Hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society

[DandelionSoul]

I haven't read Deleuze, but metaphysics of process philosophical Unique - which sort of came from Ayahuasca - is very close to Deleuze (at least based on wiki).

I'd love to read more about your Ayahuasca-inspired process philosophy. Have you written it up anywhere?

I've been also developing foundations of mathematics based on more-less relation and relational operators < > as the mathematical aspect of the ontology we've called here 'Divinely Integrated Differentiation'.

That sounds both fascinating and entirely over my head.

DandelionSoul -- A few years ago, at a time when I was fussing over the dissociative model of DID, I drank Daime a for morning hike through a várzea (seasonal flooded forest) in western Amazonia. Being the dry season, many of the trees and shrubs were standing quite individually with sparse vegetation between them, quite unlike a jungle tangle of plants and vines. I asked, "Is this a Dissociated Identity Disorder?" and the inner voice immediately responded, "No! This is a Divinely Integrated Diversity." It was the first time I had heard or read that rendering of DID.

I love that a lot. The Structural Dissociation model currently in use is very culture-bound -- not all cultures raise people so strictly to think of themselves in terms of one body, one mind. I mean, it's better than the old "shatter" model, but still has some way to go.

[SanteriSatama]

The Structural Dissociation model currently in use is very culture-bound -- not all cultures raise people so strictly to think of themselves in terms of one body, one mind. I mean, it's better than the old "shatter" model, but still has some way to go.

It could be useful as a diagnosis of European alienation. The disassociation boundaries are defined mathematically (Markov blanket), and that seems like a major tell.

[James_B]

Yeah not surprising at all. I never read the book Stone-Age Economics, but it said the same thing: that hunter-gatherer societies worked a helluva lot less than modern society does.

I'm surprised no one in this thread (from what I've read) has mentioned Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid book. Kropotkin really destroys that stupid capitalistic propaganda idea that humans (& other animals) are entirely greedy when the fact is, yes greed is apparent in our species but humans & other animals are more inclined to cooperate in order for the species to evolve & survive than to compete amongst themselves.

It doesn't make sense to me how anyone who considers themselves a non-physicalist could support capitalism. It's an entirely immoral, unethical & unsustainable economic system. Infinite growth on a finite planet, ridiculous.

[SanteriSatama]

I'm surprised no one in this thread (from what I've read) has mentioned Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid book. Kropotkin really destroys that stupid capitalistic propaganda idea that humans (& other animals) are entirely greedy when the fact is, yes greed is apparent in our species but humans & other animals are more inclined to cooperate in order for the species to evolve & survive than to compete amongst themselves.

Well, Kropotkin was a decent biologist, but here we try to avoid getting into political topics and debates (at least too obviously ), for reasons I'm sure you can understand.

E.g. "ecovillages and spirituality" could pass the nose of the mod, and you could put loads of Kropotkin in that discussion, without mentioning the name or the words "anarchism", "capitalism" and "socialism".

[James_B]

I'm surprised no one in this thread (from what I've read) has mentioned Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid book. Kropotkin really destroys that stupid capitalistic propaganda idea that humans (& other animals) are entirely greedy when the fact is, yes greed is apparent in our species but humans & other animals are more inclined to cooperate in order for the species to evolve & survive than to compete amongst themselves.

Well, Kropotkin was a decent biologist, but here we try to avoid getting into political topics and debates (at least too obviously ), for reasons I'm sure you can understand.

E.g. "ecovillages and spirituality" could pass the nose of the mod, and you could put loads of Kropotkin in that discussion, without mentioning the name or the words "anarchism", "capitalism" and "socialism".

Haha, for sure. For me, Kropotkin's my biggest influence regarding socioeconomics & futurism. I think more people who consider themselves non-physicalists (as well as progressives) should read his Mutual Aid book.

I recall in the old Metaphysical Speculations board that we weren't allowed (or it was heavily discouraged) to talk about economics/politics. I fully acknowledge where those conversations usually lead to but I think most people on this board can indulge in that type of dialogue without resorting to insults right?

[SanteriSatama]

I fully acknowledge where those conversations usually lead to but I think most people on this board can indulge in that type of dialogue without resorting to insults right?

House rules say no.

[DandelionSoul]

Yeah not surprising at all. I never read the book Stone-Age Economics, but it said the same thing: that hunter-gatherer societies worked a helluva lot less than modern society does.

I'm surprised no one in this thread (from what I've read) has mentioned Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid book. Kropotkin really destroys that stupid capitalistic propaganda idea that humans (& other animals) are entirely greedy when the fact is, yes greed is apparent in our species but humans & other animals are more inclined to cooperate in order for the species to evolve & survive than to compete amongst themselves.

It doesn't make sense to me how anyone who considers themselves a non-physicalist could support capitalism. It's an entirely immoral, unethical & unsustainable economic system. Infinite growth on a finite planet, ridiculous.

I've read the bread book and he makes a very similar point, and I tend to agree. Three quick notes about metaphysics and capitalism before I back way the hell off this topic so I don't break The Taboo:

The first is that earliest capitalism came out of ideas that weren't physicalist, but dualist. I'd definitely recommend Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici as a good way into how ideology, metaphysics, and science played together in early capitalism.

The second is that physicalists, it seems to me, ought by rights to be more inclined (or at least as inclined) to push back against the idea of infinite growth

The third is -- have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? If not I heartily recommend it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

A refresher regarding house rules:

Use common sense civility and respect, though sharp exchanges on content are allowed. Character attacks and patterns of disrespectful behaviour to other members will result in comments being pre-moderated, or being banned from the forum after 2 prior infractions, at the discretion of the moderators.

Spamming or trolling will not be tolerated.

All Topics, without exception, must first and foremost pertain to metaphysics, and directly related topics.

If posting topical news articles as the basis for a topic of discussion, the article itself should have some nuanced metaphysical focus and intention written into it, as the basis for any follow up discussion. If the link is to a site that requires a paid subscription to access and assess it, please provide a significant passage from the article that refers to its metaphysical focus and intention.

No promoting of partisan politics, and/or ideological or religious evangelizing, Some leeway will be given in referencing the political implications of certain metaphysical positions, as long as it doesn't degenerate into antagonistic, polarized polemic.

[Jim Cross]

Jim - It's an error to equate hunter-gatherers with older civilizations. Hunter-gatherer survival was based in large part on mobility and population control. Civilizations are sedentary and experience population booms and busts. Also, there's quite a bit of variance in how civilizations used fire. For example, the Amazonian Terra Preta civilizations used fire to enhance soil productivity and sustain large sedentary populations across long periods of time.

Lou, it isn't just civilizations. You saw my links demonstrating hunters and gatherers had booms and busts too with natural variations in food supply. During bust cycles, violence between competing groups is common. The problem with many of the studies of hunter gatherer labor is they have been conducted during times of relative plenty.

The Amazonians had amazing technology to sustain agriculture in what would naturally be a rainforest but keep in mind that those civilizations had to destroy the rainforest too to accomplish what they did. We really don't know for sure whether they had boom and bust cycles or warfare. Many of the Terra Preta fields and their associated settlements were surrounded by a palisades. Those probably weren't constructed for decorative purposes but for defensive ones. That probably means population pressure, resource competition, and warfare were present at various points in ancient Amazonia too.

[Jim Cross]

Romanticizing the Hunter-Gatherer excerpts:

his original estimate of 12-19 hours worked per week did not include food processing, tool making, or general housework, and when such activities were included he estimated that the !Kung worked about 40-44 hours per week.

it is important to note that this does not take into account the difficulty or danger involved in the types of tasks undertaken by hunter-gatherers. It is when you look into the data on mortality rates, and dig through diverse ethnographic accounts, that you realize how badly mistaken claims about an “original affluent society” really are.

They note that “1964 may have been an unusually productive year for bush food,” and compare it with work describing the severe effects of the 1973 environment, “…people were starving, and weight loss and widespread social disruption occurred.” In 1986, Nancy Howell wrote that “…the !Kung are very thin and complain often of hunger, at all times of the year.”4 In Hunter and Habitat in the Central Kalahari Desert, George B. Silberbauer states that, “Undoubtedly Bushmen do succumb in years of very serious drought,” and describes how 37 individuals of another San population, the G/wi, died of dehydration during the drought of 1939.5 And in a 1986 article entitled “Ethnographic Romanticism and the Idea of Human Nature,” Melvin Konner & Marjorie Shostak summed it up well, stating that, “Data on morbidity and mortality, though not necessarily relevant to abundance, certainly made use of the term “affluent” seem inappropriate.”

This may help explain why infant and child mortality among hunter-gatherers tends to be so high. Across hunter-gatherer societies, only about 57% of children born survive to the age of 15. Sedentary populations of forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers, have a greater number of children surviving into adulthood, with 64% and 67%, respectively, surviving to the age of 15.

According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest.

Peaceful to the Warlike,” anthropologist Robert Kelly provides homicide data for 15 hunter-gatherer societies.11 of these 15 societies have homicide rates higher than that of the most violent modern nation, and 14 out of the 15 have homicide rates higher than that of the United States in 2016.

For as long as humans have been around, people the world over have faced similar struggles: getting enough to eat, navigating social relationships, dealing with parasites and disease, raising their young. It’s a nice idea to believe that somewhere deep in the past, or still today in a more remote part of the world, there existed or exists a society that has figured it all out; where everyone is healthy and happy and equal, untouched by the difficulties of modern living. But even if violence, inequality, discrimination, and other social problems are universal and part of human nature, that doesn’t mean their prevalence can’t be reduced. They can and recent trends make this abundantly clear. Denying the scope of the problem, pretending that these social issues are uniquely modern or uniquely Western, or the product of agriculture or capitalism, does not help to fix our contemporary social ills. Instead it leaves us more confused about the causes of these problems, and, consequently, less equipped to solve them.

https://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romant ... -gatherer/