quote:

Originally posted by Lira That's what I'm trying to do here. If you really believe this, then I'm up for it. I'm afraid you're mistaken. You see, agriculture appeared quite late in the history of mankind, but it's no accident it independently happened in quite different locations: Not every environment on Earth is susceptible for hunting and gathering. The domestication of animals and plants gave us the upper hand we needed to enhance our lives, reason why I can't think of a single agricultural revolution that was "reverted" by the population. As for the industrial revolution, I find it hard to sincerely argue against it on the internet. Unless, of course, you've had a friend post this for you, and you don't drive cars, own coffee machines, and so on. Agricultural/Industrial life led to a huge class of idle people who then became entrepreneurs, artists, and academics. How can you be more free in a hunter-gatherer society without the goods contemporary life has given us?

It is well known in Anthropology the average hunter gatherer lives longer than the average agriculturist. I could go on Jstor and pick out articles but this isn't the venue. Right now the average lifespan worldwide is 67. That is nothing. And that is only in the past 50 years.

Further, the vast majority of people since 10,000 BC have either been slaves, women who have been marginalized (not so in hunter gatherer societies) citizens in facist societies, been hopeless poor (ie the third world), conscripted to be the pawns to fight religious or political wars, consripted to build monuments for a single individual like the pyramids, killed in genocide or democide, imprisoned for using plants like marijauna, and on and on. Yes, there are a few of us in since 10,000 BC who have had flashy gadgets like Iphones (and what a delusional insignificant justification for modernization they are) but for most, life has been miserable, short, meaningless and enslaved. The belief that we are all better off because of technology is naive. Finally, all it takes is a massive direct solar flare to take it all down. We have no back up transformers if the 1859 solar flare repeated itself.

Then there is massive overpopulation, climate change, government facism, pollution, nuclear war and nucleur disasters. The gut reaction is to use a grain of good (ie iphones or medical care for about 10% of the current world population) to rationalize a mountain of bad.

___________________
Songwriter/artist and reluctant producer.

My Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by Trancelover03591 It is well known in Anthropology the average hunter gatherer lives longer than the average agriculturist. I could go on Jstor and pick out articles but this isn't the venue. Right now the average lifespan worldwide is 67. That is nothing. And that is only in the past 50 years.

It seems we're talking past one another here.

I don't doubt it for a second that, in some environments, this is the case. You could also have included that, in general, hunter-gatherers work less than your ordinary agriculturist/industrialist. My point is: hunting and gathering doesn't seem to be the appropriate lifestyle all over the globe. In some places the domestication of plants and animals was beneficial, so much so that people were not resistant to it. It can't have come without benefits, otherwise it wouldn't have caught on.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancelover03591 Further, the vast majority of people since 10,000 BC have either been slaves, women who have been marginalized (not so in hunter gatherer societies) citizens in facist societies, been hopeless poor (ie the third world), conscripted to be the pawns to fight religious or political wars, consripted to build monuments for a single individual like the pyramids, killed in genocide or democide, imprisoned for using plants like marijauna, and on and on.

Well, hunter gatherers aren't exactly noble savages either. Being someone who studied Native Brazilians for a while, I can easily tell you that this is human, rather than just an agriculturist trait.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancelover03591 Yes, there are a few of us in since 10,000 BC who have had flashy gadgets like Iphones (and what a delusional insignificant justification for modernization they are) but for most, life has been miserable, short, meaningless and enslaved. The belief that we are all better off because of technology is naive. Finally, all it takes is a massive direct solar flare to take it all down. We have no back up transformers if the 1859 solar flare repeated itself.

It isn't naive if you admit it isn't the panacea it could be. Modernisation has consisted in extending rights to those who had not yet had it in the past. Coming from a developing country, I can also attest to the fact that capitalism has pulled many an unskilled worker out of poverty. Sure, we've failed time and again to extend these "rights" to everyone else, but it's not like we haven't made any progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancelover03591 Then there is massive overpopulation, climate change, government facism, pollution, nuclear war and nucleur disasters. The gut reaction is to use a grain of good (ie iphones or medical care for about 10% of the current world population) to rationalize a mountain of bad.

I tend to agree with the first two points (overpopulation and climate change), but without agriculture it's unlikely the world would ever support as many people as there are now. As for the government fascism, if you pick the five most populous countries in the world, only one of them (China) isn't a democracy (and the US is far from being fascist in any sense of the term), and it's been undergoing major positive changes.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It seems we're talking past one another here. I don't doubt it for a second that, in some environments, this is the case. You could also have included that, in general, hunter-gatherers work less than your ordinary agriculturist/industrialist. My point is: hunting and gathering doesn't seem to be the appropriate lifestyle all over the globe. In some places the domestication of plants and animals was beneficial, so much so that people were not resistant to it. It can't have come without benefits, otherwise it wouldn't have caught on. Well, hunter gatherers aren't exactly noble savages either. Being someone who studied Native Brazilians for a while, I can easily tell you that this is human, rather than just an agriculturist trait. It isn't naive if you admit it isn't the panacea it could be. Modernisation has consisted in extending rights to those who had not yet had it in the past. Coming from a developing country, I can also attest to the fact that capitalism has pulled many an unskilled worker out of poverty. Sure, we've failed time and again to extend these "rights" to everyone else, but it's not like we haven't made any progress. I tend to agree with the first two points (overpopulation and climate change), but without agriculture it's unlikely the world would ever support as many people as there are now. As for the government fascism, if you pick the five most populous countries in the world, only one of them (China) isn't a democracy (and the US is far from being fascist in any sense of the term), and it's been undergoing major positive changes.

I can respect all of that. I think it IS human nature, and that is why I think it is so key not to institutionalize centralization of power or give people the power to rule over each other (ie government). When people are given power to boss other people around it ends in control, domination, rule by angry mobs and killing for the most trivial reasons. The facist inside of people comes out. Suddenly opinions are legislated as are special interests.

I do think the Brazilian case (might have been Waodani or Yanomamo which are two famous groups) they have been in contact with the West for a long time causing conflict by the time they were studied. Scarcity of resources due to shrinking land (encroachment of miners) and introduced disease might be to blame for the infamous high murder rate in these cases, which could be a very recent trend.

Also, many Amazonian groups (and Papua New Guineans for that matter) are horticuluturists not hunter gathers.

Further, it is very likely the Amazon was home to the last undiscovered major civilisation, as evidenced by Terra Preta soil found throughout (which is rich and manmade as tropical soil is awful for growing crops), meaning they might be ancestors or neighbors of outright agriculuturists.

On the contrary another Amazonian group, The Piraha, are only recently discovered don't have much warfare at all and have been found to be very 'happy'.

Central to my concerns are questions like: 'is the modern world sustainable' 'will people be living to 90 in 500 more years?''how free will the West be in 100 years?' 'are people becoming to realient on technology' I suppose I will simply leave it at these questions as I certainly do not have any answers.

___________________
Songwriter/artist and reluctant producer.

My Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by Trancelover03591 Then there is massive overpopulation, climate change, government facism, pollution, nuclear war and nucleur disasters. The gut reaction is to use a grain of good (ie iphones or medical care for about 10% of the current world population) to rationalize a mountain of bad.

How did you manage to become a libertarian AND a hippy? Those two groups don’t normally overlap much.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN How did you manage to become a libertarian AND a hippy? Those two groups don’t normally overlap much.

Idk. I think there is overlap at least in America. A shared anti-war stance is (or should be) a great starting point between the two groups.

___________________
Songwriter/artist and reluctant producer.

My Soundcloud

Nah man, there’s extremely limited overlap. Indeed you’re the first person I’ve “met” that might fall into both groups. Libertarians’ laissez faire economics don’t mesh too well with hippy free hugs for all.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Hayek is SLIGHTLY understandable, but only for someone who has taken maybe ONE class and didn't pay very much attention. Keynes is on the same level of Adam Smith. Go slap your acquaintances for me, thanks.

Yeah seriously. Ricardo maaaaybe if it was a very practical econ program with not much history, but dayum (BA in econ)

___________________

http://www.youtube.com/mezzir

Ppl should now Ricardo from history classes. I certainly knew about his 'comparative advantage' ideas before I started studying econ.

Here's an important name in econ:
Guan Zhong - he created the first government supported brothel in China to fund the treasury. Over half a millennium BC

I'm taking a course on the History of Economic Thought. I need to write a paper for this (10-12 pages or so) on pretty much any topic I'd like.
Somebody tell me what to write it on.

"On being able and Keynes: Why not knowing the History of Economic Thought doesn't seem to affect the economy at all"

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Renegade posted in this thread!!

the legend is alive