3 ms·
What I miss in accounts like this, is how very intimate groups of equals are fostering uniform beliefs and thinking, very often in oppressive manner. I suspect
by rini17 5y ago
What I miss in accounts like this, is how very intimate groups of equals are fostering uniform beliefs and thinking, very often in oppressive manner. I suspect that there were enough people with creative urges that did not fit there. They, even without desire to have power over others, still supported the emerging political powers in exchange for freedom to think, create, tinker. Not having the notion of property - when anyone can take anything from you at any time - makes tinkering difficult, too. So they might have shifted the balance toward inequality.
- Iasluhar 5y agoI think your points are true if we consider the last 2000 years but the article basically points out on why the transformation happened before that time(12000 years ago). If we consider hunters and foragers at that time, the oppression on creativity might not work and in my opinion is more free and real(no monetary benefit). At that time only thing they might have cared is, whether there is enough food for themselves and their families. Sure, there might be differences in physical strengths a little bit, but I don't think that would be such a big offset.
- rini17 5y ago(I have misunderstood your comment, rewritten it). I wrote about tipping the scales, not about primary cause. Yes hunter-gatherer societies might be freer for the creativity too, if there are the natural resources. But it also means very low population density and thus fewer people to exchange ideas with.
- Iasluhar 5y agoOh okay, got it. Yea that's true, there should have been plenty of resources and low population. In that case exchanging ideas is indeed difficult.