Why the world is a better place than before

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


It's also a lengthy, footnoted text discussing precisely what we're discussing.

And, as I noted in my last post, they do specifically address the cultural hypothesis. I only skimmed it, because I'm about to leave, but it was not dismissed out of hand. I don't think it was dismissed at all, actually. Basically, it's impossible to verify.

-Arrian

My point is that hammers tend to see everything as a nail. I'm suprised that they mention religious influences.

[Kidlicious]

btw, for some reason Imran, and others think that "harmony with nature" is a critical issue. I don't see that. That's probably the problem. I only meant harmony with nature to mean that they did not populate as much.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, for some reason Imran, and others think that "harmony with nature" is a critical issue. I don't see that. That's probably the problem. I only meant harmony with nature to mean that they did not populate as much.

1. Duh.
2. What on earth does that have to do with whether the world is a better place than before? Apart from the obvious fact that life expectancies were shorter and child mortality rates higher, of course, but that would seem to go against your (admittedly ridiculous) thesis, so why did you bring it up?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva


1. Duh.
2. What on earth does that have to do with whether the world is a better place than before? Apart from the obvious fact that life expectancies were shorter and child mortality rates higher, of course, but that would seem to go against your (admittedly ridiculous) thesis, so why did you bring it up?

'
Idk. I don't think that living in harmony with nature is inherently a good thing. Just trying to figure out why people make such strange "counterarguments,"

Ah, I've had a couple drinks now so I might now make sense, not that anyone could tell before.

[Cort Haus]

Kid - the commie wannabe Asher/Kitty troll.

Pffft.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough for you, but I don't disagree with the idea that food surpluses were a factor contributing to the developement of society.

Do you ever quit?

I probably should because of your nonsensical rants and beating on your chest claiming you are right and you knew that when to most people it is far from clear you did.

If you don't disagree with the idea that food surpluses were a factor then why in the world were you bleating that agriculture formed BECAUSE they wanted to exploit others?

I'll quote you:

[q=Kidicious]Why farm? To create an elite class of non-workers, to create an army, to conquer other people. [/q]

And now you are saying YOU KNEW that food surpluses was a factor... where exactly is 'food surpluses' in your answer of "Why farm?"

btw, for some reason Imran, and others think that "harmony with nature" is a critical issue.

It shows how silly you are. Now you backtrack to say it means they didn't populate as much. Saying that a group didn't populate as much another group is in no way the same as saying a group is in harmony with nature.

This is the first time I've ever heard harmony with nature = populate less than some other group.

[Kidlicious]

I will spell it out for you. AGAIN!

There were food surpluses that allowed for a hierarchial society. Religion played the major part in creating hierarchial societies by providing justification.

I should not have to repeat myself again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I will spell it out for you. AGAIN!

There were food surpluses that allowed for a hierarchial society. Religion played the major part in creating hierarchial societies by providing justification.

I should not have to repeat myself again.

You should really address the actual point. I didn't ask what created "hierarchical societies". I asked what led to people leaving the hunter-gather lifestyle for agricultural lifestyle.

Will you claim that religion (designed in order to conquer others or whatever you want to claim about it) played the major part in the decision to begin farming and the promise of food surpluses did not?

[Japher]

The move from hunter-gatherer to agricultural lifestyles was made for consolidarty purposes, not for religion. Sort of a human instinct of nesting. Ag allowed for this to be perminant instead of migratory, and to thus create better shelter from the nature. This in turn perpetuated the arts and boredom, war, religion, and all the other crap that doesn't really mean a damn.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You should really address the actual point. I didn't ask what created "hierarchical societies". I asked what led to people leaving the hunter-gather lifestyle for agricultural lifestyle.

Will you claim that religion (designed in order to conquer others or whatever you want to claim about it) played the major part in the decision to begin farming and the promise of food surpluses did not?

Probably the lure of food surpluses was motivation initially. However, as society developed this proved not to benefit the common person. In fact, the common person was worse off. Buy then religion and other institutions were probably entrenched into society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
The move from hunter-gatherer to agricultural lifestyles was made for consolidarty purposes, not for religion. Sort of a human instinct of nesting.

Nesting is more of a female instinct, rather than a male. In fact the theory goes that religion started to center around women in some cases which made it a sin if you will to live a nomadic lifestyle.

[LordShiva]

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Religion played the major part in creating hierarchial societies by providing justification.

Wiki, which you seem to think it's a good source, sets the beginnings of religious expression to ca. 120000 yrs BC, which is IIRC when people lived as hunter gatherers.

(the number of 120000 yrs comes from the German wiki entry on religion here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

There they say there's a consensus among scientists that things found in graves of that times are evidence for religious expression

I did not found the same info on the english version, maybe someone else can.)

Anyway, the relevant part in the german article is this:

Nachdem ältere Theorien wie die eines hominiden Bärenkultes heute als widerlegt gelten, umgekehrt aber die lange bezweifelten Datierungen jungpaläolithischer Höhlenmalereien und Musikinstrumente wesentlich erweitert und bestätigt wurden, hat sich ein wissenschaftlicher Konsens über den Beginn menschlicher Religionsgeschichte herausgebildet. Demnach werden Bestattungen und (später) Grabbeigaben als frühe Zeichen religiösen Ausdrucks anerkannt, die sich bisher ab etwa 120.000 Jahren v.u.Z. im Mittelpaläolithikum sowohl bei Homo sapiens wie Homo neanderthalensis nachweisen lassen, bei Homo sapiens jedoch bald komplexere Formen annehmen.

So either these hunter gatherers guys had hierarchies too (since you are the one posting that religion leads to hierarchy), which makes your earlier post that they had actually no hierarchy nonsense.

Or they did not have a hierarchy, but a religion, which then brings doubt about your current point that religion is the great factor in creating hierarchies.

[Kidlicious]

Well, in no way does that lead one to think that people didn't start using wide scale agriculture for religious reasons. In fact, scientists have studied those symbols that have been unearthed and determined that the prehistoric symbols have changed over time which indicates that their religions changed over time, which caused them to think that having a permanent settlement instead of living a nomadic lifestyle was better.

I didn't mean to say that the found religion one day and instantly decided to stop being nomads because they feared the wrath of their gods. Historical processes take a lot of time.

[Kidlicious]

Here's a good article for this topic. It's pretty long. One interesting thing is that arghaeologists are finding more evidence that permanent settlements predated argiculure by over 3,000 years. The change in lifestyle is probably do to religious or psychological reasons, not economic reasons. That doesn't really mean that agriculture was implemented for religious or economic reasons but I just think it's interesting.

www.michaelbalter.com/images/pdf/SMITH_civilization.pdf+ian+hodder+religion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us]THE SEEDS OF CIVILIZATION[/URL]