Feminism Ad Nauseum

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Angryman101:
This was still incredibly inefficient in comparison to hunting, but providing food to a community gave rise to trade. Trades such as providing a permanent sexual mate in return for food.

Or... they had a more reliable source of food and were less likely to starve to death.

Let's look at it mathematically. Let's say some hunters take down a 300 pound gazelle. That is around 260 pounds of food,

That's a lot of bullshit right there. I checked. The rule of thumb is that the average deer in the US will yield only about 50% of its dressed weight in edible, boneless meat. Dressed by the way means skinned and prepared for butchering. I can't imagine that the yield is that much higher on rabbits or antelope. A Thompson's gazelle would be the weakest bag of the bunch when you think of ungulates, weighing an average of only about 20-odd lbs. In which case we're looking at about... 6-8 lbs of usable meat per gazelle, give or take. Leopards subsisting entirely on the damn things have to kill just over one a week to keep themselves healthy enough to keep hunting. To get about 260 lbs of meat, you'd had have to go after a very large specimen of a male Sable antelope, and those are only found in South Africa. Large game in North America for a similar yield would be elk and buffalo.

Hunter-gatherer tribes still hunt because there are useful things you can get off of an animal other than meat, such as hide for clothing and bones for tools and weapons. The Sioux you mentioned would use buffalo scrotum to make rattles and some of the Iroquois tribes used deer horn to make spurs for their war clubs. When it came to food however, the Iroquois did eat game, but also a lot of vegetables, corn and fish, the latter owing to the large number of rivers in the American Northeast. In fact, fish actually have a higher percentage of edible meat than game mammals and birds. Most fish will yield between 50-60% of their dressed weight in usable meat.

that is the result of one afternoon of hunting, which humans were notoriously efficient at.

That assumes the hunt was successful, which wasn't as common as you might think. Trapping was a better way to get small game. For larger game, hunting was problematic. Animals like deer are way faster than us, and hunting with a bow and arrow means you could be stalking a wounded animal for over a day before it finally keeled over or you got another shot. And larger game like buffalo were just as likely to charge and gore you. And if you only wounded it and it escaped, you could be stalking that herd for a week waiting to finish the job.

Mind, this is also beside the fact that the American Indian tribes in the American West didn't farm as much some of their neighbors because the land wasn't as arable as places like the East Coast. On the opposite side of the coin, there are some regions of the world where farming produces such a high yield, that any form of hunting other than fishing is largely a waste. When the tsunamis hit Southeast Asia these last few years, relief workers had to remind people not to send things like Spam, canned chicken, etc. The people had been eating fruits, vegetables and fish for so long that their stomachs couldn't handle most types of meat anymore.

Please tell me which of these is more fucking efficient.

As I pointed out above, hunting was not a sure thing either. And I'm going to go ahead and guess you've never hunted in your life.

See above.

Dude, were you aware of what agricultural conditions were like in the Fertile Crescent? Or along the banks of the Nile? Flood plains are some of the best places to cultivate crops. Yeah, it's labor intensive. But no more so than having to stalk a wounded deer for 48 fucking hours and only getting about 40 lbs of usable meat out of the damn thing. Note by the way that 40 lbs is the average.

Fuck, in ancient Egypt people ate more grains, vegetables and fruits than they did meat. Same with ancient Greece and Rome. Agriculture had a higher yield than plain old hunting.

And don't even get me bloody started on animal husbandry.

Your argument falls apart because your math sucks and you're turning a blind eye to environmental factors.

DrVornoff:

Or... they had a more reliable source of food and were less likely to starve to death.

Reliable? The success of agriculture was completely dependent on weather, soil quality, and the lack of disease or pests.

That's a lot of bullshit right there. I checked. The rule of thumb is that the average deer in the US will yield only about 50% of its dressed weight in edible, boneless meat. Dressed by the way means skinned and prepared for butchering. I can't imagine that the yield is that much higher on rabbits or antelope.

Hunter-gatherer tribes still hunt because there are useful things you can get off of an animal other than meat, such as hide for clothing and bones for tools and weapons. The Sioux you mentioned would use buffalo scrotum to make rattles and some of the Iroquois tribes used deer horn to make spurs for their war clubs. When it came to food however, the Iroquois did eat game, but also a lot of vegetables, corn and fish, the latter owing to the large number of rivers in the American Northeast.

Ok, then 150 pounds of food. That's 3 days of 5 pounds of food for a tribe of 10. Then you get hides, bones, and other useful materials with which to make tools and make your hunting even more efficient.
And you're right, a significant amount of hunting required hours of running after a kill. That's what the human body evolved to do, hunt down prey until it collapsed from exhaustion. At full speed, a less specialized animal can only last a couple minutes before it has to slow down, and maybe a couple hours before it has to stop completely. People, with the capacity to carry water gourds and food supplies in their hands/on their belts, were much better suited to this. Hunts typically lasted around a day.
As I mentioned earlier, men were nomadic until they came upon an environment that could sustain populations without moving. In the Pacific northwest, for instance, the rocky coast was rife with sealife. Tribes camped out on the same spot for much of the year, and defended their territory viciously.
Humans were first and foremost creatures of the plain, however, and hunters. Why else would they cross over to north america if not to follow the herds?

That assumes the hunt was successful, which wasn't as common as you might think. Trapping was a better way to get small game. For larger game, hunting was problematic. Animals like deer are way faster than us, and hunting with a bow and arrow means you could be stalking a wounded animal for over a day before it finally keeled over or you got another shot. And larger game like buffalo were just as likely to charge and gore you.

Mind, this is also beside the fact that the American Indian tribes in the American West didn't farm as much some of their neighbors because the land wasn't as arable as places like the East Coast.

Yes, hunting wasn't 100%. But, again, humans were incredibly efficient at it due to their advanced brains and long-distance capable bodies. And I don't think you know how herd animals work- for animals that humans typically hunted, they are more likely to run than to fight, unless cornered. Hunting strategies adjusted accordingly for this.
Again, agriculture was an INTENSELY time consuming process to develop. Corn was initially a tiny plant, barely capable of giving much caloric value, until humans began influencing its growth. This process took hundreds of years, if not thousands. Once it was able to sustain a population, society would spring up around it, and with society came marriage. The benefits of society, which included marriage for men, won out against the less efficient nature of farming.

As I pointed out above, hunting was not a sure thing either. And I'm going to go ahead and guess you've never hunted in your life.

Nothing is a sure thing. Hunting was more efficient and reliable in the infantile stages of agriculture, but agriculture held beneficial societal elements that was eventually able to offset this efficiency gap.

Dude, were you aware of what agricultural conditions were like in the Fertile Crescent? Or along the banks of the Nile? Flood plains are some of the best places to cultivate crops. Yeah, it's labor intensive. But no more so than having to stalk a wounded deer for 48 fucking hours and only getting about 40 lbs of usable meat out of the damn thing. Note by the way that 40 lbs is the average.

Fuck, in ancient Egypt people ate more grains, vegetables and fruits than they did meat. Same with ancient Greece and Rome. Agriculture had a higher yield than plain old hunting.

And don't even get me bloody started on animal husbandry.

Your argument falls apart because your math sucks and you're turning a blind eye to environmental factors.

Buffalos are 1000 pounds. 500 pounds of meat for a successful hunt, along with tools to craft new weapons and materials. That is 10 days of 5 pounds of food a day for a single afternoon's (hunts rarely lasted more than a day when the vast herds of the previous ice ages were still around) work. The body rewards running with a high, and animal meat and organs are chock full of the things humans need for a nutritional diet.
Now, compare this to farming. Days upon days, weeks upon weeks of backbreaking work for food that holds shit nutritional value. Why would this be worth more than a rewarding life of nomadic tribesmanship?
The benefits gleaned from a rise in society. Marriage. As technology developed and farming became more efficient, even more benefits arose. But initially, all that powered the development of agriculture was the promise of regular sex for lower-quality men.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Angryman101:

theonewhois3:

Civilisation 'developed' to distribute products of newly discovered processes. Like farming.

Oh? Why would people settle down in order to put in hundreds of times more work into farming and crop raising when it was infinitely more efficient to hunt and gather? A single hunt could potentially feed a small villiage for a week; a typical harvest takes MONTHS of back-breaking labor to provide food for one season that doesn't even have an equal nutritional value.

Because hunter-gatherer work is far more uncertain? Because subsisting entirely on venison is a great way to get lots of lovely medical conditions? Because eventually you'll hunt to extinction? Because hunting - despite how you make it sound - actually isn't that easy, especially when you're using sharpened bits of sticks and thrown rocks to try and bring animals down?

You are aware they didn't have guns in 100,000 B.C., right?

Far more uncertain: don't make me laugh.
Subsisting entirely etc.: That's why it's called hunting and gathering. And red meat consumption being bad for you hasn't been consistently proven.
Hunting and ease: Nobody said it was easy, but you'd be surprised at how adept humans were at hunting. It was never a sure thing, but humans were remarkably efficient at it. They wouldn't have been able to spread world-wide following herds if they weren't. And thrown rocks? Are you fucking kidding me? You vastly underestimate humans as predators.

Angryman101:
Reliable? The success of agriculture was completely dependent on weather, soil quality, and the lack of disease or pests.

Same with hunting. If plants had a problem, grazers would move on as their numbers dwindled. That's why the tribes were nomadic.

Also, part of agriculture means having control over the environment. The gardens in Lake Texcoco? Man-made. The terrace farms of the Andes? Man-made. And even then, there are still areas where farming is all but a sure thing, like the flood plains of the Nile.

Ok, then 150 pounds of food.

Again, I said dressed. So it would be more like 100-115.

That's 3 days of 5 pounds of food for a tribe of 10.

Because of course, everyone knows that the Sioux nation was only like, what? Fifty people at most? And the Aztecs? Not that impressive. When the Spanish showed up, it was only like 20 dudes.

Then you get hides, bones, and other useful materials with which to make tools and make your hunting even more efficient.

You're still hunting with a bow and arrow. That's never going to be as efficient as a gun.

And you're right, a significant amount of hunting required hours of running after a kill.

Try days.

That's what the human body evolved to do, hunt down prey until it collapsed from exhaustion.

Not really, no. We're more inclined to be sprinters. Wolves were designed for distance.

At full speed, a less specialized animal can only last a couple minutes before it has to slow down, and maybe a couple hours before it has to stop completely. People, with the capacity to carry water gourds and food supplies in their hands/on their belts, were much better suited to this. Hunts typically lasted around a day.

Stalking is not the same thing as chasing. I think you know this, you just won't admit it.

As I mentioned earlier, men were nomadic until they came upon an environment that could sustain populations without moving. In the Pacific northwest, for instance, the rocky coast was rife with sealife. Tribes camped out on the same spot for much of the year, and defended their territory viciously.
Humans were first and foremost creatures of the plain, however, and hunters. Why else would they cross over to north america if not to follow the herds?

Because they didn't have farming technology? Behold! Logic!

Yes, hunting wasn't 100%.

Case closed!

But, again, humans were incredibly efficient at it due to their advanced brains and long-distance capable bodies. And I don't think you know how herd animals work- for animals that humans typically hunted, they are more likely to run than to fight, unless cornered. Hunting strategies adjusted accordingly for this.

Never denied the herding thing. That was you own assumption.

And no, humans were not as efficient at first as you would think. The most efficient predators in the world among non-humans are African wild dogs who have an 80% success rate on hunts. They are even better at long-distance running than humans and set up ambushes and other clever strategies. The only reason humans were as good as they were is because they learned to use the same tactics.

Again, agriculture was an INTENSELY time consuming process to develop. Corn was initially a tiny plant, barely capable of giving much caloric value, until humans began influencing its growth. This process took hundreds of years, if not thousands. Once it was able to sustain a population, society would spring up around it, and with society came marriage. The benefits of society, which included marriage for men, won out against the less efficient nature of farming.

I'm losing track of what your goddamn point was supposed to be.

Nothing is a sure thing. Hunting was more efficient and reliable in the infantile stages of agriculture, but agriculture held beneficial societal elements that was eventually able to offset this efficiency gap.

Actually, you know what's really efficient? Fishing. The average fish yields about 60% of its dressed boy weight in edible meat. In the time it took to stalk and kill a wounded dear, you could get the same yield of food from a river or sea in fish with less energy and resources exerted.

Buffalos are 1000 pounds. 500 pounds of meat for a successful hunt,

Try 300. Again, your math is bullshit. The tribes of the Great Plains went after small game far more often than buffalo because a buffalo hunt was dangerous, prolonged and took a lot of resources.

The body rewards running with a high,

And you don't think that might have been a benefit in trying to outrun something that could eat you?

and animal meat and organs are chock full of the things humans need for a nutritional diet.

Kinda makes you wonder how vegetarians are capable of existing, huh?

Why would this be worth more than a rewarding life of nomadic tribesmanship?

The fact that you're doing it right now?

But initially, all that powered the development of agriculture was the promise of regular sex for lower-quality men.

You have yet to prove that. And I don't think you will because even though I don't hunt, I still know more about hunting and agriculture than you do. And you still haven't addressed animal husbandry.

TheIronRuler:

Polarity27:

TheIronRuler:

There are more men raped in the USA then there are women raped. It's prison rape, ladies and gentlemen, and it is mighty uncomfortable. In order to avoid Andi Dofrain's fate, some programs had been made to try and stop it, but of course there are those that oppose them.

Question: Why does this never come up any other time then when a man is trying to discredit feminism? I've seen a ton of discussions about feminism and sexism across the internet the last few years, and it's amazing how often men suddenly start giving a shit about male rape victims. Too bad there isn't continuing interest outside of discussions like these, or men might use their privilege and relative power to lobby for prison reforms and the creation of support groups for male victims.

This is just hurtful. You're also avoiding the context in which this was raised, or perhaps you accidentally overlooked it. Let me then explain it:
In the USA, there are more cases of rape and sexual exploitation forced upon men than there are on women if you take Prison rape into the statistics. This was my comment, and I ran with the numbers to give people some evidence to support this claim.

I am not discrediting feminism. "men suddenly start giving a shit about male rape victims" - fuck you. I know a man that was mistaken for a wanted man who was charged with child molestation. He was put in a jail cell in the police station where he was raped because of it. He didn't do anything, the cops made a mistake. It's a friend of a friend, but I do not take this lightly and do not dare even assume more things about me.

I'm very sorry that happened to your friend, and I mean that 100% sincerely.

And if I've missed a post you made here-- other than in this thread-- calling attention to that, I apologize about that. If not, it's still following the usual pattern of showing up as a "but what about the men?" in a thread about women and feminism. It's still derailing, even if I can understand and appreciate your outrage.

Men don't have any fucking privileges here. Wake up. There are over three thousand companies in Israel that are dedicated specifically for the rights of women and protecting them, while there is only one such group for men. While funding for breast cancer and Cervical cancer and advertisement to increase awareness had gone through the roof in the last two decades, the funding for prostate cancer had remained the same. Men are oppressed in this here society. There is a special position and office for women's rights in the central military command. There are groups funding campaigns to raise awareness for rape, while completely ignoring the horrors behind bars. Do you think I can do something because I'm just a man? I don't have any authority, I don't even have any precise numbers, I can't start a movement for men's right and not be ostracized or ridiculed because people would then say - "Raped in jail? Then they had it coming!". No. This is disgusting.

And here's the point at which I go back to exasperated. How do you think all of these groups and organizations fighting for women's rights got there, by magic? By kindly men in power thinking it would be a good idea? They got there because of women. Ordinary, everyday fucking *women* who were tired of being dismissed as "oh, it's just a woman, and that happens", so they started organizing. Fast forward a few decades, and here we are. It starts with a person who says "enough". That's not you? Why *not* you? You'll be ridiculed? Welcome to the company of every single woman who has ever pioneered in favor of women's rights and support for women who have been raped.

Is there no existing organization in your country that's interested in advocating for the rights of prisoners, as a whole? Could you or someone you know get training in rape counseling and start an outreach program in your local prison? They allow some kinds of lay counseling of prisoners in the US, I don't know what the laws are in Israel. But there have to be some people on the left who disagree with the treatment of prisoners that would be an ally in this.

There is a prejudice here against groups for male rights. Women's rights groups have such a firm grip in politics and a reach through all of the establishments they can guarantee nobody will care about you. Groups made to revoke a sexism and chauvinistic law which gave women automatic claim over their children in divorce cases and forced men to pay alimony without considering his and hers income and child care were ridiculed and put down.

Oh. You're an MRA. This is about "men's rights", in general, and not about terrible conditions in prisons?

You don't seem to understand the situation, where a woman can accuse me of rape and I will be locked up in a prison cell within minutes of the arrest warrant.

That actually happens in Israel? They automatically listen to any woman making an accusation, and they arrest you before they've built a case? That would be quite different than it is here in the US, where most women who are able and willing to report the crime against them are dismissed by cops who don't give a damn. Where it's difficult to get an arrest and even more difficult to get an actual conviction, even when there are witnesses. And even when there's a conviction, for the guy to not be able to piss away the whole sentence on a plea bargain?

And that's when the woman feels she can report it. Most don't, you know. I didn't. Hell, I thought it was my fault. I spent YEARS thinking it was my fucking fault, and I have no doubt in my mind that that motherfucker still doesn't realize what he did. What, no doesn't mean yes? I know lots of women who have been raped, a few who've been raped more than once. *One* I know of whose assailant is behind bars. *One*. No oppression? Bullshit. (Oh hey. I needed to out myself that way. That won't fuck with my ability to work tonight, at all.)

DrVornoff:

Hunter-gatherer tribes still hunt because there are useful things you can get off of an animal other than meat, such as hide for clothing and bones for tools and weapons. The Sioux you mentioned would use buffalo scrotum to make rattles and some of the Iroquois tribes used deer horn to make spurs for their war clubs. When it came to food however, the Iroquois did eat game, but also a lot of vegetables, corn and fish, the latter owing to the large number of rivers in the American Northeast. In fact, fish actually have a higher percentage of edible meat than game mammals and birds. Most fish will yield between 50-60% of their dressed weight in usable meat.

I have no idea how a thread on feminism turned into a discussion of hunting vs. agriculture and the utility of a bull scrotum, but I have to approve. I like that discussion better than this one, especially right now.

Bring on the bull balls!

Polarity27:

I have no idea how a thread on feminism turned into a discussion of hunting vs. agriculture and the utility of a bull scrotum, but I have to approve. I like that discussion better than this one, especially right now.

I think it had something to do with how hunting is the manly™ thing to do while agriculture is for wussy inadequate excuses for males who nevertheless wanted to get laid, and that was the only way for them to get women to spread their legs or something along those lines, but since so few men are truly manly™ that had to happen.

It got quite surreal along the way there, so I'm not sure about that because I'm still in that "Dafuq did I just read?" state of mind. Don't take my word for it.

Bring on the bull balls!

They're a specialty in some places, I hear.

Polarity27:

Men don't have any fucking privileges here. Wake up. There are over three thousand companies in Israel that are dedicated specifically for the rights of women and protecting them, while there is only one such group for men. While funding for breast cancer and Cervical cancer and advertisement to increase awareness had gone through the roof in the last two decades, the funding for prostate cancer had remained the same. Men are oppressed in this here society. There is a special position and office for women's rights in the central military command. There are groups funding campaigns to raise awareness for rape, while completely ignoring the horrors behind bars. Do you think I can do something because I'm just a man? I don't have any authority, I don't even have any precise numbers, I can't start a movement for men's right and not be ostracized or ridiculed because people would then say - "Raped in jail? Then they had it coming!". No. This is disgusting.

And here's the point at which I go back to exasperated. How do you think all of these groups and organizations fighting for women's rights got there, by magic? By kindly men in power thinking it would be a good idea? They got there because of women. Ordinary, everyday fucking *women* who were tired of being dismissed as "oh, it's just a woman, and that happens", so they started organizing. Fast forward a few decades, and here we are. It starts with a person who says "enough". That's not you? Why *not* you? You'll be ridiculed? Welcome to the company of every single woman who has ever pioneered in favor of women's rights and support for women who have been raped.

Is there no existing organization in your country that's interested in advocating for the rights of prisoners, as a whole? Could you or someone you know get training in rape counseling and start an outreach program in your local prison? They allow some kinds of lay counseling of prisoners in the US, I don't know what the laws are in Israel. But there have to be some people on the left who disagree with the treatment of prisoners that would be an ally in this.

Oh they do good. They do plenty of good, they really do. They rose awareness for female specific cancer, added much needed lobbying and pressure on politicians and state sponsored institutions, some even allow to discriminate against men when choosing candidates for study (Extreme, right? They have a certain cap they need to reach).

They were awesome for women. Their work made the situation in the USA which was somewhat similar in Israel a few decades ago into what it is today. Today when a woman is raped she is treated immediately with a rape kit and she is constantly in reach with help centers for women. The same goes for women suffering from abuse from their spouses.

You raise an important issue here, something which I need to research more about. I know for a fact that there is an organization for the well-being for political and 'administrative arrest' kind of prisoners, but I need to look into organizations for the general welfare of prisoners. They get the right for education in Jail and some even finish a degree while behind bars for free. Some jail institutions in general are religious and therefore there is little to no sign of rape cases there, because, you know, it's an abomination against god. Sodomy, that is.

There is a prejudice here against groups for male rights. Women's rights groups have such a firm grip in politics and a reach through all of the establishments they can guarantee nobody will care about you. Groups made to revoke a sexism and chauvinistic law which gave women automatic claim over their children in divorce cases and forced men to pay alimony without considering his and hers income and child care were ridiculed and put down.

Oh. You're an MRA. This is about "men's rights", in general, and not about terrible conditions in prisons?

Yes it is. I opened my argument with the Jail statistics because the numbers simply frightened me - that the number of rape victims in the USA which are male is higher than females. This is something completely fucked up and wrong, no only because of the statistics - but because it was only well known and acknowledge merely a few years ago. The USA's federal government refused to do such research. That was what bothered me so much. That and the numbers.

You don't seem to understand the situation, where a woman can accuse me of rape and I will be locked up in a prison cell within minutes of the arrest warrant.

That actually happens in Israel? They automatically listen to any woman making an accusation, and they arrest you before they've built a case? That would be quite different than it is here in the US, where most women who are able and willing to report the crime against them are dismissed by cops who don't give a damn. Where it's difficult to get an arrest and even more difficult to get an actual conviction, even when there are witnesses. And even when there's a conviction, for the guy to not be able to piss away the whole sentence on a plea bargain?

And that's when the woman feels she can report it. Most don't, you know. I didn't. Hell, I thought it was my fault. I spent YEARS thinking it was my fucking fault, and I have no doubt in my mind that that motherfucker still doesn't realize what he did. What, no doesn't mean yes? I know lots of women who have been raped, a few who've been raped more than once. *One* I know of whose assailant is behind bars. *One*. No oppression? Bullshit. (Oh hey. I needed to out myself that way. That won't fuck with my ability to work tonight, at all.)

[/quote]

I'll tell you something - If a woman charges a man she is currently with (dating, engaged, married) of abuse, assault of rape of even molestation of their children, the man will be dragged behind bars and slapped with a warrant to stay away from the woman in moments after he comes waltzing back to his home and meeting the cops. He will remain in jail until the proceedings are over because there is always a risk of him hurting her, since they are together/living together.
If a woman charges a man with rape, or assault the man is dragged away behind bars till the investigation ends. He may land a house arrest if he pays bail money.
In both cases, a startling percentage of cases are dropped due to lack of evidence, a small amount are acquitted and about a third are actually prosecuted. A percentage of that is accused, while the other group pleads to a deal bargain and gets away with a somewhat limited sentence.

Problem - There is a large feminist lobby operating its branches in the media. They will tilt the public opinion to turn against the man even before a trial had even began to change testimonies and influence the reception of the case. a trial here is based on A Judge or an ensemble of Judges, not Jury. The problem is, you can be charged with something and have the case closed due to no evidence, as if the woman complained for no reason, and have your name besmirched in the media and also have difficulty getting a job later in life due to the case opened against you. The man was never acquitted, and he will never be. The woman? She made him suffer.

Some women married to men use this tactic to have grounds for removing the children away from him, even if the charges are bogus and extort him. This is an extreme example and I'm afraid I don't have a personal story, though I know a neat documentary in Hebrew touching on this topic. Women are allowed to do this and get away scott-free. Why? Because they don't want to discourage women from coming forward, A VERY VALID REASON, YET thousands of lives are ruined because of it. Nearly a third of all suicides in this country are made by divorced men or men in the middle of a divorce. That's 150 deaths caused by this policy..

This is where I'm coming from. I am not against these groups, I am against these things I said they had done which disgust me.

Polarity27:
I have no idea how a thread on feminism turned into a discussion of hunting vs. agriculture and the utility of a bull scrotum, but I have to approve. I like that discussion better than this one, especially right now.

Bring on the bull balls!

You learn something new every day, eh? My brother and I were really into the history of aboriginal cultures when we were in middle and high school. I was particularly interested in the Native Americans of the US and Canada. He actually went on to get his degree in anthropology and specializes in Meso-American history. Consequently, I know a lot of odd things.

Angryman101:

theonewhois3:

Civilisation 'developed' to distribute products of newly discovered processes. Like farming.

Oh? Why would people settle down in order to put in hundreds of times more work into farming and crop raising when it was infinitely more efficient to hunt and gather? A single hunt could potentially feed a small villiage for a week; a typical harvest takes MONTHS of back-breaking labor to provide food for one season that doesn't even have an equal nutritional value.

Oh yeah, meat's great. When you can get it. You know what's better than bringing down a bison for the 'vilage'? Owning a herd of domesticated cattle. You know how many people it takes to manage the herd? A few. You know how many people the herd can feed? More than a few.

DrVornoff:

Polarity27:
I have no idea how a thread on feminism turned into a discussion of hunting vs. agriculture and the utility of a bull scrotum, but I have to approve. I like that discussion better than this one, especially right now.

Bring on the bull balls!

You learn something new every day, eh? My brother and I were really into the history of aboriginal cultures when we were in middle and high school. I was particularly interested in the Native Americans of the US and Canada. He actually went on to get his degree in anthropology and specializes in Meso-American history. Consequently, I know a lot of odd things.

I've always thought it is kind of common sense that farming is the more effective way of producing food, because when you compare hunter/gatherer societies and farming societies you will realize that one of the two developed advanced culture, had great scientific development and an almost explosive population growth... The other continued being nomadic. To me it feels like very basic knowledge of history and an even more basic understanding of cause and effect.

Another thing to keep in mind in the hunting versus farming dilemma is that hunting and gathering produces mostly fresh supplies like meat, berries and fruit. These have to be consumed fairly soon after gathering or they spoil. Agriculture on the other hand produces mostly grain, which can be stored for a long time and turned into edible products when needed. So while farmers spends two thirds of the year working the asses of the entire family they also get a third of the year when the can reap the rewards: kick it back, try not to die of pneumonia while hanging out with their neighbours and ponder important stuff like "wouldn't I look better in a red tunic?" and "How do I leave advanced messages in one place for others to find at a later date?"

Gethsemani:
I've always thought it is kind of common sense that farming is the more effective way of producing food, because when you compare hunter/gatherer societies and farming societies you will realize that one of the two developed advanced culture, had great scientific development and an almost explosive population growth... The other continued being nomadic. To me it feels like very basic knowledge of history and an even more basic understanding of cause and effect.

That much, yeah. That should be the sort of thing you figure while you're still in school. If you want to know specific uses for buffalo scrotum though, that's where I can help you. Then again, I'm not sure I'd want to meet the sort of person who would be prone to ask...

Angryman101:
Then I'm confused as to what, exactly, you want as evidence.

I want a coherent argument. I want you to actually explain why the effects you describe link to the causes you ascribe to them, and why no other cause is possible.

I want you to stop pretending that the things you are saying are obvious and self-evident and don't need any explanation because it is fairly obvious that noone else on this thread, including me, seems to think they are.

It's not self-evident, it's not universally apparent to anyone, it's not demonstrable. Sorry, that's kind of the definition. If you want to sound credible, you need to explore the reasoning behind the argument until you get to something which is self-evident.

Angryman101:
Do you want me to point you to a person who has lived the life and is happier with it?

No. I can find anecdotes of my own.

Angryman101:
How about I provide an illustration of why this makes sense.

That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Angryman101:
Take a tribe in Africa that is still hunter-gatherer. Studies have shown that they are comparably happier than their modern counterparts. Why is this? It's because they don't have a choice of what they're going to do with their lives. They have no choice in their actions, their circumstances are based on the necessities of survival. They have 2 choices: hunt/gather and survive, or don't, and die.

That might sound very convincing to someone totally unfamiliar with Africa.

However, what you'll find is that those studies reported people as "happier" despite their material circumstances. People in Africa could actually be severely malnourished or have just lost a child or any number of horrible incidents, and would still report themselves as happy.

Traditional African cultures often have no conception of personal mental distress because there is only a very limited conception of subjectivity. There is no imperative for emotional exploration, and ultimately no sense that a person can actually be unhappy in the first place, symptoms which we would qualify as unhappiness are often seen as symptoms of supernatural or physical problems.

You cannot comparatively measure "happiness" in a culture where "unhappiness" can be exorcised through ritual behaviour. African culture often entails a very different sense of subjectivity, "happiness" does not mean the same thing.

You just can't pull that kind of cross cultural comparison. You can't really do it with different time periods either. What "happiness" means does change across time and across cultural boundaries, and there is absolutely no way to account for that change when your only question is "how happy are you?".

So no. It's complete rubbish to suggest that we would all be happier if we lived in hunter gatherer societies. However, we would certainly say we were "happier" if we had no conception of personal unhappiness.

Angryman101:
And now I am a bigot, of course.

You're seriously going to argue that?

Skipping ahead a bit to try and condense.

Angryman101:
You're being obtuse. The most valiant warrior, the nimblest hunter, and the villiage chief can be substituted for the dj.

Why?

Why is it the same? Where is the evidence?

Angryman101:
They needed to secure a man's capacity for labor in order for her and her child to survive. Pair bonding and love are both evolutionary constructs to facilitate this process.

Assuming of course that monogamous pair bonding and "love" have been considerations in all human societies, which of course in the majority they haven't.

Angryman101:
Literally everything in human interaction is transactional. Without providing value, you have no worth. When you talk to someone, it is an exchange of value, whether it be entertainment or new and exotic information. This is why some people are considered interesting and flocked towards and why some are considered boring and avoided. To say otherwise is foolish.

Wow! I've learned that conversation isn't actually a relational process, and that topics are either interesting or not interesting irrespective of who is listening because different topics of conversation are apparently given weight by our genetic makeup. I never knew that. Indeed, I must have been such a fool..

Seriously though, you're abstracting the point (I suspect deliberately).

By transactional behaviour, I mean going through with sexual activity which you don't necessarily want in exchange for some kind of service or reward. In our society, this is almost exclusively limited to women.

However, as should be fairly obvious even to you, that doesn't mean all women all the time. There are particular contexts and particular situations in which some women will feel an expectation to have sex even though they don't necessarily want to. It's not mandated by some hidden evolutionary desire, because in many cases it's not actually something they want to do. It is a trade, it is a product of a particular social situation. It does not reveal some deep hidden truth about all human desire.

If you think it does, then I urge you to go outside now and grope at random women while trying to offer them money. I'm sure their animal brains will kick in and compel them to take your money because without that transaction they just wouldn't be worth anything. Certainly, there's absolutely no risk anyone would call the police.

Angryman101:
I've already been over this. Slight amounts of fat have been considered attractive, but there isn't one instance in history where a morbidly obese woman has been the end-all be-all of sexual attraction. The 14 year old girl with breast buds signals health and a long future of fertility, just as the body type I'm describing does. Differences in culture explain exceptional cases.

A post ago, you argued that all men were naturally drawn to a particular body type. I'm glad you've recognized that's not true, but don't pretend that a completely different body type is actually the same as the one you've described.

Are you attracted to 14 year old girls? Do you find them as sexy and hot as those busty, broad hipped women you described earlier? Would you happily substitute one for the other because they're both actually expressing the same traits through a different physical appearance?

And if "differences in culture" can explain exceptional cases, why can't they explain all cases? Why do we need this nebulous concept of biological markers which can somehow express themselves in polar opposite physical forms through unclear mechanisms without losing any of their intrinsic meaning? What do we lose by not randomly assuming that those things exist? I'm pretty sure the explanation doesn't make any less sense without them, if "cultural differences" can make humans attracted to sheep I'm pretty sure they can make humans attracted to humans.

Angryman101:
What you've read and what I've read are two completely different things, then. 'Leisurely activities'? What the fuck? This doesn't even make sense.

Maybe you shouldn't base your entire model of human development off a small strata of native Americans who used to live on the great plains and whose history has been largely lost and replaced with romantic myth. Just saying.

It's debatable whether those people even count as hunter gatherers. What they were doing was effectively herding livestock.

Angryman101:
Once male children reach a certain age, male to male tutelage is quite common in preparation for manhood. These preparations ensure that the man is ready to mate and pass on his genes. Again, biologically motivated.

But you don't think men in our society should do it, and that's also biologically motivated.

I'm starting to notice a pattern with you for trying to claim that social trends which are contradictory are in fact the same thing. To be blunt, which of these societies is going against nature and if one of them can, why should we assume that either of them are following a naturally predetermined structure?

Angryman101:
There are no 'polar opposite effects'. There are differences, but on the whole they are fairly surface-level. Common trends snake through every culture in history, and this is caused by biology.

Yes, there are clear polar opposites.

In some societies, women have married multiple male partners. In others, men have married multiple female partners. In many others, the concept of marriage has held no meaning. In some societies, men and women have lived in shared social space and shared many of the same duties. In others, there have been extremely strict divisions of labour. In some societies, women display a caring and protective attitude towards children. In others, women seem to display little regard for their children and simply dump them somewhere while they go and work. In some societies, men are highly involved in childrearing. In others, men are completely absent from childrearing. In some societies, same sex intimacy is completely taboo. In others, it is prerequisite to social acceptance.

I could go on and on, but rather than trying and failing to give an exhaustive list of difference, it's going to be much easier to ask what you honestly think is the same between all societies everywhere. What is "biology" actually determining about our societies? What are the rules which cannot be broken?

I'll simplify it for you. There are none. People have spent their lives looking for those rules, and there is always a functioning exception. Either "biology" can be ignored, in which case why do we have to accept that it plays a role at all, or whatever influence it has is extremely socially moderated.

Angryman101:
But I'm not saying every person is the same, just the biological motivations thundering in their subconscious. There are exceptions, like homosexuality and transexuality, in which genetic mutations or hormonal imbalances cause abnormalities.

...

Okay, since you just walked into one of my actual subject areas and pissed all over it.

The genetic component to homosexuality is pretty much a dead theory now. Occasionally, someone will come out with a twin study that gets some media time, but there are plenty of twin studies which come up negative. The problem is that "genetic mutation" doesn't actually work as an explanation without some quantifiable physiological or endocrinal difference caused by differing genetics. Genes don't make things happen by magic, they regulate how the body itself develops, so you need some kind of physical marker.

Prenatal hormone theory is also struggling at the moment. It's a very old theory which pretty much grows straight out of 19th century phrenology. The problem is that from very early on the differences being claimed between samples of "gay" and "straight" people (the " is deliberate, because it's often not clear how these samples are even derived) fitted easily into the natural range of variation. The idea of an essential rule, that if you're gay you have hormone profile X and if you're straight you have hormone profile Y, has had to go out of the window pretty quickly.

Modern PHT researchers have come up with some interesting things. Whether they're true or whether they'll end up like all the previous claims in the field will depend on whether they can be repeated, but they are not looking for essential rules. They are not even pretending to look for essential rules.

The big problem though is that to claim that whether you're gay or straight is dependent on your genes or your hormone profile is to fundamentally misunderstand sexual orientation. It also represents a failure to consider the actual process of transmission, namely, how would your genes or your hormone profile "encode" recognition of human sex? Babies demonstrably do not have exclusive sexual orientations, there is really no case for the idea that someone is born with a picture of a penis fully-formed in their head with a glowing sign saying "fuck this in this particular way".

Angryman101:
Are you making the assertion that, somehow, biology isn't present in the hindbrain of every human?

"Biology" (whatever you mean by that, I'm sticking to the literal definition) is present in my fingers too.. Since I can use my fingers to play the piano, should I conclude that nature designed me to play the piano and by not playing the piano I'm destined to be unhappy?

No, that's fucking stupid.

Angryman101:
Then I merely have to point towards a couple having sex, who are doing so because biology is rewarding them with increased dopamine and pleasurable feelings.

This is where I have to point out that vaginal sexuality in women is a learned behaviour.

Young children will not generally try to penetrate their own bodies or those of others. In fact, a child trying to do so is considered a warning sign. It is only when children become socially aware of sex that they begin to conceive of penetration.

In fact, most women never really come to enjoy penetration in its own right, the vagina is not the primary female sex organ. In purely anatomical terms, the average woman would be rewarded with far more pleasurable feelings from masturbating than from having sex. It's simple anatomy, and yet utterly contrary to your assertion that nature wants us to have sex in a particular way.

So no, actually you're kind of wrong here too. Having sex is already a socially moderated process. It is not just pure pleasure and reward, it includes a fairly substantial element of repression and self-denial which is socially enforced. Why do you think people get so hung up on it?

Angryman101:
As for proof-does society secretly espouse violent, dominant men as attractive to women somewhere I can't see?

Yes.

I'm actually bemused that you even got the opposite idea. Think about it for a second.

Angryman101:
How, exactly am I a bigot?

Well, you have a dogmatic belief in the inferiority of other people based on broad characteristics.

"Oh, but women like being socially subordinated, so I'm not doing any harm". Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Don't blame me if it starts to sound hollow one day.

Angryman101:
It's actually very easy to point out examples of applying biological theory in real life. Take advertisements, for example. They reach out to subtle biological inclinations in your subconscious, as well as most socially-constructed inclinations.

No. They reach out to memetic images.

Are you seriously claiming that the Go Compare guy is an expression of my subtle biological inclinations? Because if so, you're sicker than I thought.

Angryman101:
You can take the same basic strategy to almost any part of the world, and you will be able to attract women.

No, you'll be able to fuck women. The same result could be accomplished with a wallet and sufficient money.

"Attracting" women relies on women having a degree of sexual autonomy which, in much of the world, they still don't have, and in fact didn't have in our society until a few decades ago.

Once again you mistake "women doing things" for "women wanting to do things".

Angryman101:
I don't FORCE anyone to do anything, nor do I want to.

No, you just advocate coercing and manipulating them. That's totally different.

It's alright, I understand that choice will only make women unhappy because they want big tough men like you take control of them, so it's better they don't have a choice about anything, and if anything ever goes wrong at least you can tell them they are happy and they won't know any better. That's not abusive, it's making them happy!

You are starting to sound like a very nasty piece of work, you know that.

TheIronRuler:

You raise an important issue here, something which I need to research more about. I know for a fact that there is an organization for the well-being for political and 'administrative arrest' kind of prisoners, but I need to look into organizations for the general welfare of prisoners. They get the right for education in Jail and some even finish a degree while behind bars for free. Some jail institutions in general are religious and therefore there is little to no sign of rape cases there, because, you know, it's an abomination against god. Sodomy, that is.

Google on "prisoner rights Israel" gets me A couple of useful links for you to start with. I expect that a "prisoner rights" broad search would net you a lot more. Just Detention is an international organization trying to stop sexual abuse in detention facilities of all kinds, they might have some helpful info for you. Definitely look into what groups in other countries are doing, they may have models that would help in Israel. And don't count out religious groups that are more progressive, assuming you have such. Prisons will permit chaplains in to do counseling of survivors when they won't permit random laypeople from the community in.

I still think the topic of prison rape deserves its own thread, as it's a serious and awful problem. And yes, there should be separate research and counseling for male prisoners who are rape survivors, as they face somewhat different issues in how to process their experience, particularly men in prison who are already marginalized (people of color, or perhaps Palestinian prisoners in your country). I know I've seen some research about this topic at work, I'll keep an eye out for more if I happen to run across it.

Yes it is. I opened my argument with the Jail statistics because the numbers simply frightened me - that the number of rape victims in the USA which are male is higher than females. This is something completely fucked up and wrong, no only because of the statistics - but because it was only well known and acknowledge merely a few years ago. The USA's federal government refused to do such research. That was what bothered me so much. That and the numbers.

There's a "prison rape elimination act" in the US, and at least two federal bodies compile statistics of US prison rape, so it's not like the US is refusing point blank to have anything to do with the issue. Also, you're framing this as some kind of grand feminist conspiracy, without realizing that prison in the US is a big, profitable business. Corporations involved in the prison-industrial complex don't want too much attention paid to prison abuse of any sort, because it gets people to start thinking about prisoners as people, and well, that cuts into the bottom line. Believe me, "not enough interest in this" in the US, for anyone marginalized, is likely to come back to someone's greed somewhere.

BTW, just on a skim, I like this article from the Washington (DC) City Paper on exactly why I object to the sort of thing you're doing here, and why it's derailing. Read the comments, too, you might find them illuminating.

This is, though, my last comment on this. This topic is too frustrating for me to stay calm on. Back to arguing about religion, for me.

Polarity27:

TheIronRuler:

You raise an important issue here, something which I need to research more about. I know for a fact that there is an organization for the well-being for political and 'administrative arrest' kind of prisoners, but I need to look into organizations for the general welfare of prisoners. They get the right for education in Jail and some even finish a degree while behind bars for free. Some jail institutions in general are religious and therefore there is little to no sign of rape cases there, because, you know, it's an abomination against god. Sodomy, that is.

Google on "prisoner rights Israel" gets me A couple of useful links for you to start with. I expect that a "prisoner rights" broad search would net you a lot more. Just Detention is an international organization trying to stop sexual abuse in detention facilities of all kinds, they might have some helpful info for you. Definitely look into what groups in other countries are doing, they may have models that would help in Israel. And don't count out religious groups that are more progressive, assuming you have such. Prisons will permit chaplains in to do counseling of survivors when they won't permit random laypeople from the community in.

I still think the topic of prison rape deserves its own thread, as it's a serious and awful problem. And yes, there should be separate research and counseling for male prisoners who are rape survivors, as they face somewhat different issues in how to process their experience, particularly men in prison who are already marginalized (people of color, or perhaps Palestinian prisoners in your country). I know I've seen some research about this topic at work, I'll keep an eye out for more if I happen to run across it.

Yes it is. I opened my argument with the Jail statistics because the numbers simply frightened me - that the number of rape victims in the USA which are male is higher than females. This is something completely fucked up and wrong, no only because of the statistics - but because it was only well known and acknowledge merely a few years ago. The USA's federal government refused to do such research. That was what bothered me so much. That and the numbers.

There's a "prison rape elimination act" in the US, and at least two federal bodies compile statistics of US prison rape, so it's not like the US is refusing point blank to have anything to do with the issue. Also, you're framing this as some kind of grand feminist conspiracy, without realizing that prison in the US is a big, profitable business. Corporations involved in the prison-industrial complex don't want too much attention paid to prison abuse of any sort, because it gets people to start thinking about prisoners as people, and well, that cuts into the bottom line. Believe me, "not enough interest in this" in the US, for anyone marginalized, is likely to come back to someone's greed somewhere.

BTW, just on a skim, I like this article from the Washington (DC) City Paper on exactly why I object to the sort of thing you're doing here, and why it's derailing. Read the comments, too, you might find them illuminating.

This is, though, my last comment on this. This topic is too frustrating for me to stay calm on. Back to arguing about religion, for me.

.
Palestinian security prisoners are not locked up in the same facilities as are Israeli citizens that were found guilty and served their Jail sentence.
.
I was not trying to derail the thread, I thought that this statistic was relevant to the topic at hand, No, there is no grand feminist scheme, I don't think that the feminists are this all knowing and all powerful entity that exists to make my life miserable. I'm saying that people did not make proper research into it for some reasons I don't know, a fact which bothered me.

The thing is - It's estimate. I said earlier that they took a few control groups and found a percentage of men gone through cases of rape and sexual assault. Then they multiplied it with the current number of inmates, and by that standard about every fourth prisoner going through Jail is about to face rape in Jail. Once or more than just that. What I was complaining about is how there is little attention about it and how culture treats Jail rape in comparison to women being raped, sentences like "Don't pick up the soap!" want to make me punch someone.

Don't worry, what I'm saying that's being done in Israel is happening, and it's not a conspiracy. Some laws had been written in such a way women's groups had found a route to exploit them. Nowadays lawmakers are more busy worrying about elections than divorced fathers who can't see their child.

I'm sorry you can't further discuss this. I sincerely apologize if I've offended you but I do not believe that there is this feminist plot out to get me. I hope you'll feel better and we could have a chat some other time on a different topic.

Angryman101:

Let's look at it mathematically...

Yuck. That argument is a real 'uggo'.

For all that random mathematics thrown around, reality clearly demonstrates that even primitive agriculture provided for much larger populations than hunter-gathering. In 1500, the difference between the sparse native American populations of the USA and the dense Aztec/Mayan populations of Mexico was that of hunter-gathering versus agriculture (although that was hardly very primitive agriculture).

* * *

Firstly, an obvious error, man cannot live on gazelle alone. Crop-growing was not a replacement for hunting, it was a replacement for gathering. In fact, hunting provided approximately 20% of primitive man's nutritional needs, whilst gathering got 80%. Thus improving the efficiency of the non-meat part of the diet is/was far more effective.

Replacing plants that don't produce food in favour of ones that do obviously vastly increases the amount of potential food to gather. Crop failures of any sort (blight, drought, etc.) affect agriculture, sure. But they'd affect gathering too. Either way, with agriculture you're still likely to get lots more food. Planting takes time and effort, yes, but saves time and effort wandering round trying to find whatever happens to be growing by chance.

And let's face it, early agriculture will have started simply by taking seeds and scattering them around. Hoeing, ploughing and back-breaking farm labour will have come later, when people eventually realised that was even more efficient.

The second aspect - the one which mostly replaces the hunting - is domestication of animals. Why labour- and time-intensively hunt a gazelle, when there are a load of cows in the field next to your hut you can get whenever you feel like for minimal effort?

Angryman, just give it up. You can't prove anything. You haven't shown any evidence! The other debaters, like Gethsemani have (she doesn't want children so your whole theory is bullshit).

Captcha: remain calm

Seems like a focused debate is impossible on this site without strict supervision. At least these tangential arguments are interesting.

EDIT: Don't take offence from this. The change in the flow of this discussion happened so gradually that I didn't realise it was happening until reading the last page in one sitting. In fact, looking over 1 of my earlier comments I'm also contributing to this.

Remember when I said I wasn't qualified to start this topic? Well, its obvious I'm not qualified to supervise it. Let this be a Free for All for now, until it either dies or I get the OP better refined.

As I said, whats been discussed now is interesting. Even if it is steadily going further off-topic.

Ragsnstitches:
Seems like a focused debate is impossible on this site without strict supervision. At least these tangential arguments are interesting.

A focused debate is plenty possible- we do it all the time. The common factor in this thread is your OP. You might want to have a look into that before you start complaining about the audience.

DrVornoff:

Same with hunting. If plants had a problem, grazers would move on as their numbers dwindled. That's why the tribes were nomadic.

Also, part of agriculture means having control over the environment. The gardens in Lake Texcoco? Man-made. The terrace farms of the Andes? Man-made. And even then, there are still areas where farming is all but a sure thing, like the flood plains of the Nile.

Again, you misrepresent human efficiency at hunting. There's a reason we were able to spread all over the world. Nomadic tribes were incredibly efficient hunters.

Because of course, everyone knows that the Sioux nation was only like, what? Fifty people at most? And the Aztecs? Not that impressive. When the Spanish showed up, it was only like 20 dudes.

Awesome reading comprehension. As I said, larger populations=more hunting parties. Sioux nation tribe populations could number in the hundreds, which meant a typical hunt could lead to tens of kills on a herd of 1000 pound bison.

You're still hunting with a bow and arrow. That's never going to be as efficient as a gun.

Who says you're hunting with only bows and arrows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point
Clovis spear points were commonly used to take down giant sloths, giant bison, and fucking MAMMOTHS.
Again, you severely misrepresent human hunting efficiency.

Try days.

I won't. A typical quadruped doesn't have the stamina to keep running for days. It has sprinting capabilities far past human speeds, but stamina is far less. Combined with an injury from an experienced hunter, it's dubious that it will last longer than 12 hours.

Not really, no. We're more inclined to be sprinters. Wolves were designed for distance.

Wrong. If we were designed to be sprinters, we would have stayed with chimpanzee-style knuckle-walking, as it's more efficient and faster than bipedal motion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
Human physiology is perfectly adapted for long-distance hunts.

Stalking is not the same thing as chasing. I think you know this, you just won't admit it.

See above.

Because they didn't have farming technology? Behold! Logic!

Way to go, buddy, you did it. You solved the mystery.

Case closed!

One day of hunting vs. 3 months of hard labor farming. Which is more disastrous if it fails?

Never denied the herding thing. That was you own assumption.

And no, humans were not as efficient at first as you would think. The most efficient predators in the world among non-humans are African wild dogs who have an 80% success rate on hunts. They are even better at long-distance running than humans and set up ambushes and other clever strategies. The only reason humans were as good as they were is because they learned to use the same tactics.

Yyyyyeah. You're not disproving my point. Tactics are part of hunting.

I'm losing track of what your goddamn point was supposed to be.

Humans switched from hunting to agriculture because marriage=regular sex for low-value males who would have to go sexless in hunting societies.

Actually, you know what's really efficient? Fishing. The average fish yields about 60% of its dressed boy weight in edible meat. In the time it took to stalk and kill a wounded dear, you could get the same yield of food from a river or sea in fish with less energy and resources exerted.

Hence north-west coastal culture.

Try 300. Again, your math is bullshit. The tribes of the Great Plains went after small game far more often than buffalo because a buffalo hunt was dangerous, prolonged and took a lot of resources.

Where the fuck are you getting YOUR math from? Seriously. I just looked it up online; a 1150 pound animal=570 pounds of edible meat, 150 pounds of fat (edible) and bone (marrow is insanely nutritious and accounts for at least half the weight of bone).
And you're also wrong. Read: clovis points, archaeological sites including those artifacts with mammoth, giant bison, giant sloth, etc. bones. Humans had a very wide range of prey that widened as hunting technology improved.

And you don't think that might have been a benefit in trying to outrun something that could eat you?

That would make sense if you got a high from sprints rather than long-distance running.

Kinda makes you wonder how vegetarians are capable of existing, huh?

Yeah, it's called supplements. Natural alternatives to the nutritional value of meat would have been insanely rare in paleolithic times.

The fact that you're doing it right now?

It's quickly becoming clear that either don't know what you're talking about or you just aren't understanding my arguments. I am not plowing 3 acres of land with a rock attached to a piece of wood. My entire existence is not dependent on a single harvest. Farming fucking sucked in the early stages of its existence, and if one harvest failed, that was 3 months of work for nothing. I could starve.
With hunting, if one fails, that's an afternoon of work gone. I can try again tomorrow, especially when following a herd of hundreds, if not thousands.

You have yet to prove that. And I don't think you will because even though I don't hunt, I still know more about hunting and agriculture than you do. And you still haven't addressed animal husbandry.

I laughed at the second sentence. It's really, really apparent that you don't.
As for proving it, I can't prove it any more than any anthropological theory can be proved. I look at context, I look at evidence, and I make theories.
What ABOUT animal husbandry? It rose with farming to offset some nutritional deficiencies. A small number of animals is not able to sustain a large community. Or do you think that ancient Mesopotamia had numerous individual ranches with 50 heads of cattle? lol.

Agema:

Yuck. That argument is a real 'uggo'.

For all that random mathematics thrown around, reality clearly demonstrates that even primitive agriculture provided for much larger populations than hunter-gathering. In 1500, the difference between the sparse native American populations of the USA and the dense Aztec/Mayan populations of Mexico was that of hunter-gathering versus agriculture (although that was hardly very primitive agriculture).

* * *

Firstly, an obvious error, man cannot live on gazelle alone. Crop-growing was not a replacement for hunting, it was a replacement for gathering. In fact, hunting provided approximately 20% of primitive man's nutritional needs, whilst gathering got 80%. Thus improving the efficiency of the non-meat part of the diet is/was far more effective.

Replacing plants that don't produce food in favour of ones that do obviously vastly increases the amount of potential food to gather. Crop failures of any sort (blight, drought, etc.) affect agriculture, sure. But they'd affect gathering too. Either way, with agriculture you're still likely to get lots more food. Planting takes time and effort, yes, but saves time and effort wandering round trying to find whatever happens to be growing by chance.

And let's face it, early agriculture will have started simply by taking seeds and scattering them around. Hoeing, ploughing and back-breaking farm labour will have come later, when people eventually realised that was even more efficient.

The second aspect - the one which mostly replaces the hunting - is domestication of animals. Why labour- and time-intensively hunt a gazelle, when there are a load of cows in the field next to your hut you can get whenever you feel like for minimal effort?

Agricultural societies have greater carrying capacities, yes. Once successful and sufficiently advanced, that is.
As for the 20%/80% diet, I'll have to ask you where you got these numbers, because man wouldn't be migratory when gathering was that plentiful. Why would he move out of Africa with the herds if the majority of his calories came from shit he found around a few select spots? That doesn't make much sense.
Animal husbandry can't replace hunting. The nutritional value of animals comes mostly from their meat, not their milk. And butchering the 10 cows you're able to take care of with your paleolithic technology is not going to be very efficient now, is it? Animal husbandry has always been secondary to subsistence farming; it provides supplement, not subsistence.

evilthecat:

I want a coherent argument. I want you to actually explain why the effects you describe link to the causes you ascribe to them, and why no other cause is possible.

I want you to stop pretending that the things you are saying are obvious and self-evident and don't need any explanation because it is fairly obvious that noone else on this thread, including me, seems to think they are.

It's not self-evident, it's not universally apparent to anyone, it's not demonstrable. Sorry, that's kind of the definition. If you want to sound credible, you need to explore the reasoning behind the argument until you get to something which is self-evident.

You're right. I'm hesitant to bring to light the demonstrble aspect of the theories I subscribe to as they're not widely accepted.

That might sound very convincing to someone totally unfamiliar with Africa.

However, what you'll find is that those studies reported people as "happier" despite their material circumstances. People in Africa could actually be severely malnourished or have just lost a child or any number of horrible incidents, and would still report themselves as happy.

Traditional African cultures often have no conception of personal mental distress because there is only a very limited conception of subjectivity. There is no imperative for emotional exploration, and ultimately no sense that a person can actually be unhappy in the first place, symptoms which we would qualify as unhappiness are often seen as symptoms of supernatural or physical problems.

You cannot comparatively measure "happiness" in a culture where "unhappiness" can be exorcised through ritual behaviour. African culture often entails a very different sense of subjectivity, "happiness" does not mean the same thing.

You just can't pull that kind of cross cultural comparison. You can't really do it with different time periods either. What "happiness" means does change across time and across cultural boundaries, and there is absolutely no way to account for that change when your only question is "how happy are you?".

So no. It's complete rubbish to suggest that we would all be happier if we lived in hunter gatherer societies. However, we would certainly say we were "happier" if we had no conception of personal unhappiness.

Whoa, whoa, hold your gosh darn horses. Where the FUCK did all that come from? Do you honestly expect me to believe that African tribes have no concept of personal distress? Are you fucking nuts?
That is the single most outlandish claim I have ever heard. What, are they fucking robots? Do one of them die and they just shrug and say, haha, whatever! and leave them there? Fucking APES have concepts of unhappiness, displeasure, and mourning for their dead. Hell, dogs do, too.
You made other points, but holy jesus that is...wow. Like, holy balls. That's probably the most racist thing I've heard all day.

Why?

Why is it the same? Where is the evidence?

Status. Status is a subconscious indication of good genes(to get into a position of power meant superior strength, intelligence, or other such gene-influenced traits), and possibly an inheritance of that position when the child is born. Also denotes an ability to provide for the woman as she nurtures the child. Hence, status is attractive.

Assuming of course that monogamous pair bonding and "love" have been considerations in all human societies, which of course in the majority they haven't.

I never said monogomy was a prerequisite for pairbonding. While females do fixate on one male, the male is capable of forming multiple bonds. High status males such as chieftains had their pick of the pie when it came to females.
Pair bonds also eventually fade after a few years, typically when the potential child is able to at least walk on its own and constant supervision isn't required. The parents move on to other mates, if available.

Wow! I've learned that conversation isn't actually a relational process, and that topics are either interesting or not interesting irrespective of who is listening because different topics of conversation are apparently given weight by our genetic makeup. I never knew that. Indeed, I must have been such a fool..

Seriously though, you're abstracting the point (I suspect deliberately).

I don't remember making the claim that topic was determined 100% through genetics. In fact I said the opposite. Humor and entertainment=value. Strengthening social ties=value. Topics that are interesting to you=valuable to you as an individual. If I like to talk about rock climbing and the person that I'm talking about could give less of a fuck about rock climbing, my expertise, interests, and social prospects aren't valuable to that person. They will find my conversation boring, and unless I have other interests or views that they hold to be valuable, then it's unlikely our relationship will progress. Nothing abstract about that.

By transactional behaviour, I mean going through with sexual activity which you don't necessarily want in exchange for some kind of service or reward. In our society, this is almost exclusively limited to women.

However, as should be fairly obvious even to you, that doesn't mean all women all the time. There are particular contexts and particular situations in which some women will feel an expectation to have sex even though they don't necessarily want to. It's not mandated by some hidden evolutionary desire, because in many cases it's not actually something they want to do. It is a trade, it is a product of a particular social situation. It does not reveal some deep hidden truth about all human desire.

If you think it does, then I urge you to go outside now and grope at random women while trying to offer them money. I'm sure their animal brains will kick in and compel them to take your money because without that transaction they just wouldn't be worth anything. Certainly, there's absolutely no risk anyone would call the police.

You are deliberately distorting my argument. Women get TURNED ON by status. They are TURNED ON by the transaction-a strong, capable man is a turn on for women of almost any culture. That's why all humans are currently descended from, if I remember correctly, 80-90% of the women in history and 20-30% of the men in history; low value males who had no superior skills, no superior intellect, no superior anythings had no access to sex (outside of rape). Women WANT sex from high-value, skilled men. See: sports stars, celebrities, etc. It arouses them.
This ended with society and marriage. Low-value males gained access to sex through marriage. This is why they worked together and suffered the rigors of early agricultural work: the chance to fuck and breed.

A post ago, you argued that all men were naturally drawn to a particular body type. I'm glad you've recognized that's not true, but don't pretend that a completely different body type is actually the same as the one you've described.

Are you attracted to 14 year old girls? Do you find them as sexy and hot as those busty, broad hipped women you described earlier? Would you happily substitute one for the other because they're both actually expressing the same traits through a different physical appearance?

And if "differences in culture" can explain exceptional cases, why can't they explain all cases? Why do we need this nebulous concept of biological markers which can somehow express themselves in polar opposite physical forms through unclear mechanisms without losing any of their intrinsic meaning? What do we lose by not randomly assuming that those things exist? I'm pretty sure the explanation doesn't make any less sense without them, if "cultural differences" can make humans attracted to sheep I'm pretty sure they can make humans attracted to humans.

I haven't recognized shit. Slight variations in attractiveness through cultural differences does not equate to society dictating beauty.
Am I attracted to 14 year old girls? Depends on their level of development. I once approached a girl at the beach with large C/modest D-cup breasts. We talked for a while, and she mentioned something about being a freshman, which I took to mean a college freshman. Soon an older woman came up demanding to know who I was. I angrily asked what business she had in butting into our conversation. She revealed that she was the girl's mother. My mind hearkened back to her mention of being a freshman, and I asked how old she was.
Surprise! 14. I quickly excused myself and left.
So, yeah. If she has the body of an adult, I am attracted to a 14-year old. Would I have sex with one? Not with current age-limit laws, no.
And, again, there are no polar opposites. No society regards obese 40 year old women sex goddesses while the next country over reveres flat 14-year olds. All societies enjoy youthful women with a large window of fertility. Facial aesthetics, waist-to-hip ratios, and semi-large, perky breasts are all signs of high fertility, and men are attracted to those signs.

Maybe you shouldn't base your entire model of human development off a small strata of native Americans who used to live on the great plains and whose history has been largely lost and replaced with romantic myth. Just saying.

Good thing I don't do that then and merely use them as an example.

It's debatable whether those people even count as hunter gatherers. What they were doing was effectively herding livestock.

I'm shaking my head.

But you don't think men in our society should do it, and that's also biologically motivated.

I'm starting to notice a pattern with you for trying to claim that social trends which are contradictory are in fact the same thing. To be blunt, which of these societies is going against nature and if one of them can, why should we assume that either of them are following a naturally predetermined structure?

Raising boys into men and taking care of infants are two different things.

Yes, there are clear polar opposites.

In some societies, women have married multiple male partners. In others, men have married multiple female partners. In many others, the concept of marriage has held no meaning. In some societies, men and women have lived in shared social space and shared many of the same duties. In others, there have been extremely strict divisions of labour. In some societies, women display a caring and protective attitude towards children. In others, women seem to display little regard for their children and simply dump them somewhere while they go and work. In some societies, men are highly involved in childrearing. In others, men are completely absent from childrearing. In some societies, same sex intimacy is completely taboo. In others, it is prerequisite to social acceptance.

Please, give examples to support your claims. I have never heard of a society in which woman-centric polygamy has existed.
As for monogomy, I've already covered that above. Current marriage/monogomy models came as a result of agriculture.
As for women dumping them somewhere while they go and work, this is either born of necessity or in a culture where women are masculine. If you take a look at the composition of their bodies, I'm willing to bet there are larger amounts of testosterone. The opposite holds true for men being heavily involved in child-rearing; lower amounts of testosterone in these males. It's just a hypothesis, but I'm fairly positive what the results would be.
And, again, culture CAN override the forces of biology, but they are ever present in the subconscious.

I could go on and on, but rather than trying and failing to give an exhaustive list of difference, it's going to be much easier to ask what you honestly think is the same between all societies everywhere. What is "biology" actually determining about our societies? What are the rules which cannot be broken?

Procreation.

I'll simplify it for you. There are none. People have spent their lives looking for those rules, and there is always a functioning exception. Either "biology" can be ignored, in which case why do we have to accept that it plays a role at all, or whatever influence it has is extremely socially moderated.

You know nothing, Evil Cat. Biology can never be ignored, unless you've achieved some level of spiritual enlightenment or have an iron will. You can't ignore the need to shit, or breath, or sleep, or eat. These things can be temporarily set aside and ignored, but eventually you will notice them gnawing at your being.
The desire to fuck is the same thing at a slightly less immediate level. Society can't completely destroy the influence of biology, no matter how strict it gets.

...

Okay, since you just walked into one of my actual subject areas and pissed all over it.

The genetic component to homosexuality is pretty much a dead theory now. Occasionally, someone will come out with a twin study that gets some media time, but there are plenty of twin studies which come up negative. The problem is that "genetic mutation" doesn't actually work as an explanation without some quantifiable physiological or endocrinal difference caused by differing genetics. Genes don't make things happen by magic, they regulate how the body itself develops, so you need some kind of physical marker.

Prenatal hormone theory is also struggling at the moment. It's a very old theory which pretty much grows straight out of 19th century phrenology. The problem is that from very early on the differences being claimed between samples of "gay" and "straight" people (the " is deliberate, because it's often not clear how these samples are even derived) fitted easily into the natural range of variation. The idea of an essential rule, that if you're gay you have hormone profile X and if you're straight you have hormone profile Y, has had to go out of the window pretty quickly.

Modern PHT researchers have come up with some interesting things. Whether they're true or whether they'll end up like all the previous claims in the field will depend on whether they can be repeated, but they are not looking for essential rules. They are not even pretending to look for essential rules.

The big problem though is that to claim that whether you're gay or straight is dependent on your genes or your hormone profile is to fundamentally misunderstand sexual orientation. It also represents a failure to consider the actual process of transmission, namely, how would your genes or your hormone profile "encode" recognition of human sex? Babies demonstrably do not have exclusive sexual orientations, there is really no case for the idea that someone is born with a picture of a penis fully-formed in their head with a glowing sign saying "fuck this in this particular way".

O...k? I get that sexuality is somewhat fluid, especially in females, but I don't particularly subscribe to the 'everyone is gay, everyone isn't gay' theories. Why would males subject themselves to the ire of society if they were bisexual by choosing to be exclusively attracted to men? That doesn't make much sense to me.

"Biology" (whatever you mean by that, I'm sticking to the literal definition) is present in my fingers too.. Since I can use my fingers to play the piano, should I conclude that nature designed me to play the piano and by not playing the piano I'm destined to be unhappy?

No, that's fucking stupid.

Biology gave you a scrotum, with haploid cells that are designed to shoot out of a turgid meat sword into a fleshy hole that leads to various organs where it can couple with another haploid cell. Or...vice verse if you're a woman, I guess. Though I doubt that you are.
Biology made the act of copulation the most pleasurable feeling a human can attain.
Biology gave you the motivation to consistently seek out that pleasurable feeling and do what is necessary to acquire it. In a woman's case, biology makes her subconsciously aware of the dangers of childbirth and solo rearing, and so she seeks a man who can provide and give their child good status and genes.
You are a fucking, eating, shitting, breathing machine whose purpose is to make the next generation of fucking, eating, shitting, breathing machines. Thanks to our advanced brains, we have alternative programming, but those prime directives are ALWAYS there. Always.

This is where I have to point out that vaginal sexuality in women is a learned behaviour.

Young children will not generally try to penetrate their own bodies or those of others. In fact, a child trying to do so is considered a warning sign. It is only when children become socially aware of sex that they begin to conceive of penetration.

In fact, most women never really come to enjoy penetration in its own right, the vagina is not the primary female sex organ. In purely anatomical terms, the average woman would be rewarded with far more pleasurable feelings from masturbating than from having sex. It's simple anatomy, and yet utterly contrary to your assertion that nature wants us to have sex in a particular way.

So no, actually you're kind of wrong here too. Having sex is already a socially moderated process. It is not just pure pleasure and reward, it includes a fairly substantial element of repression and self-denial which is socially enforced. Why do you think people get so hung up on it?

It's quickly becoming apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. The primary sex organ is the one that will lead to pregnancy. The clitoris is the remains of what would have been the head of a penis if she had been born a man. Women may not orgasm 100% of the time from it, but vaginal penetrative sex will lead to pregnancy. Cats have fucking barbed dicks that HURT when they fuck, and yet they still do it. It's instinctual.
Or do you think we're some kind of super-transcendent being? Please. We're animals. Smart animals, but still mere animals.

Yes.

I'm actually bemused that you even got the opposite idea. Think about it for a second.

Done. Typical society espouses good men who are sensitive and willing to commit. Women are the ones who single out the villains and become attractive to them. True Blood and its ilk merely seek to capture this effect.

Well, you have a dogmatic belief in the inferiority of other people based on broad characteristics.

"Oh, but women like being socially subordinated, so I'm not doing any harm". Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Don't blame me if it starts to sound hollow one day.

Dogmatic-haha
Inferiority-haha!
My theories are anything but dogmatic-discussing things with you has made me seriously consider the validity of the things I say. I concluded that I was correct of course, but the point still stands.
Inferiority-hardly. How is it inferior to raise the next generation of human beings with kindness and nurturing feminine behaviors? I find that to be a respectable pursuit.

No. They reach out to memetic images.

Are you seriously claiming that the Go Compare guy is an expression of my subtle biological inclinations? Because if so, you're sicker than I thought.

Not really. A sales pitch claiming that everyone has a certain something DOES however attempt to stir your biological urge to seek status. If your status is lowered by not having that product, it creates distress.
Advertising manipulating biology is extremely common. They were doing it before they even realized what that meant. Look it up.

No, you'll be able to fuck women. The same result could be accomplished with a wallet and sufficient money.

"Attracting" women relies on women having a degree of sexual autonomy which, in much of the world, they still don't have, and in fact didn't have in our society until a few decades ago.

Once again you mistake "women doing things" for "women wanting to do things".

Wow, NOW who's sexist? Jesus Christ. Hahahahaha. Are you implying that all women are whores? Or are you implying they never want to have sex due to romantic reasons? Neither bodes well for you.
And yeah, that's true. You can't go to Arabia and hit on women, you'll be castrated. And she quite possibly will be stoned.
But you're wrong on a basic level: women have had dalliances and extramarital affairs throughout history, even in Arabia. Do you think they didn't want to do that, either? Are women constantly coerced into doing anything sexual?
If that's what you honestly think, you got some issues, pal.

No, you just advocate coercing and manipulating them. That's totally different.

It's alright, I understand that choice will only make women unhappy because they want big tough men like you take control of them, so it's better they don't have a choice about anything, and if anything ever goes wrong at least you can tell them they are happy and they won't know any better. That's not abusive, it's making them happy!

You are starting to sound like a very nasty piece of work, you know that.

Hahaha, the more of this post I read, the less serious I take you. It was interesting at first, but it's just sad now. I don't advocate taking away choice, and while I do admit that I manipulate, the girls aren't hurt and have a good time with me. Guess that makes me a bad guy! I'm done with this argument.

Angryman101:

Awesome reading comprehension. As I said, larger populations=more hunting parties. Sioux nation tribe populations could number in the hundreds, which meant a typical hunt could lead to tens of kills on a herd of 1000 pound bison.

The sioux population around the 17th century: About a hundred thousand.
The population of Tenochtitlan around 1500: 200,000. Total for the aztec empire in excess of one million people.

Angryman101:

It's quickly becoming clear that either don't know what you're talking about or you just aren't understanding my arguments. I am not plowing 3 acres of land with a rock attached to a piece of wood. My entire existence is not dependent on a single harvest. Farming fucking sucked in the early stages of its existence, and if one harvest failed, that was 3 months of work for nothing. I could starve.
With hunting, if one fails, that's an afternoon of work gone. I can try again tomorrow, especially when following a herd of hundreds, if not thousands.

Here's a thing you need to look up:
Fertile crescent

It is no accident that it is the birthplace of modern civilization and agriculture. You didn't get a bunch of gatherers that just sat down in stiff-frozen Sweden and tried to plant some crops. They began doing it in a place where crop yield was high and constant and then developed their own agricultural methods and tools until they could be used in other places with less certain and rich crop yield. It is, once again, no accident that civilizations like Rome and Carthage has their roots in phoenician settlers who brought along their agricultural knowledge to their settlements around the mediterreanean. You find similar places in all places where great civilizations have prospered (ganges river, lake texoco, yangthze river etc.), where it was easy to sustain regular and rich crop yields even with basic agricultural methods.

Seriously, this is like the very basics of ancient history and you are failing at it. Please stop typing before you make a really big fool of yourself.

Angryman101:

I laughed at the second sentence. It's really, really apparent that you don't.
As for proving it, I can't prove it any more than any anthropological theory can be proved. I look at context, I look at evidence, and I make theories.
What ABOUT animal husbandry? It rose with farming to offset some nutritional deficiencies. A small number of animals is not able to sustain a large community. Or do you think that ancient Mesopotamia had numerous individual ranches with 50 heads of cattle? lol.

Hardly, but it is far more likely that they had many individual peasants with a few hens, pigs and maybe even cattle each. Despite what you might think, the primary use of livestock and domesticated animal has not been their meat historically, but rather what secondary resources you can derive from them such as egg, milk etc. That's why goats and hens are among the most common farm animals, because they provide a fairly plentiful and regular access to milk and eggs. The rise of cattle as a primary farm animal is as recent as late 19th century, when it became feasible to maintain large cattle herds in the USA. In the rest of the world the cattle herds have been far smaller and usually retained by inividual farmers as opposed to "cattle barons".

Once again, you are failing at basic history and seem focused on a small subset of north american history. History that isn't representative for the rest of the world and certainly not for any major civilization in history, since north american indians were exterminated or assimilated into the western culture that displaced them.

Angryman101:
Again, you misrepresent human efficiency at hunting. There's a reason we were able to spread all over the world. Nomadic tribes were incredibly efficient hunters.

We spread out because we were wandering all over the fucking place over a period of thousands of years.

Awesome reading comprehension. As I said, larger populations=more hunting parties. Sioux nation tribe populations could number in the hundreds, which meant a typical hunt could lead to tens of kills on a herd of 1000 pound bison.

I was being sarcastic. You cannot sustain a large population on game alone.

Who says you're hunting with only bows and arrows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point
Clovis spear points were commonly used to take down giant sloths, giant bison, and fucking MAMMOTHS.
Again, you severely misrepresent human hunting efficiency.

Oh yes, a spear. That's totally more efficient than a gun.

I won't. A typical quadruped doesn't have the stamina to keep running for days. It has sprinting capabilities far past human speeds, but stamina is far less. Combined with an injury from an experienced hunter, it's dubious that it will last longer than 12 hours.

Larger game can actually survive a wound for days. And even a sprinter can evade you long enough that you'll be stalking it for days to come. You think you can run down a deer on foot? Try it and report back.

Wrong. If we were designed to be sprinters, we would have stayed with chimpanzee-style knuckle-walking, as it's more efficient and faster than bipedal motion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
Human physiology is perfectly adapted for long-distance hunts.

Not for running things down. We're not that fast in the grand scheme of the animal kingdom.

See above.

I stand by my statement.

Way to go, buddy, you did it. You solved the mystery.

I know. My genius truly is magnificent.

One day of hunting vs. 3 months of hard labor farming. Which is more disastrous if it fails?

Which one can sustain a larger population if it succeeds? Grains also can be stored and last a lot longer than meat. When Alexander the Great sent his armies to Persia, her first took Egypt so that he could use the stores of... wait for it... grain from the Nile flood plains to feed his armies. They didn't subsist entirely on camels, you know.

Yyyyyeah. You're not disproving my point. Tactics are part of hunting.

Tactics are what allowed us to not suck at hunting. That doesn't mean we were the Mohammad Ali of hunting.

Humans switched from hunting to agriculture because marriage=regular sex for low-value males who would have to go sexless in hunting societies.

Oh right. That horseshit. You still haven't proven a damn thing.

Hence north-west coastal culture.

And as long as they're there, might as well farm too. The Iroquois were the same way. Still doesn't change the fact that when you compare their populations to the Aztecs and the Incas, the farmers of Meso-America had a higher population.

Where the fuck are you getting YOUR math from? Seriously. I just looked it up online; a 1150 pound animal=570 pounds of edible meat, 150 pounds of fat (edible) and bone (marrow is insanely nutritious and accounts for at least half the weight of bone).

And how many buffalo do you think they ate?

And you're also wrong. Read: clovis points, archaeological sites including those artifacts with mammoth, giant bison, giant sloth, etc. bones. Humans had a very wide range of prey that widened as hunting technology improved.

I know what a clovis point is. Notice that we stopped using those a long fucking time ago. It wasn't that great.

That would make sense if you got a high from sprints rather than long-distance running.

You think every predator is going to give up easily?

Yeah, it's called supplements. Natural alternatives to the nutritional value of meat would have been insanely rare in paleolithic times.

You are aware that beans and nuts exist, right? And among the ancient Polynesians, they also had cannibalism. You want to try that, let me know how it works out for you?

It's quickly becoming clear that either don't know what you're talking about or you just aren't understanding my arguments.

Yawn.

I am not plowing 3 acres of land with a rock attached to a piece of wood.

Yeah, you're letting some other dude do the work for you, like the low-value male you keep whining about.

My entire existence is not dependent on a single harvest. Farming fucking sucked in the early stages of its existence, and if one harvest failed, that was 3 months of work for nothing. I could starve.

Again, grain has a longer shelf life than meat. Meat was a supplement. I told you before about the Greeks, the Romans and the Egyptians. If not for farming, they never could have built up populations like that. Where is your counter to that?

With hunting, if one fails, that's an afternoon of work gone. I can try again tomorrow, especially when following a herd of hundreds, if not thousands.

But being nomadic severely limits your population. You cannot have anything larger than a tribe with the hunter-gatherer model. This is an indisputable fact that you have so far failed to acknowledge.

I laughed at the second sentence. It's really, really apparent that you don't.

So you think. And yet you're the one who thinks a clovis point is anything more than impressive for its time.

As for proving it, I can't prove it any more than any anthropological theory can be proved. I look at context, I look at evidence, and I make theories.

No, you make conjecture. And don't insult anthropology by comparing it to yourself. My brother is an anthropologist and he would laugh in your face if you asserted any of this shit in front of him.

What ABOUT animal husbandry? It rose with farming to offset some nutritional deficiencies.

It also made hunting unnecessary. Why go out and risk getting killed on a hunt where there's a cow right there in the pasture?

A small number of animals is not able to sustain a large community. Or do you think that ancient Mesopotamia had numerous individual ranches with 50 heads of cattle? lol.

By the time of the settlement of the first Mesopotamian city of Eridu in 5400 BCE, animal husbandry was widely practiced and domesticated animals used in the work force (such as in plowing) as pets and as a food source.

Doc: 1
Angryman: 0

See, you make wild conjectures and then go to Google looking for proof that agrees with you. I go do the research and then say things. The order in which you do these things is kind of important. The fact that you laughed at me for making this assertion and then I proved I was right makes your argument and you look that much worse. It would behoove you to perhaps keep your mouth shut and listen once in a while.

Angryman101:
The clitoris is the remains of what would have been the head of a penis if she had been born a man.

I'm not touching most of this thread with a ten-foot pole, especially since it's gone so off-topic... but female is the default state for humans, so technically this is the wrong way around.

Gethsemani:

The sioux population around the 17th century: About a hundred thousand.
The population of Tenochtitlan around 1500: 200,000. Total for the aztec empire in excess of one million people.

Cool shit. If you bothered to read correctly, you'd have noticed I said that once agriculture reaches a certain level of efficiency, it becomes the logical choice over hunter/gatherer. It takes a long time to get that way, however.

Here's a thing you need to look up:
Fertile crescent

It is no accident that it is the birthplace of modern civilization and agriculture. You didn't get a bunch of gatherers that just sat down in stiff-frozen Sweden and tried to plant some crops. They began doing it in a place where crop yield was high and constant and then developed their own agricultural methods and tools until they could be used in other places with less certain and rich crop yield. It is, once again, no accident that civilizations like Rome and Carthage has their roots in phoenician settlers who brought along their agricultural knowledge to their settlements around the mediterreanean. You find similar places in all places where great civilizations have prospered (ganges river, lake texoco, yangthze river etc.), where it was easy to sustain regular and rich crop yields even with basic agricultural methods.

Seriously, this is like the very basics of ancient history and you are failing at it. Please stop typing before you make a really big fool of yourself.

You seem to be willfully not understanding what I'm saying
You fail to understand how shitty farming was in its early stages.
You fail to understand how a sudden plague of locusts, a local flood, or an unusually dry month can completely ruin a harvest for an early farmer and inundate MONTHS of work, possibly causing him and his community to starve.
You fail to realize how long it takes to domesticate a crop.
You fail to realize how TERRIBLE a purely agrarian society's nutrition is. Medieval people were short and frail compared to modern humans because of their shit nutrition, not because we're getting taller as a species.
You fail to realize that humans continued migrating to follow animal herds despite the fertility of the crescent. If it was so bountiful, why bother moving to Europe? Asia? North and South America? Certain groups stayed and made it viable for sustaining populations because of the perks of civilization (read: marriage)
See, and I can make my point without directly insulting you.

Hardly, but it is far more likely that they had many individual peasants with a few hens, pigs and maybe even cattle each. Despite what you might think, the primary use of livestock and domesticated animal has not been their meat historically, but rather what secondary resources you can derive from them such as egg, milk etc. That's why goats and hens are among the most common farm animals, because they provide a fairly plentiful and regular access to milk and eggs. The rise of cattle as a primary farm animal is as recent as late 19th century, when it became feasible to maintain large cattle herds in the USA. In the rest of the world the cattle herds have been far smaller and usually retained by inividual farmers as opposed to "cattle barons".

Once again, you are failing at basic history and seem focused on a small subset of north american history. History that isn't representative for the rest of the world and certainly not for any major civilization in history, since north american indians were exterminated or assimilated into the western culture that displaced them.

Read farther into my post and you would have come upon the line 'animal husbandry was always secondary to agriculture; it was meant to supplement, not sustain.' Eggs and milk can't replace the nutrition gleaned from meat, or even crops.

Dryk:

Angryman101:
The clitoris is the remains of what would have been the head of a penis if she had been born a man.

I'm not touching most of this thread with a ten-foot pole, especially since it's gone so off-topic... but female is the default state for humans, so technically this is the wrong way around.

This is incorrect, as the clitoris is superfluous. The glans is necessary in stimulation for the penis, and stimulation causes ejaculation which is necessary for procreation.

Angryman101:
You fail to realize that humans continued migrating to follow animal herds despite the fertility of the crescent. If it was so bountiful, why bother moving to Europe? Asia? North and South America?

Humans started in Africa. Some of them migrated to the Fertile Crescent, while others passed it by completely. That's not even accounting for the fact that some factions may have decided to take their knowledge of agriculture and set up shop somewhere else due to either over-population or ideological differences. And then of course there's the fact that some spread out because, hey! There's more land out there with more resources. Let's settle that too! You know why the ancient Egyptians went to a miserable place like Sinai? They wanted to mine the place.

See, and I can make my point without directly insulting you.

Not for lack of trying.

Read farther into my post and you would have come upon the line 'animal husbandry was always secondary to agriculture; it was meant to supplement, not sustain.' Eggs and milk can't replace the nutrition gleaned from meat, or even crops.

They can, actually. It's just a little trickier. There are cultures in the Pacific that haven't eaten red meat in centuries.

DrVornoff:

We spread out because we were wandering all over the fucking place over a period of thousands of years.

Yeah, we just one day decided to wander around. Hahahaha.

I was being sarcastic. You cannot sustain a large population on game alone.

Buffalo were so important to plains people half of their religions were centralized around them. They were migratory with the herds. Gathering did have a place in the society, but it was secondary to the hunt.

Oh yes, a spear. That's totally more efficient than a gun.

Nobody said it was, bud. It is more efficient in taking down large prey, though.

Larger game can actually survive a wound for days. And even a sprinter can evade you long enough that you'll be stalking it for days to come. You think you can run down a deer on foot? Try it and report back.

Larger game can survive a wound for days, yes, if they're just walking around and resting. When being consistently chased, they don't have the capacity to cool down or stay hydrated like humans do. They need to stop and rest in the shade to cool.

Not for running things down. We're not that fast in the grand scheme of the animal kingdom.

I stand by my statement.

You obviously didn't watch the video or read the link. We track, we divide the herd, and we run down the prey, slowly and surely.

Which one can sustain a larger population if it succeeds? Grains also can be stored and last a lot longer than meat. When Alexander the Great sent his armies to Persia, her first took Egypt so that he could use the stores of... wait for it... grain from the Nile flood plains to feed his armies. They didn't subsist entirely on camels, you know.

After a significant amount of technological development, farming does become a more efficient option than hunting, yes. I never said otherwise.

Tactics are what allowed us to not suck at hunting. That doesn't mean we were the Mohammad Ali of hunting.

Tactics are merely a part of it. We also had technology and our physiology.
Or wait, do you think that the wild dogs you mention don't use tactics? Because they do. Pack hunting itself is a tactic.

Oh right. That horseshit. You still haven't proven a damn thing.

Whatever you say.

And as long as they're there, might as well farm too. The Iroquois were the same way. Still doesn't change the fact that when you compare their populations to the Aztecs and the Incas, the farmers of Meso-America had a higher population.

That's nice? Again, after farming reaches a certain level of sophistication, it becomes the logical choice.

And how many buffalo do you think they ate?

Depends on the size of the tribe.

I know what a clovis point is. Notice that we stopped using those a long fucking time ago. It wasn't that great.

Sigh.

You think every predator is going to give up easily?

SIGH.

You are aware that beans and nuts exist, right? And among the ancient Polynesians, they also had cannibalism. You want to try that, let me know how it works out for you?

Beans and nuts. Yes. All peoples had access to those Planter's mixed nuts cans in the ancient world. Hahaha.
You'll also notice the distinct lack of large game in polynesia, as well as the nonexistent domesticated crops.

Yawn.

You fucking said it.

Yeah, you're letting some other dude do the work for you, like the low-value male you keep whining about.

Yes, someone is doing the work for me, so I gain all of the benefits with none of the hard work involved. My status is lower. Hahahaha

Again, grain has a longer shelf life than meat. Meat was a supplement. I told you before about the Greeks, the Romans and the Egyptians. If not for farming, they never could have built up populations like that. Where is your counter to that?

My rebuttle is that occurred after thousands of years of advances in technology in agriculture. When it first started, it was shitty. After a certain amount of sophistication, farming becomes more viable.

But being nomadic severely limits your population. You cannot have anything larger than a tribe with the hunter-gatherer model. This is an indisputable fact that you have so far failed to acknowledge.

Why should anybody care about your low population levels? Nomadic peoples were peaceful in comparison to their sedentary peers. What reason did they have to build larger populations?
Society gave them reason. Regular sex for low value males.

So you think. And yet you're the one who thinks a clovis point is anything more than impressive for its time.

You just admitted it was impressive for it's time. The thing took down fucking mammoths.
I don't know why this isn't getting through to you. I'm making myself very clear.

No, you make conjecture. And don't insult anthropology by comparing it to yourself. My brother is an anthropologist and he would laugh in your face if you asserted any of this shit in front of him.

And I would laugh right back at him and tell him to get a real job in archaeology.

It also made hunting unnecessary. Why go out and risk getting killed on a hunt where there's a cow right there in the pasture?

Because butchering one of your 5 cows is an act of desperation. Agricultural communities didn't have significant cattle herds until the mid 1800s.
Sheep herds were larger, but still unable to provide for an entire community regularly. Meat was a rarity.

By the time of the settlement of the first Mesopotamian city of Eridu in 5400 BCE, animal husbandry was widely practiced and domesticated animals used in the work force (such as in plowing) as pets and as a food source.

That's nice. Again, they did provide meat, but for the most part they just provided eggs, milk, and wool. Meat was a comparative rarity, and nutrition suffered for it.

[/quote]Doc: 1
Angryman: 0[/quote]
Haha, ok, whatever you say, sport.

[/quote]See, you make wild conjectures and then go to Google looking for proof that agrees with you. I go do the research and then say things. The order in which you do these things is kind of important. The fact that you laughed at me for making this assertion and then I proved I was right makes your argument and you look that much worse. It would behoove you to perhaps keep your mouth shut and listen once in a while.[/quote]
You didn't prove ANYTHING right. Ranches didn't exist until the mid 1800s, and individual families either only had a single cow and a handful of chickens or they exclusively herded sheep and used them for WOOL, not meat. Killing off members of your tiny herd is incredibly terrible business when you could be getting wool or milk or eggs consistently. If ancient people had herds of hundreds of cattle or sheep, then yes, that would make sense, but they didn't. 50 head of cattle was a challenge to take care of in the mid 1800s, let alone in Mesopotamia.

DrVornoff:

Humans started in Africa. Some of them migrated to the Fertile Crescent, while others passed it by completely. That's not even accounting for the fact that some factions may have decided to take their knowledge of agriculture and set up shop somewhere else due to either over-population or ideological differences. And then of course there's the fact that some spread out because, hey! There's more land out there with more resources. Let's settle that too! You know why the ancient Egyptians went to a miserable place like Sinai? They wanted to mine the place.

That would make sense if archaeological sights didn't indicate that humans followed the herds to hunt WELL before they moved fucking anywhere to spread agriculture. You're ignorant of the vast majority of human history.

Not for lack of trying.

/eyeroll whatever you say, kiddo.

They can, actually. It's just a little trickier. There are cultures in the Pacific that haven't eaten red meat in centuries.

Out of fucking necessity, sure. If the same islands were capable of sustaining populations of big game then they would be herding and hunting them.

theonewhois3:

Angryman101:

theonewhois3:

Civilisation 'developed' to distribute products of newly discovered processes. Like farming.

Oh? Why would people settle down in order to put in hundreds of times more work into farming and crop raising when it was infinitely more efficient to hunt and gather? A single hunt could potentially feed a small villiage for a week; a typical harvest takes MONTHS of back-breaking labor to provide food for one season that doesn't even have an equal nutritional value.

Oh yeah, meat's great. When you can get it. You know what's better than bringing down a bison for the 'vilage'? Owning a herd of domesticated cattle. You know how many people it takes to manage the herd? A few. You know how many people the herd can feed? More than a few.

Yeah, for a week.

Angryman101:
That would make sense if archaeological sights didn't indicate that humans followed the herds to hunt WELL before they moved fucking anywhere to spread agriculture. You're ignorant of the vast majority of human history.

Again, I never actually denied that our species spent its formative years following herds. You just assumed I said that. I simply pointed out that the ability to farm did not stop us from moving around.

/eyeroll whatever you say, kiddo.

Case in point.

Out of fucking necessity, sure. If the same islands were capable of sustaining populations of big game then they would be herding and hunting them.

So my point stands that you don't need large game to sustain a population.

Yeah, for a week.

Are you implying that a domesticated herd does not reproduce at the same rate as a wild one? And that's quite aside from the fact that ancient people mostly only slaughtered livestock like sheep and goats when they stopped giving other products. You drank way more goat's milk than you ever actually ate goat's meat back then. For meat, fish was far more common. This was true of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia... the list goes on.

Angryman101:

Gethsemani:

The sioux population around the 17th century: About a hundred thousand.
The population of Tenochtitlan around 1500: 200,000. Total for the aztec empire in excess of one million people.

Cool shit. If you bothered to read correctly, you'd have noticed I said that once agriculture reaches a certain level of efficiency, it becomes the logical choice over hunter/gatherer. It takes a long time to get that way, however.

Only, you know, the other part of my post tells you where it started and why. Since early agricultural civilizations obviously had it better then hunter/gatherer societies once they settled in fertile lands, that's really all the proof we need that your "logic" is backwards. Brool Cory Sto, but your reading comprehension is far worse then mine at this point.

Angryman101:

You seem to be willfully not understanding what I'm saying
You fail to understand how shitty farming was in its early stages.
You fail to understand how a sudden plague of locusts, a local flood, or an unusually dry month can completely ruin a harvest for an early farmer and inundate MONTHS of work, possibly causing him and his community to starve.
You fail to realize how long it takes to domesticate a crop.
You fail to realize how TERRIBLE a purely agrarian society's nutrition is. Medieval people were short and frail compared to modern humans because of their shit nutrition, not because we're getting taller as a species.
You fail to realize that humans continued migrating to follow animal herds despite the fertility of the crescent. If it was so bountiful, why bother moving to Europe? Asia? North and South America? Certain groups stayed and made it viable for sustaining populations because of the perks of civilization (read: marriage)
See, and I can make my point without directly insulting you.

Yeah and I can list ways that hunting fails too. However, since early agricultural societies not only survived but prospered and quickly took the leader over hunter/gatherers, that should tell us that even if the occasional plague, famine or misgrowth happened it was still stable enough to provide not only enough sustinence for survival but for unrivaled growth at the time.
As for how often the nile, eufrat, tigris or other such region fails to produce a harvest consider that it was considered a biblical disaster when the egyptian harvest failed. On the topic of nutrition, contemporary indians weren't much taller (in fact, it is said that they were generally shorter) then europeans. Which ought to tell us that hunter/gathering wasn't all that you crank it up to be in terms of nutritional value either.

And you don't seem to understand how human migration works, but that's par for the course at this point (and I honestly don't care if you find it insulting that I point it out).

Angryman101:

Read farther into my post and you would have come upon the line 'animal husbandry was always secondary to agriculture; it was meant to supplement, not sustain.' Eggs and milk can't replace the nutrition gleaned from meat, or even crops.

This is pretty much the only thing we agree on. It should be noted however that red meat has been a very small part of the human diet since we began with agriculture. It is fully possible to (and many, many millions of people has and do) survive on a diet with almost no red meat and only an occasional intake of animalistic protein or fat. Poultry and fish is still the primary source of animalistic protein and fat for a majority of the world's populace and even then only as a small compliment to primarly vegeterian carbohydrates.

Or are you going to suggest that asians and africans aren't really the same kind of human that you and I are because they don't overconsume red meat?

Angryman101:

This is incorrect, as the clitoris is superfluous. The glans is necessary in stimulation for the penis, and stimulation causes ejaculation which is necessary for procreation.

I am not sure if you've ever been with a girl, but we tend to get moister in our vagina when sexually aroused. Increased moisture in the vagina facilitates vaginal penetration and intercourse. Not hurting your partner during intercourse is probably an important part in the bonding process of mating.

I also feel obliged to point out here that humanity is one of the few animal species in the world that has sex purely for recreational reasons and it is entirely possible that the clitoris serves a function simply by making women aroused, thus making us more likely to want to have sex and in turn making us much more likely to become pregnant. Oh look at that, I can make quasi-essentialist evolutionary theories out of thin air and without evidence too!

Angryman101:
Yeah, we just one day decided to wander around. Hahahaha.

Didn't actually say that. You laughed a little early there.

Buffalo were so important to plains people half of their religions were centralized around them. They were migratory with the herds. Gathering did have a place in the society, but it was secondary to the hunt.

How does this in any way refute my point?

Doc: 2
Angryman: 0

Nobody said it was, bud. It is more efficient in taking down large prey, though.

Compared to what? Your bare hands?

Larger game can survive a wound for days, yes, if they're just walking around and resting. When being consistently chased, they don't have the capacity to cool down or stay hydrated like humans do. They need to stop and rest in the shade to cool.

So does the hunter. Gotta sleep at some point.

You obviously didn't watch the video or read the link. We track, we divide the herd, and we run down the prey, slowly and surely.

Again, assuming it doesn't escape and then you have to track it down. That happened a lot more often than you think it does.

After a significant amount of technological development, farming does become a more efficient option than hunting, yes. I never said otherwise.

Point stands. You cannot sustain a large population long-term on just game. Grains last much longer and are relatively nutritious.

Tactics are merely a part of it. We also had technology and our physiology.
Or wait, do you think that the wild dogs you mention don't use tactics? Because they do. Pack hunting itself is a tactic.

So I mention that they use pack hunting tactics... and you accuse me of not knowing that they use tactics?

Doc: 3
Angryman: 0

That's nice? Again, after farming reaches a certain level of sophistication, it becomes the logical choice.

Unfortunately, you make no distinction of when that is.

Depends on the size of the tribe.

Ballpark it.

Sigh.

Fart.

SIGH.

Grunt.

Beans and nuts. Yes. All peoples had access to those Planter's mixed nuts cans in the ancient world. Hahaha.

Not a joke but an incredible simulation.

Doc: 4
Angryman: 0

You'll also notice the distinct lack of large game in polynesia, as well as the nonexistent domesticated crops.

Notice also that their populations weren't that impressive.

Yes, someone is doing the work for me, so I gain all of the benefits with none of the hard work involved. My status is lower. Hahahaha

By your own definition, you're contributing less, right?

My rebuttle is that occurred after thousands of years of advances in technology in agriculture. When it first started, it was shitty. After a certain amount of sophistication, farming becomes more viable.

But by the logic you're using, there's no reason they would have pursued it if it was so goddamn unreliable.

Why should anybody care about your low population levels? Nomadic peoples were peaceful in comparison to their sedentary peers. What reason did they have to build larger populations?
Society gave them reason. Regular sex for low value males.

How about survival itself? You keep asserting that the only two motivations in life are survival and replication, but you're acting as if survival is also replication. All you want to talk about is boning.

You just admitted it was impressive for it's time. The thing took down fucking mammoths.
I don't know why this isn't getting through to you. I'm making myself very clear.

Notice that we replaced it with even better technology. That's my damn point.

And I would laugh right back at him and tell him to get a real job in archaeology.

And he would point out that he has been on several archaeological digs in Meso-America while you are a keyboard jockey talking a lot of smack on a gaming forum.

Because butchering one of your 5 cows is an act of desperation. Agricultural communities didn't have significant cattle herds until the mid 1800s.
Sheep herds were larger, but still unable to provide for an entire community regularly. Meat was a rarity.

And now we get to the point. Animal husbandry provided secondary benefits. Goat's milk was nutritious and fish could fill in the protein gaps. You have enough food from agriculture that hunting becomes a secondary issue.

That's nice. Again, they did provide meat, but for the most part they just provided eggs, milk, and wool. Meat was a comparative rarity, and nutrition suffered for it.

Still enough to sustain a larger population and make actual cities possible.

Haha, ok, whatever you say, sport.

Right back atcha, tiger.

You didn't prove ANYTHING right. Ranches didn't exist until the mid 1800s, and individual families either only had a single cow and a handful of chickens or they exclusively herded sheep and used them for WOOL, not meat. Killing off members of your tiny herd is incredibly terrible business when you could be getting wool or milk or eggs consistently.

And when it stopped producing, you slaughtered it. Waste not, want not. In rural New Zealand in fact they slaughter and eat horses once they're unable to work anymore.

If ancient people had herds of hundreds of cattle or sheep, then yes, that would make sense, but they didn't. 50 head of cattle was a challenge to take care of in the mid 1800s, let alone in Mesopotamia.

Which is why they didn't keep cattle. Same link shows that they mostly kept sheep and goats.

Angryman101:
Whoa, whoa, hold your gosh darn horses. Where the FUCK did all that come from? Do you honestly expect me to believe that African tribes have no concept of personal distress?

Firstly, you shouldn't really use the word "tribe" to describe Africa. It comes from really dodgy colonial anthropology and has some unpleasant and incorrect connotations. People in Africa very seldom live in ethnically and culturally distinct communities in the way "tribe" suggests.

There are cases when you can describe people who see themselves as separate ethnic groups with separate cultural practices as a "tribe", like Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, but in most of Africa you can't connote race with social organization at all.

Secondly, I don't want to have to tell you where I did my first degree, but let's just say it has the word "African" in the name.

Fuck, I have a friend flying out to Africa in a few weeks to do some research with some of the people you're talking about.

Angryman101:
What, are they fucking robots? Do one of them die and they just shrug and say, haha, whatever!

No. Why does that follow on from anything I've said?

What I'm saying is that it doesn't translate into a personal awareness of "mood" beyond the event because that requires a sense of stable personal subjectivity.

If someone dies, it's likely to be seen as a spiritual event (since all misfortune is generally seen as the result of unnatural influence) and is dealt with ritually. A functionalist might say that this is a way of dealing with the emotional consequences of the event, but people on the ground wouldn't understand it like that. Something has gone wrong and they need to fix it.

If someone then displays symptoms of uncontrollable grief, it is likely to be interpreted as another problem of spiritual influence, not as a psychological problem resulting from the event. The cure is not to sit and consider your mood and how you might be happier, the cure is to take you to a healer, a spiritual expert or the community as a whole who will then perform a ritual to "fix" the problem.

What I'm saying is that events do not connect to an idea of mood. African history has no psychoanalysis, no therapy, there is no idea of a psyche or mind or consciousness. This not really controversial to say.

Angryman101:
You made other points, but holy jesus that is...wow. Like, holy balls. That's probably the most racist thing I've heard all day.

What? It's nothing to do with race.

If you dropped a white child in one of these communities, they would grow up to view misfortune and unhappiness in much the same way. It's a social rational system, nothing to do with ethnic characteristics.

What has been employed to racist ends in the past is the idea that all humans share a particular moral and social nature, because it has been used to form racist hierarchies of societies which are "superior" or "inferior" in accordance with that assessment of human nature.

Angryman101:
I never said monogomy was a prerequisite for pairbonding. While females do fixate on one male, the male is capable of forming multiple bonds. High status males such as chieftains had their pick of the pie when it came to females.

Or, it's just about kinship systems and labour distribution, which makes infinitely more sense.

It's kind of odd how polygyny has been tied up in this faintly orientalist narrative of the harem, where it's all about the man's pleasure and excitement at having so many women to choose from.

But outside of the highly elite world of kings and emperors with formally recognized concubines, polygyny is about establishing kinship systems between individual men. It's based on the principle that if you marry someone's daughter you establish a kinship bond with her family. Both polygyny and polyandry can also be ways to instrumentalize labour in societies where labour is sex-segregated. Women in polygynous societies are not generally lying around acting as mothers and sex objects, they are actually working, producing things and adding value to their husband's household.

It's utterly ridiculous to claim that women "fixate" on particular males because in almost all kinship-oriented societies women don't choose who they marry, this is actually one of very few things which might be called a anthropological constant when it comes to sex roles. I wouldn't throw it aside so easily.

These things can be totally explained by the circumstances, you don't need to posit them as the fulfilment of evolutionary trends in order to explain them.

Angryman101:
I don't remember making the claim that topic was determined 100% through genetics.

You said:

This is why some people are considered interesting and flocked towards and why some are considered boring and avoided.

You didn't say "by particular people".

Again, if culture can determine what is and isn't interesting why are you asserting a biological definition of "interesting"?

Angryman101:
That's why all humans are currently descended from, if I remember correctly, 80-90% of the women in history and 20-30% of the men in history; low value males who had no superior skills, no superior intellect, no superior anythings had no access to sex (outside of rape). Women WANT sex from high-value, skilled men. See: sports stars, celebrities, etc. It arouses them.

I'm actually going to start banging my head against something soon.

Let's assume your statistics are true. They are missing any kind of establishing context or explanation which might make them meaningful, but I'll go along with the general principle.

As I have already explained, in kinship oriented societies (which have been the most common social structure for most of human history since the establishment of any form of culture) women have not chosen their sexual partners. Any notion that women are "aroused" by particular things has only very recently become a significant topic of inquiry for anyone.

That is the explanation. You do not need any other explanation. I shouldn't be surprised that you are ignorant of the foundational concepts of gendered social history, but fucking hell. This one is obvious, obvious, obvious.

Angryman101:
This ended with society and marriage.

Once again, the majority of societies in human history have been polygamous. What ended?

Assuming anything did, what has actually been lost in the abandonment of this supposedly "natural" state?

Humans have two closest genetic ancestors. Neither behaves anything like you describe. Where is the evidence?

Angryman101:
Am I attracted to 14 year old girls? Depends on their level of development.

Goalposts. Moving them.

Are you attracted to girls in early menarche who have little visible development? Because the majority of men in some societies have been, and your theory doesn't explain that.

Angryman101:
No society regards obese 40 year old women sex goddesses while the next country over reveres flat 14-year olds.

He says on the internet.

Angryman101:
Raising boys into men and taking care of infants are two different things.

But both are childrearing, both are predominantly performed by women in our society, and you have asserted this relationship as natural. Which is it?

Stop moving the goalposts and actually address the obvious point of cultural difference. Can you do that?

Angryman101:
Please, give examples to support your claims. I have never heard of a society in which woman-centric polygamy has existed.

The people of the lake region of Central Africa, the Masai, the Irigwe of Nigeria, ancient Britons and other Celtic societies, ancient Lacemdaemonians, India, Tibet and the Himalayas, pre-Islamic Arabia, the Hephthalite khanate, the Sherpas of Nepal, Bhutan, Muli, the Nivkh people of Eastern Russia, Sri Lanka, some Polynesian ethnic groups such as the Kanak and Marquesans, and up to 70% of Amazonian cultures at one time or another.

It's not the most common practice on a global perspective, but there are many examples if you're willing to look.

Angryman101:
As for women dumping them somewhere while they go and work, this is either born of necessity or in a culture where women are masculine. If you take a look at the composition of their bodies, I'm willing to bet there are larger amounts of testosterone.

...

The bullshit! It burns!

Beyond the fact that we actually know the effects of varying testosterone levels of women and this is not one of them, there are cultures in Africa and Papua New Guinea living within a few miles of each other, who have centuries of shared genetics and yet who have radically different attitudes to childrearing.

Again, this is a consequence of assuming a correlation between cultural communities and ethnic communities. Inbreeding alone makes that impossible.

We're also getting extremely close to racism here..

Angryman101:
Procreation.

Good, at least you're trying. Now, when you describe the things which evolution makes societies do, can you give me something relevant to procreation please? Because all this crap is at best peripherally connected to procreation?

Angryman101:
O...k? I get that sexuality is somewhat fluid, especially in females, but I don't particularly subscribe to the 'everyone is gay, everyone isn't gay' theories. Why would males subject themselves to the ire of society if they were bisexual by choosing to be exclusively attracted to men? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Hmm, let me think..

Because this doesn't mean that everyone is bisexual.

The fact that there's no evidence of any kind of physical cause for homosexual does not mean anyone is free to chose their sexuality. Neither does the mere lack of personal choice evidence any kind of physical cause. You can't just claim this bollocks off hand, you have to know how it works.

Anything else is bad, bad, stupid science.

Angryman101:
Biology gave you a scrotum, with haploid cells that are designed to shoot out of a turgid meat sword into a fleshy hole that leads to various organs where it can couple with another haploid cell.

Biology also gave me a prostate, which can give me far more reward than ejaculating into the most awesome, amazing vagina on earth.

Maybe the reason you take your shit out on women is that you aren't being fucked as much as nature intended when it gave you a prostate. I'm sure regular receptive anal would make you much happier. Nature obviously designed you that way when it put your most pleasurable organ right up against the wall of your arse.

I'm deliberately ignoring the procreation argument, but if you want to go there.. well, I hope you've never kissed anyone. That would be unnatural!

The lesson, in case you missed it, is that evolution is not God. It does not design things intelligently. To claim intent on the part of evolution is no less stupid than claiming intent on the part of the moon.

Angryman101:
Biology made the act of copulation the most pleasurable feeling a human can attain.

Except prostate stimulation for men or clitoral stimulation for women.

Angryman101:
The primary sex organ is the one that will lead to pregnancy. The clitoris is the remains of what would have been the head of a penis if she had been born a man.

God, I feel sorry for anyone you've had sex with.

Sorry, that was cheap.

We are talking about pleasure, right? By "primary sex organ" I mean the organ which gives the most pleasure, which is not the vagina. I'm saying that the vagina is generally not even a part of a woman's sexuality until the concept of penetrative sex is encountered socially. Are you going to engage with that, or simply try to move the goal posts by contesting the terminology?

Angryman101:
Typical society espouses good men who are sensitive and willing to commit.

You're actually contradicting yourself now, because you've pretty much said the opposite repeatedly.

Society rewards men for embodying hegemonic forms of masculinity which are aggressive, display low empathy and emotional effect and achieve legitimacy through subordinating women and alternative forms of masculinity. Men who embody these traits are constantly shown to be sexually successful, do you honestly believe this does not filter down?

Seriously, go to a fucking movie, play a video game, look at the normative behaviours expected of high-status men virtually anywhere in society. The traits which you have arbitrarily cordoned off as natural are socially explicit, they are constantly repeated and reinforced in media and everyday cultural life, they don't just spring out of nowhere, they are constantly being reiterated and repeated. You can see this with a cursory glance.

How the hell are you arguing that dominant expressions in culture in no way reflect what people are attracted to? If nothing else, if that was true, how would any cultural product ever make money off a female audience.

Angryman101:
Inferiority-hardly. How is it inferior to raise the next generation of human beings with kindness and nurturing feminine behaviors? I find that to be a respectable pursuit.

But you wouldn't do it.

You're talking about coercing people into doing something that you yourself wouldn't do because you think they should find it fun. You specifically don't want to give them the choice whether or not to do it because choice will apparently make them unhappy, you just want them to be forced to do it because you know better than them whether they'll enjoy it.

And this is all okay because of what they have between their legs.

This fits the definition of misogyny perfectly, from where I'm sitting.

Angryman101:
Or are you implying they never want to have sex due to romantic reasons?

I'd look up the definition of "Romantic" before continuing with that. You might spot the obvious mistake you're making, but I doubt it.

Angryman101:
Hahaha, the more of this post I read, the less serious I take you.

I wish I was feeling generous enough to say the same thing.

Still, I apologise for any trace of ad hominem in that last argument. I don't know very much about you as a person except that you believe a whole bunch of weird bollocks about the status of women. But, in a way, that's kind of enough for me. I judge people in real life for far less than that. I apologise also for my general tone, needless to say I have issues with people like you.

Still, you are clearly aware on some level that this is a lost argument. You kind of said it in your very first post when you claimed that women are becoming "more masculine". One day I fear that you will look around for the kind of infantile, useless, desperate creatures who you see as "proper women" and find that they are in short supply, and that like many men of the generation before you've been relegated to the status of a misogynist dinosaur.

Maybe the thought has already crossed your mind, fuck for all I know that's why you've become so committed to this little crusade, because it gives justification to a dying form of masculinity.

Maybe what's actually at stake here is your failure to adapt to a changing world, and the fact that your self-esteem is dependent on the subordination of women. That's not uncommon, I've seen countless men who seem to be in the same place.

So before you go, I'm going to say that I firmly believe that there is hope for you. You don't need to fear change, you don't need to retreat to biological essentialism or misogyny to make your life or your masculinity valuable. All your life I imagine you've held yourself to a script which you believe makes you worth more than those men who "fail" to live up to your standards, but I'm going to tell you that losing that script, losing that automatic legitimacy and personal privilege is not the terrifying thing you might imagine that it is. Instead, you might come to realize that you have the ability to live in ways you never possibly imagined could make you happy, to have people in your life who are more interesting, more diverse and more individually amazing than the walking vaginas which you have sought to reduce women to.

You say that your way of life can make people happy, but to be honest with you, I don't think you sound happy. In truth, I think you sound terribly insecure, and I find myself wondering what exactly it is that you're so afraid of losing.

I expect I already know how you will respond to this, if indeed you do at all, and whether you live up to that expectation will either confirm or deny my assessment of you. However, I strongly advise you not to remember that what I'm saying is actually an affirmation of you. It probably doesn't look like one, but it is. It really is.

DrVornoff:
snip

evilthecat:
snip

Angryman101 Status:

[ ] Not told
[ ] Told
[x] Fuckin' told
[x] Cash4Told.com
[x] No Country for Told Men
[x] Leo Toldstoy
[x] Pokemon: HeartTold and ToldSilver

Angryman has used the phrase 'Turgid Meat Sword' in this thread. I think we're all done here, really.

Gethsemani:

Only, you know, the other part of my post tells you where it started and why. Since early agricultural civilizations obviously had it better then hunter/gatherer societies once they settled in fertile lands, that's really all the proof we need that your "logic" is backwards. Brool Cory Sto, but your reading comprehension is far worse then mine at this point.

Except that's not true, like at all. Farming was an incredibly limiting lifestyle. The only people who REALLY benefited from agriculture were the tradesmen, those who owned the land that essential materials were mined/gathered/excavated, and us here in the future. Farming was shit nutritionally, and the work was hard, long, and risky.
As good as those lands were for raising crops, you still can't take out all the risk, and it still is a crappy lifestyle in comparison to a free-roaming hunting one.

Yeah and I can list ways that hunting fails too.

Please do.

However, since early agricultural societies not only survived but prospered and quickly took the leader over hunter/gatherers, that should tell us that even if the occasional plague, famine or misgrowth happened it was still stable enough to provide not only enough sustinence for survival but for unrivaled growth at the time.
As for how often the nile, eufrat, tigris or other such region fails to produce a harvest consider that it was considered a biblical disaster when the egyptian harvest failed. On the topic of nutrition, contemporary indians weren't much taller (in fact, it is said that they were generally shorter) then europeans. Which ought to tell us that hunter/gathering wasn't all that you crank it up to be in terms of nutritional value either.

And you don't seem to understand how human migration works, but that's par for the course at this point (and I honestly don't care if you find it insulting that I point it out).

Wrong. Agriculture took around 1000 years to start to seriously catch on in a small number of areas, and 2000 years for large-scale collective organizational work in these SAME areas to catch on as well. So quickly...not really. You seem to think that someone was like 'hey, agriculture everyone!' and suddenly societies sprouted from the ether. It took a long time to make the switch, and that switch occurred because of perks that society offered.
As for nutrition, archaeological findings show that ancient male humans averaged 5'8-6'0. Even H. Erectus averaged around 5'10, and that was proto-human.
Humans lived in hunter-gatherer societies for hundreds of thousands of years. If that method of living wasn't efficient, we would have died off long, long ago.
And as to your assertion of my not knowing how human migration works, I have nothing to say to it because it's a baseless claim that simply isn't true. So...

This is pretty much the only thing we agree on. It should be noted however that red meat has been a very small part of the human diet since we began with agriculture. It is fully possible to (and many, many millions of people has and do) survive on a diet with almost no red meat and only an occasional intake of animalistic protein or fat. Poultry and fish is still the primary source of animalistic protein and fat for a majority of the world's populace and even then only as a small compliment to primarly vegeterian carbohydrates.

Or are you going to suggest that asians and africans aren't really the same kind of human that you and I are because they don't overconsume red meat?

'Since we began with agriculture' is the main point there. 11000 years as compared to 200000. Less than 5% of our existence has survived primarily on vegetation.
And yeah, it's possible to survive without red meat, but your diet's shittier for it. Meat contains an insane amount of nutrients. Fishing and poultry do make up for it, but with quickly declining fish populations, its obvious that can't sustain large populations.
And you'll notice that the people who live in those areas are either starving or have crap diets. Rural Chinese farm workers do NOT have the same level of nutrition as we do, and their quality of life suffers for it. Africa is a shithole.

I am not sure if you've ever been with a girl, but we tend to get moister in our vagina when sexually aroused. Increased moisture in the vagina facilitates vaginal penetration and intercourse. Not hurting your partner during intercourse is probably an important part in the bonding process of mating.

I also feel obliged to point out here that humanity is one of the few animal species in the world that has sex purely for recreational reasons and it is entirely possible that the clitoris serves a function simply by making women aroused, thus making us more likely to want to have sex and in turn making us much more likely to become pregnant. Oh look at that, I can make quasi-essentialist evolutionary theories out of thin air and without evidence too!

Women get wetter as they become sexually aroused? Wait, hold up, let me write this down.
The vast majority of women don't need clitoral stimulation to get and stay wet. Some can barely even feel the thing. It's a bonus.
And that last assertion is pretty laughable, but you already knew that.

DrVornoff:

Buffalo were so important to plains people half of their religions were centralized around them. They were migratory with the herds. Gathering did have a place in the society, but it was secondary to the hunt.

How does this in any way refute my point?

Doc: 2
Angryman: 0

How does it not?

Compared to what? Your bare hands?

Yeah. Also arrows.

So does the hunter. Gotta sleep at some point.

/eyeroll

Again, assuming it doesn't escape and then you have to track it down. That happened a lot more often than you think it does.

Oh, really? Are you telling me this from experience? Hahaha

Point stands. You cannot sustain a large population long-term on just game. Grains last much longer and are relatively nutritious.

1. Yes you can. Herds of bison numbered in the millions, for instance. You can't have the same number, but populations of thousands can be sustained.
2. Relatively nutritious is a joke. Grain is shit in comparison to almost anything else humans can. It just was easiest to domesticate.

So I mention that they use pack hunting tactics... and you accuse me of not knowing that they use tactics?

Doc: 3
Angryman: 0

/eyeroll

Unfortunately, you make no distinction of when that is.

Probably about the time the ox or horse-driven plow came into being.

Ballpark it.

I don't remember what this was about

Not a joke but an incredible simulation.

Doc: 4
Angryman: 0

What does that even mean

Notice also that their populations weren't that impressive.

Alright?

By your own definition, you're contributing less, right?

You misunderstand. Low value males were low value because they didn't have the status or the skills of high value men. This was unattractive to women because 1. it meant their children would have shitty genes and/or 2. they wouldn't be able to adequately provide for the children they sired.

But by the logic you're using, there's no reason they would have pursued it if it was so goddamn unreliable.

EXACTLY! You finally get it! Hooray!
Farming sucked, but with the development of society and the concept of land ownership and payment for work/product came marriage, so low value men could get a fuck if their land produced enough. The prospect of a sexless life is a dire one, perhaps even more so than one of servitude to the merciless hands of fate.

How about survival itself? You keep asserting that the only two motivations in life are survival and replication, but you're acting as if survival is also replication. All you want to talk about is boning.

Because boning IS life. The point of life, if anything, is to fuck. After your survival is assured, you will be looking to fuck. Everything that you do (getting money, making plows, getting a promotion at work) is to heighten your value to get a mate.

Notice that we replaced it with even better technology. That's my damn point.

I...ok? Eventually. It's not like we had John Deere tractors in fucking Egypt.

And he would point out that he has been on several archaeological digs in Meso-America while you are a keyboard jockey talking a lot of smack on a gaming forum.

I myself have participated in a number of archaeological digs on the channel islands in California. My point still stands; he's an anthropologist, not an archaeologist. Keyboard jockey awayyyy

And now we get to the point. Animal husbandry provided secondary benefits. Goat's milk was nutritious and fish could fill in the protein gaps. You have enough food from agriculture that hunting becomes a secondary issue.

Cool deal, we're in agreement, as I've said multiple times.

Still enough to sustain a larger population and make actual cities possible.

What would a paleolithic human want with a city, exactly? What benefit would he get from a dirty, plague-infested shithole that is only good for the rich and powerful?

And when it stopped producing, you slaughtered it. Waste not, want not. In rural New Zealand in fact they slaughter and eat horses once they're unable to work anymore.

That's once every 10 years or so. That provides NOTHING.

Which is why they didn't keep cattle. Same link shows that they mostly kept sheep and goats.

Point remains; a herd of 20-30 sheep is the limit of a man working on his own. If he slaughtered one every time he wanted meat, those things would be gone within a year.
This is getting really tiring and time-consuming having to go over the same points over and over again.

evilthecat:
hot air

Haha, you're still here?

And here I was hoping you had finally fucked off and left us alone.

Angryman101:
How does it not?

The fact that it has little to nothing to do with what I said? Durr.

Yeah. Also arrows.

So... a spear is superior to a weapon that propels death from hundreds of yards away?

/eyeroll

Doc: 5
Angryman: 0

Oh, really? Are you telling me this from experience? Hahaha

I've known people who hunt. Including bow hunters. How about you?

Also, you don't need to keep typing out laughter. We know you're not actually laughing, you're not fooling anyone and no one finds it even remotely funny.

1. Yes you can. Herds of bison numbered in the millions, for instance. You can't have the same number, but populations of thousands can be sustained.

Millions across the North American continent. And in actuality those millions were the result of a population explosion from Europeans giving the natives smallpox and killing off natural predators by the score.

But again, compare the population of the Sioux nation to the Aztec nation. Is there a reason you are deliberately ignoring this point?

2. Relatively nutritious is a joke. Grain is shit in comparison to almost anything else humans can. It just was easiest to domesticate.

When I was going camping, I packed more trail mix than jerky, I'll tell you that for free.

And actually, grains provide a lot of carbohydrates. Protein gaps can be filled in with small game, milk, eggs, nuts and beans.

/eyeroll

Doc: 6
Angryman: 0

Probably about the time the ox or horse-driven plow came into being.

And when was that? Ballpark it.

I don't remember what this was about

This conversation is recorded in the thread. Read back.

What does that even mean

Doc: 7
Angryman: 0

Alright?

Doc: 8
Angryman: 0

You misunderstand. Low value males were low value because they didn't have the status or the skills of high value men. This was unattractive to women because 1. it meant their children would have shitty genes and/or 2. they wouldn't be able to adequately provide for the children they sired.

So my point stands.

EXACTLY! You finally get it! Hooray!
Farming sucked, but with the development of society and the concept of land ownership and payment for work/product came marriage, so low value men could get a fuck if their land produced enough. The prospect of a sexless life is a dire one, perhaps even more so than one of servitude to the merciless hands of fate.

I think you don't quite get it. By your logic, agriculture never would have happened. Period. And yet it did. The desire for poontang would not have been sufficient if farming was such a horrible idea.

Because boning IS life. The point of life, if anything, is to fuck. After your survival is assured, you will be looking to fuck. Everything that you do (getting money, making plows, getting a promotion at work) is to heighten your value to get a mate.

Joseph Campbell would disagree. Are you Joseph Campbell? No? Then shut up.

I...ok? Eventually. It's not like we had John Deere tractors in fucking Egypt.

Doc: 9
Angryman: 0

I myself have participated in a number of archaeological digs on the channel islands in California. My point still stands; he's an anthropologist, not an archaeologist. Keyboard jockey awayyyy

Well whoop-dee-doo for you. How exactly does his anthropology and extensive knowledge of pre-Columbian Meso-American history make him inferior to you?

Cool deal, we're in agreement, as I've said multiple times.

Then stop going off on bullshit.

What would a paleolithic human want with a city, exactly? What benefit would he get from a dirty, plague-infested shithole that is only good for the rich and powerful?

Walls to protect him from predators and other people who want to put an arrow in his face? A large population of people with different skills to provide him with things like clothes, tools, etc, so that he can focus on his one job more? Safety in numbers? Lots of benefits, really.

It really baffles me how you badmouth technology and cultural development, and then romanticize a lifestyle that involved shitting in the woods a lot.

That's once every 10 years or so. That provides NOTHING.

The fact that it happens says it provides something. So I think we can do without the hyperbole.

Point remains; a herd of 20-30 sheep is the limit of a man working on his own.

Hence the larger population accomplishing other tasks.

This is getting really tiring and time-consuming having to go over the same points over and over again.

Then shag off. You're not going to win this argument. My dog is a better rhetorician than you, so perhaps it's time for you to throw in the towel and we can put this nonsense to bed.

Angryman101:

evilthecat:
hot air

Haha, you're still here?

evilthecat: image
Angryman: 0

You're done here.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked