My programming language is better than yours 

@Wolf480pl@niu.moe

Not sure about how this picture is framed.

Why does hunting big game = war

Also I dont think agricultural societies = peaceful societies.
Theres been very violent societies that practiced agriculture also hunter/gatherers that weren't aggressive. Also, as suggested, the inverse.
@freakazoid @cjd

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @cjd @Wolf480pl It's just a theory I once read as to why humans have hunted big game for so long even when it was not the most efficient way to get protein that was available to them. The tools and techniques of big game hunting also work well for killing people. It could certainly be wrong, but nomadic hunter-gatherer groups that came in contact would have been competitors more than, say, nomadic herders.

My programming language is better than yours 

@Wolf480pl @cjd @dazinism And agrarians aren't nomadic, so they would only run into other agrarians if they were trying to expand their territory or had to move for whatever reason.

Of course, agriculture was a prerequisite for large scale war, but I think the scale of such wars was more than offset by the much reduced frequency. On average, of course.

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @cjd @Wolf480pl Agriculture also created the surplus necessary to have a ruling class, and the dominance that came with that, of course. I just had that long monologue thread about agriculture and feudalism. But it also created the surplus necessary for trade.

Follow

My programming language is better than yours 

@freakazoid
All sounds like a rather bleak theory of the human condition, where out of group interactions are driven only by harsh utility

Is this theory based primarily on one thing you read, (do you recall what?)

I like to think that theres always been more possible reasons/options for interaction than just trade or war- certainly for me this is the case.
I think that theres evidence that this has also been the case historically
@cjd @Wolf480pl@niu.moe

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @Wolf480pl @cjd The link between big game hunting and warfare is, but many games and sports are pretty clearly practice for warfare as well. There are numerous sources that say nomadic hunter-gatherer groups tended to kill one another when they ran into each other, too. American tribes certainly were not peaceful, at least in some areas, presumably where there was resource contention.

My programming language is better than yours 

@cjd @Wolf480pl @dazinism I don't consider steady progress toward peace to be a bleak theory at all. The notion of falling from grace and everything steadily going to shit while a small fraction of us act as Cassandras is what's bleak.

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @Wolf480pl @cjd Speaking of warfare, one of the best warrior groups ever was the Mongols, who learned to hunt with bows on horseback. They never would have bothered if they were eating rabbits and squirrels and herding sheep, which would have kept them from sweeping through Europe and giving many of us their genes.

My programming language is better than yours 

@cjd @Wolf480pl @dazinism There's a chance herders were less warlike than hunters just because grass tended to be a more plentiful resource, and branding (a technology!) was a pretty good way to avoid conflict over who an animal belonged to. Theft of animals would presumably have been an issue, though.

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @Wolf480pl @cjd Also, I don't think Pax Romana is just Roman propaganda. One can argue whether it was worth the cost, but I think there's pretty good evidence it was indeed more peaceful than what came before. Though what came before included both settled agricultural society and nomadic ones.

And the nomadic ones are who took it down when it started rotting from the inside out.

My programming language is better than yours 

@cjd @Wolf480pl @dazinism (I think people who believe the invasion/infiltration by nomadic groups was the root cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than just the result of its decay, tend to be Trump supporters.)

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @Wolf480pl @cjd OH! I guess one can conclude from this is that *organized* violence is more efficient, so you can get away with less of it.

Though it's more complicated than that. It's the careful application of violence to create some kind of rule of law.

Which, by the way, is how Triad gangs avoid killing one another. "Shows of force", which don't involve actual violence.

My programming language is better than yours 

@cjd @Wolf480pl @dazinism This also makes politics, as Heinlein said (IIRC), "The art of not killing one another."

My programming language is better than yours 

@dazinism @Wolf480pl @cjd It also makes the claim by some libertarians that government is bad because it's "backed by violence" self-contradictory. Backed by violence is clearly better than having violence as the only tool. Which is why using armed police as anything but a last resort is a super bad idea.

And, of course, figuring out how to get people to cooperate with one another on their own is even better.

My programming language is better than yours 

@cjd @Wolf480pl @dazinism I guess you could call that large-scale cooperation, and I don't see how that is possible without a complex society that involves cities and people who do things other than subsistence, which require agriculture and other technology. It also requires specialization, another thing anarcho-primitivists eschew. Which requires trade or some other means of transferring the fruits of labor.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!