7 ms·

> Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of d

> Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of debt to manage the social fabric and facilitate the exchange of goods and services. I would say it is the opposite. Looking back at the millenia of human history, it is people migrating. Successive waves out of Africa and across the continents, and everywhere else, constantly moving in order to live more "free". Whether that is for more resources, or away from conflict within a family or tribe, or from without, with organized religions and governments, etc. Only recently have we stopped because, frankly, there is no place to go. We can still move around cities and countries (and that can help if you are escaping family or tribal issues), but most of the places we can go to are largely the same. If you have a problem with this economy, the proliferation of petro chemicals and other toxins, etc, there isn't really anywhere you can go to escape. The folks who leave or want to leave are often characterized as losers, loners, etc, and from the point of the view of the people who are happy with the situation that they are trying to escape, they are losers- but that is exactly why they are trying to escape.

ethanbond 3y ago
1) a community that moves is still a community. A loner that moves around, by contrast, is usually dead within a week or two. 2) we didn’t stop moving around because there’s nowhere else to go. There is a huge amount of totally unpopulated (by humans) land in nearly every region. We don’t choose to live out there because it sucks. We stopped moving around because we discovered that instead of chasing food down all over the place, you can grow food right near you, then you can pick your favorite little bend in the river to shack up and live out your days with your buddies.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  > We stopped moving around because we discovered that instead of chasing food down all over the place, you can grow foor right near you... If that was all there was to it, why did we keep migrating after the agricultural revolution?
  - rebolek 3y ago
    Because of changes in the environment.
    - beedeebeedee 3y ago
      But just as importantly, changes in the community (which I suppose we could call the social environment). That has been as significant a driver for migration as changes in the natural environment if not more. Most migrations in the last few hundred years that I am aware of were driven by social issues (economic, political, religious, etc), and not from natural environmental changes. I.e., Ireland's Great Hunger was not an environmentally driven exodus, even if a potato blight was involved.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    For the same reason people still move and still found new towns and grow the borders of cities today? Because there are new places to go, and they might be better than the current place?
    - beedeebeedee 3y ago
      > they might be better than the current place? I think you are agreeing with me. People leave communities when they are not prospering within them.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        > Only recently have we stopped because, frankly, there is no place to go This is what I was disputing. We haven’t stopped, and to the extent that we have, it’s not because there’s no place to go.
        beedeebeedee 3y ago
        Yeah, I think I'd mostly agree with you then. I think we are not moving around as much as we used to, and to many people, it feels as if we cannot move; either because we lack the funds to survive there if we do, or because it will just be more of the same. That is obviously a biased view on my part, because there are migrants moving from "developing" countries to the US and EU all the time- clearly, they believe they have some place to go that will be better. My agenda in replying to the original comment is that this desire to move is not abnormal. It is as much a part of human history as building community is. I wanted to point that out, because I am familiar with many well-intentioned and well-off people not understanding (and even feeling contempt) for people who wish to leave their community. If you are not happy, and not prospering within a community, why would you want to stay? I don't know if understanding the roots of that dissatisfaction will help us achieve a kinder gentler society, but at least it might help them no longer refer to those people as loners or losers (and have a little empathy and understanding).
watwut 3y ago
The average human did not moved anywhere majority of the history and the groups on the move typically stopped moving when they found a place they could settle in. Migration waves happened, but those were notable events cause by something rather then norm. They also usually or often involved people moving in groups rather then alone.
- dsq 3y ago
  Those who lost the war ran away to avoid being eradicated.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  > The average human did not moved anywhere majority of the history and the groups on the move typically stopped moving when they found a place they could settle in. First thing, there really is no 'average' human that you can speak of without extensive qualifications about what you mean. An enormous amount of people lived their lives nomadically up until recently. I don't just mean in North America but across Siberia into Europe, as well as in Africa and Australia and many other places. If you go by sheer quantity of people (starting with anatomically modern humans) that would outweigh any sedentary people.
huytersd 3y ago
Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  > Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did. Single individuals did, but my comment was really about individuals or subcommunities leaving the larger commmunity when it became too oppressive.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Depends on the time period. Single individuals crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower. Single individuals helped colonize the new world.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    Yes, I tend to call 1000 single individuals traveling together a community or group.
    - pauldenton 3y ago
      Single as in Not Married, with no kids. Not like a single person colonizing a continent. One person can make a house, not a nation.
dsq 3y ago
War and persecution

ethanbond 3y ago

1) a community that moves is still a community. A loner that moves around, by contrast, is usually dead within a week or two. 2) we didn’t stop moving around because there’s nowhere else to go. There is a huge amount of totally unpopulated (by humans) land in nearly every region. We don’t choose to live out there because it sucks. We stopped moving around because we discovered that instead of chasing food down all over the place, you can grow food right near you, then you can pick your favorite little bend in the river to shack up and live out your days with your buddies.

beedeebeedee 3y ago
> We stopped moving around because we discovered that instead of chasing food down all over the place, you can grow foor right near you... If that was all there was to it, why did we keep migrating after the agricultural revolution?
- rebolek 3y ago
  Because of changes in the environment.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    But just as importantly, changes in the community (which I suppose we could call the social environment). That has been as significant a driver for migration as changes in the natural environment if not more. Most migrations in the last few hundred years that I am aware of were driven by social issues (economic, political, religious, etc), and not from natural environmental changes. I.e., Ireland's Great Hunger was not an environmentally driven exodus, even if a potato blight was involved.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  For the same reason people still move and still found new towns and grow the borders of cities today? Because there are new places to go, and they might be better than the current place?
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    > they might be better than the current place? I think you are agreeing with me. People leave communities when they are not prospering within them.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > Only recently have we stopped because, frankly, there is no place to go This is what I was disputing. We haven’t stopped, and to the extent that we have, it’s not because there’s no place to go.
      - beedeebeedee 3y ago
        Yeah, I think I'd mostly agree with you then. I think we are not moving around as much as we used to, and to many people, it feels as if we cannot move; either because we lack the funds to survive there if we do, or because it will just be more of the same. That is obviously a biased view on my part, because there are migrants moving from "developing" countries to the US and EU all the time- clearly, they believe they have some place to go that will be better. My agenda in replying to the original comment is that this desire to move is not abnormal. It is as much a part of human history as building community is. I wanted to point that out, because I am familiar with many well-intentioned and well-off people not understanding (and even feeling contempt) for people who wish to leave their community. If you are not happy, and not prospering within a community, why would you want to stay? I don't know if understanding the roots of that dissatisfaction will help us achieve a kinder gentler society, but at least it might help them no longer refer to those people as loners or losers (and have a little empathy and understanding).

watwut 3y ago

The average human did not moved anywhere majority of the history and the groups on the move typically stopped moving when they found a place they could settle in. Migration waves happened, but those were notable events cause by something rather then norm. They also usually or often involved people moving in groups rather then alone.

dsq 3y ago
Those who lost the war ran away to avoid being eradicated.
beedeebeedee 3y ago
> The average human did not moved anywhere majority of the history and the groups on the move typically stopped moving when they found a place they could settle in. First thing, there really is no 'average' human that you can speak of without extensive qualifications about what you mean. An enormous amount of people lived their lives nomadically up until recently. I don't just mean in North America but across Siberia into Europe, as well as in Africa and Australia and many other places. If you go by sheer quantity of people (starting with anatomically modern humans) that would outweigh any sedentary people.

huytersd 3y ago

Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did.

beedeebeedee 3y ago
> Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did. Single individuals did, but my comment was really about individuals or subcommunities leaving the larger commmunity when it became too oppressive.
pauldenton 3y ago
Depends on the time period. Single individuals crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower. Single individuals helped colonize the new world.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Yes, I tend to call 1000 single individuals traveling together a community or group.
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    Single as in Not Married, with no kids. Not like a single person colonizing a continent. One person can make a house, not a nation.

dsq 3y ago

War and persecution