And if somebody does somehow build a rival force to take the bananas, nothing truly changed it’s just the same system with different apes in the same amount, or actually even worse than the first system which was built upon individual representation which could easily be lost.
Completely disagree. Anthropologic evidence from the past and knowledge gained by studying current primitive tribes suggest that there was much greater equity in our past.
We’re kinda like in between chimpanzees and bonobos. We started off more like bonobos but as history marches on we become more like chimpanzees.
Because the fact that the majority of civilizations fought and killed each other throughout known history kinda tells me we’ve been at this game for a while now.
And I feel like only in the last 20-30 years have we decided - hey, maybe that’s not so cool anymore?
Perhaps. I mean yeah the history of humanity over the past 2000 years has been brutal. But we go back much farther than that.
I have a real problem with you saying that in the last 20-30 years humanity has chilled out. We’ve got multiple genocides going on, constant religious conflict, land war in Europe. The United States is so fucked I can’t even begin to list the reasons why, and it’s on the brink of some really bad things.
How many people can you kill with a club?
How many people can you kill with a sword?
How many people can you kill with a gun?
How many people can you kill with a cluster bomb?
Presence of genocide isn’t really an argument against it having chilled out. Empires were born and died all the time in the past, genocides were standard practice by legions, nations consuming each other through war was a constant.
France has been involved in over 200 wars in its history.
Things are different now. Borders being unstable make international headlines. Aggressors in conflicts fact opposition from the entire world even if the defender is a minor state like Ukraine.
Before industrialized agriculture, the Human Population never breached a billion. In the past there was not equity, there was mass starvation for many ruled over by an aristocracy whose only major contribution was organizing militaries to either take food from others or prevent their own food from being taken. All over the world it was common to sell your children because you could not feed them.
Nowadays, violence is simply something optional for despots to entertain themselves, rather than a necessity.
(Copying my comment on a similar, older post, because I really want to share this info again since I think it’s fascinating:)
The notion that the early formation of societies was based on security rather than empathy is outdated. Compassion has many evolutionary advantages, especially in primate species where offspring are born vulnerable. It’s clearly evident in other primates who live in groups (or ‘societies’), as a driving force of cooperation and group cohesion.
Those papers are both fascinating reads, and I highly recommend them for a deeper understanding of why and how empathy is crucial to our success as a species.
(For a couple of centuries, the narrative has been humans are warlike and that’s what dominated our development, but that’s simply not true. We’ve been that way for the past couple thousand years, but largely not before that. I’ll leave up to the reader what significant ‘development’ coincided with that shift in our overall behaviour.)
Mt Everest is anywhere near large enough to describe their greed.
Here’s just an American example, it’s worse when you think globally. The mean US net worth is 192k, the richest person’s net worth is 449 billion. That’s 2,338,000X the mean US net worth. Everest is 29000 feet tall, that’s 80 Everest’s tall. Aka, mean net worth is a foot, and this fuck owns 80 Everest’s.
If you compared this to humans … the hording human would be guarding a pile of bananas the size of Mount Everest
A pile of bananas to the moon
With 1500 other idiot chimps helping him guard it and call it “true ape nation”.
But they’re also paying an army of traitor chimps decked out in paramilitary gear.
And if somebody does somehow build a rival force to take the bananas, nothing truly changed it’s just the same system with different apes in the same amount, or actually even worse than the first system which was built upon individual representation which could easily be lost.
People downvoting you do not know much history, and believe only what they want to.
I’m thinking they’re about a dozen short of 1500
Human society has never truly changed. This is literally what our civilization was built on.
Completely disagree. Anthropologic evidence from the past and knowledge gained by studying current primitive tribes suggest that there was much greater equity in our past.
We’re kinda like in between chimpanzees and bonobos. We started off more like bonobos but as history marches on we become more like chimpanzees.
Maybe it comes and goes.
Because the fact that the majority of civilizations fought and killed each other throughout known history kinda tells me we’ve been at this game for a while now.
And I feel like only in the last 20-30 years have we decided - hey, maybe that’s not so cool anymore?
Perhaps. I mean yeah the history of humanity over the past 2000 years has been brutal. But we go back much farther than that.
I have a real problem with you saying that in the last 20-30 years humanity has chilled out. We’ve got multiple genocides going on, constant religious conflict, land war in Europe. The United States is so fucked I can’t even begin to list the reasons why, and it’s on the brink of some really bad things.
How many people can you kill with a club? How many people can you kill with a sword? How many people can you kill with a gun? How many people can you kill with a cluster bomb?
I found “The Better Angels of Our Nature” interesting and well-researched, it changed my opinion on this.
Presence of genocide isn’t really an argument against it having chilled out. Empires were born and died all the time in the past, genocides were standard practice by legions, nations consuming each other through war was a constant.
France has been involved in over 200 wars in its history.
Things are different now. Borders being unstable make international headlines. Aggressors in conflicts fact opposition from the entire world even if the defender is a minor state like Ukraine.
Before industrialized agriculture, the Human Population never breached a billion. In the past there was not equity, there was mass starvation for many ruled over by an aristocracy whose only major contribution was organizing militaries to either take food from others or prevent their own food from being taken. All over the world it was common to sell your children because you could not feed them.
Nowadays, violence is simply something optional for despots to entertain themselves, rather than a necessity.
Dude, I’m just trying to sit here and eat some Oreos.
(Copying my comment on a similar, older post, because I really want to share this info again since I think it’s fascinating:)
The notion that the early formation of societies was based on security rather than empathy is outdated. Compassion has many evolutionary advantages, especially in primate species where offspring are born vulnerable. It’s clearly evident in other primates who live in groups (or ‘societies’), as a driving force of cooperation and group cohesion.
Here’s a recent paper (2022) by Penny Spikins, PhD at the University of York, Department of Archaeology, that explores how compassion shaped early human evolution and the formation of societies: The Evolutionary Basis for Human Empathy, Compassion and Generosity.
And here’s another from 2011 by Goetz et al that explores in detail the evolutionary advantages of compassion: Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis and Empirical Review.
Those papers are both fascinating reads, and I highly recommend them for a deeper understanding of why and how empathy is crucial to our success as a species.
(For a couple of centuries, the narrative has been humans are warlike and that’s what dominated our development, but that’s simply not true. We’ve been that way for the past couple thousand years, but largely not before that. I’ll leave up to the reader what significant ‘development’ coincided with that shift in our overall behaviour.)
Good points, and great articles. Thank you.
Mt Everest is anywhere near large enough to describe their greed.
Here’s just an American example, it’s worse when you think globally. The mean US net worth is 192k, the richest person’s net worth is 449 billion. That’s 2,338,000X the mean US net worth. Everest is 29000 feet tall, that’s 80 Everest’s tall. Aka, mean net worth is a foot, and this fuck owns 80 Everest’s.
Our Everest
Thanks, too many typos…
Our typos
Don’t think you can stack 2.4 million bananas on top of each other. By volume you’d need like 10^16 bananas to form everest