3 ms·

I don't find this kind of comment helpful. Humans do awful things and also do wonderful things. Probably very few people reading this live in anarchy, and the g

by mmooss 2y ago

I don't find this kind of comment helpful. Humans do awful things and also do wonderful things. Probably very few people reading this live in anarchy, and the great majority live in peaceful, prosperous, and free place where rights are protected - humans did that and do that. The issue is, how do we do more of the latter? To say it never happens and/or it's hopeless is obviously false and contributes nothing.

singularity2001 2y ago
I believe such comment might be helpful if only you envision that before the 'rogue state switch' 4000 BC people were much more peaceful (still debated, but you can fantasize!)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Nevermark 2y ago
  Hard to measure “peaceful” relative to now in contexts without the structures we have that let us trust each other more. I.e. we don’t need to be constantly paranoid strangers we run into won’t resolve the same inability to trust dilemma they have with us, by being first to violence. I.e. People could have been generally peace loving, not prone to violence in their familiar communities, but still situationally more provoked beyond those communities. Both more peaceful & more violent isn’t a contradiction.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > still debated Is there any strong evidence at all supporting that hypothesis? Besides lower population density = less interaction/violence I don’t think there is anything that would let us to conclude that “pre-civilization” people were less violent.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  It's pretty well established that the vast majority of hunter-gatherer societies saw a much larger proportion of the population die from violence than typically seen in more advanced types of societies.
BirAdam 2y ago
People always over emphasize negatives. As a species, we always want to know about risks that we may better remain alive. So, we notice them more. The good things that happen, people don’t always emphasize. This also means that the good outcomes are studied less and thus harder to replicate.
johnea 2y ago
So it contributes nothing, for you? Amazingly though, you found it enough of a contribution to spend your time in reply. Let me quote from the original article: > "This suggests that the newcomers exterminated the men in the farming and hunter-gatherer populations they encountered, while incorporating the surviving women into their community" They "incorporated" the women, uh huh... > In other places, “it’s a process of almost no mixture with the previous people, who just disappear” So in places where the women were more resistant to "incorporation" they were killed along with the men. Oh, no they weren't all killed, they "just disappear". We do love our euphemisms don't we 8-/ I don't want to be a detractor from having happy fantasies about this, but it seems to me they're pretty much like every human culture: the one who kills all the others is in charge. While this may have been a beneficial survival strategy in prehistory, overcoming this is on what the future survival of our species depends. That's the idea I'm trying to contribute. Sorry this wasn't helpful enough for you... I'll try harder next time...

by mmooss 2y ago

singularity2001 2y ago

I believe such comment might be helpful if only you envision that before the 'rogue state switch' 4000 BC people were much more peaceful (still debated, but you can fantasize!)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Nevermark 2y ago
Hard to measure “peaceful” relative to now in contexts without the structures we have that let us trust each other more. I.e. we don’t need to be constantly paranoid strangers we run into won’t resolve the same inability to trust dilemma they have with us, by being first to violence. I.e. People could have been generally peace loving, not prone to violence in their familiar communities, but still situationally more provoked beyond those communities. Both more peaceful & more violent isn’t a contradiction.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> still debated Is there any strong evidence at all supporting that hypothesis? Besides lower population density = less interaction/violence I don’t think there is anything that would let us to conclude that “pre-civilization” people were less violent.
ETH_start 2y ago
It's pretty well established that the vast majority of hunter-gatherer societies saw a much larger proportion of the population die from violence than typically seen in more advanced types of societies.

BirAdam 2y ago

People always over emphasize negatives. As a species, we always want to know about risks that we may better remain alive. So, we notice them more. The good things that happen, people don’t always emphasize. This also means that the good outcomes are studied less and thus harder to replicate.

johnea 2y ago

So it contributes nothing, for you? Amazingly though, you found it enough of a contribution to spend your time in reply. Let me quote from the original article: > "This suggests that the newcomers exterminated the men in the farming and hunter-gatherer populations they encountered, while incorporating the surviving women into their community" They "incorporated" the women, uh huh... > In other places, “it’s a process of almost no mixture with the previous people, who just disappear” So in places where the women were more resistant to "incorporation" they were killed along with the men. Oh, no they weren't all killed, they "just disappear". We do love our euphemisms don't we 8-/ I don't want to be a detractor from having happy fantasies about this, but it seems to me they're pretty much like every human culture: the one who kills all the others is in charge. While this may have been a beneficial survival strategy in prehistory, overcoming this is on what the future survival of our species depends. That's the idea I'm trying to contribute. Sorry this wasn't helpful enough for you... I'll try harder next time...