It's not a one or the other thing. You can certainly be both at the same time.

Of course. I was responding to:

We do not seem to be capable of that anymore. Collaboration has been replaced with endless competition.

@justtrying seems to have a romantic notion of man's past as a gentle, collaborative being. I say nonsense. Humans were far more violently competitive in eons past than today. They just had to work harder to collect the same number of skulls.

 

Even if it's true they were totally a totally non-competitive culture, which I doubt because that missing evidence is about warfare, it's an aberration in the history of mankind.

I agree I'm sure there were skirmishes murder lets face it, jealousy, anger, mental illness, but for the most part it stands against any research we've known, then you have such compelling evidence that should not be there. As far as a culture you have Architecture, Cultivation, Irrigation etc. And as descendants of the Clovis people 13,000 years ago migrating into the americas following prey we see a Society grow around 2,500 b.c. and should have developed into a war society. It didn't, eventually it did, but that took another 1,000 years to end but not because of war.

Thats a lot of Cocaine. Rise and Fall without conflict, I think they left because of other cultures around them became more and more aggressive or were carried into captivity as human sacrifice or slaves.

That is to say, eventually it cascades into anarchy.

kv

 

I have often wondered if there is an optimal size for a society, based upon evolutionary factors. That size would, of course, be larger than a family and would include some number of families – a tribe, if you will. Self-governance might, potentially, be more manageable while distributing the requirements for survival and reproduction in a relatively efficient manner. The possibility of a balance is facilitated.

The global civilization model seems to involve too many tribes. Sooner or later, usually due to some advancement that enables transportation and “free time”, one tribe runs into another and, inevitably, one decides to take the other’s stuff.

While this is admittedly simple anthropological musing, I am not sure that I see the evolutionary advantage in knowing what billions of others are doing and interacting with them constantly. I do see some disadvantages which largely involve a kind of hyper-enhancement of competition leading to inevitable exploitation.

Imagine if all the rats in the world knew about and interacted with each other? Remember those early species population models where you could easily wipe out a species by messing with environmental balance?

I suppose one could gather some relevant data by analysis of isolated societies throughout history.

 

Personally, I think that the preponderance of the historical evidence supports the conclusion that civilization is a self-defeating concept.

 

I very much enjoyed this article. Just wanted to share.

Very good article... too bad that this guy knows squat about Mary Queen of Scots... her awful cousin would've been a better example of the point he was trying to make... he was spot on on Mrs Marcos, though...

People who say that they want women to run the world presumably mean good women — as opposed to Imelda Marcos or Mary Queen of Scots.

 

Imelda Marcos ran the shoe closet.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-02/imelda-marcos-shoe-museum:-the-excess-of-a-regime/7877098

 

Personally, I think that the preponderance of the historical evidence supports the conclusion that civilization is a self-defeating concept.

Would you mind elaborating? The way I understand it, civilization was born with the advent of agriculture. It's when humans stopped being exclusively hunters and began to sow cereals (among other plants) that they abandoned their nomadic lifestyle and began to cooperate in much larger groups in order to improve their quality of life.... tribalism has never truly ceased to plague us though...

If civilization is a self-defeating concept, then what's the alternative?

 

This is best I can do in response

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/h...l-of-the-nicest-the-other-theory-of-evolution

Early societies survived only because of collaboration. We are are naked toothless ape and need to work together to survive. The member that does not work well with others would be simply kicked out. Inuit still did it till not so long ago. Conflict only came into play as different groups grew and started to run into problems with resources. I think this does in a way point to civilization being self defeating - if we are promoting conflict despite the fact that our nature is actually to work together, then where do we go from here?

 

This is best I can do in response

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/h...l-of-the-nicest-the-other-theory-of-evolution

Early societies survived only because of collaboration. We are are naked toothless ape and need to work together to survive. The member that does not work well with others would be simply kicked out. Inuit still did it till not so long ago. Conflict only came into play as different groups grew and started to run into problems with resources. I think this does in a way point to civilization being self defeating - if we are promoting conflict despite the fact that our nature is actually to work together, then where do we go from here?

A great movie about conflict and collaboration is:

 

tribalism has never truly ceased to plague us though...

Have you been reading Ayn Rand???

 

Have you been reading Ayn Rand???

Not yet... but it's already on my list... only one more book to read, and Atlas Shrugged is next

 

Not yet... but it's already on my list... only one more book to read, and Atlas Shrugged is next

I can save you some time….just figure out how to smoke about 1000 cigarettes a day while you spout an endless stream of feckless (and fact-less) regurgitated, derivative, garbage that all boils down to “I Got Mine!” so eff everyone less fortunate – and feel good about it so none of those pesky ideas of helping others gets in the way of your supremely selfish, sociopathic cognitive dysfunction.

But, then again I am sure there are others who might, just possibly, disagree.

 

I can save you some time….just figure out how to smoke about 1000 cigarettes a day while you spout an endless stream of feckless (and fact-less) regurgitated, derivative, garbage that all boils down to “I Got Mine!” so eff everyone less fortunate – and feel good about it so none of those pesky ideas of helping others gets in the way of your supremely selfish, sociopathic cognitive dysfunction.

I see you've decided to assume GopherT's responsibilities, now that he is no longer with us.

 

I see you've decided to assume GopherT's responsibilities, now that he is no longer with us.

I urge you to invest in a pair of corrective lens to improve your sight.

My comments, strong as they are, were clearly and concisely directed at a deceased "philosopher" and, obviously, not at you or any AAC member. Indeed, if you are a fan of hers, I would not know that, but regardless, it is difficult for me to communicate how disinterested I am with any problem you have with my opinions. As I have long felt that you are recalcitrant, I can only suggest that you not read my opinions.

I have nothing else to say on the matter.

 

Did someone say collaboration?

 

@Raymond Genovese: So many ad hominems in only two posts that I lost count.

You make a fine replacement for GopherT.

Keep up the good work.

 

MOD:
Please refrain from posting personal attacks on your fellow members, else the Thread will be Closed and formal Warnings will be noted.

Eric