A morning with the Jehova's

[nfe]

And to the technology will doom us/implication that hunter gatherers had or did it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Complete with evidence (and carefull hypothesising)

If the comment pertains to environmental damage, the video isnt relevant, if it pertains to violence, it is.

So it transpires that this WAS the talk I watched before. It is good.

However, I challenge his reasoning on hunter-gatherer violence. His figures, I presume, are correct, but his figures are for 20th Century hunter-gatherer populations which live in monstrously constricted areas compared to how they did prior to the agrarian revolution, and following 10,000 years of their being annihilated and geared towards vicious defence by agriculturalist aggression.

Our archaeological evidence does not suggest high violence-related mortality rates amongst ancient hunter-gatherer populations at all. The noble savage idea is almost certainly false, pragmatic savage would probably be more sensible, but they weren't anything at all like as violent as he suggests.

I will note of course, that at the end of the day, we're guessing, all social understanding of prehistoric populations is mythical - in the deepest meaning of "myth", not to mean lie or fantasy but to mean a narrative based on a bunch of disconnected information which can't be studied in context.

[MDV]

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with the data on the studies on older populations causes for mortality. It was referenced as a near-throwaway comment iirc? 'Studies of ancient populations show similar levels of violence' or something to that effect? Its been a while since I've seen it.

It would be fairly easy to figure out how many people were killed violently from remains and some decent assumptions and reference populations, sample sizes allowing. Probably some pretty big margins of error on it, its not quantum chromodynamics, but I would be inclined to think the conclusions quite sturdy. Data analysis, both in/validation and formulation of methodology has been one of my things (as in I've done it professionally), and taking other analysts at their word was never one of my practices because they're often morons, but I dont have much choice in this case. I could hit up google schollar I suppose, but I cant really be bothered :lol: Niether of us has much choice but to think that pinker, being a responsible intellectually honest sciency type, one trusts, has done his homework. Maybe, maybe not, but its an assumption I'm willing to work under.

Not a terribly unfair point on the availability of territory, but as you've been keen to point out, we will tend to saturate an area as completely as practicable; its not unreasonable to assume that a similar degree of conflict would occur between larger and more widespread populations once regions have been saturated. If so, which is a reasonable assumption, we come full circle to the representivity of modern populations and the archaeolgical evidence is near-moot.

True enough, though, we'll never really know. That the trend of lowering violence and tolerance for suffering in general is borne out with far greater evidence over the last few decades and centuries is much more significant I believe anyway.

[nfe]

It's an excuse to use rather skewed data to build a bar chart to make a surprising point, I think. He claims that the best evidence we have for hunter-gatherer violence is watching the still present tribes today, then compares the high level of violence amongst them to the comparatively low level of violence amongst developed society.

I think it's wooly thinking for various reasons. Firstly, there are somewhere in the region of 500,000 true hunter-gatherers in the world today, probably only tens of thousands, if that, who don't have contact with the developed world. On the other hand, there are around 6 billion people living in civilisation. So any significant numbers of violent deaths in the hunter gatherer population massively distorts their appearance in comparison. In fact, the example he uses of the Jivaro to demonstrate a very high violent death rate only number (at the very top end of estimates) about 30,000. So 600 of them die in a war and you've lost 2% of the entire global population. We need to lose 120,000,000 people to match that in the developed world.

Also, Lawrence Keeley, who's research he is paraphrasing, only shows figures for the UK and US in the 20th century, ignoring the genocides, wars, violence and massacres in other parts of the globe. His work is regularly challenged but even Keeley himself conceded that of the 5-10% of societies that do not engage in warfare, almost all are nomadic hunter-gatherers (the rest being defeated, demoralised refugees)

Next, in 8000 BC there were in the region of 5,000,000 people alive, spread out through most areas of the globe. Whilst populations do grow to whatever point they can still be sustained, as hunter gatherers, this never approaches any kind of significant density. It's entirely likely that many tribes would never encounter anyone who could be perceived as an enemy in generations. Nowadays they've been forced into small areas where they must actively compete with each other for resources. And as I say, have been practicing violence for millennia when trying to defend themselves from agricultural oppressors trying to move them away so they can farm their land.

So I still think his applying modern figures to represent ancient peoples is sneaky, likely why he spends a few sentences on it, gets his impressive bar chart of massive red lines for hunter gatherers out of the way, then jumps forward in time 8000 years.



Good thread.

[Elliot]

The classic article on hunter gatherers is Marshall Sahlins 'The Original Affluent Society' - old now, but still worth a read:

http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

[MDV]

Valid qualifications for the interpretation of the data, to an extent, I think, but none of them invalidate it. While modern hunter gatherers probably arent 100% comparable to ancient ones, they are the best representation that we have. Its important to note that pinker provided a range of data for the modern hunter gatherers, and its a wide range. Its reasonable to assume that ancient populations would widen the range even more - that there would be murder rates above and below those there. That doesnt invalidate the synthesis of the argument; that any data you can find for it shows that youre more likely to be killed by another person (intentionally at least) in a hunter gatherer society than you are in a modern 'developed' society. The data for ancient societies would have to be different to that for modern hunter gatherers by orders of magnitude for the point to be different, and I dont see that happening (of course I cant know this, but its a falsifiable position at least).

The most important point being made there is the alteration in the acceptable standards of violence. Here, now, we have people that are dubious about the killing of bin laden. Our tolerance for capital punishment is somewhere between low and zero in developed societies. But, as stated in the vid, no one batted an eyelid 500 years ago at being brutally exceuted for calling the king a bad name.

Some of the reasons he suggests for this can qualify the exclusion for consideration of many modern global populations. It hadnt escaped my attention that he leaves out many wars and genocides in, say, africa. The situation/s in there are poor enough that you can damn near throw a dart at a map and hit somewhere that theres been a war or genocide or tyrannical dicatotorship or oppressed population in the last 20 years far more egregious than anything europe has seen in centuries (save the holocaust).

Thats kinda part of the point; the same forces havent shaped, or yet had the chance to shape those societies, and what we're really talking about here is societal evolution. We live in a post renaissance civilisation of civil rights, democratic republics where to overthrow a government you get enough people to put a tick in a box, police and courts to mediate and moderate our vengence and prevent violation of our rights, trade with other nations and mutual cooperation in general leading to reduced hostility due to codependence, media coverage of wars and conflicts increasing our awareness of them and lowering our tolerance for it etc etc etc etc. Much of the world doesnt have this. Why? Thats a topic for a naomi klein book, I think :lol: But the fact is that, within the working definition of 'modern' for his argument (not just 'alive now' but post-renaissance democratic society) not everywhere on earth is 'modern', and so that regions lacking the pacifying infulences and forces in their histories that he argues have made us less violent, there is more violence. It adds up well.

It boils down, I think, to an argument whereby in the places and histories where such pacifying ideas as hobbes leviathan and freedom of speech and democratic goverments have arisen and taken hold, it begins a feedback trend whereby lowering the need for/benefits from violence lowers tolerance for violence and so lowers violence and so again lowers the need for/benefits from violence, and so on and so forth. There are no such factors at play in a hunter gatherer society, no developed and, as importantly, developing philosophical and sociological basis for the intentional construction of a more passive society, and in point of fact a society that prospers from being passive; theres only inherited tradition (little to nothing in the way of documented ideas upon which more can be built; no printing press!) and so levels of violence are directly related to geological and ecological happenstance. Hence very variable, yes, but also potentially unrestrained by social forces; in point of fact, force rules. They may not need to use it, but at the end of the day 'we can kick the shitee out of you and take the food you've gathered' is a high risk but high payoff strategy that doesnt really fly today. Except under bush&blair and if you replace food with oil. There are always going to be exceptions :(

Edit: good thread indeed. Not really my area, I'm out of my element and quite probably in over my head, but interesting :)

[tomjackson]

 They may not need to use it, but at the end of the day 'we can kick the shiteee out of you and take the food you've gathered' is a high risk but high payoff strategy that doesnt really fly today.

Actually it's alive and well in Stockport where Kebab / chippy robbings are on the rise.  You buy your food then as you are walking home some hunter gatherers (scallies) ambush you, tw@t you in the face and then go and enjoy their bounty.  They hunt in packs and even carry basic tools or weapons.

Anyway, enough of 'those were the days' reminising about the good old days of hunter gathering.  That horse has bolted.  How can we save the world and live in harmony.  You're leaving me with such a feeling of doom I might prefer to join the JW's after all.  Perhaps they are right about the impending armageddon....

So what about the future?  Although we have lost something surely we have gained something.  Scientific minds to overcome anything, to play God ourselves? Deseases cured, the origins of the universe and grand unified theory look possible, particle accelerators that are discovering the building blocks of everything.  Computers with amazing power.  The ability to clone ourselves is on the horizon.  Telescopes that can record the early universe.

Is this just all part of the progression?

Discuss

[Sailor Charon]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.
Man created God.
If people feel the need to worship somthing, then worship the Sun. Life in all forms would be pretty f*cked without it.

I'm sorry, I just had to dig out some Black Sabbath lyrics
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

[MrBump]

There are Sabbath quotes for every occasion, I think!

[Johnny Mac]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.
Man created God.
If people feel the need to worship something, then worship the Sun. Life in all forms would be pretty f*cked without it.

I'm sorry, I just had to dig out some Black Sabbath lyrics
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

Muse did a song called ' Thoughts of a dyeing Atheist' or something like that.
I don't give any thought to any of that. Life's for living, by my rules, not anyone else's. Especially some blagger who rode in to Jerusalem on a Donkey or a Schizophrenic looney over 2000 years ago. When the time comes i may not see it coming. If not then I'll take a inspiration from both of my Grandfathers and smile.

[nfe]

Valid qualifications for the interpretation of the data, to an extent, I think, but none of them invalidate it. While modern hunter gatherers probably arent 100% comparable to ancient ones, they are the best representation that we have. Its important to note that pinker provided a range of data for the modern hunter gatherers, and its a wide range. Its reasonable to assume that ancient populations would widen the range even more - that there would be murder rates above and below those there. That doesnt invalidate the synthesis of the argument; that any data you can find for it shows that youre more likely to be killed by another person (intentionally at least) in a hunter gatherer society than you are in a modern 'developed' society. The data for ancient societies would have to be different to that for modern hunter gatherers by orders of magnitude for the point to be different, and I dont see that happening (of course I cant know this, but its a falsifiable position at least).

Raising this from the dead somewhat, but I've just read a pretty stark tearing apart of Pinker's talk (well, of the first five or so minutes, the prehistory part).

Of the seven "hunter-gatherer" populations he talks about, only one are even close to hunter-gatherers (they're still not even immediate-return foragers), them being the Murngin (who've been living with missionaries, guns and powerboats for going on fifty years), all of the rest cultivate crops and raise domesticated pigs, llamas and chickens between them. Four of them are from a confined part of conflict-ridden Papau New Guinea.

The Murgin themselves are the only notably violent Aboriginal tribe, there being little to zero inter-group conflict in the general Aboriginal populace. Also, Bruce Knauft, who carried out the research Pinker presents himself had said regarding one of the groups "The elevated death rates had nothing to do with warfare, disputes over territory or resources are extremely infrequent and tend to be easily resolved".

So essentially, he picked the seven most violent "primitive" populations, called them hunter gatherers and claimed they were representative of the hundreds of other tribes and the population of the Earth of 95% of humanities history.

He might as well have said "I can demonstrate that during the 11th Century, non-white people were more violent than white people, let's look at China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Somalia and Sudan today".

It boils down, I think, to an argument whereby in the places and histories where such pacifying ideas as hobbes leviathan and freedom of speech and democratic goverments have arisen and taken hold, it begins a feedback trend whereby lowering the need for/benefits from violence lowers tolerance for violence and so lowers violence and so again lowers the need for/benefits from violence, and so on and so forth. There are no such factors at play in a hunter gatherer society, no developed and, as importantly, developing philosophical and sociological basis for the intentional construction of a more passive society, and in point of fact a society that prospers from being passive; theres only inherited tradition (little to nothing in the way of documented ideas upon which more can be built; no printing press!) and so levels of violence are directly related to geological and ecological happenstance. Hence very variable, yes, but also potentially unrestrained by social forces; in point of fact, force rules. They may not need to use it, but at the end of the day 'we can kick the shiteeeee out of you and take the food you've gathered' is a high risk but high payoff strategy that doesnt really fly today. Except under bush&blair and if you replace food with oil. There are always going to be exceptions :(

On this front, regarding hunter gatherers and a "We can do you in and take your food" high payoff strategy being worthwhile is an absolute nonsense. First up no one stored food, so you'd only be nicking what was gathered that day, but that aside; They've little to gain (food? Grows on trees everywhere around them and was in plentiful supply - archaeology proves famine and malnutrition were almost non-existant in prehistoric populations. Possessions? Virtually nothing was owned. Land? They lived in a world where the population almost certainly never topped a million until after farming was invented and was probably about 5 million as recently as 2000BC) and plenty to lose - their lives. In a society with nothing to fight over, who share everything from sexual partners to tools as a matter of course and have no hierarchy, the entire prosperity of their society was reliant on egalitarianism and friendliness to one another. Were anyone to start a war, all you'd do is wander off, with such a miniscule number of people on the entire planet a couple days walk and you've a totally new picking ground, why fight over one?

[Oroficus]

What the Johovies? got no time for em mate.