What's Up With Ft. Lewis?

[dougd]

This leads to a great TED talk at the following link.

that was the guy i was thinking of in my post above - think i heard him on npr before? the fact that wars were once measured in decades and centuries (and in antiquity hardly named at all, given their lack of clear beginnings or endings) seems illustrative enough of the decline in the general level of violence of our species.

 

as for animals not warring w/ each other, here's a video of 2 lions killing a 3rd for fuckig w/ their territory - wolves do it too - i suppose the semantic argument could be had, but jesus, it's not a revolutionary concept - living things, in a world characterized by scarcity and lawlessness, tend to be rather aggro with all of their neighbors, relations or not

[video:youtube]

 

Are you saying in essence that we are no better than any other herd or pack animal?

[sobo]

Are you saying in essence that we are no better than any other herd or pack animal?

Yep, in ivan's case particularly... he's just a mangy old cur!

[ivan]

Are you saying in essence that we are no better than any other herd or pack animal?

to channel my inner kevbone: what does it mean to be "better?"

 

we do have nice digital watches

[dougd]

Are you saying in essence that we are no better than any other herd or pack animal?

to channel my inner kevbone: what does it mean to be "better?"

 

we do have nice digital watches

 

Maybe a topic for another thread but, from a philosophical standpoint, are we "better" in the sense of group dynamics, reactions to fear, threats, violence?

 

Are the only real differences between the human herd and other herds on the planet our cognitive potential, and, thumbs on both paws?

 

Are we really... "better"?

 

 

 

 

[rob]

I'm better than all you jerkies.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm better than all you jerkies.

 

fap fap fap

[ivan]

Maybe a topic for another thread but, from a philosophical standpoint, are we "better" in the sense of group dynamics, reactions to fear, threats, violence?

 

Are the only real differences between the human herd and other herds on the planet our cognitive potential, and, thumbs on both paws?

 

Are we really... "better"?

 

 

 

if we have in fact become less violent as a species over the past few millenia, it seems to me to largely be a product of our ability to learn - other critters can do that of course, and the skill only goes so far, but we have learned how to make life more comfortable, how to tolerate The Outsiders, and how to redirect our inherent combatitiveness into more productive enterprises (profesional sports, for example, offer all the glories of the mercenaries of days gone by w/ substantial less risk to all involved).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Maybe a topic for another thread but, from a philosophical standpoint, are we "better" in the sense of group dynamics, reactions to fear, threats, violence?

 

Are the only real differences between the human herd and other herds on the planet our cognitive potential, and, thumbs on both paws?

 

Are we really... "better"?

 

 

 

if we have in fact become less violent as a species over the past few millenia, it seems to me to largely be a product of our ability to learn - other critters can do that of course, and the skill only goes so far, but we have learned how to make life more comfortable, how to tolerate The Outsiders, and how to redirect our inherent combatitiveness into more productive enterprises (profesional sports, for example, offer all the glories of the mercenaries of days gone by w/ substantial less risk to all involved).

 

The 20th century resulted in more bloodshed than any previous century in our history. Not so sure about us getting "less violent" as a species.

[rob]

The 20th century resulted in more bloodshed than any previous century in our history. Not so sure about us getting "less violent" as a species.

 

[j_b]

Although it is the traditional view, Pinker's version is in fact quite controversial:

 

Fry points out that, for perhaps ninety-nine percent of our history, for well over a million years, humans lived in nomadic hunter-and-gatherer groups, egalitarian bands where generosity was highly valued and warfare was a rarity. Drawing on archaeology and fascinating fieldwork on hunter-gatherer bands from around the world, Fry debunks the idea that war is ancient and inevitable. For instance, among Aboriginal Australians--who numbered some 750,000 individuals before the arrival of Europeans, all living in hunter-gathering groups--warfare was an extreme anomaly. There was individual violence and aggression, of course, but the Aborigines had sophisticated methods of resolving disputes, controlling individual outbursts, and preventing loss of life. Fry shows that, far from being natural, warfare actually appeared quite recently along with changes in social organization and especially the rise of states. But Fry also points out that even today, when war seems ever present (at least on television), the vast majority of us live peaceful, nonviolent lives. We are not as warlike as it might seem, and if we can learn from our ancestors, we may be able to move beyond war to provide real justice and security for the people of the world.

 

Beyond War

Douglas P. Fry, is a docent and professor of anthropology, teacher in the Faculty of Social and Caring Sciences at Åbo Akademi University in Finland and adjunct research scientist in the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology at the University of Arizona

 

[G-spotter]

The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as the one practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[2]

 

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[3][4] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[5]

 

In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below).

[edit] Paleolithic and Neolithic

 

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[2] Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8] Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

 

Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[118] He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[118] Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[119]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Although it is the traditional view, Pinker's version is in fact quite controversial:

 

Still buying the myth of the Noble Savage, eh?

 

LOLZ

[j_b]

It'd be nice if you got your reading comprehension up to speed.

[j_b]

as for animals not warring w/ each other, here's a video of 2 lions killing a 3rd for fuckig w/ their territory - wolves do it too - i suppose the semantic argument could be had, but jesus, it's not a revolutionary concept - living things, in a world characterized by scarcity and lawlessness, tend to be rather aggro with all of their neighbors, relations or not

[video:youtube]

 

It's not about semantic (although killing your wife's lover doesn't amount to war) because only among few species does conflict routinely result in death.

[ivan]

some enlightened member of the stone® age saw fit to murder this old boy over 5000 years ago

 

chimps, our closest relatives, routinely hunt and eat monkeys, often in co-ordinated groups, as well as kill members of outside troops interloping into their territory - predators in general seem to be rather, ya know, predatory and pissy?

 

bully for our australian aboriginal brethern - evolution seems a dispassionate process though, and it hasn't favored their enlightened attitude - their maori neighbors sure as hell weren't lacking in aggression!

[gruntpltleader]

or the Easter Islanders.

[Coldfinger]

Well, back to the thread, from the BBC:

 

It has now also emerged that - along with another man and his company - Sgt Bales owed a reported $1.5m (£950,000) from an arbitration ruling nearly a decade ago which found him guilty of securities fraud while he was working as a stockbroker.

 

We might also ask whether the Afghans are correct in asserting he was not the only person involved........

 

Well it appears Wall Street was.

[Coldfinger]

The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as the one practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[2]

 

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[3][4] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[5]

 

In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below).

[edit] Paleolithic and Neolithic

 

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[2] Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8] Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

 

Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[118] He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[118] Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[119]

 

Ok how would you react if somebody(s) murdered your entire family, with the exception of a son, and someone posts that as a response????

[ivan]

 

We might also ask whether the Afghans are correct in asserting he was not the only person involved........

 

wondered that as well, though haven't been imaginative enough to think of a reason why we'd arrest one guy but not two or more? it's not like there's that big of a difference, scandal-wise?

[Coldfinger]

 

We might also ask whether the Afghans are correct in asserting he was not the only person involved........

 

wondered that as well, though haven't been imaginative enough to think of a reason why we'd arrest one guy but not two or more? it's not like there's that big of a difference, scandal-wise?

 

Sounds like it's a pretty sensitive/SF base so who knows what will eventually come out of this. Seems rather like the proverbial onion and we are just getting started peeling.

[ivan]

 

We might also ask whether the Afghans are correct in asserting he was not the only person involved........

 

wondered that as well, though haven't been imaginative enough to think of a reason why we'd arrest one guy but not two or more? it's not like there's that big of a difference, scandal-wise?

 

Sounds like it's a pretty sensitive/SF base so who knows what will eventually come out of this. Seems rather like the proverbial onion and we are just getting started peeling.

i'm keeping my hopes of ever understanding it well low - it's not like this incident was needed to know it was well-past-noon in terms of getting the fuck out of afghanistan, just as my lai was not particularly necessary to know that vietnam was a lost cause in 1968.

[G-spotter]

The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as the one practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[2]

 

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[3][4] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[5]

 

In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below).

[edit] Paleolithic and Neolithic

 

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[2] Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8] Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

 

Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[118] He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[118] Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[119]

 

Ok how would you react if somebody(s) murdered your entire family, with the exception of a son, and someone posts that as a response????

 

My point is over your head. In simple talk here it is:

J_B says hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful. If they were it is because they killed, and in some cases ate, up to half their children at birth. Societies that had lower rates of infanticide usually did so because they needed the babies to grow up in order to fight other tribes or bear more babies.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

J_B says hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful. If they were it is because they killed, and in some cases ate, up to half their children at birth. Societies that had lower rates of infanticide usually did so because they needed the babies to grow up in order to fight other tribes or bear more babies.

 

Man, it's like explaining the punch line to a joke, isn't it?

[Coldfinger]

Your point is assinine, way more than over my head.

 

Have you heard the father of the family that suffered the most? He has only one son left.

 

Why don't you send that point to the families of the kids killed over in France while you're at it.

 

And by association I don't know how it makes the rest of us at cc look but it ain't good.

[G-spotter]

Your point is assinine, way more than over my head.

 

Have you heard the father of the family that suffered the most? He has only one son left.

 

Why don't you send that point to the families of the kids killed over in France while you're at it.

 

And by association I don't know how it makes the rest of us at cc look but it ain't good.

 

You already look like an asshole, so you can't make yourself look any worse, bro-brah.