11 ms·

If social community/communal existence is an essential requirement, then how do you explain the past several thousand years, where civilization has come to domi

If social community/communal existence is an essential requirement, then how do you explain the past several thousand years, where civilization has come to dominate, and the human population has grown to 8 billion? Civilization didn't just develop in the middle east, it cropped up separately in several different regions, including the Americas.

ves 4y ago
Competition in its recognizably modern form only recently became the foundational organizational system for civilization, and civilization “won” because (in part) a) it generally has no problem deploying incredible levels of violence and coercion, against people and the environment, and b) it promotes continuous population increase, even beyond what may be sustainable. There’s about a million places to source this, but I might start with something like James C. Scott.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Competition for resources and violence is seen in primates and many mammals. Smaller social groups does not necessarily remove this element. The main difference with humans is that we are capable of organizing and coordinating larger social structures. Large Organizations of individuals require other large organizations to defend against
- goatlover 4y ago
  Tribal groups did also compete, and our hominid cousins, several of who were around the same time as modern humans, went extinct.
AndrewKemendo 4y ago
I'm excited you asked as I have a theory that is getting real traction that answers precisely that: https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  How do you address desirable goods that are really scarce? Such as downtown penthouses, beachfront property, spectrum licenses, etc... Since there will always be some fraction of the population who will desire to gamble the shirt on their backs for a chance at a larger prize.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    You are implicitly asking "Who decides how much is enough" As I say in the paper "There exists no regularized measure of relative deprivation that can be agreed on across all cultures and all time periods." I have no solution to the problem of relative consumption, I am simply suggesting that it is fundamentally destructive in the current structure. The only thing I can think of is to create systems that do not incentivize the risk taking behavior as you describe (and I was/am probably the most extreme version of what you describe by the way). My personal answer is to minimize my consumption as much as possible while still being able to carry out my personal values until I die. I have no advice for anyone else as I don't know what their circumstances are.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I can't see how this desire is 'fundamentally destructive in the current structure'. Beaches, frequency bandwidths, etc., will exist regardless of whatever form human organizational structure takes. Any workable system will have to address how they will be allocated, since they can't be shared 8 billion ways.
      - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
        In the paper it is laid out carefully. Said simply: Every watt of energy that goes to creating bullets is a watt not being used on creating and distributing necessary goods to those in the most need. That is how it is fundamentally destructive - The pie is fixed to the productive capacity of the planet. Every beanie baby created crowds out healthcare in rural missouri. The workable system is one where we memetically return to sharing economies via example and not coercive force. I think it's going to take centuries of non-violent mutual aid and cooperative organizations that do not follow into the trap of strict excludability, for us to get back to peace and health. These organizations and societies exist at small scales and often temporally at large scale (Think Sept 12th etc...), we just need more people to do it all the time everywhere. That's actually kinda all we need to do. Unfortunately we have 12000 years of trauma we're all reacting to so it's layers upon layers of structural and emotional fear.

ves 4y ago

Competition in its recognizably modern form only recently became the foundational organizational system for civilization, and civilization “won” because (in part) a) it generally has no problem deploying incredible levels of violence and coercion, against people and the environment, and b) it promotes continuous population increase, even beyond what may be sustainable. There’s about a million places to source this, but I might start with something like James C. Scott.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Competition for resources and violence is seen in primates and many mammals. Smaller social groups does not necessarily remove this element. The main difference with humans is that we are capable of organizing and coordinating larger social structures. Large Organizations of individuals require other large organizations to defend against
goatlover 4y ago
Tribal groups did also compete, and our hominid cousins, several of who were around the same time as modern humans, went extinct.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

I'm excited you asked as I have a theory that is getting real traction that answers precisely that: https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf

MichaelZuo 4y ago
How do you address desirable goods that are really scarce? Such as downtown penthouses, beachfront property, spectrum licenses, etc... Since there will always be some fraction of the population who will desire to gamble the shirt on their backs for a chance at a larger prize.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  You are implicitly asking "Who decides how much is enough" As I say in the paper "There exists no regularized measure of relative deprivation that can be agreed on across all cultures and all time periods." I have no solution to the problem of relative consumption, I am simply suggesting that it is fundamentally destructive in the current structure. The only thing I can think of is to create systems that do not incentivize the risk taking behavior as you describe (and I was/am probably the most extreme version of what you describe by the way). My personal answer is to minimize my consumption as much as possible while still being able to carry out my personal values until I die. I have no advice for anyone else as I don't know what their circumstances are.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    I can't see how this desire is 'fundamentally destructive in the current structure'. Beaches, frequency bandwidths, etc., will exist regardless of whatever form human organizational structure takes. Any workable system will have to address how they will be allocated, since they can't be shared 8 billion ways.
    - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
      In the paper it is laid out carefully. Said simply: Every watt of energy that goes to creating bullets is a watt not being used on creating and distributing necessary goods to those in the most need. That is how it is fundamentally destructive - The pie is fixed to the productive capacity of the planet. Every beanie baby created crowds out healthcare in rural missouri. The workable system is one where we memetically return to sharing economies via example and not coercive force. I think it's going to take centuries of non-violent mutual aid and cooperative organizations that do not follow into the trap of strict excludability, for us to get back to peace and health. These organizations and societies exist at small scales and often temporally at large scale (Think Sept 12th etc...), we just need more people to do it all the time everywhere. That's actually kinda all we need to do. Unfortunately we have 12000 years of trauma we're all reacting to so it's layers upon layers of structural and emotional fear.