Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Earth FLAT before the Order of Reason?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post
    People have waged wars as long as there have been civilizations. Please provide evidence of warfare that occurred in a hunter-gatherer society without contamination from civilized societies.
    Native Americans.

    Comment


    • Native American possessed extensive agrarian civilization. The Eastern Woodlands civilization maintained extensive trading networks that covered over one million square miles of land and possessed nations with populations equal to that of many of their European compatriots before the European plagues killed 90% of the population. Further south, the Aztec and Maya each possessed scientifically advanced agrarian civilizations, and the Inca and the Amazon civilization were complex agrarian civilizations before European plagues killed 90% of the population.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post
        Native American possessed extensive agrarian civilization. The Eastern Woodlands civilization maintained extensive trading networks that covered over one million square miles of land and possessed nations with populations equal to that of many of their European compatriots before the European plagues killed 90% of the population. Further south, the Aztec and Maya each possessed scientifically advanced agrarian civilizations, and the Inca and the Amazon civilization were complex agrarian civilizations before European plagues killed 90% of the population.
        And yet, plenty of them were still hunter gatherers who waged war.

        This isn't even going into the point that your question is inherently biased because in order to KNOW about these things, there had to be some civilized contamination. There is no record of an 'uncontaminated' hunter gatherer society that was utterly peaceful either. There's just a lack of records entirely.

        War is just a thing people do. It's not something that happens because we decided to build our own caves.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ramnesis View Post

          It is one of those little ironies of life that the statement "No moral stance is objectively better than another" is itself a moral stance. As is any attempt to judge a moral stance by non moral standards. It is pretty much impossible to choose a normative code of ethics without assuming some moral stance is superior.
          Ok, who decides which is objectively better? What external force? IMO that's one of the big selling points of religions, you get an external arbiter of morals and thus, stability.

          If we're the ones deciding, our thought processes are products of our age and civilization just as past ones were products of theirs.


          If nothing worked, then let's think!

          Comment


          • I'd agree that the "humans are evolved to be non-agressive" is a very biased standpoint. I could understand the appeal of this modern version of "humans are inherently good", but I don't see any hard evidence.

            That we don't have evidence prior to the neolithic, that could be for a lot of reasons, for example:

            - scarcity of remains
            - the low number of human population
            - abundance of resources in comparison to the size of the population

            Every example we know from the natural world and from our history tells that no, humans (and animals) are not inherently good, or bad as species. Need and opportunity bring aggression, not the Evil Society.


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post
              I said peer-reviewed academic journals, not a rubber science website. If I want to look at blogs, I will look at blogs, and a blog that cherry picks outdated economic and psychology articles to support an argument that is about anthropology and biology is hardly credible. Yes, chimps raised by civilized human are probably going to emulate the humans who raised them, that is hardly odd. You have not yet provided anthropological (or archeological) or biological evidence to support your positions.
              LOL, sure, I'm sorry for trying to spoil your divine revelations with common scientific knowledge that has been around for decades and yet it haven't reached you, what was I thinking

              Sure, civilization is inherently evil, that's a "scientific" idea uphold by NO ONE. Plus you. Sure.

              How about YOU, from the top of your supremme truth, show ME some peer-reviewed academic jornals supporting your fantastic (and fantasy) idea that chimps raised by "civilized" humans will EMULATE those humans?

              Or

              Show me the peer-reviewed academic jornals that DISQUALIFIES THE DISCIPLINE OF BEHAVIORISM AS A VALID SCIENCE?

              And please, wait a minute because I have to tell my teachers of behaviorism and of ecology and evolution that they should burn their away their PhDs, since their disciplines are a hoax

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Enginseer-42 View Post

                Native Americans.
                Not only that, africans in tribal stage, polineseans, the australian aborigenous... And EVERY SINGLE group of hunter-gatherers groups.

                Jeez man... I cannot believe Im seeing this being said with all that arrogance...

                Comment


                • And what's even more ridiculous, that territorial behavior of apes, viciously attacking other groups, is a perfectly regular thing all over the nature. Nothing strange in that. That kind of thing is widely documented, both by observation of groups, as from fossil evidences. And that's not something exclusive to just apes, that's a norm on nature. And yet you'll tell me that it's a human induced behavior LOL LMAO that's rich, I can only laugh at the idea. Tell you what, show me the peer-reviewed paper that says "chimps gangs attacking others are human-induced" LOL

                  Really Aya, I don't wanna do this, but you hold your ideas with too much arrogance. You may believe what your saying, and you can believe what you will, and you can stand for what you believe, but you are absolutely wrong about that subject, which by the way is fine, no one is the keeper of thruth, but when you make such statements with not confidence, but arrogance, specially when you're so deeply wrong, you make a fool of yourself. So, there's no need to be so condescending, just relax a bit, ask for sources if you like and debate up to exaustion, but try to recognize when you've done too much.

                  You're wrong in this one pal. Give it a little search and you'll see that. There is no shame in that, so just relax bro

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Enginseer-42 View Post

                    And yet, plenty of them were still hunter gatherers who waged war.

                    This isn't even going into the point that your question is inherently biased because in order to KNOW about these things, there had to be some civilized contamination. There is no record of an 'uncontaminated' hunter gatherer society that was utterly peaceful either. There's just a lack of records entirely.

                    War is just a thing people do. It's not something that happens because we decided to build our own caves.
                    None of them were hunter-gatherer societies without extended contact with civilizations. The majority were agrarian societies, some of which had been practicing agriculture longer than the Europeans, so they were no more hunter-gatherer societies that the 'civilized' nations of Asian or Europe. A minority were hunter-gatherer societies that had prolonged contact with Native American agrarian societies. Since my statement was 'please provide evidence of warfare that occurred in a hunter-gatherer society without contamination from civilized societies', I can only assume that you are willfully ignoring to statement and are just pursuing some other agenda. Oh, if you want evidence of war before historical records, you look at the archeological evidence, since violence leaves fairly consist evidence on the skeletons of the victims regardless of which century the events occurred.

                    Let us define hunter-gatherer societies. We will use the common anthropological definition. Hunter-gatherer societies derive their nutrition purely from fishing, gathering, and hunting. Any society that practices horticulture (small scale plant cultivation), pastoralism (animal husbandry of large animals), or agriculture (large scale plant cultivation) is not a hunter-gatherer society. So, no, the vast majority of Native Americans, Tribal Africans, etc were not hunter-gatherer societies. We really do not have any archeological evidence of Australian Aborigine inter-tribal warfare (though I am sure there was interpersonal violence) until the nineteenth century, a century after British colonization of Australia, so they had already been contaminated by contact with a civilization.

                    The perspective that war is in innate part of being human is not supported by the anthropological or archaeological evidence. War comes from civilization, that seems to be a rather widespread conclusion from the anthropological and archeological literature. Of course, not every civilization practices war (look at the Amish) but even pacifistic civilizations will hire other civilizations to commit war (look at the Amish hiring Scottish and Irish mercenaries in the 18th century to commit genocide against the Native Americans of Pennsylvania).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post

                      The perspective that war is in innate part of being human is not supported by the anthropological or archaeological evidence. War comes from civilization, that seems to be a rather widespread conclusion from the anthropological and archeological literature. Of course, not every civilization practices war (look at the Amish) but even pacifistic civilizations will hire other civilizations to commit war (look at the Amish hiring Scottish and Irish mercenaries in the 18th century to commit genocide against the Native Americans of Pennsylvania).
                      Competition, even violent competition for resources (food, shelter, mating, safety) is part of nature in general, especially in times of scarcity. War is only the institutionalized extension of that.


                      If nothing worked, then let's think!

                      Comment


                      • No enemy of a Lion will be as terrible as another of it's kind.

                        That's one of the most basic lessons from ecology. The worst competitor is another of the same species, always. Thats nature.

                        You are confusing things. You seem to think that before agriculture, humans were flower smellers and pacifist hippies. That's a nonsense like I never saw equal before. There are MANY records of violence before agriculture, it just wasn't so common. But the reason is very simple

                        - Tiny population - until the agriculture revolution, the global human population was less than a million.

                        - Tiny groups - it were impossible to have groups with more than a few hundreds of individuals.

                        - Harsher enviroment - it were far easier to die out of accidents, killed by predators or out of thirst/hunger/cold/heat before agricultural age. Agriculture made life safer - which means that, the natural dangers lost some of its importance when compared to the Danger posed by other humans.

                        That's it.

                        Comment


                        • Yes, lions are much more dangerous to other lions than humans are...wait, how does that make any sense? Let us see your many records of violence before agrarian civilizations. Please do not use Native Americans, Tribal Africans, etc as your examples because I have already outlined how they were agrarian civilizations and not hunter-gatherer societies for thousands of years before European contact. And human populations were much higher before agriculture than one million, that is an old myth based on Victorian archeology, more modern estimates using genetics place the population at around 60 million or so before the beginning of agriculture (the 1,000 fold increase in population having started 70,000 years ago instead of 10,000 years ago [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art....pone.0006366])
                          Last edited by Aya Tari; 02-16-2017, 11:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Your link says "page not found"...

                            And, as I already stated, you're arguing from a point of negative evidence. There's evidence of predatory violence among homids far before agrarian civilizations that you want to portray, somehow, as "not evil violence". Only because the scale, because it was "less", or because it wasn't "organized". But that's a very long shot, because you want to prove that evil comes from civilization, not that evil was increased by it (as all human potential was).
                            One could say that things like cannibalism, fighting for food, or for woman show the kind of violent instincts and lack of emphaty, that, when maximized by the scale and power of a big group of people (hunter-gatherer groups were rather small) could cause all the issues with humanity that you seem to have.
                            Last edited by Aleph; 02-17-2017, 12:45 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X