Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiberius Wenchel]

I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

[Mizhara]

They're closing the airspace over Manhattan right now and reporters are told to remove themselves. Last time it was excused with 'it's for your own safety' but helicopter crews were never in any danger to begin with. This is getting nasty. Very nasty.

Edit: There's conflicting reports going on about the news choppers. Someone may be misunderstanding orders from the towers.

[orange]

They're closing the airspace over Manhattan right now and reporters are told to remove themselves. Last time it was excused with 'it's for your own safety' but helicopter crews were never in any danger to begin with. This is getting nasty. Very nasty.

Edit: There's conflicting reports going on about the news choppers. Someone may be misunderstanding orders from the towers.

The airspace over Manhattan is congested as is.  The Police (and Emergency Services) aircraft are likely on a common communications frequencies and not reliant on air traffic control to deconflict their paths/positions.  Based on the Aviation charts of that area, lots of aircraft can normally operate in the airspace uncontrolled.  My guess is that the local FAA is denying anyone who submits a flight plan for in-&-around Manhattan from flying unless they are local, state, or federal services.

Or would you prefer for the collision of aircraft in close proximity to the protest, possibly resulting in one or both aircraft crashing into protesters or those living in the general vicinity?

Edit:  The authorities are telling the reporters to stay clear because the police can not ensure the reporters' safety.

[Senn Typhos]

I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.

[Misan]

I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.

Read what I linked, read some of the references. There you go. The mathematical side is actually pretty simple: humans have been around for ~200,000 years and for almost that entire time have lived life as hunter-gatherers. There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return,  groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.

Seems like I never remembered to bookmark much of my references for this stuff sadly. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book on the subject.

[Dex_Kivuli]

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

Stuff

Sutff
There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return,  groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.

I think Senn's point was that people have leaders, and the various 'Occupy' groups have them too. Animal packs have alpha's and leaders. Hunts would've had leaders. Fleets have FCs. People who know what to do tell others what to do because that's the best way to get stuff done.

The occupy protesters aren't anywhere near as "we all have equal say" as they try and paint it. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with the process, it's just that their words don't align with their actions.

And for an international perspective, the "Occupy Melbourne" group in Australia are an embarrassment. Not that I'd support them either way, but they really seem to have lost the plot lately:
(I think the Salvation Army are a pretty reliable source)
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/drugs-claim-at-occupy-protests-20111117-1nl2q.html

[Misan]

There is a pretty big difference between the nominal leadership based upon expertise or logistics that you'd see in HG groups and the more authoritarian style of leadership where there isn't the option to disregard the advice/orders of the leader if anyone in the group found it to not be in their interest. So what they practiced wouldn't necessarily be considered leadership today ('take me to your king, leader, etc) because they couldn't make unilateral decisions and expect them to be followed. There is some interesting stuff about evolutionary leadership theory that I might have to go back and actually finish reading to flesh out this train of thought some more.

It might be a rather subtle distinction, but I think it's an extremely important one, especially WRT to how the OWS groups are trying to organize.

[Vikarion]

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.

[Misan]

That sort of thing does tend to make cooperation more important, but HG groups did go out of their way to prevent dominance of individuals it seems. It's never really a case of 100% of people did this, but I think it would be fair to extrapolate that the majority did, especially if these same behavior patterns have persisted into modern day in different groups who have no direct contact with each other.

We could make similar observations about human behavioral similarities with Bonobos on the more egalitarian side of things, but I don't think it contributes much to the discussion. So instead of me rambling about stuff that has already been explained better elsewhere, I'll just link what I did earlier again and stick with that. vOv

http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/1-4-article-hunter-gatherer-social-existence.pdf

(Also to keep from derailing this too much into an evolutionary psychology discussion)

[Tiberius Wenchel]

I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.

Read what I linked, read some of the references. There you go. The mathematical side is actually pretty simple: humans have been around for ~200,000 years and for almost that entire time have lived life as hunter-gatherers. There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return,  groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.

Seems like I never remembered to bookmark much of my references for this stuff sadly. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book on the subject.

First off, I feel I should put a disclaimer on the Jared Diamond recommendation. Without going into specific details of specific instances such as his blatantly offensive mischaracterization of various Polynesian cultures, the guy talks out of his ass. He has an agenda that consists largely of assuaging guilty white consciences over the results of Western European colonialism, and he publishes a lot of pseudo-scientific drivel in pop-science journals to support that agenda.

Senn, social stratification is something that doesn't occur in hunter-gatherer societies. It is very limited in horticultural societies as well. We don't see evidence of significant social stratification in the archaeological or ethnographic record until the advent of intensive agriculture. Caste systems are a very extreme example of social stratification, which is only really present in a very small minority of known human cultures.

For specific examples of how hunter-gatherer societies work in relatively contemporary times, there is a wealth of ethnography out there. The !Kung people of the Kalahari desert are a classic textbook example of h/g egalitarianism, and they have been studied by a number of great anthropologists. For some really readable classic ethnography, you might look at Bronislaw Malinowski's work in Melanesia. Just try to keep in mind that Malinowski worked in the earlier part of the twentieth century, and he was a structural functionalist who supported colonialism. Still, his ethnography is great and very accessible to non-academics.

If you must turn to the dark side of pop-science, look for Steven Mithen's "After the Ice." It provides a great, accessible review of human prehistory as we know it through the archaeological record. Unlike Jared Diamond, Mithen is an actual anthropologist with a great deal of credibility in the field of lithic archaeology.

[Tiberius Wenchel]

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.

There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.

As for the thread of death by starvation, predators, etc, a lot of that is worse in industrial societies than in h/g societies, particularly with affluent h/g's. You do see some statistics floating around about average life expectancy being lower in h/g societies, but that is skewed by infant mortality rates. Infant mortality is much higher in pre-industrial societies, but after that life tends to be much easier on the whole and life expectancies of adults are similar.

Believe it or not, most of your ancestors had it a lot easier than you do now.

[Senn Typhos]

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.

There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.

I don't see how there's a difference. Put a hundred people in a room and tell them to build a house of cards, there will be leaders and followers. Everything the OWS movement is complaining about is a result of that.

It's the same with capitalism. If everyone started out with $10 on Monday, there'd be millionaires and poor folks on Friday.

[lallara zhuul]

You do know that it is not the truth?

[Misan]

First off, I feel I should put a disclaimer on the Jared Diamond recommendation. Without going into specific details of specific instances such as his blatantly offensive mischaracterization of various Polynesian cultures, the guy talks out of his ass. He has an agenda that consists largely of assuaging guilty white consciences over the results of Western European colonialism, and he publishes a lot of pseudo-scientific drivel in pop-science journals to support that agenda.

Hmm, noted, I read it back in high school so my memory is pretty fuzzy about all the details.

Caste systems for one have pretty much no social mobility, whatever you get born into you get stuck with. That's real different than stratification by wealth where there is a possibility of upward social mobility based on an individuals efforts to improve their situation.

Leadership and followership don't automatically lead towards hierarchical organization, otherwise the H/G societies that Tiberius has been referencing would not have been able to maintain an egalitarian social structure.

[orange]

Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.

The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.

There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.

As for the thread of death by starvation, predators, etc, a lot of that is worse in industrial societies than in h/g societies, particularly with affluent h/g's. You do see some statistics floating around about average life expectancy being lower in h/g societies, but that is skewed by infant mortality rates. Infant mortality is much higher in pre-industrial societies, but after that life tends to be much easier on the whole and life expectancies of adults are similar.

Believe it or not, most of your ancestors had it a lot easier than you do now.

Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal.    Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter).  You know what else pursues those kinds of activities?  Other mammals.

Our ancestors may have had it "easier" in that they only had to worry about those basic essentials (which you can still pursue as a life choice), but they also could not live/cooperate in groups of more than a few dozen.

Human civilization requires specialization.  Some of the specialist will be what we call leaders - men and women who are able to organize the other specialist to do something they would otherwise, individually or even as a small group, be unable to do.  However, when we specialize, different specialties have different values.  If your specialty is rather straightforward and easy to train, it is unlikely to be as highly valued as someone who has a very specialized, hard to train skill-set.  Specialization leads to hierarchies and extensive, in-depth specialization requires hierarchies.

Without specialization, and the associated hierarchic that comes with it, we must give up not only modern civilization, but even ancient civilization.  Every city must disappear and billions of people must cease to exist.