And if you look at a broader picture of human history, weve generally been increasing misery for the past 10k years(at least for the majority, so a small minority can have better and better lives with ever increasing and increasingly cooler stuff). I think weve been continually trading down, and that process isnt anywhere near reversing …
And if you look at a broader picture of human history, weve generally been increasing misery for the past 10k years(at least for the majority, so a small minority can have better and better lives with ever increasing and increasingly cooler stuff). I think weve been continually trading down, and that process isnt anywhere near reversing or even slowing down.
If we are smarter now than we were before, we're sure doing the dumbest shit with those smarts
Very true! Universities are full of people who are supposedly intelligent but often just idiot savants or one-sided, emotionally stunted boffins. Ultimately, what's the point of cleverness if you can't think or speak in a human way?
A hypertrophy of the mind and a soulless intelligence are leading us to the destruction of other species (and maybe our own). As you rightly say, agrarian and industrial civilisation have a lot to answer for.
Are we really more miserable than we were in the Bronze Age or under Ancient Rome or Han China? If nothing else, since the Industrial Revolution, more people are getting fed. There has always been a small minority running things and getting more than their fair share of the good stuff. The idea of mass prosperity and basic human rights was a 19th century thing.
No. Im looking at a bigger picture. We were happier when we didnt have masters.
And there hasnt always been a minority elite. Its the creation of that elite, and the growing disparity between them and the rest thats been steadily increasing misery for the majority.
Was there ever such a time? Women had masters in the Neolithic. Most men had masters then as well. I'm not sure there ever was such a time. It's a wonderful thought though.
I don't think that's true. Domestication and hierarchy probably came in with agriculture (surplus). James C Scott (Against the Grain, Hugh Brody (The other side of Eden) and John Zerzan are good on this.
That might well be true. Pre-agricultural towns and cities tend not to have signs of hierarchy, ditto for existing hunting and gathering groups. There was likely a time without much hierarchy until thousands of years ago. I say much hierarchy because there were always power relationships between men and women and the young and the old.
Maybe you're right, Kale, but I think there's always a danger of reading our experience (power relations,say) into the past. Hugh Brody certainly suggests there was far less hierarchy (but that's only for contemporary hunter-gatherers…who knows what it was like all those years ago?).
Dunno, maybe there's always a tension/conflict between young and old, men and women. We’re basically on the same page (I think). “The fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.”
There was a definitely a lot less hierarchy. History almost seems to be full of more people, more hierarchy.
This isn't exactly on topic, but I was reading about an anthropologist who went to New Guinea and just happened to arrive as automatic weapons were being adopted in tribal warfare. This was maybe ten or twenty years ago. Traditionally, the older men could control the younger men in their raids on nearby tribes. Once enough blood had been shed, they'd call the conflict over and impose a truce. There would be a winner and a loser. Various beefs would be considered settled, and the damage limited. Automatic weapons upended this hierarchy. Those little tribal struggles turned into bloodbaths, and the elders were no longer able to limit the fighting. She got a few good papers out of it, though it had to be terrifying.
Everyone who might know is long dead, but there is genetic evidence. Look at the Yamnaya Y chromosome bottleneck with a much smaller male genetic component in comparison with a larger female genetic component. Why were so few men siring children? Likely, we'll never know, but it sure is suggestive.
Its something, but hardly evidence of anything other than "so few men" siring children. So are you suggesting the "king" and his elite buddies were doing all the fucking? Bc historically thats not what happens. When people are treated as property theyre encouraged to reproduce. And elites rarely want to go slumming.
But, ofc anythings possible. Its also possible other societal factors produced this bottleneck. Idk enough about it to venture a guess, but plausible scenarios abound.
Looking for evidence to support preconceived ideas(as opposed to conceiving ideas that fit the available evidence) is a good way to get lost. Thats how we ended up believing in silly ideas like manifest destiny or the "noble savage", or "women and most men had masters during the neolithic"(a huge leap based on thin at best evidence).
There's still the Y chromosome crunch. There were a lot fewer breeding males than females. You can argue about why, but it's still there: a lot fewer males had children than females. Maybe there were a lot of guys fucking but practicing withdrawal. Maybe most of the men indulged in some practice that rendered their sperm unviable. I'm open to alternate explanations.
P.S. Elite males frequently went slumming, and it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson.
Well ok, so what kind of discrepancy are we talking about? Enough to support the idea that a minority elite was controlling the breeding of an entire population for an extended period of time? That sounds damn near impossible. Theyd have to kill off the common males, a large enough group of men arent going to slave away forever without ever getting laid. Not impossible but it seems improbable.
It seems far more plausible that it was the result of a more natural selection process. Successful males got to have alot of wives, for instance.
You got me on the slumming elites. I knew it was wrong when i typed it..🤷🏻♂️
The article I read.Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe - Science Advances 25 Aug 2021. said:
"In addition to autosomal genetic changes through time, we observe a sharp reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity going from five different lineages in early CW to a dominant (single) lineage in late CW." CW is the official Pottery Barn designation for Corded Ware, so that's about 5000 years ago.
Also: "Instead, our results suggest that R1a-M417(xZ645) was subject to a nonrandom increase in frequency, resulting in these males having 15.79% (4.12 to 44.42%) more surviving offspring per generation relative to males of other Y-haplogroups. We also find that this change in Y chromosome frequency is extreme compared to the changes in allele frequencies at fully covered autosomal 1240k sites (P < 0.0003) within the same males, suggesting a process that disproportionately affected Y-chromosomal compared to autosomal genetic diversity, ruling out a population bottleneck as the likely cause."
That 15.79% advantage doesn't sound like much, but over generations, it can remove Y chromosome lines from the pool. There are many ways it could work. It could be a result of children of certain men having less access to resources or those out-group men having less access to women.
For example, if men from one particular tribe have an average of e.g. 1.2 faithful wives, that would leave non-tribe members with fewer potential mates. In the short run, this might not have much of an effect, but over the long run it would, especially if men of that tribe also had access to more resources. In most historical societies, men could have as many wives and concubines as they desired and could afford. Even modern Islam allows men to have up to three wives and at least some do.
To be fair, the article notes another possible explanation, "We view that changes in social structure (e.g., an isolated mating network with strictly exclusive social norms) could be an alternative cause but would be difficult to distinguish in the underlying model parameters." That would still cut male genetic diversity but with a different mechanism.
Some of this recent genetics stuff is a pain to read. R1a-M417(xZ645) sounds like a character, maybe "R" for robot, in a science fiction novel. Even George Lucas had more sense than this with R2D2. I read a whole account of the genetics of the ancient Mediterranean full of these designators and was crying for one of those lists of characters in order of appearance lists you get in some detective novels.
Well i cant argue thats not intriguing evidence(but probably nothing im going to be reading anytime soon lol, so ill have to leave it to more informed minds to interpret), and it begs an explanation. Kinda like the findings at catalhoyuk, it makes you wonder just wth was going on there. I read ian hodders book about it(the leopards tale. Not the most fun reading though ill venture it goes down smoother than the genetics papers. Still he kinda blew my mind with some of the stuff he said at the beginning and end of his book) and it left me with the impression that he doesnt really know either. To his credit though he sticks with the evidence and doesnt venture too far into speculation. But that evidence, like the genetics, brings more questions than answers, and also points to how much we really dont know.
And dont get me wrong, im not arguing that hierachical societies didnt exist. They did, and they increased. Its that increase thats also increased misery for our species. But for much of the archeological record those structures were sparse and temporary. People didnt stick with that shit if they didnt have to. Theyd kill the masters, burn the palace, and go back to some other way of living. But the masters got better and better at it until theyve accomplished imposing these structures almost universally and seemingly permanently. I dont think it was always that way with us. I like to hope it wont always be, but i think thatll be future generations fight.
We will always be limited by what we dont know, always be rewriting the stories to fit new evidence. Whats really important about all that is the light it shines on whats possible. Its kinda mind boggling how little we understand our past, and how unimaginative we can be about our future. I myself used to think we were "fated"(doomed) by our inherent qualities for this dismal reality, but now i see how foolish that is. I do think this is all a natural process, and we either get better at being humans or we go extinct, simple as that. Either outcome is just as good for life in general.
And if you look at a broader picture of human history, weve generally been increasing misery for the past 10k years(at least for the majority, so a small minority can have better and better lives with ever increasing and increasingly cooler stuff). I think weve been continually trading down, and that process isnt anywhere near reversing or even slowing down.
If we are smarter now than we were before, we're sure doing the dumbest shit with those smarts
Very true! Universities are full of people who are supposedly intelligent but often just idiot savants or one-sided, emotionally stunted boffins. Ultimately, what's the point of cleverness if you can't think or speak in a human way?
A hypertrophy of the mind and a soulless intelligence are leading us to the destruction of other species (and maybe our own). As you rightly say, agrarian and industrial civilisation have a lot to answer for.
Are we really more miserable than we were in the Bronze Age or under Ancient Rome or Han China? If nothing else, since the Industrial Revolution, more people are getting fed. There has always been a small minority running things and getting more than their fair share of the good stuff. The idea of mass prosperity and basic human rights was a 19th century thing.
No. Im looking at a bigger picture. We were happier when we didnt have masters.
And there hasnt always been a minority elite. Its the creation of that elite, and the growing disparity between them and the rest thats been steadily increasing misery for the majority.
Was there ever such a time? Women had masters in the Neolithic. Most men had masters then as well. I'm not sure there ever was such a time. It's a wonderful thought though.
I don't think that's true. Domestication and hierarchy probably came in with agriculture (surplus). James C Scott (Against the Grain, Hugh Brody (The other side of Eden) and John Zerzan are good on this.
That might well be true. Pre-agricultural towns and cities tend not to have signs of hierarchy, ditto for existing hunting and gathering groups. There was likely a time without much hierarchy until thousands of years ago. I say much hierarchy because there were always power relationships between men and women and the young and the old.
Maybe you're right, Kale, but I think there's always a danger of reading our experience (power relations,say) into the past. Hugh Brody certainly suggests there was far less hierarchy (but that's only for contemporary hunter-gatherers…who knows what it was like all those years ago?).
Dunno, maybe there's always a tension/conflict between young and old, men and women. We’re basically on the same page (I think). “The fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.”
There was a definitely a lot less hierarchy. History almost seems to be full of more people, more hierarchy.
This isn't exactly on topic, but I was reading about an anthropologist who went to New Guinea and just happened to arrive as automatic weapons were being adopted in tribal warfare. This was maybe ten or twenty years ago. Traditionally, the older men could control the younger men in their raids on nearby tribes. Once enough blood had been shed, they'd call the conflict over and impose a truce. There would be a winner and a loser. Various beefs would be considered settled, and the damage limited. Automatic weapons upended this hierarchy. Those little tribal struggles turned into bloodbaths, and the elders were no longer able to limit the fighting. She got a few good papers out of it, though it had to be terrifying.
Haha…a few papers. All ended well then! Wasn't there a similar thing in an episode of the original Star Trek?
I wonder how much of ancient war was symbolic. Must go back to my Dudley Young.
Youre misinformed:/ Im sure its a wonderful comfort though.
Everyone who might know is long dead, but there is genetic evidence. Look at the Yamnaya Y chromosome bottleneck with a much smaller male genetic component in comparison with a larger female genetic component. Why were so few men siring children? Likely, we'll never know, but it sure is suggestive.
Its something, but hardly evidence of anything other than "so few men" siring children. So are you suggesting the "king" and his elite buddies were doing all the fucking? Bc historically thats not what happens. When people are treated as property theyre encouraged to reproduce. And elites rarely want to go slumming.
But, ofc anythings possible. Its also possible other societal factors produced this bottleneck. Idk enough about it to venture a guess, but plausible scenarios abound.
Looking for evidence to support preconceived ideas(as opposed to conceiving ideas that fit the available evidence) is a good way to get lost. Thats how we ended up believing in silly ideas like manifest destiny or the "noble savage", or "women and most men had masters during the neolithic"(a huge leap based on thin at best evidence).
There's still the Y chromosome crunch. There were a lot fewer breeding males than females. You can argue about why, but it's still there: a lot fewer males had children than females. Maybe there were a lot of guys fucking but practicing withdrawal. Maybe most of the men indulged in some practice that rendered their sperm unviable. I'm open to alternate explanations.
P.S. Elite males frequently went slumming, and it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson.
Well ok, so what kind of discrepancy are we talking about? Enough to support the idea that a minority elite was controlling the breeding of an entire population for an extended period of time? That sounds damn near impossible. Theyd have to kill off the common males, a large enough group of men arent going to slave away forever without ever getting laid. Not impossible but it seems improbable.
It seems far more plausible that it was the result of a more natural selection process. Successful males got to have alot of wives, for instance.
You got me on the slumming elites. I knew it was wrong when i typed it..🤷🏻♂️
The article I read.Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe - Science Advances 25 Aug 2021. said:
"In addition to autosomal genetic changes through time, we observe a sharp reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity going from five different lineages in early CW to a dominant (single) lineage in late CW." CW is the official Pottery Barn designation for Corded Ware, so that's about 5000 years ago.
Also: "Instead, our results suggest that R1a-M417(xZ645) was subject to a nonrandom increase in frequency, resulting in these males having 15.79% (4.12 to 44.42%) more surviving offspring per generation relative to males of other Y-haplogroups. We also find that this change in Y chromosome frequency is extreme compared to the changes in allele frequencies at fully covered autosomal 1240k sites (P < 0.0003) within the same males, suggesting a process that disproportionately affected Y-chromosomal compared to autosomal genetic diversity, ruling out a population bottleneck as the likely cause."
That 15.79% advantage doesn't sound like much, but over generations, it can remove Y chromosome lines from the pool. There are many ways it could work. It could be a result of children of certain men having less access to resources or those out-group men having less access to women.
For example, if men from one particular tribe have an average of e.g. 1.2 faithful wives, that would leave non-tribe members with fewer potential mates. In the short run, this might not have much of an effect, but over the long run it would, especially if men of that tribe also had access to more resources. In most historical societies, men could have as many wives and concubines as they desired and could afford. Even modern Islam allows men to have up to three wives and at least some do.
To be fair, the article notes another possible explanation, "We view that changes in social structure (e.g., an isolated mating network with strictly exclusive social norms) could be an alternative cause but would be difficult to distinguish in the underlying model parameters." That would still cut male genetic diversity but with a different mechanism.
Some of this recent genetics stuff is a pain to read. R1a-M417(xZ645) sounds like a character, maybe "R" for robot, in a science fiction novel. Even George Lucas had more sense than this with R2D2. I read a whole account of the genetics of the ancient Mediterranean full of these designators and was crying for one of those lists of characters in order of appearance lists you get in some detective novels.
Well i cant argue thats not intriguing evidence(but probably nothing im going to be reading anytime soon lol, so ill have to leave it to more informed minds to interpret), and it begs an explanation. Kinda like the findings at catalhoyuk, it makes you wonder just wth was going on there. I read ian hodders book about it(the leopards tale. Not the most fun reading though ill venture it goes down smoother than the genetics papers. Still he kinda blew my mind with some of the stuff he said at the beginning and end of his book) and it left me with the impression that he doesnt really know either. To his credit though he sticks with the evidence and doesnt venture too far into speculation. But that evidence, like the genetics, brings more questions than answers, and also points to how much we really dont know.
And dont get me wrong, im not arguing that hierachical societies didnt exist. They did, and they increased. Its that increase thats also increased misery for our species. But for much of the archeological record those structures were sparse and temporary. People didnt stick with that shit if they didnt have to. Theyd kill the masters, burn the palace, and go back to some other way of living. But the masters got better and better at it until theyve accomplished imposing these structures almost universally and seemingly permanently. I dont think it was always that way with us. I like to hope it wont always be, but i think thatll be future generations fight.
We will always be limited by what we dont know, always be rewriting the stories to fit new evidence. Whats really important about all that is the light it shines on whats possible. Its kinda mind boggling how little we understand our past, and how unimaginative we can be about our future. I myself used to think we were "fated"(doomed) by our inherent qualities for this dismal reality, but now i see how foolish that is. I do think this is all a natural process, and we either get better at being humans or we go extinct, simple as that. Either outcome is just as good for life in general.