Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


You ever feel like society is the problem? by Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:04:23 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209470 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1538089463189.jpg -(282780B / 276.15KB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 282780
not some aspect of it, but civilization itself? Has anything since prior to the advent of agriculture had a net positive effect on society? agriculture lead to division of labor, class, and status. People were happier when they were still nomadic.

I know we can't go back, because we are addicted now, but can we at least admit civilization was a mistake?
>>
George Dartham - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:46:21 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209474 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209470
>>going back to only things invented before agriculture
Enjoy not reading, not having money, not having anything metal, having no grains, not understanding the concept of history, never being able to interact with anyone outside your immediate family, living in a tent wandering for food, and dying from an infected cut by the time you are 30.

Under a utilitarian ethic, where what is good is what maximizes pleasure for the most people, you can't even compare the utility of society pre and post agriculture. Not only to people lead infinitely longer, less violent, healthier lives with the potential for education, social interaction, artistic expression, etc. but there are simply logarithmically more humans to enjoy what life has to offer.

Anyway, I know you're not serious, because you're posting on an imageboard about how you wish you were a stone age nomad. Why don't you go test out your theory before you go suggesting it is correct? If civilization is a mistake, you should do fine without it.
>>
John Gezzleford - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:50:30 EST ID:kbqhsVlv No.209475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209474
so hostile.... do you even Rousseau?
>>
Ebenezer Honeywill - Mon, 01 Oct 2018 01:04:22 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209477 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209475
Pisslewell doesn't like modernity, while using the benefits of modernity to express that idea. Not only does it smack of hypocrisy, but I'm hostile to all such Luddite inclinations, because they are inherently dangerous to everyone else, not just the people claiming them. Luddites have held back civilization for hundreds of years because they were allowed to reign unchecked.

>>do you even Rousseau?
Name dropping philosophers isn't making an argument for their case, but generally I am unimpressed by Rousseau ideas about human nature and the state of nature, they are very naive (which was more forgivable in his time period than now.) I'm definitively Team Hobbes in Rosseau/Hobbes, and Team Enlightenment in Enlightenment/Romanticism.
>>
Edward Blatherford - Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:25:48 EST ID:qum7+esS No.209478 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Society is a system of slavery. Capitalism is the most efficient form of slavery yet developed. At every instance people are lead to believe that they are engaging in agreements with others that are mutually beneficial, however at each one of those engagements it's a fight to see who can get more benefit. The power systems of society have been rigged by the rich and the powerful so that they always benefit more from situations that everyone else will engage in because those actions benefit themselves. It's a perfect carrot and stick approach they've got going to keep the workers motivated, but it's still slavery and at best your hope is to one day rise through the ranks, deaden your heart and learn to exploit and enslave other people so that you too can benefit wildly at the expense of others. If that doesn't motivate you then in our current society you're fucked because they have rigged the game so that everything in life is dependent upon your performance in the rigged rat race. Society is one big pyramid scheme but choosing not to engage in it at all will make you a paraiah and worse make your life empty and meaningless because society has robbed us of the opportunity to derive our purpose in life the way the rest of the animals do, by overcoming the challenges of surviving in nature.
>>
Sidney Cruzzlenore - Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:27:22 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209478
While I agree with your premise in general and that capitalism is a particularly bad culprit, I don't think society itself is necessarily a system of slavery -- it just happens that our society is. There have been instances of society that at least attempted to mitigate the enslaving impulse and put people on even footing.

My point being that while our society in particular is the problem, societal engineering is the only way to fix it. If we just gave up all of society and returned to a state of nature, the existing power structures would instantly recreate themselves. Only a responsibly engineered society has the power to ensure that people play on an even footing, for the benefit of all society, rather than themselves.
>>
Fanny Pinkinlock - Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:51:19 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209480 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209478
>Society is a system of slavery. Capitalism is the most efficient form of slavery yet developed.

[THIS IS WHAT LEFTISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]
>>
Hamilton Honeybury - Wed, 03 Oct 2018 01:55:11 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209481 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1538546111151.png -(722264B / 705.34KB, 546x562) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209478
I encourage you to delve into anthropology in general to get an idea of how other society's were in the past and about alternative systems of living together that are even practiced today. From an anarchist perspective this book "Worshiping Power" is about early state formation and the conditions that encouraged and led to the formation of authoritarian top-down hierarchical systems of centralized control by force of arms. Here's a podcast talk by the author: https://archive.org/details/afm-final-straw-01082017exp
>>
Oliver Dadgelock - Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:09:08 EST ID:ogQ1Wmfw No.209494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Agriculture rebirthed the sciences and the arts, which I think lead to more happiness, as more was invented to keep us happy.
>>
Oliver Dadgelock - Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:09:08 EST ID:ogQ1Wmfw No.209495 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Agriculture rebirthed the sciences and the arts, which I think lead to more happiness, as more was invented to keep us happy.
>>
Alice Smallforth - Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:59:14 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209496 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209470
The triumph of civilisation lacks nothing. Neither political terror nor affective poverty. Nor universal sterility. The desert cannot grow anymore: it is everywhere. But it can still deepen.
As for the reigning order, everyone knows what it consists in: that a dying social system has no other justification to its arbitrary nature but its absurd determination – its senile determination – to simply linger on; that the police, global or national, have got a free hand to get rid of those who do not toe the line; that civilisation, wounded in its heart, no longer encounters anything but its own limits in the endless war it has begun; that this headlong flight, already almost a century old, produces nothing but a series of increasingly frequent disasters; that the mass of humans deal with this order of things by means of lies, cynicism, brutalisation or medication
>>
Alice Smallforth - Sun, 14 Oct 2018 17:04:51 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209497 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209496
Nothing in this shocks us; nothing catches us unawares or radically alters our feeling towards life. We were born inside the catastrophe and with it we have drawn up a strange and peaceable relation of habit. Almost an intimacy. For as long as we can remember we have received no news other than that of
the world civil war. We have been raised as survivors, as surviving machines. We have been raised with the idea that life consisted in walking; walking until you collapse among other bodies that walk identically, stumble, and then collapse in turn in indifference. Ultimately the only novelty of the present times is that none of this can be hidden anymore, that in a sense everyone knows it. Hence the most recent hardening of the system: its inner workings are plain, it would be useless to try and conjure them away. Many wonder how no part of the left or far-left, that none of the known political forces, is capable of opposing this course of events. “But we live in a democracy, right?” They can go on wondering as long as they like: nothing that is expressed in the framework of politics will ever be able to limit the advance of the desert, because politics is part of the desert.
>>
Thomas Nanningway - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:00:26 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209500 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209497
Power is inexorable. 'Might makes right' isn't so much an ethical stance as an observation of reality. The power exists to create this existential desert, and there is a benefit to some to do so (and failing to do so is no guarantee that you will not be subject to someone else doing the same to you) so the desert will exist and grow -- it's just the tragedy of the commons writ large.

Power, in itself, is amoral. Selfishness and short-sightedness, in combination with power, inevitably lead to this kind of disintegration. Yet, the only thing that could counter it would be a force of equal or greater power, the participation in which naturally extended that power to others -- in essence, if the means to power was intrinsically altruistic and long-term. Power, in modern times, is the abstractified means of production coalesced into social systems of management. A superior means of production could provide this alternate form of power, which would make the earlier form both obsolete and actively undo its damage. Such a thing is possible, and it is not a political concept or require subscription to an ideology (other than that this could work); it is an engineering problem, the only kind of problem humans seem to have any aptitude for.

So yes, the desert grows inexorably in relation to the power of any individual. But we are actively creating it -- it does not exist without us. The second planting trees makes you stronger and more powerful than those who spread sand, the desert will disappear.
>>
Reuben Brookforth - Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:24:59 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209500
Have you read the pamphlet before? It's called "Appel" or Call in English

To any moral preoccupation, to any concern for purity, we substitute the collective working out of a strategy. Only that which impedes the increase of our strength is bad. It follows from this resolution that economics and politics are no longer to be distinguished. We are not afraid of forming gangs; and can only laugh at those who will decry us as a mafia.
>>
Jack Pockdale - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:12:37 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209508 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209505
Yeah I recognized the quote, was just trying to amplify what it suggests, it's even truer now, and we are on the brink of being able to accomplish this thing. The far left has always theoretically known there would be a period of gap as technology caught up to enable the implementation of its philosophy -- they just never imagined it would be so hard to convince people that it was a worthwhile goal in the interim. We are just finally at the cusp of that level, at which point convincing will be irrelevant -- the truth will be self-evident.
>>
Jarvis Blackbury - Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:05:45 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209540 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209539
Actually that's wrong. People lived shorter, experienced more violence, witnessed more horrors without any help (famines, natural disasters, disease), were poorer...

Only in the last 200 something years, rape has decreased by something of 200%-400%.

Procentually, the worst modern war (WW2) still pales in comparison to the most destructive war in history (the 30 Year War which ironically also involved what is now Germany) and the most destructive period of wars (Wars of the Three Kingdoms in China).

The past is bad, and (looking at human society) things are only getting better.

However, we're fucking up the environment and ecosystems so bad that the way things are going, humanity will be fully extinct within 10,000 to 100,000 years.
>>
Edwin Clullyfield - Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:20:49 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209541 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Kek, conservashit crybaby got banned hahahahaha. What a faggot.
>>
Nicholas Diggleman - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:16:03 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209508
OK it did seem like you recognized it because you picked up on it. But I have a lot of trouble understanding this post. You speak of the "period of gap as technology caught up to enable the implementation of its philosophy", you mean technology, especially cybernetics, catching up to the general capitalist philosophy of measure and control? And then the 'worthwhile goal' is what? the ending of the techno-industrial system? Because it does seem we are at that point, where technology has completely subsumed the organic, but I'm willing to be human (or organic, your pick) nature will prove to be flexible and the technophiles will have bred a New Man.
>>
Shitting Grandwell - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:51:57 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209573 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209571
>>But I have a lot of trouble understanding this post.
I'm intentionally being a little byzantine. I figure those who have ears to hear will, and those who shouldn't won't.
>> You speak of the "period of gap as technology caught up to enable the implementation of its philosophy"
Actually I'm more speaking to the distinction between socialism and communism, with the latter only being possible with post-scarcity means of production in the original casting. That's the 'gap' that people were aware of in the 19th century that they became willfully ignorant of in the 20th.

>>And then the 'worthwhile goal' is what? the ending of the techno-industrial system?
The worthwhile goal is setting humanity free from the tyranny of technologically induced scarcity, of which all present modern societal modes are flavors. In this way the 'capitalist philosophy of measure and control' is a sort of self-picking fruit, a self-defeating champion. But it will not be so much the end of the techno-industrial system, or of mankind, but the end of those being two distinct things.
>>
Sophie Crorrywell - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 04:03:58 EST ID:XqsBUz5h No.209586 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542618238532.jpg -(170474B / 166.48KB, 1024x724) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209474
>Enjoy not reading, not having money, not having anything metal, having no grains, not understanding the concept of history, never being able to interact with anyone outside your immediate family, living in a tent wandering for food, and dying from an infected cut by the time you are 30.

Enjoy having slaves working in mines to get metals, enjoy living unhealthy lifestyle, enjoy having a greater risk of famine, enjoy plagues, enjoy rapid toothdecay, enjoy missing a sense of mortality and oneness, enjoy maintaining a house, enjoy working more then 40h a week, enjoy living overcrowded groups,...

That argument goes easily in both ways, for the majority of humanity today and in history, agriculture and civilization has made life worse, you are the minority.

>Why don't you go test out your theory before you go suggesting it is correct? If civilization is a mistake, you should do fine without it.

No he wouldn't be fine, he was born in society and he has not developed the necessary skills to identify plants and fungi, preserve food, how to make a bow, how to make a fire, how not to freeze to death, how to make clothing...

People became 60-70 while living like hunter gatherers. Child mortality was very high but, that's actually normal. Living in so many tribes also meant there where loads of different cultures everywhere, you could have lived among warmongers or a group that fucks all day. There was violence sure, but there were probably no wars that waged for years and years.

It's easy to say civilization was the best thing ever if your not dying from the plague or famine because you rely solely on 1 food source.

>Not only to people lead infinitely longer, less violent, healthier lives with the potential for education, social interaction, artistic expression, etc

What are you talking about? life expectancy has only gone up the last 100 years or so, social interaction was pretty much perfect in a tribe of +-150people The number of people you can effectively cooperate with, Prehistoric art has been found everywhere not to forget tattoos and even fucking Stonehenge. As for education? They had vast knowledge of plants, animals, weather prediction, how to prepare food, how to find medicinal plants and fungi, how to fish, how to create jewelry,...
Anyway, i don't think life was easy as hunter gatherer don't get me wrong. But people lived as people were intended to live. Challenging environments, variation in food and surroundings, a strong sense of community in tribes, a strong connection with nature, a closer relation with death and mortality,...
Sure shit was hard, but life was a very human experience as opposed to working in a field from dawn til dusk, every day for 50years.

Not a single peasant in history though "Boy it sure is hard work, but it'll all pay someday in the future when we have loads of stuff"

I don't think civilization was a mistake, it was kinda inevitable but i kinda think that the most fulfilling lives were lived by hunter gatherers (at least, maybe in some parts of the world. Again, customs and culture would probably vary massively)
>>
Archie Futtingserk - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:50:52 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542675052119.jpg -(30326B / 29.62KB, 550x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209586
You started off right, in that agriculture and industry also have drawbacks, but you took it too far to the point where it's no longer true.
>> enjoy having a greater risk of famine
The reason we developed agriculture was for food security. You are always on the edge of famine as hunter-gatherers because you can never develop a food surplus. Without food surpluses, specialization is impossible. Thus all technological advancement is dependent on agriculture. You couldn't even have enough specialists to develop the sociological insight to understand why you society did/didn't develop agriculture, without agriculture.
>> for the majority of humanity today and in history, agriculture and civilization has made life worse,
Impossible. Without agriculture human populations never could have increased the way they did. Sure, those that did exist might have arguably better lives (in the same way that most animals lives are better than ours -- because they are totally ignorant of their condition or the possibility of something else) but most of the people in the 'majority' you're talking about simply never would have been born without agriculture. It's a bit existential to argue over whether its better to never exist or exist in a life that isn't quite as good as some other people have, but I would certainly take the latter.

>>People became 60-70 while living like hunter gatherers.
Hardly. From the wiki for 'hunter-gatherer':
>>Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.

>>probably no wars that waged for years and years
It depends on how you define warfare. Hunter-gatherers certainly engage in full-scale conflicts that risk death and destruction for every member of their society -- which is exactly what defines total war for us -- its just that their whole society put together might hardly constitute a platoon. In order to reach the scale of society that traditionally engages in what we would call 'war', you obviously need the industrial and agricultural system to support that many military specialists. So that's quite a circular argument.

>>It's easy to say civilization was the best thing ever if your not dying from the plague or famine because you rely solely on 1 food source.
You really have it out for food security, don't you? Sure, monoculture is bad, but it has only been the dominant form of agriculture since the industrial revolution. For most of the history of agriculture, diets were more varied, and whenever they got concentrated down to very specific grains was usually due to some pressure like an autocratic government or extreme isolation.

Food security is still a substantial problem in the world. Many people today die of starvation. Luckily, the last time the species as a whole had a serious subsistence crisis was hundreds of years ago, and that's only possible because of agriculture.
Some people dying of plague and famine is the only way to prevent everyone from dying by age 30 either from starvation or from the grueling wear on the body of staving off starvation with a hunter-gatherer calorie budget. So, some of your people can die of disease and starvation, or all of your people can die of disease and starvation. One continually improves the number of people who can survive disease and starvation, and one is basically as good as its ever going to get. Which do you pick?

>> life expectancy has only gone up the last 100 years or so
No, life expectancy has been increasing steadily since the agricultural revolution. It just has a logarithmic growth rate, and the 'knee of the curve' was in the early 20th century. Even if it only increased in the last 100 years, does that negate the value of the development?

>>social interaction was pretty much perfect in a tribe of +-150people
So the only people you knew and thought of as people were members of your tribe? Small tribal morality is often brutish and absolute. Might work fine if you are someone who is willing to always tow the line for the group, but individuality basically cannot exist in such small groups, as it is more threatening to the survival of the whole than in larger groups. In any event, tribes didn't form their numbers out of any awareness of Dunbar's number, and suggesting it is the 'perfect' size of human groups is an aesthetic judgement. Also, Dunbar's number isn't absolute and can vary between individuals, and why max it out at its highest bound? There isn't anything intrinsic about Dunbar's number that says that human societies should equal it, and an argument could be made that social interactions can occur more efficiently if each unit of society is much smaller than the number and the remainder used to establish inter-unit connections (which is how modern society functions.)

>>They had vast knowledge of plants, animals, weather prediction, how to prepare food, how to find medicinal plants and fungi, how to fish, how to create jewelry,...
Of course. Hunter-gatherer people were, well, people, and people do that kind of stuff. However, they were able to a lot less of all those different fun things because of the caloric regime imposed by the economic mode. Don't you think there's a reason for them making so much less of all those things per capita than everyone who came after? Of course they weren't inherently dumber, they had the same biological capacities as us, so something else, pretty significant, must have changed...

>>But people lived as people were intended to live.
People were intended to live climbing in trees to pick fruit and wading in shallow water to grab fish with their bare hands. The second you pick up a stick and use it to try to get to a higher fruit, you've gone beyond how nature 'intended' you to live, whatever the hell it might mean for a mindless stochastic system to 'intend' something. Or are you talking about some sort of sky daddy's intention?

>> "Boy it sure is hard work, but it'll all pay someday in the future when we have loads of stuff"
Actually I'm pretty sure that's what every peasant has thought (and again casting feudal agriculture as all agriculture is highly misleading.) Why would you be a peasant, tending fields you know the product of will be taken from you, unless you have been told you will get something in return? If you are especially gullible, or the person running your feudal society is especially deceitful, then it doesn't work out -- but that's a problem with authority and social hierarchy, not the simple idea of growing edible plants in a controlled fashion.

>> but i kinda think that the most fulfilling lives were lived by hunter gatherers
Well, ok, but that's a much weaker claim than you started out with. It's also a purely subjective aesthetic judgement. You certainly are at liberty to live a hunter gatherer lifestyle today, which is why I so often feel claims to want to do so are disingenuous; cause if you think so, why don't you do it? Personally, my subjective judgement is that civilization is good, and I choose to continue to participate in it.

The very fact that you are able to have this reasoned rejection of civilization is because you are so civilized. If I were to unilaterally declare that civilization must be rolled back, I would be forcing my subjective aesthetics onto everyone (who would then proceed to die about 50 years earlier. But hey, at least they get to live with the same squalid pack of family members looking over their shoulder their entire life scrounging to keep their bellies from being empty while looking at the stars and wondering what sort of shiny rocks they are then die from an infected toe at 25.)
>>
Thomas Gedgewater - Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:46:52 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The idea that hunter-gatherers live the most fulfilling lives is easily BTFO by looking at neolithic art.

There's a reason why the best, most complex, aesthetic and largest neolithic art is found in the Middle-East. That was a crossroad of ideas, trading goods and nomadic people.

The first temple in the history of the world, perhaps the universe. Built on a hill in Turkey by people who didn't even build houses. Fine carved stone slabs as tall as a human, decorated with animals and human-animal hybrids.

You can't come up with that shit when you're all alone with just 30 tribe members in some dark corner of the Balkan, getting gobbled up by cave bears.
>>
Martha Sirringlock - Fri, 23 Nov 2018 18:04:41 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209590 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209589

Not to mention if you're born into the shitty tribe of the valley. You can move sure, but that means months of trecking and surviving alone, just hoping some tribe will take you in and not murder you for being of the wrong tribe.

There's no individuality in that system. You're too reliant on the people around you, and they are reliant on you. There's some good there but jesus christ you get fucked over as well. Just look at how small communities treat their undesirables even in the modern world.
>>
Doris Fevingshit - Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:23:21 EST ID:gBcfNBFM No.209593 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209587
>>You couldn't even have enough specialists to develop the sociological insight to understand why you society did/didn't develop agriculture, without agriculture.
Yes, but you also didn't worry about that. I would say the reason we are interested in it at all is that society has caused symptoms, and we rightfully are looking into how and why a society changes in order to figure out our next move to try and guide the next leap with ideas and theories. I won't deny though that one of the major things that agriculture contributed was continuity. Culture is the conglomerate of human society over tens of thousands of years and without that we would not have been able to amass knowledge that can only be discovered with time outside the range of a single humans lifetime. But we also didn't need that knowledge with the limited things we had to deal with in a lifetime.

>>Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.
Yes, so they had a preadult mortality rate of over 50%. If you look at it like that the average age was 45+, Crorrywell saying people became 60-70 while huntergatherer is not actually disproven, I tried to access the citation in the wiki article to see if there was a percentage of people who reached 60, but the direct link doesn't work and I didn't feel like putting more effort into it.

>>Without agriculture human populations never could have increased the way they did.
More humans=/=Better life. For the majority of the time agriculture has been a part of society, beyond the huntergather/agriculture mix type societal structure that still existed in the beginning, the majority of humans have been serfs to an increasingly small portion of humans. Not only were the farmers serfs to their leader, but every functional society worth position was based off of being serfs to support or economize the agriculture industry, especially when we began to farm animals. Bakers, blacksmiths, weavers, tanners, coopers, cobblers, knights, you name it. They supported them, proccessed their produce, made transportation of goods possible, protected them, made everyones tools to do so, It made specialization possible, but only after the result of enslaving humans to society, and it was not the goal.


>>It depends on how you define warfare.
He obviously means conflicts that kill large percentages of the human race. Which as you agree, can only be possible with large enduring social structures, and while a single tribe of less then 150 would be wiped out(maybe not most, but all the men of course, most likely including the male children), that doesn't represent a risk to the extiction of the human race.

>>You really have it out for food security, don't you?
I think he's trying to point out that the starting reason for agreeing to society was for food security, and that that society may not be needed for that, as we know now what things are bad for food security. Buuut, hindsight is 20/20, and we wouldn't know that if not for agriculture, as you said.

>>Life expectancy
Life expectancy is bad mkay. Because it counts child mortality, deaths from war, accidents etc. Children were allowed to survive on their merit until recently, which may or may not be a reason our society is going so askew, and is definitely a contributing factor to healthcare costs, life expectancy not rising etc. I am a blind asthmatic, I would have died as a baby in the wild, but there would also be less asthmatic genetics surviving in the gene pool if we didn't save them.

I wonder if theres an average age of those who survived to adulthood who died from natural death or disease. I would bet that number would be pretty stable around 50-70 for the last 70,000 years. Also, I might discount major disease outbreaks, as that is a function of society and trade, and would not exist without them.

>>So the only people you knew and thought of as people were members of your tribe?
Its called the monkeysphere, and is actually a limitation of the primate mind, that is shared with humans, that only allows a certain number of people to be fleshed out as actual personhoods in your reality. It still exists, and is the cause of alot of problems with large structures and whatnot not being able to actively seek promise for all of the members, such as corporations, or governments or unions etc.

>>Don't you think there's a reason for them making so much less of all those things per capita than everyone who came after? Of course they weren't inherently dumber, they had the same biological capacities as us, so something else, pretty significant, must have changed...
Yep, demand. You needed economics to happen in order to form kingdoms to profit from those economics and you needed ever increasing supply to create an ever increasing base to feed economics to form armies to steal resources to increase supply to increase the base on your human farm to fight the other human farms in their quest to do the same. Its cyclic and just because it happened doesn't mean there couldn't have been or isnt a better way.

But until the right technological breakthrough happens is was never really possible and wont be. And even if it does happen, the question of if humans are societally capable of existing in a world where no effort takes place is possible will be answered, and the answer may be extinction from apathy or destruction, or Utopia.

>>Or are you talking about some sort of sky daddy's intention?
I think he means more of purpose and overcoming challenge and growing, rather then the vapid lifestyle with no meaning we life today. But probably more metaphysical then actual as you surmise. I personally think the meaning of life is to make life have meaning, to make the world a better place and more conducive to life and against death, and in that sense the majority of humans are stuck keeping society afloat and are unable to pursue this.

>> "Boy it sure is hard work, but it'll all pay someday in the future when we have loads of stuff"
I think you misunderstand him, he's not talking about personal gain, but that peasants were not doing what they were doing in order to further society, but to live and survive. No one wanted to make society to pursue technological inventions and knowledge, those things became necessary to society so it became valuable and what we got as a byproduct was not expected aka the modern world.

>>Well, ok, but that's a much weaker claim than you started out with. It's also a purely subjective aesthetic judgement.
Well in a way, but not aesthetic, philosophic. If societies function was to make the individual a better person, it has failed and was a mistake. The only way society has been a success is to strengthen society in order to keep a workforce to further society.
>>
Clara Subblemore - Sun, 02 Dec 2018 19:24:22 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209594 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209593
>>If you look at it like that the average age was 45+
The average age of living people might have been, but that's not what the concept of life expectancy means. If 57% of the population died before 15, it's mathematically impossible for the average age to be 45, unless some people lived to be hundreds of years old. You essentially can't shake mortality out of life expectancy and expect it to mean anything. And, just because you don't like the concept of life expectancy doesn't mean its meaningless. It matters that people die; if it doesn't matter to you from a human pain and suffering perspective, think about all the energy and resources that went into making that person?

>>More humans=/=Better life.
I think you're missing the really salient, very basic point. If there was no agriculture, *you* would not be alive. So would countless millions of other people. You don't have the right to declare that it would have been better if they and you had never existed, based on your subjective preference for another history that never actually happened. At the very least, its nonsensical from the perspective of a utilitarian ethic, as you are robbing all utility from the millions of unborn in this permanent hunter-gatherer state. Under what ethic or philosophy could you argue that, because people's lives are bad, or agriculture enabled them to be enslaved, or whatever, that because of that it would be better if they had never been born in the first place?

>>a risk to the extiction of the human race
Warfare never posed an existential threat to humanity until we developed nuclear weapons. In almost all wars, more people died of disease than the actual warfare. And it depends on how you define 'large percentage' but basically no war ever has killed off a double digit percentage of the human population. However, with diseases and famine, that has happened regularly.

>>food security, and that that society may not be needed for that
How? How can one possibly become food secure as hunter-gatherers?

>> less asthmatic genetics surviving in the gene pool if we didn't save them
If you would have died in the wild, and you believe that would have removed asthmatic genes from the pool, then why didn't that happen during the half a million years that humans did live in the wild?

>>discount major disease outbreaks
In some cases, sure. The bubonic plague was certainly made worse by society's reaction to it. But being free of civilization does not mean you will be free of disease. Plenty of animal species have become completely extinct because of diseases, and none of them had civilization.

>>its called the monkeysphere
No, it's called Dunbar's number. I referenced it in detail in my post, including a response to what you said here about how to respond to its limitations.

>>demand is the reason people do things
Yeah, no shit. I am freezing to death so I have a demand for a fur coat, and my family is freezing to death so they also have demands for one. So I learn how to make one, and over time I get a little better at it and teach that to my kids. They get better, and suddenly even more people want fur coats. The demand for the thing comes from human desires for self-actualization, ease, and survival. The only way to get rid of demand is to either always have an infinite supply, or to remove the human desire for self-actualization, ease, or survival. Nothing humans could have done to the environment could have provided the former, and the rest of history is about humans trying to manipulate the latter; you don't need that coat, the king needs it, etc. So, humans have needs, and by learning how to fulfill those needs, we were able to fulfill them to a greater and greater capacity. That creates a demand upon those who can fulfill those needs by those who cannot.

I don't see whats insidious about this, or how we could have possibly done things differently.

>> the vapid lifestyle with no meaning we life today
I feel like if you're leading a vapid lifestyle with no meaning today, the richest period in human history, then that's your problem. You admit that you don't live that kind of life yourself. Personally, I would rather have a life about struggling to adapt to the advanced state of evolution of my species as it reaches beyond its biological limits than a life thats about the exact same thing every one of my ancestor's lives has been for millions of years; staving off starvation for just one more day.

>> the majority of humans are stuck keeping society afloat and are unable to pursue this
But society isn't like, an external reality. It's only made up of what all the humans believe together. So, are humans stuck keeping society afloat, or are they sticking themselves to it? And, it's not like there aren't people doing the complete opposite of that. See, that's the richness of civilization. It's so advanced it has people within it both advancing it and trying to tear it down, working for it and completely ignoring it. Hunter-gatherers can't have any of that, they are completely singly focused.

>>I think you misunderstand him, he's not talking about personal gain, but that peasants were not doing what they were doing in order to further society, but to live and survive
I think you misunderstand me, because that's exactly my point to him in bringing it up.

>> not aesthetic, philosophic
No, I chose aesthetics very targetedly as the branch of philosophy we are dealing with here. We aren't talking about what is right or good, so its not ethics. We aren't talking about what is real or not real, so it isn't epistemology. We're talking about what we like and how we think things ought to be; that's aesthetics. And my reason in highlighting that is that we should all know by now that aesthetics are subjective, and trying to impose your aesthetics on others is like trying to convince someone else salty is better than sweet.
>>
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:15:25 EST ID:EAaZgnMX No.209607 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP, I'd argue that everything you've said is wrong.

>People were happier when they were still nomadic.
Just because your freshman sociology professor taught you that doesn't make it true. Their lives fucking sucked. This is literally the greatest time to be alive, the easiest of times, the happiest of times, the most luxurious of times, any life on Earth has ever known. People are so spoiled they create their own problems and appreciate nothing.

Maybe civilization isn't the problem, Thomas Pisslewell. Maybe civilization wasn't a mistake. Maybe you're the problem. Maybe how you've lived your life was a mistake. Maybe you've created your own misery as a byproduct of your own gross affluenza.
>>
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:19:46 EST ID:EAaZgnMX No.209609 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209594
>I feel like if you're leading a vapid lifestyle with no meaning today, the richest period in human history, then that's your problem.
Bro, that statement is the shit right there. You definitely grasp what the fuck is up with humanity, today, and their personal lack of motivation.
>>
Lillian Femmershit - Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:52:47 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209573
I like you and your ideas. I used to feel the same, but I'm now more wary of technology and believe it's constraining instead of liberating. If private property is the first sin, then I see technology as a fulcrum to articulate political power (i.e. consolidate power) rather than liberate society. At least in primitive societies, lack of technology allowed people to have a more unified community by keeping political power in check (re: P. Clastres). So then the real problem is going 'forwards' or 'backwards' and I just don't see any viable option forward anymore. Obviously we can't and won't go back 'to just the way it was before' but we are already in a backslide (neoliberalism, increasing frequency of relations of personal dependence)
>>
Jenny Hillerforth - Fri, 28 Dec 2018 04:37:17 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1545989837439.jpg -(257144B / 251.12KB, 540x810) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209616
As a human society becomes more complex specialization occurs which is what leads to the concentration of power and the possible corruption of an egalitarian society. The book Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation, is really interesting in this respect by tracing the trajectories of many different past societies towards the formation of a state, which implies an authoritarian centralized organizing of society by force of arms. For example a structure of cooperating (and competing) families along with a priestly class that specializes in writing, therefore the record-keepers of knowledge, which gives them undo influence over their society's cultural practices and focus of what is important for them to know, and along with that centralization of knowledge a family takes leadership of the society by being war leaders during a war with their neighbors, but after the war is won or lost, they refuse to step down from their higher position of authority, and in collusin with the priestly class, cement their power, eventually leading to a bureaucratic state structure of rule. I'm paraphrasing, I don't do the book justice.

Anyways, the technology is writing, which aids the society in many ways, but by a select few with the skill, writing is misused to secure power in their society. Technology is simply a tool, which certainly can lead to negative things, like symbolic disembodiment, a turning away from awareness of oneself and the world around them, but often the problem is exclusiveness or specialization without accountability, which leads to the concentration of power and corruption of society in favor of a select few over many. Idk.
>>
Angus Closhbirk - Fri, 04 Jan 2019 14:03:35 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209616
Technology enables us to change the world in ways previously impossible. That in itself is a good thing. The fact that humans are pieces of shit who use that power for evil doesn't change the instrumental value of technology, or that its the only way to change the world the way we want to.

I mean, how pathetic of a race are we if we can't trust ourselves to know things, so we have to intentionally keep ourselves in eternal ignorance? How about we just change our culture? If the characterization of humans you're suggesting was accurate, then we deserve nothing less to be wiped off the face of the earth so it can have a chance to try again with a species that won't be so obstinately stupid.
>>
Lydia Doddlestit - Fri, 04 Jan 2019 21:24:21 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209625

That's a bit harsh though. 4.5 billion years of evolution and you almost call us a mistake of nature? We cannot be anything but ourselves. Blame nature, none of us asked to be. Honestly, considering nature I'm amazed we are as good as we are, it's amazing a bunch of fucking apes manages to organize metropols and space travel.
>>
Hugh Ginningforth - Sat, 05 Jan 2019 19:25:58 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209627
>>4.5 billion years of evolution and you almost call us a mistake of nature?
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm responding to Femmershit, who said that, while seemingly good, on the balance technology leads us astray, so the only way for us to be safe is to regress to earlier stages of development. So I'm presenting them with a dichotomy; either that characterization of humanity is false, or, if true, humanity is a mistake from nature's point of view.

My point in making the dichotomy is because I don't believe humanity is actually like that, rather I believe the total opposite, but if it were, I would contend that it does make us a failure from nature/evolution's perspective. The goal of evolution is survival, its the only metric that really matters. We are the first species earth has generated that has the potential not only to protect itself, but also the entire biosphere from existential threats far beyond nature's normal ability to contend with. That means we -- or any sapient species that took our place -- are an integral part of the long term survival of life on earth. If we completely abdicate that role, or worse, actively destroy the biosphere, then we no longer deserve the survival that the biosphere grants us. Our existence is not solely for ourselves; we are instrumental to evolution and the web of life, as all living things are, and if we won't fulfill that role, we ought to at least vacate the premises to give earth another chance.

>>We cannot be anything but ourselves.
But, we are sapient. We are aware of our own actions, and can adjust ourselves accordingly. So, this doesn't really say anything. What 'ourselves' are is something we actively redefine.

>>Blame nature, none of us asked to be.
Nature is not a person, my guy. It's a blind stochastic force, so I'm not silly enough to blame it for anything. On the other hand, its very reasonable to blame people for how they behave, because as nominally sapient beings, they are aware of their own behavior and my blame might admonish them to change it.
>>
Priscilla Nicklewater - Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:39:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209631

>That's the opposite of what I'm saying.

Sorry, should've read a bit more of the thread.
But you did give some interesting points here.

>...If we completely abdicate that role, or worse, actively destroy the biosphere, then we no longer deserve the survival that the biosphere grants us.

But why do we have to deserve anything as a species when the same is not applied to others? We are not the first species to destroy an ecology on Earth, far from it. Photosynthesizers are still the biggest culprit judging by the fossil record.
We are in fact following the rules of nature, whenever a species has a huge advantage they outcompete anything that stands in their way. I think you're applying human value to a process that is not uniquely human here.

We're the first to recognize the fact that we fuck over the established status quo, that is true. And that means that the responsibility is on us. But from evolution's point of view, as long as we don't die out, we're 'winning'. You have to crack some eggs to win the evolutionary arms race, though yeah we are cracking eggs faster than they're made.

>But, we are sapient. We are aware of our own actions, and can adjust ourselves accordingly. So, this doesn't really say anything. What 'ourselves' are is something we actively redefine.

We cannot define our past, and the past defines us. I think it's unfair to claim we're all tabula rasas.

>Nature is not a person, my guy. It's a blind stochastic force...

Of course, I didn't intend to anthropomorphize or deify nature here. It was just a figure of speech.
>>
Hugh Ginningforth - Sun, 06 Jan 2019 16:37:05 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209632
>>But from evolution's point of view, as long as we don't die out, we're 'winning'.
At such a point where humanity could survive as a species while completely eradicating all other lifeforms, that would be true. As it is now, survival for our species is dependent on the survival of at least some portion of the rest of the biosphere.

>>we are cracking eggs faster than they're made
That's kinda my point. The only reason the photosynthesizers weren't a failure for exterminating all other life and eventually themselves is because life adapted in time. Any species whose genes lead it to destroy the web of life faster than it can adapt is actively working toward its own destruction, even if it seems to be working toward its own benefit (and maybe even indeed squeeze out a few more generations in the interim.) In the longer term though, genes that lead to self destruction will be weeded out, because they lower fitness overall.

>>I think it's unfair to claim we're all tabula rasas.
I think it's also equally unfair to claim we are paralyzed by history. Culture and tradition are cognitive concepts that no single person has been beholden to for more than a dozen decades. We could change if we really wanted to, and we will once we understand what's at stake.

>>It was just a figure of speech.
Yeah, that was pretty cheeky of me, but still, my point being that if you can't blame humans, you can't blame nature. Even if you blame nature, it doesn't hear you, but a human might.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.