| >I long for the day that we solve problems facing regular people like access to education, hunger, housing, and cost of living. That was only for a short fraction of human history only lasting in the period between post-WW2 and before globalisation kicked into high gear, but people miss the fact that was only a short exception from the norm, basically a rounding error in terms of the length of human civilisation. Now, society is reverting back to factory settings of human history, which has always been a feudalist type society of a small elite owning all the wealth and ruling the masses of people by wars, poverty, fear, propaganda and oppression. Now the mechanisms by which that feudalist society is achieved today are different than in the past, but the underlying human framework of greed and consolidation of wealth and power is the same as it was 2000+ years ago, except now the games suck and the bread is mouldy. The wealth inequality we have today, as bad as it is now, is as best as it will ever be moving forward. It's only gonna get worse each passing day. And despite all the political talks and promises on "fixing" wealth inequality, housing, etc, there's nothing to fix here, since the financial system is working as designed, this is a feature not a bug. |
| |
| ▲ | jinjin2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > society is reverting back to factory settings of human history, which has always been a feudalist type society of a small elite owning all the wealth The word “always” is carrying a lot of weight here. This has really only been true for the last 10,000 years or so, since the introduction of agriculture. We lived as egalitarian bands of hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years before that. Given the magnitude of difference in timespan, I think it is safe to say that that is the “default setting”. | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Even within the last 10,000 years, most of those systems looked nothing like the hereditary stations we associate with feudalism, and it’s focused within the last 4,000 years that any of those systems scaled, and then only in areas that were sufficiently urban to warrant the structures. | | | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >We lived as egalitarian bands of hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years before that. Only if you consider intra-group egalitarianism of tribal hunter gatherer societies. But tribes would constantly go to war with each other in search of expanding to better territories with more resources, and the defeated tribe would have its men killed or enslaved, and the women bred to expand the tribe population. So you forgot that part that involved all the killing, enslavement and rape, but other than that, yes, the victorious tribes were quite egalitarian. | | |
| ▲ | jinjin2 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, nobody is claiming that hunter gatherers were saints. Just because they lived in egalitarian clans, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t occasionally do bad things. But one key differentiator is that they didn’t have the logistics to have soldiers. With no surplus to pay anyone, there was no way build up an army, and with no-one having the ability to tell others to go to war or force them to do so, the scale of conflicts and skirmishes were a lot more limited. So while there might have been a constant state of minor skirmishes, like we see in any population of territorial animals, all-out totalitarian war was a rare occurrence. | | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > and the defeated tribe would have its men killed or enslaved, and the women bred to expand the tribe population. I’m not aware of any archaeological evidence of massacres during the paleolithic. Which archaeological sites would support the assertions you are making here? | | |
| ▲ | lingrush4 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What an absurd request. Where's your archaeological evidence that humans were egalitarian 10000+ years? The idea that we didn't have wars in the paleolithic era is so outlandish that it requires significant evidence. You have provided none. | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What an absurd request. If you can show me archaeological evidence of mass graves or a settlement having been razed during the paleolithic I would recant my claims. This isn’t really a high bar. > Where's your archaeological evidence that humans were egalitarian 10000+ years? I never made this claim. Structures of domination precede human development; they can be observed in animals. What we don’t observe up until around 10,000 years ago is anything approaching the sorts of systems of jack_tripper described, namely: > which has always been a feudalist type society of a small elite owning all the wealth and ruling the masses of people by wars, poverty, fear, propaganda and oppression. > The idea that we didn't have wars in the paleolithic era is so outlandish that it requires significant evidence. If it’s so outlandish where is your evidence that these wars occurred? > You have provided none. How would I provide you with evidence of something that didn’t happen? |
| |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Population density on the planet back then was also low enough to not cause mass wars and generate mass graves, but killing each other over valuable resources is the most common human trait after reproduction and seek of food and shelter. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The above poster is asking you whether factual informations support your claim. Your personal opinion about why such informations may be hard to find only weakens your claim. | | |
| ▲ | phantasmish a day ago | parent [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization Last I checked there hadn’t been major shifts away from the perspective this represents, in anthropology. It was used as a core text in one of my classes in college, though that was a couple decades ago. I recall being confused about why it was such a big deal, because I’d not encountered the “peaceful savage” idea in any serious context, but I gather it was widespread in the ‘80s and earlier. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | The link you give documents warfare that happened significantly later than the era discussed by the above poster. To suggest that the lack of evidence is enough to support continuity of a behaviour is also flawed reasoning: we have many examples of previously unknown social behaviour that emerged at some point, line the emergence of states or the use of art. Sometimes, it’s ok to simply say that we’re not sure, rather than to project our existing condition. | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, this one is at least pertinent to the time period we’re discussing: > One-half of the people found in a Mesolithic cemetery in present-day Jebel Sahaba, Sudan dating to as early as 13,000 years ago had died as a result of warfare between seemingly different racial groups with victims bearing marks of being killed by arrow heads, spears and club, prompting some to call it the first race war. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mesolithic (although in this case it may also be Epipaleolithic - I'm not an expert, though) is the time period that happens just after Paleolithic, the one that was being talked about. It is a transition period between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic, with, depending on the area, features of both. In the middle-east; among others, (pre)history moved maybe a little bit faster than elsewhere, so in this particular example, which is the earliest case shown in the book you pointed out, it's hard to say that it tells about what happened before, as opposed to what happened after. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | We were talking about the paleolithic era. I’ll take your comment to imply that you don’t have any information that I don’t have. > but killing each other over valuable resources is the most common human trait after reproduction and seek of food and shelter. This isn’t reflected in the archaeological record, it isn’t reflected by the historical record, and you haven’t provided any good reason why anyone should believe it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | oblio a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Back then there were so few people around and expectations for quality of life were so low that if you didn't like your neighbors you could just go to the middle of nowhere and most likely find an area which had enough resources for your meager existence. Or you'd die trying, which was probably what happened most of the time. That entire approach to life died when agriculture appeared. Remnants of that lifestyle were nomadic peoples and the last groups to be successful were the Mongols and up until about 1600, the Cossacks. | |
| ▲ | squeefers 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > which has always been a feudalist type society of a small elite owning all the wealth and ruling the masses of people by wars, poverty, fear, propaganda and oppression. This isn’t an historical norm. The majority of human history occurred without these systems of domination, and getting people to play along has historically been so difficult that colonizers resort to eradicating native populations and starting over again. The technologies used to force people onto the plantation have become more sophisticated, but in most of the world that has involved enfranchisement more than oppression; most of the world is tremendously better off today than it was even 20 years ago. Mass surveillance and automated propaganda technologies pose a threat to this dynamic, but I won’t be worried until they have robotic door kickers. The bad guys are always going to be there, but it isn’t obvious that they are going to triumph. | | |
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The majority of human history occurred without these systems of domination, you mean hunter/gatherers before the establishment of dominant "civilizations"? That history ended about 5000 years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | veltas a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this is true unfortunately, and the question of how we get back to a liberal and social state has many factors: how do we get the economy working again, how do we create trustworthy institutions, avoid bloat and decay in services, etc. There are no easy answers, I think it's just hard work and it might not even be possible. People suggesting magic wands are just populists and we need only look at history to study why these kinds of suggestions don't work. | | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >how do we get the economy working again Just like we always have: a world war, and then the economy works amazing for the ones left on top of the rubble pile where they get unionized high wage jobs and amazing retirements at an early age for a few decades, while everyone else will be left toiling away to make stuff for cheap in sweatshops in exchange for currency from the victors who control the global economy and trade routes. The next time the monopoly board gets flipped will only be a variation of this, but not a complete framework rewrite. | |
| ▲ | huijzer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s funny how it’s completely appropriate to talk about how the elites are getting more and more power, but if you then start looking deeper into it you’re suddenly a conspiracy theorist and hence bad. Who came up with the term conspiracy theorist anyway and that we should be afraid of it? |
| |
| ▲ | crote a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The wealth inequality we have today, as bad as it is, is as best as it will ever be moving forward. It's only gonna get worse. Why? As the saying goes, the people need bread and circuses. Delve too deeply and you risk another French Revolution. And right now, a lot of people in supposedly-rich Western countries are having their basic existance threatened by the greed of the elite. Feudalism only works when you give back enough power and resources to the layers below you. The king depends on his vassals to provide money and military services. Try to act like a tyrant, and you end up being forced to sign the Magna Carta. We've already seen a healthcare CEO being executed in broad daylight. If wealth inequality continues to worsen, do you really believe that'll be the last one? | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > And right now, a lot of people in supposedly-rich Western countries are having their basic existance threatened by the greed of the elite. Which people are having their existences threatened by the elite? | |
| ▲ | zwnow a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Delve too deeply and you risk another French Revolution. Whats too deeply? Given the circumstances in the USA I dont see no revolution happening. Same goes for extremely poor countries. When will the exploiters heads roll? I dont see anyone willing to fight the elite. A lot of them are even celebrated in countries like India. | | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-] | | Yep, exactly. If the poor people had the power to change their oppressive regimes, then North Korea or Cuban leaders wouldn't exist. |
| |
| ▲ | FridayoLeary a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As long as you have people gleefully celebrating it or providing some sort of narrative to justify it even partially then no. >And right now, a lot of
people in supposedly-rich Western
countries are having their basic existance threatened by the greed of
the elite. Can you elaborate on that? | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | otikik a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > start removing more and more of your rights to bear arms Wasn't he killed in New York? Not a lot of right to bear arms there as far as I know. | | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > because most people are as clueless as you Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-] | | You mean he wasn't being clueless with that point of view? Like the majority of the population who can't do 8th grade math let alone understand the complexities of out financial systems that lead to the ever expanding wealth inequality? Or do you mean we shouldn't be allowed to call out people we notice are clueless because it might hurt their feelings and consider it "fulmination"? But then how will they know they might be wrong if nobody dares calls them out ? Isn't this toxic positivity culture and focus on feelings rather than facts, a hidden form of speech suppression, and a main cause in why people stay clueless and wealth inequality increases? Because they grow up in a bubble where their opinions get reinforced and never challenged or criticized because of an arbitrary set of speech rules will get lawyered and twisted against any form of criticism? Have you seen how John Carmack or Linus Torvalds behaves and talks to people he disagrees with? They'd get banned by HN rules day one. So I don't really see how my comment broke that rule since there's no fulmination there, no snark, no curmudgeonly, just an observation. | | |
| ▲ | qsera a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree with what you say. But here is the thing. HN needs to keep the participants comfortable and keep the discussion going. Same with the world at large, hence the global "toxic positivity culture"... | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Or do you mean we shouldn't be allowed to call out people we notice are clueless? That’s exactly what it means. You’ll note I’ve been very polite to you in the rest of the thread despite your not having made citations for any of your claims; this takes deliberate effort, because the alternative is that the forum devolves to comments that amount to: “Nuh-uh, you’re stupid,” which isn’t of much interest to anyone. | | |
| ▲ | jack_tripper a day ago | parent [-] | | >“Nuh-uh, you’re stupid,” You're acting in bad faith now, by trying to draw a parallel on how calling someone clueless (meaning lacking in certain knowledge on the topic) is the same as calling someone stupid which is a blatant insult I did not use. | | |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent [-] | | > meaning lacking in certain knowledge on the topic Clueless has a pejorative connotation. I am struggling to imagine how anyone would read a comment like: > because most people are as clueless as you about the reality of how things work and not interpret it to be pejorative. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | BeFlatXIII 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like we need another world war to reset things for the survivors. |
|
