 'top of the food chain'?

I'm guessing the answer depends on your definition of "top of the food chain." At what point do the percentages favour the hunter over the prey? People hunted in groups for a reason . . .

Of course you do. If you didn't, natural selection would kill you, just like that.

*watches natural selection sneak up behind New Limacon*
"Look out!"
Whew! That was a close one! :fluffle:

*watches natural selection sneak up behind New Limacon*
"Look out!"
Whew! That was a close one! :fluffle:

I wish nature would stop trying to kill me. I can't think of anything I did to it that would make it act this way.

Universal healthcare is one way of everyone looking out for each other.
Yes I agree, if we had universal health care then we might be able to take huge steps on the path of social and economical evolution. This is because billions of dollars are going into lawyers for law suits against useless insurance companies, and electrical power is being used and wasted on low level hospitals that save as many people as they don't. If we had a universal health care system all of that money could be put into research.
The off shoot of this is that people become greedy and try to use the extra money to create weapons to "conquer the world" and then we could be thrust unnecessarily into WW III.:eek:

I'm guessing the answer depends on your definition of "top of the food chain." At what point do the percentages favour the hunter over the prey? People hunted in groups for a reason . . .

true. yet you also had individual hunters.

a very good question...

I would say when success outnumbers failures by a percentage over 10%.

I wish nature would stop trying to kill me. I can't think of anything I did to it that would make it act this way.

Think about it. We use electricity derived from burning natures produces, we litter the planets surface, we dump artificial chemicals into it's water, we destroy its oxygen supply, we drill its natural gases, we bomb it, we destroy it, we release ozone destroying gases into it, we mess up food chains and the natural order of things, and on top of all that we exrete waste on it. The sad thing is that if we don't change anything, we might very well be doing the same thing to the rest of the universe. Then what would happen?

The Human Race:gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

That is exactly what would happen( if you use your imagination and think that all those smiley's are natures weapons)

Well, I would say that the formation of society is what caused man to reach that state.

So, society was established before the "rise of mankind"...

hmm... but which person would attract people to their 'society'?

Oog who is feeding himself by picking berries and grubs found under a log?

or Tog who has a spear to catch fish from the stream nearby, a snare to catch rabbits and a club to crack open the shells of tortoses?

Yes I agree, if we had universal health care then we might be able to take huge steps on the path of social and economical evolution. This is because billions of dollars are going into lawyers for law suits against useless insurance companies, and electrical power is being used and wasted on low level hospitals that save as many people as they don't. If we had a universal health care system all of that money could be put into research.
The off shoot of this is that people become greedy and try to use the extra money to create weapons to "conquer the world" and then we could be thrust unnecessarily into WW III.:eek:

I did not say it was the only, or even the best way, just that it was an example (first used by the poster I was reponding to) of a way people might follow the golden rule. Unwad your panties, please :fluffle:

true. yet you also had individual hunters.

a very good question...

I would say when success outnumbers failures by a percentage over 10%.
Excellent! We now have a metric! Now, how might we gather statistical evidence of solo vs. group hunter success rates in prehistoric humanity to which we might apply this metric? (This is why I think we're to the chicken/egg impasse. We have no way to know :().

i, for one, greatly approve of the fact that we have evolved a moral sense that makes us care for others as best we can.

plus, more people = more adaptive mutations = yay

What makes you think that people have started to care for each other more than they used to? If anything people have become more cruel and hateful to one another than ever. Morals? What morals? Look at the united states president! He just decided to storm into Iraq without the consent of the UN and without any plans as to what he would do when he arrived or how he would set a form of government to a peoples who were being attacked by him! You say that we have gained morals, and I think that is true for some of us. I would even like to believe that someday it will be true for all of us, but right now I think we are losing our common sense and grip on reality while trying to trick ourselves into thinking we are moving forward and gaining knowledge. :(:(:(

Think about it. We use electricity derived from burning natures produces, we litter the planets surface, we dump artificial chemicals into it's water, we destroy its oxygen supply, we drill its natural gases, we bomb it, we destroy it, we release ozone destroying gases into it, we mess up food chains and the natural order of things, and on top of all that we exrete waste on it. The sad thing is that if we don't change anything, we might very well be doing the same thing to the rest of the universe. Then what would happen?

The Human Race:gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

That is exactly what would happen( if you use your imagination and think that all those smiley's are natures weapons)
Hubris. We're not destroying Nature, just destroying its ability to support us. Even in the event of nuclear annihilation and the complete destruction of mankind, Nature would go on.

hmm... but which person would attract people to their 'society'?

Oog who is feeding himself by picking berries and grubs found under a log?

or Tog who has a spear to catch fish from the stream nearby, a snare to catch rabbits and a club to crack open the shells of tortoses?

Neither, it is my belief that society is a connection between the Oog's and Tog's of the world.

Since having both skills is better than having only one, if one skill fails you still have a plan B. Granted, you gave Tog more skills (like how to craft and use tools), so his society would be better than Oog's, but having both of them in the society would be best.

Society isn't about one or the other, it is about how the two work together to create a more successful whole.

The same way your heart is complemented by your lungs and blood. Without one of those the others wouldn't be nearly as useful.

I wish nature would stop trying to kill me. I can't think of anything I did to it that would make it act this way.
well, don't forget. Mother Nature is a Bitch! :p

Neither, it is my belief that society is a connection between the Oog's and Tog's of the world.

Since having both skills is better than having only one, if one skill fails you still have a plan B. Granted, you gave Tog more skills, so his society would be better than Oog's, but having both of them in the society would be best.

Society isn't about one or the other, it is about how the two work together to create a more successful whole.

ah, but I didn't give Tog skills. I just gave him tools. ;)

and the question is which society would be better, but which would the people who will build the society choose to gather around?

ah, but I didn't give Tog skills. I just gave him tools. ;)


Yes you did, if he only had the tools than he would be even more useless than Oog.

He has to know how to use them and how to reproduce them (or at least how to use them) for your hypothetical to work.

or Tog who has a spear to catch fish from the stream nearby, a snare to catch rabbits and a club to crack open the shells of tortoses?

Tools amplify ability, they don't create it...

ah, but I didn't give Tog skills. I just gave him tools. ;)

and the question is which society would be better, but which would the people who will build the society choose to gather around?

Leaders are not the only (or even the most important) component of a society.

yet was society established before or after mankind became the 'top of the food chain'?

before

Exactly. Take away humans, and 90% of domestic dogs die out in a few years, since their short, stubby legs and noses are hardly suited to foraging and hunting. Humans would probably enjoy a similar fate if a magical technology annihilating bomb went off, and we all had to actually grow our own food instead of having it transported to us over thousands of miles.

90% dying out? It sounds plausible, but that wouldn't be forever, unless that bomb somehow destroyed the knowledge of how to make technology, as well as the actual technology. We're constantly rebuilding our technology anyway.

before

Before most certainly. It seems to me JuNii is using "food chain" very loosely, since we eat vegetables and so on, and in any case our food supply is mostly engineered rather than being a natural chain.

Before most certainly. It seems to me JuNii is using "food chain" very loosely, since we eat vegetables and so on, and in any case our food supply is mostly engineered rather than being a natural chain.

My take is "in concert with" rather than "before" or "after". And we were speaking of a time before an engineered food supply. (Or were we? Which came first, agriculture or society? hmm . . . of course ag is just a different set of tools, our previous example was hunting).

stream of consciousness ftw

Which came first, agriculture or society?

society

OK, I want to make my point perfectly clear, since I got distracted by Oog's and Tog's.

Atoms form molecules, molecules from cells, cells form tissues, tissues form organs, organs form people, people form societies, societies from nations, nations form alliances and so on.

The higher the magnitude of complexity that is used to distribute information (for lack of a better word) the more complex a group is. It just so happens that complex groups make for a great survival strategy.

Genes distribute information in organisms. The next level of information distribution is communication; lions have to teach their cubs and what not. Humans are very good at this, so it makes sense that humans have become so successful.

This is the heart of my point. Physical tools only go so far as the information to use and create them and society is a way to communicate and use this information more effectively. If people weren't connected in the way that they are, forming the sort of "super organism" that they do, then our ability as a species would diminish considerably

And that is what it's all about, the survival and success of the species.

So basically, society does not damage our evolution as a species, nor does it affect (effect?) it in any way. Society is simply another stepping stone on the path, a survival strategy that is used to get from one point to another.

Edit: Also, I am saying that lions have (simple) societies, which means that society has to come before our success as a species. I am saying that the more complex the society is the greater the strength of the group (thus our success and our societies level of complexity go hand in hand). Society didn't just spring out of nowhere and, in a way, it is an arbitrary distinction.

Why is everything I'm typing ending in a question mark?

Liberal Conspiracy

*nods*

society

Careful there, leaf cutter ants have agriculture...

God I hate semantics, which is why I went out of my way to define my view of society.

Excellent! We now have a metric! Now, how might we gather statistical evidence of solo vs. group hunter success rates in prehistoric humanity to which we might apply this metric? (This is why I think we're to the chicken/egg impasse. We have no way to know :().
true, but it's fun to posit the possibilities. and remember, I did say "I would say" :p

Yes you did, if he only had the tools than he would be even more useless than Oog.

He has to know how to use them and how to reproduce them (or at least how to use them) for your hypothetical to work.

or Tog who has a spear to catch fish from the stream nearby, a snare to catch rabbits and a club to crack open the shells of tortoses?

Tools amplify ability, they don't create it...
true, but the question is, is the tools a product of society, or is society the product of tools. thus both Oog and Tog would have the same abilities to create and use the tools, the point is one has the tools first, the other the tools will be created by the people after they form society.

This is, of course, assuming that society is more than just the family unit but the inclusion of members not normally part of the family unit.

Before most certainly. It seems to me JuNii is using "food chain" very loosely, since we eat vegetables and so on, and in any case our food supply is mostly engineered rather than being a natural chain.

yes, I am using the term loosely.

and a point... if you are referring to 'engineered' in reference to veggies being raised and grown in agricultrual feilds. realize that the tools needed to plant those seeds would've needed to have been created before their planting.

yes, I am using the term loosely.

and a point... if you are referring to 'engineered' in reference to veggies being raised and grown in agricultrual feilds. realize that the tools needed to plant those seeds would've needed to have been created before their planting.
There is a theory that the first tools were created in order to plant. Again, co-creation :fluffle:

and a point... if you are referring to 'engineered' in reference to veggies being raised and grown in agricultrual feilds. realize that the tools needed to plant those seeds would've needed to have been created before their planting.

nah, agriculture grew up by accident. you are well on your way to full-blown agriculture before you start developing specific farming tools.

nah, agriculture grew up by accident. you are well on your way to full-blown agriculture before you start developing specific farming tools.
Citations, please?

true, but it's fun to posit the possibilities. and remember, I did say "I would say" :p

true, but the question is, is the tools a product of society, or is society the product of tools. thus both Oog and Tog would have the same abilities to create and use the tools, the point is one has the tools first, the other the tools will be created by the people after they form society.

This is, of course, assuming that society is more than just the family unit but the inclusion of members not normally part of the family unit.

Our bodies are tools, so, the tools came first. In my mind, society is just a way to distribute resources and information.

We made tools as more effective extensions of our bodies. However, I can almost say for sure that humans were in groups before the invention of said tools, because wolves don't use those tools but they live in groups. I doubt that because some guy made a bow that all of the sudden people formed groups for no apparent reason.

Groups make sense, and it seems like the most likely way humans were organized before the advent of technology as we know it. Sure, one guy probably came up with the idea, but how would we know that idea today if society wasn't there to communicate it? (the only alternative that I see is that everyone came up with the idea independently)

The very act of communication creates a connection, the better the communication, the stronger the connection. That connection is society.

I can't say it any more simply than that...

With my definition of society, simple societies have existed before humans even existed. To me, the only difference between my body (a group of cells) and a society (a group of people) is scale.

Edit: You seem to be trying to ask me weather tools created society or weather the groups that existed before them did. In essence, you are asking for my definition of society, I don't see the point in asking that question when I have answered it numerous times.

To me, the answer to that question is so obvious that I am confused you even beg the question, probably because of a difference in perspective, which is why I communicated my perspective.

Can we move on now?

My take is "in concert with" rather than "before" or "after".

I am absolutely persuaded to your view. It didn't take much, though, since I've always been dubious about ascribing primacy of causes in pre-history. It's like looking two children who grew up together ... the older is of course not the cause of the younger, yet they each affect who the other is.

And we were speaking of a time before an engineered food supply. (Or were we? Which came first, agriculture or society? hmm . . . of course ag is just a different set of tools, our previous example was hunting).

Grazing animals cultivate in a sense, trampling down what they can't eat and crapping wisely to spread seeds. They also have the concept of territory.

I wouldn't want to hang too much off that, since we can't really speculate about whether other animals consciously farm ... but humans were intelligent first, civilized later, so it's reasonable to assume that there has always been some awareness of their own effect on the environment, causing them to make choices which we could call "farming."

Edit: Also, I am saying that lions have (simple) societies, which means that society has to come before our success as a species. I am saying that the more complex the society is the greater the strength of the group (thus our success and our societies level of complexity go hand in hand). Society didn't just spring out of nowhere and, in a way, it is an arbitrary distinction.

true, but the post that started this branch of conversation was this.

Individually, humans are not very competitive with other creatures. We're mostly soft, pink, and chewy. It is numbers, ie society, that gives us an edge over other species. Whether we are able to keep up, biologically, with how quickly we evolve socially, will go a long way toward determining our ability to survive.

where it was specified that society = numbers. and thus the definition I'm using.

after all, even a family unit is a small form of society (in the normal definition.)

now whether or not society (actually closer to social values) affects Evolution (as queried by the op)
These days, we are keeping everyone alive. I have to say that while I am feeling for the people that need this kind of help, I don't think it's necessarily good for the human race. Any thoughts?
... is another topic altogether.

Clearly I have met my match for today.

No, this is a match (http://www.mzephotos.com/images/match.jpg) . . .

No, this is a match (http://www.mzephotos.com/images/match.jpg) . . .
Der linky ist kerbrucken :(

Citations, please?

don't have any off the top of my head, but plants will grow if you just spill the seeds you gather while doing the standard hunter-gatherer thing. and if you are already selecting seeds for size and deliciousness, and you find that tossing some of what you gather results in there being food in a convenient location for the next time you pass through an area, you've more or less invented horticulture while not doing much of anything at all different than what you were doing without it.

Our bodies are tools, so, the tools came first. In my mind, society is just a way to distribute resources and information. but we didn't 'make' our bodies (you know what I mean, get your head outta the gutter... it's crowded enough as it is... :p ) but to take a stick and turn that into a plow, or a spear... that is the focus.

We made tools as more effective extensions of our bodies. However, I can almost say for sure that humans were in groups before the invention of said tools, because wolves don't use those tools but they live in groups. I doubt that because some guy made a bow that all of the sudden people formed groups for no apparent reason.
ah, but wolves use what nature gave them. before tools, people would be scraping by, thus a large group of people would not survive as well as a smaller group.

Groups make sense, and it seems like the most likely way humans were organized before the advent of technology as we know it. Sure, one guy probably came up with the idea, but how would we know that idea today if society wasn't there to communicate it? (the only alternative that I see is that everyone came up with the idea independently)[/QUOTE] and how would a gathering society be able to feed a large group without the ability to gather large amounts of food to feed said large group.

The very act of communication creates a connection, the better the communication, the stronger the connection. That connection is society. unfortunatly, CI was only talking about numbers, not the "connection".

With my definition of society, simple societies have existed before humans even existed. To me, the only difference between my body (a group of cells) and a society (a group of people) is scale. yes, your definition of society, but not the one CI and I were using.

Der linky ist kerbrucken :(

Works when I click it.

unfortunatly, CI was only talking about numbers, not the "connection".

yes, your definition of society, but not the one CI and I were using.
I may not have been clear, but I did mean both the numbers and the connection (or dissemination). I don't think we're arguing anything here, these ideas are all compatible.

Can we move on now?
This is the dance we dance . . .

yes, your definition of society, but not the one CI and I were using.

Ah, I see then, we are on totally different wavelengths. I don't see the point in arguing on the wavelength you are one because I disagree with the definition you are basing it on.

That definition seems incomplete to me...

Edit:


and how would a gathering society be able to feed a large group without the ability to gather large amounts of food to feed said large group.


I said groups make sense (as in the concept), I did not mention scale.

but we didn't 'make' our bodies (you know what I mean, get your head outta the gutter... it's crowded enough as it is... :p ) but to take a stick and turn that into a plow, or a spear... that is the focus.


Isn't the distinction between weather or not we make it arbitrary when talking about society. What is the difference, other than that we make it? If I modify my genes to make myself stronger or give myself an extra arm am I "making" a tool? What is the difference between a 20 man team pulling a stone block and a truck doing it?

You seem to be saying that our bodies are different than any other tool, but I beg to differ. Once again, a difference in perspective...

Works when I click it.

I get "HTTP 403 Forbidden" :(

don't have any off the top of my head, but plants will grow if you just spill the seeds you gather while doing the standard hunter-gatherer thing. and if you are already selecting seeds for size and deliciousness, and you find that tossing some of what you gather results in there being food in a convenient location for the next time you pass through an area, you've more or less invented horticulture while not doing much of anything at all different than what you were doing without it.

But what about the stick that you use to dig up the tasty tubers? And gosh, it worked really well when I accidentally dropped those seeds in the hole! Again, I think we've got a chicken/egg debate here.

Our bodies are tools, so, the tools came first. In my mind, society is just a way to distribute resources and information.

I think it is far more than that, but from the individualist viewpoint that is all that can be made of it. "Society only exists to serve individual interests."

Actually, if you look at the branch of mammalia we came from, being social animals is very deep in the definition of being human. Quite possibly we would not recognize a truly individual sentient being as even alive, assuming it saw any point in communicating with us anyway.

We made tools as more effective extensions of our bodies. However, I can almost say for sure that humans were in groups before the invention of said tools, because wolves don't use those tools but they live in groups. I doubt that because some guy made a bow that all of the sudden people formed groups for no apparent reason.

Groups make sense, and it seems like the most likely way humans were organized before the advent of technology as we know it. Sure, one guy probably came up with the idea, but how would we know that idea today if society wasn't there to communicate it? (the only alternative that I see is that everyone came up with the idea independently)

Groups absolutely make sense, even across such a wide scale as two (a couple) and billions (our species.)

I specify that the smaller scale has the strongest effect, and that the character of nations is constrained by the character of classes, and those by the character of families.* To leap from individual self-interest to the existence of a nation-state doesn't work so well.

The very act of communication creates a connection, the better the communication, the stronger the connection. That connection is society.

I can't say it any more simply than that...

With my definition of society, simple societies have existed before humans even existed. To me, the only difference between my body (a group of cells) and a society (a group of people) is scale.

Many cells make an ant. Many ants make a society. Do you agree ?

I find the "which came first" dilemma rather futile. Whatever our species evolved from was already so "high" up the tree that they no doubt had both society and tools. Even a chimp throwing faeces has tools.

*(One consequence of which is that it is futile for governments to legislate morality. Morality is the fulcrum government needs to change anything -- there is no firmer point to lever that fulcrum against.)

Many cells make an ant. Many ants make a society. Do you agree ?


Yes, that is the entire basis of my perspective. I find almost all barriers between these things that many see as being different to be completely arbitrary.

I specify that the smaller scale has the strongest effect, and that the character of nations is constrained by the character of classes, and those by the character of families.* To leap from individual self-interest to the existence of a nation-state doesn't work so well.


Your probably right, but I am not trying to argue details here, just concepts. I am sure that there is a hell of a lot I missed on that little scale I made. For instance, I went from molecules to cells and missed out on organelles, but that really isn't important to the point.

yes, I am using the term loosely.

and a point... if you are referring to 'engineered' in reference to veggies being raised and grown in agricultrual feilds. realize that the tools needed to plant those seeds would've needed to have been created before their planting.

No, I meant "engineered" in the sense of man-made. Some agriculture may follow the "natural" inclination of plants or animals (grazing cattle on grassland springs to mind) but even the cattle are engineered. All our food sources have been "unnaturally" selected to improve them as food sources -- compare a grain of wheat to an unimproved grass-seed, or a chicken's eggs to those of a wild fowl.

It doesn't seem reasonable in light of this, to think that all of a sudden we "discovered" wheat or barley and settled down. It may have happened suddenly by the scale of prehistory, but it's very unlikely that Oggson suddenly started farming and thereby formed a group around him attracted by the plentiful food. At first it would be impractical, then gradually become a viable alternative to eating what grows naturally. You can bet people needed to go back to the old ways when drought or disease took their farmed produce away ... and even today there are viable hunter-gatherer societies. It's not all or nothing.

I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at?

No, I meant "engineered" in the sense of man-made. Some agriculture may follow the "natural" inclination of plants or animals (grazing cattle on grassland springs to mind) but even the cattle are engineered. All our food sources have been "unnaturally" selected to improve them as food sources -- compare a grain of wheat to an unimproved grass-seed, or a chicken's eggs to those of a wild fowl.

It doesn't seem reasonable in light of this, to think that all of a sudden we "discovered" wheat or barley and settled down. It may have happened suddenly by the scale of prehistory, but it's very unlikely that Oggson suddenly started farming and thereby formed a group around him attracted by the plentiful food. At first it would be impractical, then gradually become a viable alternative to eating what grows naturally. You can bet people needed to go back to the old ways when drought or disease took their farmed produce away ... and even today there are viable hunter-gatherer societies. It's not all or nothing.

I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at?Agriculture did not start with wheat. but their wild ancestors, including fruits and veggies. as you said, Wheat is a by product of crossing several plant types. yet to cross them, one would have to grow them.

I may not have been clear, but I did mean both the numbers and the connection (or dissemination). I don't think we're arguing anything here, these ideas are all compatible.
It did sound like you were focusing only on the number of members that make up a society. if you meant all that society encompases and defines within... then yes, society comes first. but then the topic shift would be why would the "human society" (if we can imagine what it was like back then) succeed while other societies (like the lion, other forms of primates, etc) fail?

But what about the stick that you use to dig up the tasty tubers? And gosh, it worked really well when I accidentally dropped those seeds in the hole! Again, I think we've got a chicken/egg debate here.

"Mmmm... berries here was tastey... why is plant growing out of old shithole?"

:p

It did sound like you were focusing only on the number of members that make up a society. if you meant all that society encompases and defines within... then yes, society comes first. but then the topic shift would be why would the "human society" (if we can imagine what it was like back then) succeed while other societies (like the lion, other forms of primates, etc) fail?

Lions still exist, so did they really "fail"? I mean, you really have to define success and failure before you say who is succeeding and who is failing.

If I understand what you mean correctly, I said it earlier, people succeeded because we are really good at communicating with each other. That communication leads to better technologies and what not. Or it could just be that we are more intelligent and they can't think of sharpening sticks in the first place. Or communication might be what refines technique and intelligence what creates it, who knows?

But what about the stick that you use to dig up the tasty tubers? And gosh, it worked really well when I accidentally dropped those seeds in the hole! Again, I think we've got a chicken/egg debate here.

too much work for your typical hunter-gatherer. why bother investing such time and effort for such shitty returns?

too much work for your typical hunter-gatherer. why bother investing such time and effort for such shitty returns?

Well, what if your other food supply was running low? If there is nothing to gather but land to work, you might as well work the land...

Well, what if your other food supply was running low? If there is nothing to gather but land to work, you might as well work the land...

and that is one of the hypotheses for how minimal effort horticulture became actual horticulture. it doesn't really make too much sense though, since foragers have a huge range of food sources and will just pack up and go elsewhere if it gets scarce where they are. farming is the worst option if food is running low.

my bet is on the periodic workings of some crazy dude.

and that is one of the hypotheses for how minimal effort horticulture became actual horticulture. it doesn't really make too much sense though, since foragers have a huge range of food sources and will just pack up and go elsewhere if it gets scarce where they are. farming is the worst option if food is running low.

my bet is on the periodic workings of some crazy dude.

But what if they have a lot of other really rich resources around, like a river for water and fish, and they just ran out of foraging stuff. Sure, they could only eat fish, but who the hell wants to do that? To keep a varied and interesting diet, the people who normally gathered started farming while the others fished and hunted.

So, they have a reason to stay put and a reason to start farming.

Or maybe the chief ate the "wrong" berries, said he had a vision from god and that they needed to plant instead of forage, which goes well with your "crazy dude" hypothesis.

There is no way of knowing really...

It is quite reasonable to have a gradual process of 'agrarianisation' yet a sudden conversion to settled communities.

The reason is a social one: once one community stays put, and starts defending it's 'territory' from necessity rather than pride (they rely on the fields and the animal pens for their survival now, a vast shift in the style of ownership takes place: land as private property) they come into conflict with nomadic people. Hunter gatherers need to get from here to there (for trade, as well as to move from one food-source to another,) and if that involved crossing the territory of some other tribe that could be arranged -- the other tribe would need to do similarly some day.

The settled community has no need to honour such an arrangement. Keeping an eye on the nomads as they pass through is simply effort for no reward, so they are excluded using the advantages of the settled community: more time not spent getting food, material possessions like stores of food to resist seige, weapons and stockpiles of whatever passes for ammo, better protection and opportunities for ambush from buildings, and a stronger need to hold their ground.

A few settled communities wouldn't be a problem for hunter-gatherers, they could detour around them, or reach agreement based on their own strength, punitive raids with a safe line of retreat. But it would get to a point where settled communities would break up nomadic routes too badly, where the shared hunting-grounds were not deep enough to retreat into, and where the insular nature of settled communities generated enough of its own paranoia, that we'd see the rather sudden crystalization into agrarian society.

None of this is particularly scholarly. I'm just trying to explain how agrarianism could be gradual, yet the observable evidence of relatively sudden settling-down across wide areas could occur.