That genuinely has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Men millenia ago didn't crave wealth because it simply didn't exist. Well, not in terms that we'd recognise. But you can bet your life that they craved the best spot in the cave, the best woman, the best tools, the best clothing, first crack at the food etc.
There are lots of things individuals might crave or do if left to their own devices but fortunately we have society and culture which tempers or controls those urges. Killing and rape are natural but fortunately most of us don't find them acceptable.
Are you suggesting we should govern our behaviour on what could be considered natural?
There are lots of things individuals might crave or do if left to their own devices but fortunately we have society and culture which tempers or controls those urges. Killing and rape are natural but fortunately most of us don't find them acceptable.
Are you suggesting we should govern our behaviour on what could be considered natural?
Eh?
I was replying to a premise set up by another poster as to why wealth wasn't intrinsic to human nature.
Do feel free to provide evidence of these enduring, successful, communal societies.
(PS: 10 hippies living in a yurt in California doesn't count.)
There are none. As archeology and primative societies show, societies evolved with leaders who performed roles like leading the tribe in war,and deciding things- with medicine men to add ritual, decide the date , and lead drug fueled raves. The leaders got buried in big tomb with their worldly wealth . They had the mansions. When food was short in some places and times the peasants got eaten. The leaders did what state leaders succeeded them in doing, they made the decisions, and led the group against anyone who tried to take their land wealth or women. Thats why stone age Britain is littered with forts, and big monumenst built by peasant gangs, not CND signs and communes.
That stretches back way into evolution - to the Bonobos and Chimps hucking rocks at each other, eating. enemies , and having strong social structures with alpha males, alpha females, competitors, and also rans.
And most current UK structures and political divides still originate in the early iron age or before. Britain has been run by the most powerful tribe based around, and to the north, of London since pre-Roman times. Geography rules there - location matters. . North and South Wales, and many of the English counties have been distinctive since the same era. Its no coincidence that Farage is getting a strong vote from the descendants of the Iceni who also didn't like Rome, or that Kent votes differently to Yorkshire, or that the assorted warring Scottish tribes - who bizarrely preferred to not even join the Roman Empire - are still trying to split from the rest of the UK.
That genuinely has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Men millenia ago didn't crave wealth because it simply didn't exist. Well, not in terms that we'd recognise. But you can bet your life that they craved the best spot in the cave, the best woman, the best tools, the best clothing, first crack at the food etc.
Life in hunter-gatherer societies was based on the community, not the individual.
If such things occurred as you say they would have all died out.
I was replying to a premise set up by another poster as to why wealth wasn't intrinsic to human nature.
I was arguing with trevgo who claimed that the love of wealth was part of human nature.
I have pointed out that man spent a good part of his development in primitive communist communities where the very concept of non-communal activity was alien.
As this was the case (and a few small communities today still live like this) then the view of trevgo that love of wealth is part of human nature is incorrect, for, if such a love came later, it cannot be intrinsic to the species.
Life in hunter-gatherer societies was based on the community, not the individual.
If such things occurred as you say they would have all died out.
are you sure about that....
violence was much more pervasive in hunter-gatherer society than in more recent eras. From the !Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.
There are none. As archeology and primative societies show, societies evolved with leaders who performed roles like leading the tribe in war,and deciding things- with medicine men to add ritual, decide the date , and lead drug fueled raves. The leaders got buried in big tomb with their worldly wealth . They had the mansions. When food was short in some places and times the peasants got eaten. The leaders did what state leaders succeeded them in doing, they made the decisions, and led the group against anyone who tried to take their land wealth or women. Thats why stone age Britain is littered with forts, and big monumenst built by peasant gangs, not CND signs and communes.
That stretches back way into evolution - to the Bonobos and Chimps hucking rocks at each other, eating. enemies , and having strong social structures with alpha males, alpha females, competitors, and also rans.
And most current UK structures and political divides still originate in the early iron age or before. Britain has been run by the most powerful tribe based around, and to the north, of London since pre-Roman times. Geography rules there - location matters. . North and South Wales, and many of the English counties have been distinctive since the same era. Its no coincidence that Farage is getting a strong vote from the descendants of the Iceni who also didn't like Rome, or that Kent votes differently to Yorkshire, or that the assorted warring Scottish tribes - who bizarrely preferred to not even join the Roman Empire - are still trying to split from the rest of the UK.
The Hadza are organized into bands, called 'camps' in the literature, of typically 20–30 people, though camps of over a hundred may form during berry season. There is no tribal or other governing hierarchy, and conflict may be resolved by one of the parties voluntarily moving to another camp. The Hadza live in a communal setting and engage in cooperative child rearing, where many individuals (both related and unrelated) provide high quality care for children
The rest of your post is irrelevant, as you speaking of times after the hunter-gatherer era were replaced with the onset of agriculture in the Neolithic era.
I was arguing with trevgo who claimed that the love of wealth was part of human nature.
I have pointed out that man spent a good part of his development in primitive communist communities where the very concept of non-communal activity was alien.
As this was the case (and a few small communities today still live like this) then the view of trevgo that love of wealth is part of human nature is incorrect, for, if such a love came later, it cannot be intrinsic to the species.
As can only be expected of absolutists, you are interpreting it to mean an obsessional drive for wealth, to be relentlessly pursued to the cost and detriment of everything else.
I'm not saying that is admirable, but that sort (and they exist, of course) are purely the contemporary version of the most driven hunter who worked 10 times as hard as everyone else. Ate the most. Became the strongest. Had the most fertile partner, etc, etc.
Love of wealth - as in desire, appreciation, and for sure, envy, is most certainly natural.
As can only be expected of absolutists, you are interpreting it to mean an obsessional drive for wealth, to be relentlessly pursued to the cost and detriment of everything else.
I'm not saying that is admirable, but that sort (and they exist, of course) are purely the contemporary version of the most driven hunter who worked 10 times as hard as everyone else. Ate the most. Became the strongest. Had the most fertile partner, etc, etc.
Love of wealth - as in desire, appreciation, and for sure, envy, is most certainly natural.
This is clearly a cast-iron promise that Labour intend to break. It's a promise that appeals to the core working class Labour voter who is totally naive about business or politics. They are putty in the hands of devious politicians.
Milliband is pretending that these people do not pay tax.
What he said was, " They do not pay tax like us". Strictly true but that's not the message he wanted to come across.
Comments
There are lots of things individuals might crave or do if left to their own devices but fortunately we have society and culture which tempers or controls those urges. Killing and rape are natural but fortunately most of us don't find them acceptable.
Are you suggesting we should govern our behaviour on what could be considered natural?
Eh?
I was replying to a premise set up by another poster as to why wealth wasn't intrinsic to human nature.
You've quoted something about the Neolithic period!
That came in and replaced the hunter-gatherer era.
There are none. As archeology and primative societies show, societies evolved with leaders who performed roles like leading the tribe in war,and deciding things- with medicine men to add ritual, decide the date , and lead drug fueled raves. The leaders got buried in big tomb with their worldly wealth . They had the mansions. When food was short in some places and times the peasants got eaten. The leaders did what state leaders succeeded them in doing, they made the decisions, and led the group against anyone who tried to take their land wealth or women. Thats why stone age Britain is littered with forts, and big monumenst built by peasant gangs, not CND signs and communes.
That stretches back way into evolution - to the Bonobos and Chimps hucking rocks at each other, eating. enemies , and having strong social structures with alpha males, alpha females, competitors, and also rans.
And most current UK structures and political divides still originate in the early iron age or before. Britain has been run by the most powerful tribe based around, and to the north, of London since pre-Roman times. Geography rules there - location matters. . North and South Wales, and many of the English counties have been distinctive since the same era. Its no coincidence that Farage is getting a strong vote from the descendants of the Iceni who also didn't like Rome, or that Kent votes differently to Yorkshire, or that the assorted warring Scottish tribes - who bizarrely preferred to not even join the Roman Empire - are still trying to split from the rest of the UK.
Life in hunter-gatherer societies was based on the community, not the individual.
If such things occurred as you say they would have all died out.
I am not for one moment saying we go back to it - are you being deliberately obtuse?
I was arguing with trevgo who claimed that the love of wealth was part of human nature.
I have pointed out that man spent a good part of his development in primitive communist communities where the very concept of non-communal activity was alien.
As this was the case (and a few small communities today still live like this) then the view of trevgo that love of wealth is part of human nature is incorrect, for, if such a love came later, it cannot be intrinsic to the species.
are you sure about that....
http://www.economist.com/node/10278703
You've done it now. The Labourites will use that to claim Ed was BORN to be leader.
Love your posts, btw ;-)
The Hadza are organized into bands, called 'camps' in the literature, of typically 20–30 people, though camps of over a hundred may form during berry season. There is no tribal or other governing hierarchy, and conflict may be resolved by one of the parties voluntarily moving to another camp. The Hadza live in a communal setting and engage in cooperative child rearing, where many individuals (both related and unrelated) provide high quality care for children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people
The rest of your post is irrelevant, as you speaking of times after the hunter-gatherer era were replaced with the onset of agriculture in the Neolithic era.
As can only be expected of absolutists, you are interpreting it to mean an obsessional drive for wealth, to be relentlessly pursued to the cost and detriment of everything else.
I'm not saying that is admirable, but that sort (and they exist, of course) are purely the contemporary version of the most driven hunter who worked 10 times as hard as everyone else. Ate the most. Became the strongest. Had the most fertile partner, etc, etc.
Love of wealth - as in desire, appreciation, and for sure, envy, is most certainly natural.
Where have I said that there was no war between different tribes?
I completely and utterly disagree with you.
Fine. Your prerogative.
I'd say the way of the world (and the paucity of allies on this forum) proves you entirely wrong.
Milliband is pretending that these people do not pay tax.
What he said was, " They do not pay tax like us". Strictly true but that's not the message he wanted to come across.