Interesting News, Articles & Stuff

Octavia

No thoughts, head empty
We have dug up a decent number of humans and catalogued cause of death. The archeological review of the past century or so paints some pretty clear pictures that we cannot reject, no matter how much it contradicts the narrative that humans "naturally" behave in any particular way.

Violence and warfare and isolationist survival strategies often arise during high-stress periods. That does not mean that humans are innately violent in all ways, but just that humans can be violent.
Could even pick our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, as examples.

Chimpanzees are more commonly known as our closest ancestors, and are particularly well known for being patriarchal and violent towards outsiders. Chimps typically behave like how I was taught humans behave where they live in a larger clan that vigorously guards its territory against any outsiders. They’re also known to engage in genocidal turf wars against other clans just like humans.

Bonobos on the other hand are nearly the same genetic distance from humans, but differ from chimps by being matriarchal and “diplomatic” towards outsiders. Bonobos are sometimes known as “hippie” chimps since they allow outsiders to share resources and bond with their clan, and tend to favour social resolutions to conflict where possible (both bonding and dispute resolution is often handled with sexual or other personal favours).

Most significant difference between the species is that Bonobos typically show more development in areas of the brain associated with empathy and aggression control, but they’re otherwise very similar and can interbreed. Most theories I’ve seen for their very different behaviours suggest that since chimps share a range with gorillas, aggression was selected for. Bonobos on the other hand speciated in an area where the only major competitor was other bonobos, so peaceful conflict resolution was selected for instead.
 

CANtalk

Well-Known Member

Trump warned automakers not to raise prices after his tariffs and be happy how ‘great’ they are​



7w2qx155vlre1.jpeg


Vance’s posturing in Greenland was not just morally wrong. It was strategically disastrous​


MAGA Rages After Far-Right Leader Jailed and Banned From Running for President​


Bodies of missing aid workers found in Gaza ‘mass grave’ following Israeli attacks​


https://www.reddit.com/r/Albuquerque/comments/1jm63a1
:peace: :leaf:
 

chillAtGVC

Well-Known Member
I'd be interested in the specifics. I get the impression that tools and weapons emerged somewhat simultaneously and I'm not sure how easy it would be to mark evidence of violence when some residue of violence isn't present on the skeleton from a crude weapon or finding weapons/weapon fragments nearby. Lack of written evidence, glyphs, etchings wouldn't help either.
I also don't think we know much about what happened before the advent of agriculture, writing etc., which all happened within the last 10,000 years.

...it took some time but as soon as humans started bumping into each other all over the globe
I'm afraid that is a bit too optimistic that it took that long. Look at Papua New Guinea in the first half of the 20th century. Jared Diamond's The World Until Yesterday has a number of examples, some within my own lifetime, of where violence resulted when two different groups of people met. This was the rule, not the exception.

If we can agree that survival, natural disasters, limited resources, overpopulation and the world in general will always lead to high-stress conditions then violence becomes a constant. As much as I'd like our species to use their abilities to work to eliminate violence, there doesn't seem to be any lack of it, sadly.
I think we are millennia, if ever, away from leaving violence behind.
 
Last edited:

bellona0544

Well-Known Member
For anyone interested in a more modern, 21st century review of archeological evidence, I highly, HIGHLY recommend David Graeber and David Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything". It is incredibly well-sourced and points out how much Jared Diamond cherry-picks his favorite instances of people meeting each other in history to show his theory that humanity is fundamentally violent, and contains a wealth of data that pretty directly contradicts Diamond's assertions of what is "standard" or "natural".

I grew up hearing and believing that something like 10% of all humans who ever lived were killed by other humans. I can no longer find that number basically anywhere, and my belief in that was based on knowledge I gained as a literal child. For decades, I labored under the belief that humans were naturally violent, and that authoritarian societies--with strict laws and people who uphold those laws--are the best means to reduce human-caused death. After "Dawn of Everything" and reading several of the cited studies and articles, I realized that my understanding of human history woefully mismatched the body of archeological evidence we have, and it turns out that human-caused deaths to other humans are vastly lower in the past than I believed.

It is hard to accept a paradigm shift when we've believed for so long that humans are essentially one thing. It was hard for people in Galileo's time to imagine a heliocentric solar system. When an overwhelming review of evidence--and especially a modern, high-tech review of evidence acquired through non-destructive archeology--points to a very different history for our species, we HAVE to examine that and consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong. Once everyone has read the book I mentioned (and, if you have capacity, some of the more interesting studies), THEN we can have a discussion about "how humanity behaves when humans meet new humans". Until then, relying on someone like Diamond who pushes environmental determinism and is regularly criticized by the actual anthropological community is not very wise, and will leave you with deeply-held beliefs based on no more science than any holy book.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
I love Americans (or wannabe Americans) talking about how all of humanity is naturally violent :dog:

It's like hearing Jeffrey Dahmer say, "everyone thinks people are delicious!"


The Trump BurgerReich admits they are deporting innocent legal residents to an El Salvadorian torture camp. But says once the innocents are being tortured in a foreign country, there's no way to get them back:shrug:

By the way. There's no such thing as citizenship anymore. Your immigration status is whatever the nearest ICE Agent says it is. There's no way to prove otherwise.


The Trump Admin says they want to kill Luigi for (allegedly) taking out one mass murderer.


The mass murder of aid workers is worse than most American media is reporting. Israeli militants systematically shot the medics one by one, buried them in a mass grave, then lied to the world saying they're all HAMAS. Here's how the NYT reported it:

3RY6Abf.png


Well, you can't verify because the mass murderers won't let any third party verify any of their claims. But you'd think news professionals might notice that few organizations in history have lied more than the Israeli Government has over the past 18 months.
 

Flotsam

Well-Known Member

Trump warned automakers not to raise prices after his tariffs and be happy how ‘great’ they are​



7w2qx155vlre1.jpeg


Vance’s posturing in Greenland was not just morally wrong. It was strategically disastrous​


MAGA Rages After Far-Right Leader Jailed and Banned From Running for President​


Bodies of missing aid workers found in Gaza ‘mass grave’ following Israeli attacks​


https://www.reddit.com/r/Albuquerque/comments/1jm63a1
:peace: :leaf:
ya know at very least this country MUST prevent convicted FELONS from being President. .
.
.
.
.
. that seems like such a low bar
 

TigoleBitties

Big and Bouncy
For anyone interested in a more modern, 21st century review of archeological evidence, I highly, HIGHLY recommend David Graeber and David Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything". It is incredibly well-sourced and points out how much Jared Diamond cherry-picks his favorite instances of people meeting each other in history to show his theory that humanity is fundamentally violent, and contains a wealth of data that pretty directly contradicts Diamond's assertions of what is "standard" or "natural".

I grew up hearing and believing that something like 10% of all humans who ever lived were killed by other humans. I can no longer find that number basically anywhere, and my belief in that was based on knowledge I gained as a literal child. For decades, I labored under the belief that humans were naturally violent, and that authoritarian societies--with strict laws and people who uphold those laws--are the best means to reduce human-caused death. After "Dawn of Everything" and reading several of the cited studies and articles, I realized that my understanding of human history woefully mismatched the body of archeological evidence we have, and it turns out that human-caused deaths to other humans are vastly lower in the past than I believed.

It is hard to accept a paradigm shift when we've believed for so long that humans are essentially one thing. It was hard for people in Galileo's time to imagine a heliocentric solar system. When an overwhelming review of evidence--and especially a modern, high-tech review of evidence acquired through non-destructive archeology--points to a very different history for our species, we HAVE to examine that and consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong. Once everyone has read the book I mentioned (and, if you have capacity, some of the more interesting studies), THEN we can have a discussion about "how humanity behaves when humans meet new humans". Until then, relying on someone like Diamond who pushes environmental determinism and is regularly criticized by the actual anthropological community is not very wise, and will leave you with deeply-held beliefs based on no more science than any holy book.
I'm not a proponent of Diamond and I have not read his works. Again, I don't believe humans are fundamentally violent but I do believe stressors, competition and natural selection do a lot in adding violence to the human playbook. I'm no anthropologist and haven't read "Dawn of Everything" but I'm curious how the archeological record can hope to unravel how early humans died without clear fossilized clues. Not everyone's skeleton is preserved and the farther back you go, the more difficult it is to determine cause of death from bones and fragments.

We can try and decode the evidence we have but if one tribe starves another by restricting their access to scarce food or water through the threat of violence without significant direct confrontation, I fail to see how this could be captured in the fossil record even though it's essentially murder. Humans are nothing if not intelligent and there are ways to compete and cause harm to rival groups without direct confrontation that might be uncovered via archaeology. Guess I've got some reading to do.

I'm a curious person by nature and I'm always open to new evidence and ways of thinking. I understand how close-minded humans can be and the point you made about Galileo and heliocentrism is interesting. On the one hand it illustrates how hard it is for humans to change strongly held beliefs yet at the same time, it underscores how such human behavior can lead to things like the Inquisition. The Church declared heliocentric beliefs to be heretical and yeah.... you got tortured and put to death... by humans.
 
Last edited:
TigoleBitties,
  • Like
Reactions: bellona0544

Pib

Active Member
I think humanity is not really aggressive and yet it is. The Nazis were evil, of course, and yet they were loving families. Many of them went along because everyone joined in. Some believed what they were told, others just wanted to make a profit.
Are Americans stupid because Trump was elected, it's not that simple. A lot depends on the situation, even more on belief, some on fear. Can I say that humanity is this or that, I can't even say what I am. I know my name, anything deeper than that and I have to answer a question more precisely, I go from a person to a pile of contradictory ideas, desires, expectations.
So much exists only in our heads and I don't know what could be true and whether humanity is really good or evil. For that I need to know what is good and evil, that's where it starts to get difficult...
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
How could these two animals be friends? They naturally distrust each other because they look different! They're both naturally violent! It would take millennia to overcome such inborn tendencies!
3Rl8gnV.png


No, it turns out all it took was a full stomach. End poverty and desperation and you'd get rid of 99% of that "natural" human violence.

And good news! We could give all 8.5 billion people on Earth a decent, secure, modern life with only 30% of current global resource and energy use!


Link to the full study:

How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis


There you go. Problem solved. No metaphysics needed. Will there still be sociopaths who choose to do violence despite having a secure life with all of their material needs easily met? Yes. But those people are aberrations who can be treated by mental health professionals.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
I like how one superpower is in a Jetsons future while the other is reverting to a pre-modern understanding of medicine.


You can't even do the "well at least we have freedom of speech" cope anymore. You'll get blackbagged in Massachusetts for speech the government doesn't like. At least China sometimes does it to billionaires too. Now Americans don't have free speech OR highspeed rail :shrug:
 
Top Bottom