Firstly: Most of anthropological research that I am familiar with (and I will certainly admit to not being an expert, just an interested observer who has noticed a pattern in many studies) comes from observing current "stone-age" cultures and trying to correlate what they seem to have in common with what we can discover about peoples from the fossil records, which seems, to me, at least to be fairly reliable.
Secondly: The cultures I am talking about certainly DO NOT include Roman or Druidic traditions.
Thirdly: Even if I were talking about Lindow man (which would be stupid, as I have never heard of him), you'll note that I made the point IN PARTICULAR that many of the cultures I discuss are what we would consider "barbaric" (I love quotes, BTW), but that the barbarism has NOTHING TO DO with OUR notions of "rich" and "poor"
Lastly, When did I ever try to prove the hypothesis that "... humanity ever rose above the instinctual me-first desires that drove our biological or social evolution..." ?!? Quite the opposite was my point, actually.
We are animals and, therefore, driven by instinct. Whether either of us CHOOSES to call it me-first or not, it is certainly true that survival and pursuit of pleasure is foremost among the instincts of MOST of US and of THEM (the people of the cultures I AM referring to).
I would never be foolish enough to contradict your proposition, which is, as I see it: "As long as there have been possessions, those possessions that are most valued have tended to accumulate in the hands of a very few, who then are deemed to be 'rich' in valued possessions."
My point is that this is not a foregone conclusion of the human condition, or part of what we like to call "human nature". People JUST LIKE US, who live with a different set of cultural memes than us, have lived successfully on this little planet for FAR LONGER than us. Whether they lived MORE successfully than us is a matter of opinion, and whether they survived longer than we will without self-destructing... well, only time will tell that.
Personally, I have my doubts. Which is, of course, why I am interested in the cultural traits of peoples who survive WITHOUT engaging in self- and other-destructive behavior.
Wouldn't that be a worthwhile thing to find out? What traits could we adopt that might help us to survive the next 50,000 or 100,000 or 100,000,000 years, WITHOUT having to live on the so-called "knife's edge of survival" that our culture mistakenly tells us is our only other option?
I don't claim to have the answer(s) to that question, just an open mind to seeking them, as much as I can, OUTSIDE the lens our culture places over our eyes and minds.
(shit, another diatribe -- I should see a doctor about having these things removed!;^)
Well, you seem to be REALLY knowledgable on this topic. You seem to know more than what the best anthropologists know on this topic, such as that people NOT of what we call "civilized" cultures had nearly no hierarchies in their societies, had far more leisure time than us, and, in general lived far longer than MOST people of "modern" civilizations.
And who said anything about either "idyllic" or "cave man"? Neither of these words mean much to me. If the word you're searching for is "utopia", then I'm sorry, that notion to remains uniquely within the realm of "modern" culture, meaning some ideal human condition that we can never really achieve.
I was simply making the point that, before we started killing off everything that is not our food (about 8,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent), only at that point, when POSSESSIONS became so important to us, has the word "rich" really meant anything.
In fact, so called "primitive" cultures were far more egalitarian than you seem to think. The food procurement was done by the able-bodied, and shared with all. The educational, medicinal and other "services" were provided by those knowledgable, again shared with all. This is not because these peoples were angelic, "idyllic", or some superior version of humanity than we are. My point is the opposite exactly. They are exactly the SAME species as us, just living with a different set of assumptions about what is and is not valuable in the world.
And before you say none of this matters because we were "destined" to "evolve" to the culture we now live in, let me remind you that not a lot of what you're thinking of as "evolution" takes place in 8,000 years. The point I was making is that the culture we now have is, up to this point, a VERY short experiment in human history. The peoples I'm talking about had their problems (most of them are VERY warlike, many had little technology, though I should note that this is not true of many cultures) but they managed to live on this planet without destroying themselves or the vast majority of the other species in the world for AT LEAST ten times as long as we have so far. Do you really doubt that there is a good possibility of our self-extinction in the next 50,000 years?
And if you think this is all bunk, I suggest you do some research (other than old "Gilligan's Island" reruns) before you so cleverly begin calling people names.
Unless, of course, as I mentioned before, you have a magic past-seeing Palantir, stolen from the Land of Middle-Earth that allows you to see into the past more clearly than the people who study such things for a living, in which case, I, and they, are full of shit and you are right.
This equation has never changed anywehere in the world for any significant length of time.
WRONG!
For approximately 99.98% of human history on this planet (according to our best geological and anthropological evidence, anyway) your inalterable equation has meant LESS than nothing. Anyone that tells you differently is just trying to break down your will to make a difference in changing these sorts of things for the better, or have already been broken themselves.
Or perhaps you could take your own advice and examine more than the last 1/2 of 1 percent of human history (involving only 1 culture out of many thousands, I might add) as your "evidence" of the inevitability of property rights being an inescapable part of human "nature".
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly:
... humanity ever rose above the instinctual me-first desires that drove our biological or social evolution..." ?!? Quite the opposite was my point, actually.
... well, only time will tell that.
;^)
Most of anthropological research that I am familiar with (and I will certainly admit to not being an expert, just an interested observer who has noticed a pattern in many studies) comes from observing current "stone-age" cultures and trying to correlate what they seem to have in common with what we can discover about peoples from the fossil records, which seems, to me, at least to be fairly reliable.
Secondly:
The cultures I am talking about certainly DO NOT include Roman or Druidic traditions.
Thirdly:
Even if I were talking about Lindow man (which would be stupid, as I have never heard of him), you'll note that I made the point IN PARTICULAR that many of the cultures I discuss are what we would consider "barbaric" (I love quotes, BTW), but that the barbarism has NOTHING TO DO with OUR notions of "rich" and "poor"
Lastly,
When did I ever try to prove the hypothesis that "
We are animals and, therefore, driven by instinct. Whether either of us CHOOSES to call it me-first or not, it is certainly true that survival and pursuit of pleasure is foremost among the instincts of MOST of US and of THEM (the people of the cultures I AM referring to).
I would never be foolish enough to contradict your proposition, which is, as I see it: "As long as there have been possessions, those possessions that are most valued have tended to accumulate in the hands of a very few, who then are deemed to be 'rich' in valued possessions."
My point is that this is not a foregone conclusion of the human condition, or part of what we like to call "human nature". People JUST LIKE US, who live with a different set of cultural memes than us, have lived successfully on this little planet for FAR LONGER than us. Whether they lived MORE successfully than us is a matter of opinion, and whether they survived longer than we will without self-destructing
Personally, I have my doubts. Which is, of course, why I am interested in the cultural traits of peoples who survive WITHOUT engaging in self- and other-destructive behavior.
Wouldn't that be a worthwhile thing to find out? What traits could we adopt that might help us to survive the next 50,000 or 100,000 or 100,000,000 years, WITHOUT having to live on the so-called "knife's edge of survival" that our culture mistakenly tells us is our only other option?
I don't claim to have the answer(s) to that question, just an open mind to seeking them, as much as I can, OUTSIDE the lens our culture places over our eyes and minds.
(shit, another diatribe -- I should see a doctor about having these things removed!
Well, you seem to be REALLY knowledgable on this topic. You seem to know more than what the best anthropologists know on this topic, such as that people NOT of what we call "civilized" cultures had nearly no hierarchies in their societies, had far more leisure time than us, and, in general lived far longer than MOST people of "modern" civilizations.
And who said anything about either "idyllic" or "cave man"? Neither of these words mean much to me. If the word you're searching for is "utopia", then I'm sorry, that notion to remains uniquely within the realm of "modern" culture, meaning some ideal human condition that we can never really achieve.
I was simply making the point that, before we started killing off everything that is not our food (about 8,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent), only at that point, when POSSESSIONS became so important to us, has the word "rich" really meant anything.
In fact, so called "primitive" cultures were far more egalitarian than you seem to think. The food procurement was done by the able-bodied, and shared with all. The educational, medicinal and other "services" were provided by those knowledgable, again shared with all. This is not because these peoples were angelic, "idyllic", or some superior version of humanity than we are. My point is the opposite exactly. They are exactly the SAME species as us, just living with a different set of assumptions about what is and is not valuable in the world.
And before you say none of this matters because we were "destined" to "evolve" to the culture we now live in, let me remind you that not a lot of what you're thinking of as "evolution" takes place in 8,000 years. The point I was making is that the culture we now have is, up to this point, a VERY short experiment in human history. The peoples I'm talking about had their problems (most of them are VERY warlike, many had little technology, though I should note that this is not true of many cultures) but they managed to live on this planet without destroying themselves or the vast majority of the other species in the world for AT LEAST ten times as long as we have so far. Do you really doubt that there is a good possibility of our self-extinction in the next 50,000 years?
And if you think this is all bunk, I suggest you do some research (other than old "Gilligan's Island" reruns) before you so cleverly begin calling people names.
Unless, of course, as I mentioned before, you have a magic past-seeing Palantir, stolen from the Land of Middle-Earth that allows you to see into the past more clearly than the people who study such things for a living, in which case, I, and they, are full of shit and you are right.
But I doubt it.
This equation has never changed anywehere in the world for any significant length of time.
WRONG!
For approximately 99.98% of human history on this planet (according to our best geological and anthropological evidence, anyway) your inalterable equation has meant LESS than nothing. Anyone that tells you differently is just trying to break down your will to make a difference in changing these sorts of things for the better, or have already been broken themselves.
Actually, the correct response would be:
:^)
yes, that probably IS the same potential energy (given that both segway and ped are at about equal sea-levels), but I think you meant "kinetic"
man, I'm a nerd...
Or perhaps you could take your own advice and examine more than the last 1/2 of 1 percent of human history (involving only 1 culture out of many thousands, I might add) as your "evidence" of the inevitability of property rights being an inescapable part of human "nature".