That only really benefits the elite of said society, the serfs, everyman, layman, etc. Would still be subject to the rule of others regardless of they are their kin or not.
"Parents do not know how to be properly present in their kids' lives by misunderstanding a new device? It's civilization's fault of course!"
More so talking about technology rather than civilization, however, the technology wouldn't exist without civilization. If you are implying that the internet only has those effects on you if you grew up on it then you're just retarded.
Are you dense? The point I am was that hunter-gatherer societies weren't horrible with rampant starvation as many today think, but it was the switch to agriculture that caused malnutrition. Which was also the case even after crops diversified and you could get just enough nutrients. Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and fishing villages were still healthier, taller, and less malnourished than their agricultural counterparts. But yes after thousands of years of eating mostly carbs, we now live in times with industrial-scale farming of livestock. Only at the cost of permanently damaging the environment, almost all meat being raised in crammed environments, being fed a poor-diet which mostly consists of corn (and not to mention the antibiotics), having PFAS and microplastics being in literally everything, having most humans live in environments that make them unsatisfied with life with little autonomy, with constant social stratification and alienation, etc. And before you say, yes there are still places that sell farm-raised, grass-fed beef with no antibiotics, but those are expensive and the average person (especially in today's economy) cannot afford to regularly eat it.
Again you flip flop between definitions to change goalposts. Either it's industrial society or civilization.
Irrelevant, more people will mean more damage. Unless you want to argue that hunter gatherers will reduce the number of people due to dying from young age and preventable illnesses, which is true I guess.
"You don't get it, working or else you die from hunger is completely different from working or else you die from hunger". At best you can argue the result is more immediate but chances for things to go wrong are massively higher. You can simulate the exact same thing by living as an illegal and getting a pay each day doing backbreaking labour.
So point to me to an hunter gatherer culture which managed to get more advanced than a agricultural one. Plus malnutrition can just as easily be from missing important vitamins.
Lol, every social group of humans and animals have a leader. You are just too depp into your larp to admit it.
"Group roles that were made to describe hunter gatherers are not actually correct for those groups".
Then go live like a nigger in Africa, see how that works for you. It's the same industrial bullshit that you will break after a week without a phone. You just want to larp and try to one up other people on why your larp makes you better.
I wouldn't compare sub-saharan Africans to some West Eurasian hunter gatherers. Andamese Islanders are an east eurasian hunter gatherer, and they are quite primitive and abusive. Western Hunter Gatherers were less inbred than the neolithic anatolian farmers as they practiced population exchanges with neighbouring tribes. NAF sorta just multiplied near rivers and some family trees accidentally turned into wreathes.
All the West Eurasian ones eventually did, and they all mixed in such a way over the eras to create the modern admixtures today who literally genetically belong in a region of Europe/West Asia just based on the statistical gradient of our greatest genetic variations (yeah there's an underlying order to the ecosystems humans create). Southwest asians like levantines literally belong in that region. They cluster near south italians and some SE europeans. Makes sense, as when you remove the bodies of water, SE europe gets squished into southwest asia.
Natural selection sucks. Artificial selection is way better, it's speedrunning evolution. Too bad selective breeding is frowned upon in humans. I think restricting parental freedom is pretty evil. Just because someone is not fit to breed, doesn't mean they might not be a good parent. Intelligence, social/personality dispositions, health and beauty are the most practical traits. Harvest genius chad and genius stacey's gametes and make embryos for surrogacy!
I think you may have poor reading comprehension, I will explain to you so you don't get mixed up again. I am against agriculture, civilization, and industrialization. I have never changed goalposts once, I refer to each of them when I am referring to a problem in which that specific phenomenon caused.
You first said that farm animals lived happier in captivity than in the wild. I disagreed but said that even if it were the case, they were specifically bred for those conditions, so it could hardly apply to humans. I then mention a counterargument that I've heard which is "but, that applies to humans too, many humans have been evolved for agriculture and civilization." I disagree with this premise and I wanted to address the argument before anyone brought it up. My counterargument would be that even if that were the case, the argument wouldn't hold up because industrial society is so far removed from what even agricultural society was like, that it would be just another evolutionary mismatch. I still think that agriculture and civilization are bad, but I think industrial society is far worse and exacerbates the issues with civilization and agriculture.
Nigger, the fuck do you mean "irrelevant"?. You said that the destruction of the environment on an industrial scale in modern society was also applicable to hunter-gatherer society. I point out how the "damage" hunter-gatherers do is nowhere near the level of modern-day industrial society, and you just say "nuh uh".
Another "nuh uh" post. Again literally everything I said is backed up by decades of anthropology, while your counterarguments are just conjecture based off of how we view work in modern-day industrial society .
None, because "advancement" is a concept purely in civilized societies. Hunter-gatherers don't care about advancement because they are already content with their lives.
Yes and? Do you think I am denying this? One of the main problems with agriculture was that they weren't getting the vitamins and minerals (or proteins and fats for that matter) that they would otherwise get from meat.
They literally don't, basic anthropology but I am sounding like a broken record at this point. The anarchists are right, hierarchy is the biggest scam in human history.
Alright now I am convinced you are trolling. That shit was literally used to describe wolves first (and there's debate whether it's even accurate to that either), then applied to humans by retards and gobbled up by even bigger retards.
I wouldn't go live in a tribe in Africa because I'm a snownigger and would get skin cancer from constant UV damage. Anyways, I am literally am saving up to buy land in Maine (as stated already in this thread).
Compare the height of the hunter-gatherer societies that still exist today to the average height of people in developed or even third world countries.
I already addressed this, these kinds of positions were moreso to give advice than any actual leadership capacity. It would not be uncommon for their advice to be completely ignored and there is no real punishment for doing so. Hardly the same as a constant authoritarian leadership role as many others ITT were arguing exists in hunter-gatherer society. As for decisions made by votes of group members, I never denied this. Aside from the fact that a decision made by the majority of individuals has hardly comparably to a singular ruler making all the decisions. The individual tribe members had much more power per vote statistically than any civilized democracy. But kudos in actually making an argument vs your other posts just saying "civilization GOOD okay, you just want attention!".
I will admit I could have written the OP better. But most of the replies is literally just the same tired old memes of "civilization is good because it is good"
Not the case, compared to civilized man (and especially industrialized man) the hunter-gatherer has much more independence in his work, and how he goes about it. There are no rigid schedules, you choose whenever you like to hunt, you can go it alone or with a group, and you can accomplish your goal in a variety of methods by your choosing
In hunter-gatherer society, while there is a degree of reliance on the group, everything you need to survive is out in the wilderness. If you were skilled enough you could theoretically survive on what nature provides you. In agricultural society, while you do grow your own food, you are tied to the land, with requirements of having a certain crop yield (with some instances the punishment being death), and then having to pay either taxes or a cut of your crop yield to whatever noble or ruling authority. In industrial civilization, most people are completely dependent on the system for survival, they get their food from the grocery store, which they have to get a job to obtain the money needed (along with the restrictions that getting a job entails). Sure you could grow all your fruits and vegetables and get the meat you got from hunting season to last all year. But you are still tied down with things like rent, taxes, restrictions on hunting (and what kind of plants you can grow depending on the HOA), etc.
except how archeologists and anthropologists determined the height shrinkage was from comparing the skeletons of the same ethnic groups before and after agriculture, and the common trend is that there is a height loss of about 4 inches (10.16 cm)
And in agricultural society, constant malnourishment wasn't unheard of. Especially in the early days of agriculture when you only had one crop and were constantly starved of required proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals.
I begrudgingly accept that civilization was always going to happen, from the moment the first ape thought his first abstract thought (not saying language is bad)
And for most of civilization, most people lived in cramped, disease-ridden, cities. Not sure why exponential population growth is considered good when most of the people born will just live in squalor
I don't see any kind of Eugenics/selective breeding program ever being anything other than a complete disaster.
Sure Jan. Also you didnt respond to my point about infant mortality, you cant deny Civilization has raised the average success rate of births, just look at our population.
To specify what i mean: Farming has been seen in leaf cutter ants as they cultivate the species of fungi they eat off of their collected leaves, they even take samples of the fungi with them when they change colonies.
What a cope lol. The trend repeats itself among closely related groups genetically speaking, in the same way it has a reliable link with wealth of countries.
No it isn't, around 40% of them die in childhood, and even adulthood has a large mortality rate. In pre-history the life expectancy could be near 25.
It's just a bit annoying replying to a thread where its obvious neither side is going to change their mind Also I do spend too much time lurking on this site, so I want to cut back my hours
Yes but at what cost? Not to be an edgelord but a lot of infant mortality is just natural selection. With modern medicine, those with genetic defects are allowed to survive and breed. Creating more people that are reliant on modern-medicine to survive. At a certain point everyone will have some kind of medical condition which requires modern-medicine to treat. A personal anecdote: I have a coworker who all three of her children have either some cardiac or respiratory condition. One of her kids had left-sided heart failure at fucking 8 years old.
I know I'm being pedantic here, but I don't think I have ever perpetuated the "noble savage" myth. I don't deny the high rates of violence in some hunter-gatherer societies, or other the other things they do that today would be considered immoral.
I don't think comparing humans to ants is a good one. Ants and all other social insects hardly have their own individual minds and cannot survive without the group (at least a human could theoretically survive on his own). Not to mention ants evolved over millions of years, vs only 9k years of settled agriculture.
I don't see why we need to have dominion over the world. Even before agriculture humanity was already the apex predator worldwide.
"No consideration for sustainability" yet clearly they do have a degree of sustainability otherwise they would have gone extinct millions of years ago.
There is debate on how much of that is actually applicable to wolves, and that's a behavior that's caused by captivity. A better example would be hyenas.
There is a trend of every hunter gatherer tribe who switched to agriculture suffered height loss. It varied from tribe to tribe. I admit I made a mistake earlier ITT when I said the height loss was 4 inches, when it was between 1.5-4 inches. But that's still nothing to scoff at. Not to mention the decline of dental health and loss of bone density. Surprisingly having a diet consisting mostly of carbs isn't good for you. It was only slowly reversed after a long and painful process of domesticating other crops, chickens for eggs, and cows for dairy.
Yes (see above). If a child who has a mutation for type 1 diabetes dies shortly after it activates. That's natural selection. I'm not reveling in it or saying "the weak should die, might is right". I think it's a unfortunate but necessary tradeoff.
Just because I think hunter-gatherer life was better, doesn't mean I support everything all these tribes do.
You conveniently left out that I acknowledged that there was child mortality, and that brought the AVERAGE down to around 30. Not including child mortality, the average is around 55 years old.
Also a high degree of natural selection, and let's not forget the massive spike in diseases that came with living in crowded, unclean conditions.
I really wonder what OPs inspiration for his spergings. Is it a youtuber or anime, because clearly it's based on incredibly contradictory set of ideals that even a child can point out:
