Just Curious

[Destroit]

Moreover, the assumption that human beings for the first 6,400 generations were at default jealous, violent, and altogether war like is rather pessimistic. I think that speaks volumes on your way of viewing the world.

"Pessimistic" isn't necessarily the word I would have used...more like "realistic".

[ttogreh]

See, this is what I am talking about. Archeology only proves the increasing tendency towards violence in the last, oh, ten thousand years. Before then, one can either extrapolate what is documented and apply it to earlier generations, or one can take into account the fact that the old order, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribalism, was breaking down due to the rise of agriculture.

When order breaks down, chaos ensues. This is a fact of elementary physics, and human nature.

Now, the state, the idea that an immortal entity has the exclusive right to initiate violence in a proscribed geographical area, matched up with the NEED to protect crops in a proscribed geographical area. It was a novel solution to a novel problem.

In earlier generations, groups were constantly on the move. So, the idea of a proscribed geographical area... was irrelevant to the needs of the current human condition. It would be a rare occurrence that one group would encounter another, and cautious trade is a lot safer than immediate and all-out attack.

The way I see the world, violence against groups only became really worth it when you could hold ground. This is not to say that a group of ten individuals encountering a group of sixty was always peaceful. However, I don't believe that it was ALWAYS violent.

That kind of definitive and black-and-white kind of thinking tends to get people killed.

Now, for some predictions, eh? I think the future holds consolidation of larger and larger geographical areas into the hands of fewer and fewer individual states. As that happens, the POWER of the state increases, but its RELEVANCE... that decreases. If there are fewer and fewer bogeymen to defend against, the principle reason for the state, defense, becomes less and less compelling.

Eventually there will be only one state, and no more bogeymen. What the hell will the state do, then? Well, it will either create new bogeymen, or people will become conscious of the fact that life can continue without the state (but WITH government!!!), and create some new kind of immortal idea to replace the one that has served us so well for thousands of years.

What that new idea will be, I cannot possibly tell you.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Your skipping a whole bunch of stuff to support your pre-conceived view.

Purely nomadic people still existed within the last few thousands years (still do actually). Huns and Arabs being some that come to mind... and they fought hard and often.

The need to eat and drink has always existed. Fear that your going to die if you don't has existed since the first time someone did.

I'm really confused by how you think our race, when it was far less evolved in thought and logic was somehow better at negotiating fair usage deals on the watering hole.

[ttogreh]

Comparing modern nomadic and semi-nomadic groups to prehistoric groups is a non-starter, because the modern groups... WERE CONFINED TO A PROSCRIBED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ENFORCED BY PEOPLE LIVING IN STATES.

I don't think every encounter by every group at every time was always peaceful. However, I reject your assertion that the general rule was that when groups encountered one another, violence was LIKELY to follow.

I actually like my species. I think we are pretty cool. When I speak to you, I get the feeling that you think we are a bunch of heartless savages.

[Destroit]

Comparing modern nomadic and semi-nomadic groups to prehistoric groups is a non-starter, because the modern groups... WERE CONFINED TO A PROSCRIBED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ENFORCED BY PEOPLE LIVING IN STATES.

I don't think every encounter by every group at every time was always peaceful. However, I reject your assertion that the general rule was that when groups encountered one another, violence was LIKELY to follow.

I actually like my species. I think we are pretty cool. When I speak to you, I get the feeling that you think we are a bunch of heartless savages.

I dunno, think of it this way. Ever gone out some place with a girl? What happens when another girl looks at her "that way"? The girl you're with is like "omfg...lookit that bitch. She's fucking staring at me, why the fuck is she staring at me? I so wanna just beat that girl's ass..." Now the person "staring" generally is doing one of two things: Glancing off lazily and not noticing the other girl OR probably talking shit in her head. Very rarily is that other girl thinking "my...what a nice looking person, I wish I was pretty like that". I mean it does happen but, not in the majority of the time from what I've seen. Trust me, I've been forced into going to many malls with many different chicks in my life and EVERY SINGLE ONE (no...I am not overexaggerating) has done the same thing thus far.

What does this have ANYTHING to do with tribe encounters? It's the same thing. Most people inherantly think "If they're not with us, than they're against us" about the other guy or team. We ARE violent heartless savages, not ALL of the time, but from what I've read about history to what I see everyday on the streets I can't find it in myself to think otherwise.

If we weren't...things like socialism could work in a real sense We're out to get whatever the other guy's got. Prehistoric or modern: People are generally driven by fear and uncertainty, which makes people generally driven to fight or flight. Flight ends with nobody hurt...but fight speaks for itself.

[ttogreh]

The thing is, Chernobyl, your encounters with other women are in the context of the modern era. Each one of them has a full stomach, plenty of water, a place to sleep at night, and so on. In the prehistoric era, counter intuitively, violence generally was between groups right on the edge of survival.

Why? Because violence either meant death or winning. In your environment, violence means winning or humiliation. I have rarely been to a club with dumpsters full of corpses in the back alley.

When faced with the stark options of death, winning, or running, I believe that most groups would rather run away if they were afraid. Since they were not confined to a proscribed geographical area, that option was probably the most used. If they were not afraid, I don't think people immediately defaulted to violence, because death is a bummer, and people will do their best to try to avoid that.

Success has bred contention, while desperation probably bred detente.

Being tied to a patch of land is a modern phenomenon that is not attached to how the overwhelming majority of humans existed.

[Steven]

Moreover, the assumption that human beings for the first 6,400 generations were at default jealous, violent, and altogether war like is rather pessimistic. I think that speaks volumes on your way of viewing the world.

I would agree that human beings for the first 6,400 generations were at default jealous, violent, and altogether war like.

I know thats not what you said, I'm simply saying thatnk you, because I beleive humans have always been the way we are today, and yes its indicitive of my worldview, yes yes yes.

I'm thinking backward to the biblical account (worthles to yo uI know but whatever) of the first murder....Cain slew his brother in a fit of jealousy - nobody was fighting over water, grazing lands, food supplies, etc.

just jealousy.

not that probably seems like silly example to use, and ok.

but its a rather old document, talking about even more ancient times, describing the state of mankind as a flawed figurehead.

in my gut that sorta tells me about ancient man.

[ttogreh]

See, Steven, the first Biblical account is PERFECT for delineating the differences between your world view and mine. Cain and Abel were both tied to the land. However, Cain grew crops, crops that he had to protect from animals and marauders.

Abel tended a herd. A herd that COULD BE MOVED TO DIFFERENT PLACES. Cain was tied to the land, Abel was SEMI-NOMADIC.

The story of the first murder really is the story of the creation of the state. Cain went on to found the first city, remember?

No, the sacred ancient texts are NOT meaningless to me, and I find it insulting that you would assume as much.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, lets look at our close cousins. Chimps. Who are semi-nomadic. Primative tool users.... and lovers of WAR. They kill over things like... food and a place in the shade. They form war party's and raid other groups...

I don't think we are savages... but I dont think we are some how above being the animals we are. We do what we must to survive.

[Steven]

See, Steven, the first Biblical account is PERFECT for delineating the differences between your world view and mine. Cain and Abel were both tied to the land. However, Cain grew crops, crops that he had to protect from animals and marauders.

Abel tended a herd. A herd that COULD BE MOVED TO DIFFERENT PLACES. Cain was tied to the land, Abel was SEMI-NOMADIC.

The story of the first murder really is the story of the creation of the state. Cain went on to found the first city, remember?

No, the sacred ancient texts are NOT meaningless to me, and I find it insulting that you would assume as much.

well that depends. and really man, ALL thigns are tied to the land, you and I are tied to the land, when the land fails, we all die.

If you take into account the text surrounding the story - they were close to the original "paradise" state of the earth, and there was no famine in the land, and no notable competing herdsmen, or they would have been mentioned, as the bible is very detailed and meticulous on such things. There are entire biblical chapters on who begot whom in generations upon generations, there are examples of of agriculture, power structures, famines and pestilence at the times, etc.

the narriative of Cain and ABle goes on to describe in perfect detail why - WHY the murder took place - and the heart condition and "countenance" (key word there countenance -- remember the conversation between YHWH and Cain??) of said persons involved. Im simply trying to get to the root mindset and heart condition of early man and thats why I used the Cain and Able account. You seem to be building a different thesis by ignoring a very clear part of the personal side of the narrative itself by switching focus to other accomplishements. The biblical account is one of a jealous rage - a murder committed by a person of loose morals and lack of emotional control - he was predatory against his fellow man. If that were not important to the writer - then why include it? Why exemplify it the way the writer did? Why not include difficulties and struggles that were tied to the land - because other biblical accounts do this?

and also, there were others like Cain at the same time remember?

Because Cain told God that once he was found wandering alone (ie tied to no particular clan) he would be killed.

So God put a mark on him to signal a warning against murdering Cain. Cain was never described as rich or powerful or having large flocks like say...Abraham was....because that made Abraham a threat to whomever's land or borders he crossed. But Cain is never described this way. And if he set up the first city (agreed) then to some degree Cain was a leader -he must have had some sort of intensity to his nature, and he gathered people togethor, he was not a roving nomad competing against other clans.

nowhere does the account describe Cain ever being concerned with competition for his flocks or provisions, such as you see in the instance of say....Lot and Abraham who split for exactly that which you are describing.

In my opinion your theory allows you to insert a dynamic that did not really exist - which is a NEED to have to have conflict. But the Biblical account differs entirely from your thesis and paints a picture of the early generations of Man allready being unstable and divided against their brothers, a fullfillment of the "emnity between your seed and her seed" , the curse spoken by YHWH against Adam and Eve.

By the way - dont bother being insulted - nobody's taking shots at you, that was never the intention. in fact from this point onward yo uand I can use some of these ancient texts as points of referance much easier since you seem to have soem reverance for them, which I respect.

[ttogreh]

Steven, I'm sorry, I was imprecise in my response to your mention of the story of Cain and Abel. Obviously, we are all tied to the land, in some form or another.

What I was trying to get at, is that some of us are tied to a particular piece of land, with ties that bind particularly tight. A shepherd can move his flock to a different grazing field, but a farmer lives or dies by the success of his field. When one must protect a patch of land from grazing wild animals, marauders, and the like, it makes sense to throw the spear first, and ask questions later.

I think this is going to be an intractable disagreement between you and I, Steven, as you have professed a belief in the inherent sinfulness of man, while I feel that God and his plan for us is far more unknowable and ambiguous.

As for Gaf...

Chimpanzees are as smart as eight year olds, and are primarily walk on all fours. H. Sapiens was born to MOVE, and our ancestors may not have been as intellectually advanced as we are, but they were JUST as clever.

Comparing an evolutionary dead end to our ancestors is not only pointless, it is also insulting.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Wow. I've never met anyone who hated to be wrong more than me. You sir, amaze me.

[Steven]

ttogreh, seriously dude you need to stop being insulted (first me, then Gaf???), nobody's trying to harm you man....

ok, I'm not going to try to argue your point on your last posting but I do feel we got off topic a bit.

I understand why your setting up your points this way, and I understood your perspective when we forst got into the Cain and Abel account - I get it.

I was simply trying to say that man is a flawed createure and always has been, from as far back as we can find him.

[slingerlandstyx]

Wow...

Total thread derailment going on in here...

[Rayne]

Let's not let this become personal guys ... keep it on topic.

[Homicidalheathen]

This guy I know who gives lectures on 'quantum theory and evolutionary psychology' (yawn sorry) says Agriculture is the root of all evil and that before that we did just wander like in a garden of eden and everything was free and good then......heh I likes me wonder bread.

And warm running water....

But when you think about it he is right. Knowing where your offspring comes from so they can inherit land changes EVERYTHING including our sexual sociology.

well that depends. and really man, ALL thigns are tied to the land, you and I are tied to the land, when the land fails, we all die.

If you take into account the text surrounding the story - they were close to the original "paradise" state of the earth, and there was no famine in the land, and no notable competing herdsmen, or they would have been mentioned, as the bible is very detailed and meticulous on such things. There are entire biblical chapters on who begot whom in generations upon generations, there are examples of of agriculture, power structures, famines and pestilence at the times, etc.

the narriative of Cain and ABle goes on to describe in perfect detail why - WHY the murder took place - and the heart condition and "countenance" (key word there countenance -- remember the conversation between YHWH and Cain??) of said persons involved. Im simply trying to get to the root mindset and heart condition of early man and thats why I used the Cain and Able account. You seem to be building a different thesis by ignoring a very clear part of the personal side of the narrative itself by switching focus to other accomplishements. The biblical account is one of a jealous rage - a murder committed by a person of loose morals and lack of emotional control - he was predatory against his fellow man. If that were not important to the writer - then why include it? Why exemplify it the way the writer did? Why not include difficulties and struggles that were tied to the land - because other biblical accounts do this?

and also, there were others like Cain at the same time remember?

Because Cain told God that once he was found wandering alone (ie tied to no particular clan) he would be killed.

So God put a mark on him to signal a warning against murdering Cain. Cain was never described as rich or powerful or having large flocks like say...Abraham was....because that made Abraham a threat to whomever's land or borders he crossed. But Cain is never described this way. And if he set up the first city (agreed) then to some degree Cain was a leader -he must have had some sort of intensity to his nature, and he gathered people togethor, he was not a roving nomad competing against other clans.

nowhere does the account describe Cain ever being concerned with competition for his flocks or provisions, such as you see in the instance of say....Lot and Abraham who split for exactly that which you are describing.

In my opinion your theory allows you to insert a dynamic that did not really exist - which is a NEED to have to have conflict. But the Biblical account differs entirely from your thesis and paints a picture of the early generations of Man allready being unstable and divided against their brothers, a fullfillment of the "emnity between your seed and her seed" , the curse spoken by YHWH against Adam and Eve.

By the way - dont bother being insulted - nobody's taking shots at you, that was never the intention. in fact from this point onward yo uand I can use some of these ancient texts as points of referance much easier since you seem to have soem reverance for them, which I respect.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

That ignores all the evidence of canabalism and killing in early man. There are skulls that have been found that show evidence of being scalped and the eyes gouged out with a stone.

Killing, mutilating and then eating each other is not my idea of Eden.

[ttogreh]

Yep, those skulls are also FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anatomically modern humans did not arrive on the scene until about two hundred thousand years ago, and the Great Leap Forward didn't begin until about sixty thousand years ago.

We are descendants of evolutionary dead ends that were cannibals. There is no evidence that pre-modern man was exactly what you are calling us. Take a few seconds, and stand outside of your argument, eh?

I am not discounting the possibility of cannibalism happening in extreme cases amongst our ancestors. Indeed, the Donner Party's grisly story would make such a denial foolish. However, FOR THE NORM, I feel that pre-modern man would rather avoid a fight than get in one.

Because... if you can walk away, you can live for another day.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, you need to stop trying to apply modern thinking and ideals on a non-modern society.

Anasazi and Totec native Americans were cannibals. So much so that some scholars think that the Totecs ate the Anasazi out of existance... just 800 or so years ago.

How does that fit into you view of things?

[ttogreh]

Both the Anasazi and Totec knew the value of land ownership, and were also in a struggle for a proscribed geographical area.

Eating your opponent provides a dual benefit: they are dead, and you're not hungry. However... in pre-agricultural existence, other bands of humans were not opponents... BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST PASSING THROUGH.

Get that through your head. If you are going to be five miles away tomorrow, and ten the next day, why should you worry about the band of strangers you saw four days ago?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The Hunter-Gatherer Spectrum of New Guinea

One potentially important finding to emerge from this project is the overlooked influence of war on hunter-gatherer society and culture. The need to protect against attack by day and by night and to defend access to subsistence resources had strong effects on settlement patterns, social group formation and complexity, and ceremonial and ritual culture.

That was a 30 second search. I actually found a couple hundred articals talking about this subject.

I'll stop now. I know you cant deal well with being wrong.

[ttogreh]

PAPUA NEW GUINEA IS AN ISLAND!

The African-Eurasian landmass is the largest on earth. You aren't thinking logically.

Edited to add: MOREOVER, Those tribesmen are quite aware of agriculture.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

WAR: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

The behavior of observed Stone Age peoples is hardly the only evidence that the Stone Age was a bloody time. In a cave in Germany, clusters of skulls more than 5,000 years old were found arrayed, as one observer put it, "like eggs in a basket." Most of the thirty-four victims had been knocked in the head with stone axes before decapitation.

Anyone hoping that cultural evolution always translates into moral improvement will be disappointed to hear that such evidence of violent death is especially common among remains of the more complex hunter-gatherer societies. And in the yet-more-complex agrarian societies on the ethnographic record, things are similarly grim. In south Asia, a young Naga warrior was not considered marriageable until he had brought home a scalp or a skull.

[ttogreh]

One reason the !Kung and most Eskimo haven't waged war is their habitat. With population sparse, friction is low. But when densely settled along fertile ground, hunter-gatherers have warred lavishly. The Ainu of Japan built hilltop fortresses and, when raiding a neighboring village, wore leather armor and carried hardwood clubs. The main purpose of the raids—to kill men, steal women, and settle grievances, real or imagined—is a time-honored goal of primitive warfare. Even today it is part of life among the Yanomamo of South America.

FROM THE SAME BLOODY ARTICLE.

For most of human existence, the population was dismally, dismally, DISMALLY low. We were too busy chasing our next meal to be concerned with war.

Like I said to Chernobyl, success breeds contention, desperation breeds detente.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Wow, you just ignore everything that doesn't support your view.

I will admit, peaceful co-existance did exist in our ancestors. It was not the norm though.