[quote]idaho wrote:
I no longer have any illusions about the common good of man. [/quote]
I don’t know how anyone with an elementary understanding of basic human history comes to any other conclusion.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Pretty much. Parts of his theory could have some truth to it though. To a degree. An example would be a large group of people, with most of them like the hippies he describes, but there is a leader who is “Chief” “King” “Alpha” and he takes women as his “wife” and she is no longer part of the groupies.
If firearms and capitalism havent been invented yet, it’s supposed to be a peaceful utopia, right … RIGHT!!!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Obviously raiding, slaving and pillaging from other groups was commonplace. However, I would think that within a given group/clan/tribe a modicum of co-operation would serve from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I’m not talking about some idealistic, Disney-fied Utopia, but the simple utility of human interdependence. Co-ordinated hunting techniques, division of labour, security in numbers; these are are more easily achieved if you’re not at each other’s throats.
It’s not altruism but simple self interest. Or rather, in a small interconnected group, some degree of altruism becomes self interest.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Obviously raiding, slaving and pillaging from other groups was commonplace. However, I would think that within a given group/clan/tribe a modicum of co-operation would serve from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I’m not talking about some idealistic, Disney-fied Utopia, but the simple utility of human interdependence. Co-ordinated hunting techniques, division of labour, security in numbers; these are are more easily achieved if you’re not at each other’s throats.
It’s not altruism but simple self interest. Or rather, in a small interconnected group, some degree of altruism becomes self interest.[/quote]
Certainly. But cooperation and coordination are often achieved through a dominance hierarchy with a strong leader. Marriage and families are also a critical building block. Promiscuous hippie communes without a hierarchy do not lead to strong cooperation and coordination. They lead to backstabbing, laziness, jealousy, and posturing for control, which is exactly why they don’t play a significant role in any major historical developments of which I am aware.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Obviously raiding, slaving and pillaging from other groups was commonplace. However, I would think that within a given group/clan/tribe a modicum of co-operation would serve from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I’m not talking about some idealistic, Disney-fied Utopia, but the simple utility of human interdependence. Co-ordinated hunting techniques, division of labour, security in numbers; these are are more easily achieved if you’re not at each other’s throats.
It’s not altruism but simple self interest. Or rather, in a small interconnected group, some degree of altruism becomes self interest.[/quote]
Certainly. But cooperation and coordination are often achieved through a dominance hierarchy with a strong leader. Marriage and families are also a critical building block. Promiscuous hippie communes without a hierarchy do not lead to strong cooperation and coordination. They lead to backstabbing, laziness, jealousy, and posturing for control, which is exactly why they don’t play a significant role in any major historical developments of which I am aware. [/quote]
Agreed. I wasn’t so much speaking in support of the promiscuous, egalitarian hippy commune as I was questioning the notion of the every man for himself, only the strong survive because people are inherently shitty dogpile.
Being an alpha-douche does not necessarily make you a strong, effective leader. There have been many effective assholes throughout history, no doubt, but it isn’t a prerequisite. In fact I would say that most people who imagine that their assholishness makes them effective leaders are mistaken and generally just assholes. You need to be capable of being an asshole to be a good leader, but it shouldn’t necessarily be your default.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Obviously raiding, slaving and pillaging from other groups was commonplace. However, I would think that within a given group/clan/tribe a modicum of co-operation would serve from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I’m not talking about some idealistic, Disney-fied Utopia, but the simple utility of human interdependence. Co-ordinated hunting techniques, division of labour, security in numbers; these are are more easily achieved if you’re not at each other’s throats.
It’s not altruism but simple self interest. Or rather, in a small interconnected group, some degree of altruism becomes self interest.[/quote]
Certainly. But cooperation and coordination are often achieved through a dominance hierarchy with a strong leader. Marriage and families are also a critical building block. Promiscuous hippie communes without a hierarchy do not lead to strong cooperation and coordination. They lead to backstabbing, laziness, jealousy, and posturing for control, which is exactly why they don’t play a significant role in any major historical developments of which I am aware. [/quote]
Being an alpha-douche does not necessarily make you a strong, effective leader. [/quote]
That’s your second post in here associating being alpha with being of negative character.
I just wanted to say that a strong, effective leader is alpha. I mean it is one of many different definitions that define what an alpha man is.
Precisely. There is no such thing as an Alpha-douche.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Agreed. I wasn’t so much speaking in support of the promiscuous, egalitarian hippy commune as I was questioning the notion of the every man for himself, only the strong survive because people are inherently shitty dogpile.
[/quote]
I think it’s purely a matter of numbers and opportunity.
In a community of a dozen, I think the latter portion of your post may start to fall apart, at least a little. In a community of 330m, it is beyond true. Just look at the plethora of Americans, the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of human history, who bitch and moan and complain about how people with more, “millionaires and billionaires” are the enemy and the cause of their problems. People who’s toilet water is cleaner AFTER they shit in it than billions of people’s daily drinking water ever is, are complaining from their iPhones during commercial breaks, on facebook, about evil rich people.
If that isn’t “every man for himself” and “inherently shitty” then my name is Pete Rose.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Agreed. I wasn’t so much speaking in support of the promiscuous, egalitarian hippy commune as I was questioning the notion of the every man for himself, only the strong survive because people are inherently shitty dogpile.
[/quote]
I think it’s purely a matter of numbers and opportunity.
In a community of a dozen, I think the latter portion of your post may start to fall apart, at least a little. In a community of 330m, it is beyond true. Just look at the plethora of Americans, the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of human history, who bitch and moan and complain about how people with more, “millionaires and billionaires” are the enemy and the cause of their problems. People who’s toilet water is cleaner AFTER they shit in it than billions of people’s daily drinking water ever is, are complaining from their iPhones during commercial breaks, on facebook, about evil rich people.
If that isn’t “every man for himself” and “inherently shitty” then my name is Pete Rose. [/quote]
Iâ??ve never understood this view. I grew up right around the poverty line in lower middle class and then poor neighborhoods after my parents split. I know what poverty, crime, and destitution looks and feels like, and how shitty individuals can be to each other but beyond my angst ridden teen years I never thought humanity was inherently bad. In fact, the last few years my career has fallen apart (although getting back on track finally) due to in part to some shitty actions of a couple people, but I still never thought, â??All people are shit.â??
If you think people are inherently shitty, how have you not embraced the unibomber lifestyle and manifesto?
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
If you think people are inherently shitty, how have you not embraced the unibomber lifestyle and manifesto?
[/quote]
Because there is a huge difference between “people” and “person”.
There are countless beautiful individuals out there that make things worthwhile.
There is endless beauty in the world beyond people. Shit the smell of the rain on pavement on a hot afternoon alone is worth not giving up hope.
Understanding the fundamental flaws of human nature doesn’t eliminate hope or appreciation of the good things.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
If you think people are inherently shitty, how have you not embraced the unibomber lifestyle and manifesto?
[/quote]
Because there is a huge difference between “people” and “person”.
There are countless beautiful individuals out there that make things worthwhile.
There is endless beauty in the world beyond people. Shit the smell of the rain on pavement on a hot afternoon alone is worth not giving up hope.
Understanding the fundamental flaws of human nature doesn’t eliminate hope or appreciation of the good things.[/quote]
I like this post.
I just started thinking about some different types of leaders in today’s society. After reading your prior post about differences of how things would work depending on population.
Elected officials. In theory these people should be the cream of the crop of the citizens they are elected to represent. Now, I don’t need to go into depth on how that is the furthest thing from the truth.
My thoughts were, imagine if the elected officials of today had to rub shoulders with and be around the people that elected them on a regular basis. You can send letters and post on social media or forums about you displeasure with their actions, one of the things about this new technology that I like. It can help to drive a result. But, imagine if the elected officials of today had to deal with his or her citizens being able to walk up to them face to face and have a discussion on some of the issues taking place that they don’t agree with how that official is handling it.
[quote]TheKraken wrote:
I am reading the book, Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan. I am only halfway through it but the premise is pretty clear. Up until 10,000 years ago humans were hunter/gathers in small isolated groups in a natural state. The males and females in the group had open relationships throughout the group that re-enforced the mutual bond in the group and ensured that all of the children were considered the responsibility of the group and as a result were well cared for. There was no jealousy because there was not enough of anything to form real possessiveness over. All this changed when we started farming, which gave land value that became worth fighting over. It also made it important to know who your son was so he could inherit your valuable land.
This book attempts to blow up the â??Alpha Maleâ?? concept that in the Neolithic period men fought for dominance of the group and for the best mating opportunities. Itâ??s all based on circumstantial evidence, male vs female body mass (male gorillas are twice the size of females and do have an alpha model yet have tiny testicles compared to humans) and our closest primate relatives.
Ryan paints a pretty idyllic picture of pre-agriculture lifeâ??kind of a bunch of hippies wandering around eating and fucking all the long day. So, I bring it to the great minds of Tnation. I know there are some guys here who only conjugate with lions, but do you believe that your ancestors won the right to procreate in the stone age Thunderdome or are you the result of wandering hippies with time to kill?
[/quote]
Having spent one summer (two summer semesters) working the primate section of the San Diego Zoo (and surfing), coming in with visions of “Gorillas in the Myst” and leaving with having seen “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” I am going to say this is complete B.S.
Primates are viciously dominating of one another, competing actively for mating (either by force or trick – like one chimp that could lock out a stupid big chimp and thereby have his way with the females) and raping every female that does not comply. Males of certain ages are routinely separated to prevent chimp-on-chimp homicide.
I see no reason why early humans wold be any different, and the various genetic bottlenecks witnessed in our history tend to corroborate.
This is more cum-ba-ya-baloney of Luddites.
Nature is a cruel mistress. She doesn’t play cum-ba-ya.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Nature is a cruel mistress. She doesn’t play cum-ba-ya.[/quote]
Nasty, Brutish, and short.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
In my opinion it is easy to look at Native Americans and get a pretty good idea of how groups of people would have coexisted in a fairly large group prior to the farming boom.
[/quote]
So you’re saying the hippy thing is bullshit then?
I mean you’re talking about groups of people that took other groups as slaves, slaughtered entire other tribes and participated in human sacrifice…
No, not all tribes were like this, but life wasn’t the Disney Movie Hollywood portrays either. [/quote]
Obviously raiding, slaving and pillaging from other groups was commonplace. However, I would think that within a given group/clan/tribe a modicum of co-operation would serve from a purely pragmatic perspective.
I’m not talking about some idealistic, Disney-fied Utopia, but the simple utility of human interdependence. Co-ordinated hunting techniques, division of labour, security in numbers; these are are more easily achieved if you’re not at each other’s throats.
It’s not altruism but simple self interest. Or rather, in a small interconnected group, some degree of altruism becomes self interest.[/quote]
Certainly. But cooperation and coordination are often achieved through a dominance hierarchy with a strong leader. Marriage and families are also a critical building block. Promiscuous hippie communes without a hierarchy do not lead to strong cooperation and coordination. They lead to backstabbing, laziness, jealousy, and posturing for control, which is exactly why they don’t play a significant role in any major historical developments of which I am aware. [/quote]
Being an alpha-douche does not necessarily make you a strong, effective leader. [/quote]
That’s your second post in here associating being alpha with being of negative character.
I just wanted to say that a strong, effective leader is alpha. I mean it is one of many different definitions that define what an alpha man is.[/quote]
It’s probably just that the term “alpha” seems ridiculous to me as a descriptor. I realize it’s shorthand, but I just can’t take it seriously. I have a hard time picturing someone who actually is a strong, effective leader describing themselves as “alpha” (with the notable exception of T-Nation’s own Alpha).
On the other hand I have no problem picturing an insecure, arrogant douche who imagines himself to be a strong effective leader while he goes about trying to dominate others and constantly concerning himself with “status” describing himself as “alpha”. The proportion of insecure, arrogant douches to strong effective leaders is generally lamentably high, in my experience.
So I guess it’s a word-association thing for me.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Agreed. I wasn’t so much speaking in support of the promiscuous, egalitarian hippy commune as I was questioning the notion of the every man for himself, only the strong survive because people are inherently shitty dogpile.
[/quote]
I think it’s purely a matter of numbers and opportunity.
In a community of a dozen, I think the latter portion of your post may start to fall apart, at least a little. In a community of 330m, it is beyond true. Just look at the plethora of Americans, the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of human history, who bitch and moan and complain about how people with more, “millionaires and billionaires” are the enemy and the cause of their problems. People who’s toilet water is cleaner AFTER they shit in it than billions of people’s daily drinking water ever is, are complaining from their iPhones during commercial breaks, on facebook, about evil rich people.
If that isn’t “every man for himself” and “inherently shitty” then my name is Pete Rose. [/quote]
Can’t disagree with anything here, Beans. I tend to view the mass of people more as lazy and comfort-seeking and short sighted than outright shitty, but the net effect is the same.
“Our ancestors” is a pretty sweeping term, mate 
I’d say the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two theories. Maybe some tribes were more fisty-cuffs if you touch my women, whereas others were more open and shared. That sort of variation still exists today, so why not back then?