3 ms·

But again, small and medium scale violence in the context of a smaller population means each individual has a substantially higher rate of violence. Which is m

But again, small and medium scale violence in the context of a smaller population means each individual has a substantially higher rate of violence. Which is more violent? 10 people killed out of a tribe of 100? Or 100 people being killed out of a city state of 10,000 people? The latter is 10x more violent in raw numbers, but it's a lower rate of violent death. Yes, agricultural societies had larger populations and had the ability to organize larger armies than hunter gatherers. That's not doubted by anthropologists or historians. The point is that the small scale hunter gatherers violence was still more violent proportional to the population than warfare in agricultural societies.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I’m not sure how you come to those conclusions. You’re talking about brief intermittent literal “sticks and stones” based “warfare.” The entire transition into the neolithic was based on violent and persistent coercive usurpation of land and resources. So what was intermittent became persistent and over arching. For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition. Further warfare itself became larger scale, bloodier and more impactful on your average citizen, with entire populations killed as opposed to people here and there in select group of class. I can tell you that the brutality of modern wars, and when I talk about modern, I’m talking about Rwanda, World War II, the Japanese invasion in China etc… These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet. So neither the scope, type, nor scale of persistent warfare will ever match the period 0-2000AD
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > You’re talking about brief intermittent literal “sticks and stones” based “warfare.” My whole point (and the point of the body of research cited above), is that this "brief intermittent" warfare was, proportionally, more lethal than both agricultural and industrialized warfare. Again, which is deadlier: a group of 10 people killed out of a society of 100 people. Or a group of 100 people killed out of a society of 100,000 people? Yes, warfare with literal sticks and stones kills fewer people than organized agricultural armies. But pre-agricultural populations were so much smaller that the proportion of people killed violently was larger than in agricultural societies. > For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition. About a quarter of hunter-gatherer societies practices hereditary slavery [1], so this is also applicable to hunter gatherers. >These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet. They were unmatched in absolute terms because populations of agricultural societies were way larger than hunter gatherers. Again, in proportional terms, pre-agricultural societies were substantially more violent. The takes you're describing here were popular from the 1950s through around the 1970s, and it's easy to see why the "noble savage" perspective was compelling: If humankind was inherently good and peaceful, and it was society that made humanity into violent beings then we could undo these changes. But after evidence about pre-agricultural violence became more clear, this view has become a lot less popular outside of activist academics. It's sobering to realize that the 20th century was the most peaceful century in human existence so far, but that's the academic consensus. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Don’t put words in my mouth, I never made the noble savage argument and never will. I also disagree with your calculus. 1 million deaths is worse than 10 irrespective of the overall denominator. Even if I granted your hypothesis, there are more people pervasively living under coercive threat of death than any other time in history. However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here: https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html So far every expert in this field that reads it thinks it is likely correct. To wit, Riane Eisler read this and asked me to edit and submit the IJPS so I expect (hope) that it will take off from there and real anthropologists can test the hypothesis further to give it more power.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      To be clear, the "noble savage" trope I'm referring to is the idea that pre-agricultural societies were substantially less violent than agricultural and industrial societies. This does indeed seem to be the claims you're making. Your thesis focuses almost entirely on resource scarcity, not the prevalence of violence. > However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here: And your claim has a massive hole in its logic: Proportionally (that is, how many people out of 1000 died violently) violence decreased with the advent of agriculture, not increased. The violence that did exist was larger in scale but so were populations. Violence became less pervasive with the advent of agriculture, not more. Your claims are based on the false premise that agricultural societies were more violent than hunter-gatherer societies. The idea that violence was less pervasive in pre-agricultural societies was the popular view (the Rousseauan view, if you've read the literature) for a while up until the 1970s. But it is pretty firmly contradicted by the available evidence we have today. Both archaeological and case studies of existing hunter gatherer populations show rates of violence substantially larger than both agricultural societies, and industrial societies - on the order of 5-10x more violent than the 20th century despite two world wars. You can still find academics that insist on the Rousseauan views on hunter-gatherers, because they've used that assumption as the foundation for a large body of their work. But that doesn't make it true.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

I’m not sure how you come to those conclusions. You’re talking about brief intermittent literal “sticks and stones” based “warfare.” The entire transition into the neolithic was based on violent and persistent coercive usurpation of land and resources. So what was intermittent became persistent and over arching. For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition. Further warfare itself became larger scale, bloodier and more impactful on your average citizen, with entire populations killed as opposed to people here and there in select group of class. I can tell you that the brutality of modern wars, and when I talk about modern, I’m talking about Rwanda, World War II, the Japanese invasion in China etc… These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet. So neither the scope, type, nor scale of persistent warfare will ever match the period 0-2000AD

Manuel_D 3y ago
> You’re talking about brief intermittent literal “sticks and stones” based “warfare.” My whole point (and the point of the body of research cited above), is that this "brief intermittent" warfare was, proportionally, more lethal than both agricultural and industrialized warfare. Again, which is deadlier: a group of 10 people killed out of a society of 100 people. Or a group of 100 people killed out of a society of 100,000 people? Yes, warfare with literal sticks and stones kills fewer people than organized agricultural armies. But pre-agricultural populations were so much smaller that the proportion of people killed violently was larger than in agricultural societies. > For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition. About a quarter of hunter-gatherer societies practices hereditary slavery [1], so this is also applicable to hunter gatherers. >These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet. They were unmatched in absolute terms because populations of agricultural societies were way larger than hunter gatherers. Again, in proportional terms, pre-agricultural societies were substantially more violent. The takes you're describing here were popular from the 1950s through around the 1970s, and it's easy to see why the "noble savage" perspective was compelling: If humankind was inherently good and peaceful, and it was society that made humanity into violent beings then we could undo these changes. But after evidence about pre-agricultural violence became more clear, this view has become a lot less popular outside of activist academics. It's sobering to realize that the 20th century was the most peaceful century in human existence so far, but that's the academic consensus. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Don’t put words in my mouth, I never made the noble savage argument and never will. I also disagree with your calculus. 1 million deaths is worse than 10 irrespective of the overall denominator. Even if I granted your hypothesis, there are more people pervasively living under coercive threat of death than any other time in history. However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here: https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html So far every expert in this field that reads it thinks it is likely correct. To wit, Riane Eisler read this and asked me to edit and submit the IJPS so I expect (hope) that it will take off from there and real anthropologists can test the hypothesis further to give it more power.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    To be clear, the "noble savage" trope I'm referring to is the idea that pre-agricultural societies were substantially less violent than agricultural and industrial societies. This does indeed seem to be the claims you're making. Your thesis focuses almost entirely on resource scarcity, not the prevalence of violence. > However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here: And your claim has a massive hole in its logic: Proportionally (that is, how many people out of 1000 died violently) violence decreased with the advent of agriculture, not increased. The violence that did exist was larger in scale but so were populations. Violence became less pervasive with the advent of agriculture, not more. Your claims are based on the false premise that agricultural societies were more violent than hunter-gatherer societies. The idea that violence was less pervasive in pre-agricultural societies was the popular view (the Rousseauan view, if you've read the literature) for a while up until the 1970s. But it is pretty firmly contradicted by the available evidence we have today. Both archaeological and case studies of existing hunter gatherer populations show rates of violence substantially larger than both agricultural societies, and industrial societies - on the order of 5-10x more violent than the 20th century despite two world wars. You can still find academics that insist on the Rousseauan views on hunter-gatherers, because they've used that assumption as the foundation for a large body of their work. But that doesn't make it true.