Gorillas near extinction

Originally posted by Palynka
Not at all. His message is that the idyllic myth of past is completely false.

I suppose the idyllic myth must refer to something like Rousseau's noble savage. Well, yes, that is false. Then again, harmony does not preclude violence and death, does it? Not being an ecologue, or a hippy, I'm not quite sure what living in harmony with nature is supposed to mean, but to me it entails living the life you are accustomed to (including the high risk of death at the hands of another human being) without exacting a savage toll on the environment that supports you. That isn't available to post-industrial humanity and nostalgia in that direction is evidently misplaced. Yet it would seem that people living in those conditions didn't find their lives intolerable, as we would (viz. television's Survivor) and that they did indeed experience the loss of their traditional way of life as profoundly negative, on the whole. Or would you argue that it was a good thing because their descendants are more likely to die from disease or alcoholism rather than at the hands of another human being?

What's the difference between dying from a civilised disease like lung cancer from smoking or having your head bashed in by an enemy warrior? What about instances where warfare became effectively non-violent through the practice of "counting coup", as practiced by certain Native American tribes? Is it better to fade away than burn out?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I suppose the idyllic myth must refer to something like Rousseau's noble savage. Well, yes, that is false. Then again, harmony does not preclude violence and death, does it? Not being an ecologue, or a hippy, I'm not quite sure what living in harmony with nature is supposed to mean, but to me it entails living the life you are accustomed to (including ...[text shortened]... e likely to die from disease or alcoholism rather than at the hands of another human being?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm arguing that the iddylic view of pre-civilizational life is false, as one was much more likely to die of violent death than of disease or alcoholism. So...yes, I'm arguing that it is better for the average individual to die of disease and alcoholism after a long life than of hunger, violence and disease after a short life.

I'm particularly averse to the specific notion of idyllic harmony that tends to exclude the brutal forms of violence that seemed were present at the time.

Originally posted by Palynka
So...yes, I'm arguing that it is better for the average individual to die of disease and alcoholism after a long life than of hunger, violence and disease after a short life.

Why? Would you trade a long, eventless life for a short one filled with excitement? I doubt that James Joyce (to cite a sort of modern hero) would have exchanged his literary achievements for a couple of extra decades (he died at age 52; alcohol played no small part in doing him in).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why? Would you trade a long, eventless life for a short one filled with excitement? I doubt that James Joyce (to cite a sort of modern hero) would have exchanged his literary achievements for a couple of extra decades (he died at age 52; alcohol played no small part in doing him in).

Is life in Iraq or Darfur exciting to you?

Multiply that to a global scale and perhaps you won't reach the figure of 30% of likelihood of death at a human hand.

Stop picturing a proud and honourable tribal warrior and a fat guy in front of the TV. Neither is a correct depiction, no matter how much vivid that mental image is.

Originally posted by Palynka
Is life in Iraq or Darfur exciting to you?

Multiply that to a global scale and perhaps you won't reach the figure of 30% of likelihood of death at a human hand.

Stop picturing a proud and honourable tribal warrior and a fat guy in front of the TV. Neither is a correct depiction, no matter how much vivid that mental image is.

Life in Iraq is part of the modern world.

I'm afraid you're being rather patronising when you think I wander around with images of noble warriors in my head, blissfully ignorant of the harsh realities. Quite as patronising as those who thought they were doing people a favour by exterminating them. But it's academic; they're gone. Except for the museum anthropological museum of Papua New Guinea. Perhaps they should be shipped off wholesale for the sake of some exciting new hotels?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Life in Iraq is part of the modern world.

I'm afraid you're being rather patronising when you think I wander around with images of noble warriors in my head, blissfully ignorant of the harsh realities. Quite as patronising as those who thought they were doing people a favour by exterminating them. But it's academic; they're gone. Except for the muse ...[text shortened]... inea. Perhaps they should be shipped off wholesale for the sake of some exciting new hotels?

I'm being patronising because none of you provide evidence for your claims.

And yes, they are gone. So were many tribes "gone" at the time. The facts remain. They "go" much less nowadays than they used to.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Life in Iraq is part of the modern world.

And nice avoiding the question here. You can't criticize the war and then laud the excitement of early violent death. It's hypocritical.

Do you criticize the war?

Originally posted by Palynka
And nice avoiding the question here. You can't criticize the war and then laud the excitement of early violent death. It's hypocritical.

Do you criticize the war?

I'm not sure what the question is. But dying in battle, when you know are likely to die, is different from being blown to bits by a random car bomb, wouldn't you agree (projection notwithstanding)? Also, the "short, exciting" life doesn't refer only to death in battle but to the fundamentally different nature of pre-industrial existence.

The war is insane. Can madness be criticised?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm being patronising because none of you provide evidence for your claims.

And yes, they are gone. So were many tribes "gone" at the time. The facts remain. They "go" much less nowadays than they used to.

Because there are hardly any of them left! 🙄

I've provided evidence, albeit obliquely. The accounts of the Trojan wars (Achilles) are replete with cultural attitudes towards death that are totally different from our own.

Incidentally, are car crash fatalities included under the category of dying at others' hands? About 30 000 people die in car crashes in South Africa annually. (Add mining and other industrial accidents to the list as well; asbestosis; and so on).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure what the question is. But dying in battle, when you know are likely to die, is different from being blown to bits by a random car bomb, wouldn't you agree (projection notwithstanding)? Also, the "short, exciting" life doesn't refer only to death in battle but to the fundamentally different nature of pre-industrial existence.

The war is insane. Can madness be criticised?

I have been criticizing it all along this thread, but it appears the mad won't listen.

Do you honestly think that only warriors died at the hands of other warriors in those days? Massacres, mass rapes, etc. were perhaps an exciting weekend distraction?

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you honestly think that only warriors died at the hands of other warriors in those days? Massacres, mass rapes, etc. were perhaps an exciting weekend distraction?

They didn't have weekends, silly. But if you're claiming that massacres and mass rapes were more common amongst pre-industrial folk than civilized (eg. the Romans), I'd like to see the evidence. That sort of violence seems endemic amongst human beings throughout history; even chimpanzees perpetrate massacres. So it can't have been a function of the lifestyle. Also, you can't tar all cultures with the same brush--just as some modern societies seem more brutal than others, you'll find that some pre-industrial societies were more into slaughter than others.

Please don't cast me as a back-to-nature sentimentalist.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They didn't have weekends, silly. But if you're claiming that massacres and mass rapes were more common amongst pre-industrial folk than civilized (eg. the Romans), I'd like to see the evidence. That sort of violence seems endemic amongst human beings throughout history; even chimpanzees perpetrate massacres. So it can't have been a function of the lif ...[text shortened]... into slaughter than others.

Please don't cast me as a back-to-nature sentimentalist.

The evidence is claimed in the video. Take it up with Pinker.

All his discourse is obviously about the world average, so it's really not about tarring cultures with the same brush, but about the tendency for humans to be less and less violent over history.

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you wish to claim that the number of famines has NOT reduced dramatically?

Not only that, but the evidence that Pinker presents about death at the hands of another human during hunter-gathering times is pretty clear.

But of course, you believe that people were nicer to everyone else (in general) because it fits your utopian views. Shame about the facts.

Do you wish to claim that the number of famines has NOT reduced dramatically?
I would think so, yes. I haven't looked at specific weather patterns, but I would assume that if there were droughts/plagues, then a nomadic hunter gathering people who rely on hundreds of different foods would be less hard hit than a settled people who are reliant on one or two crops.

but the evidence that Pinker presents about death at the hands of another human during hunter-gathering times is pretty clear.
I believe the above evidence should be in inverted commas. The amount of assumptions that must have been made to arrive at his figures is astounding.

The tribe who were the victim of most violence had a 60% chance of dying violently. Doing further research shows that the most violent prehistoric people who ever lived had a 30% chance of a violent death. Of course, the assumption is that not all the skeletons were found, so Pinker multiples that figure by 2. Hey, why not?

My archaeological knowledge isn't what it used to be, but how do they date the skeletal remains? How long did the specified tribes exist for? Did they find one mass grave (30 skeletons, say), and estimate that the tribe consisted of so many members (100 say), and so, was the chance of a violent death 30%? Multiplied by two because you can and people will nod and believe? Is he claiming that over the (for example) 500 year life time of the tribe, 60% of every male born was murdered? How can he reach this figure?

My reading of his figures (and a result of further reading on his claims)is the single mass grave, with assumptions of not found skeletons, resulting in 60% in a single instance. I would refer to this as guesswork. Not evidence or historical facts. A severe drought could lead to this type of inter-tribal violence on very rare occasions. If you can give me a plausible explanation how he came to his figures, I'll look into it. As it is, the figures are made up to help him make his point. You should read the Hummer v Prius thread for similar makey-uppey "facts".

So, as an excercise, we want to show that modern day man is horrifically violent. Let's look at the jewish population in Germany between 1933 and 1945. I think it was around 6 million pre war, and pretty much zero post war. So, in my narrow subset, the jewish "tribe" of Germany had a 100% chance of meeting a violent death.

I don't know where you got the idea that I thought prehistoric peoples were purely peaceful. I don't think I ever stated it in this thread. When limited resources are available, any tribe will occasionally clash to secure the resources they need. Like any other animal (apologies to the CFTs of the world who think we're so superior to other animals that they don't see that we behave much the same as them) does.

Violence in pre-historic times would have bee borne of necessity, not due to religion or race as us civilised people like to do it.

The harmony I referred to was the harmony of precivilisation people with the world around them. Now maybe you have evidence that prehistoric people polluted the lakes and rivers and air, cut down the rainforests, killed off hundreds of species a day and over fished the oceans, and they have grown back in the past 8,000 years. I'd love to see it.


You may also have evidence that pre civilised people multiplied uncontrollably in an unsustainable manner as we currently are. Of course you don't. Because population explosion doesn't generally occur in an ecosystem, until there is more food than required. Food storage only happened as such from the beginning of the agricultural revolution, ie: the beginning of civilisation.

So, if your tribe is multiplying uncontrollably, you're going to need more space to grow the food. You're going to need to cut down more forests, and you will encounter more people with whom you will have to battle with for the space. Will this lead to more or less violence, IYHO?

I could keep going.

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure what the question is. But dying in battle, when you know are likely to die, is different from being blown to bits by a random car bomb, wouldn't you agree (projection notwithstanding)? Also, the "short, exciting" life doesn't refer only to death in battle but to the fundamentally different nature of pre-industrial existence.

The war is insane. Can madness be criticised?

Warfare has always been full of betrayal, booby traps, dirty tricks, attacking from too far away for the enemy to retaliate, etc. This is nothing new.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
My point isn't that we need to backtrack to caveman behaviour. It's just that we shouldn't dismiss it as totally inferior, considering they managed to live on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, in relative harmony.

I prefer to learn from all past experiences. I don't believe the widely propogated meme that our current way of living is the b ...[text shortened]... eople is try to convert them to our way of life, and failing that, we wipe them out.

D

Well that's just the point I made before, the caveman had no choice, he couldn't go to a dentist or live in a house with heating and running water, or even decent warm clothes. You, Davisss, do have that choice, if you find modern life so miserable you can opt out, try going without a bath for a month and maybe when your own stench becomes to great even for you, you can risk hypothermia by taking a 2 minute dip in some freshly melted snow. And if you're already over 50 and true to your principles you'd better go and commit suicide because cavemen didn't have a great life span. And surely that is ones greatest value - life. Without it you don't even have the ability to assess value or non-value.

How many times have I told you to ease up with the collective 'we'. I do not try and wipe anyone out, I do not try to convert anyone, many early Maori in New Zealand went to great effort to emmulate the english colonisers, could it be they were sick of wearing grass skirts and eating fern roots?