Did humans use to care more?

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by fkeua vrrtep

Governments did the best job in making their people (more likely slaves) believe they are free , there's a good goethe quote regarding that :

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free".

They technically only said , "Oh we suddenly decided to give you rights etc. , we were so wrong exploiting you for the last few hundreds of years , you are now free man and can decide what to do with your life" ... not , you are still bound to their system ,you still have to pay alot of taxes and they make more money out of you than ever before .

So , they just told people they have rights ,without any proof that the peoples will is transfered into action , lets see for example back in the 60s when the people revolted against the US Army going to Vietnam , more than 70% of the people of the US were AGAINST that war , still the government decided to go over , throw millions of tons of bombs and chemicals over the rainforests and the people living there , I don't think that comes even close to "having a choice" or "democracy" or "the peoples will shall be transfered into action" , democracy is a big joke , an excuse that is told to people in order to keep their dirty business up , it's all just a big scam ,you can see it prooved every day that the governments don't give a damn about the peoples oppinion , they are only like "hey , we see you don't want us to do/to not do that... well anyways , we don't give a damn , we'll do it anyways".

Democracy for the win ( be aware of irony)

Well we have never really lived in an actual and thank God for that because it would mean being ruled by the whims of whatever the majority choose at that time, so if the majority wanted to take your kids and everything you have away to be turned into fertilizer (an example) you would have no way to protect yourself from that and that's why what we have is a Republic in which a constitution grant individual rights that cannot be taken by the force of the majority.



@ AuroraGlaclialis: I take from what I've seen of your views that you do not believe in self ownership but in that people and their lives must be owned by a Buro or the state to micro manage everything in their lives except maybe what socks they choose to wear and other small irrelevant insignificant stuff.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Well we have never really lived in an actual and thank God for that because it would mean being ruled by the whims of whatever the majority choose at that time, so if the majority wanted to take your kids and everything you have away to be turned into fertilizer (an example) you would have no way to protect yourself from that and that's why what we have is a Republic in which a constitution grant individual rights that cannot be taken by the force of the majority.

Well , just like I said , that's what they make you believe , there is no way the powerful would give away their monopole over the peoples lifes and minds , I think you are being a little naive here .

If the US is a democratic state etc. in which no one can be taken his rights , then explain me , what in the hell is Guantanamo Bay ?

And don't you reply with it has been shut down by Obama , just because he shuts one down , it doesn't mean there aren't any other "camps" in which people who say something against the state are taken their rights ,tortured if not even killed .

Democracy is a joke , they even smear it into peoples faces everyday and laugh about their stupidity on how easily they could convince you in "you are free" .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Well we have never really lived in an actual and thank God for that because it would mean being ruled by the whims of whatever the majority choose at that time, so if the majority wanted to take your kids and everything you have away to be turned into fertilizer (an example) you would have no way to protect yourself from that and that's why what we have is a Republic in which a constitution grant individual rights that cannot be taken by the force of the majority.

And your so frightened of the majority, that your individualism may be taken away, however no such thing will come to fruition. If you need counselling man just PM me.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Well we have never really lived in an actual and thank God for that because it would mean being ruled by the whims of whatever the majority choose at that time, so if the majority wanted to take your kids and everything you have away to be turned into fertilizer (an example) you would have no way to protect yourself from that and that's why what we have is a Republic in which a constitution grant individual rights that cannot be taken by the force of the majority.

Yeah right, so it is better to live in a system where not the majority, but a minority decides such a thing? This is completely devoid of any logic! Having a constitution or none has zip to do with what kind of government you have!
And if you want an example that a "better democracy" is possible (even though it is still not perfect) look at Switzerland. It is the prime example of a bottom-up democracy. Yes, it may lead to strange stuff like people prohibiting mosque towers, but what use would it be to deny people such a decision? The only better system would be something called consensus decisions, where you'd need a 90% agreement on important decisions, but this may be hard to reach on a national level and still be effective. Still - constitutional changes in many countries require a 3/4 or 2/3 majority already. The two-party system of the US is a joke when it comes to democracy. To represent the different opinions of the people, you have to have a multitude of parties and they all have to work together. That would be a working representative democracy.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

@ AuroraGlaclialis: I take from what I've seen of your views that you do not believe in self ownership but in that people and their lives must be owned by a Buro or the state to micro manage everything in their lives except maybe what socks they choose to wear and other small irrelevant insignificant stuff.

SRSLY? That is just plain stupid! Just because someone talks some socialist ideas or tries to find the origins of the social problems we face, people jump into the images of the bad examples of it in the past. Soviet Union and China are not seriously communist or socialist states - even less so than America is a true Democracy. I believe in self-ownership, but I do not believe common goods beeing in the hands of private persons. If you have private persons owning the roads and the sky above you and everything else - money becomes even more important and money and the need for it (or rather the inequality in chances to aquire it) drives what makes this society so insane and unequal.
What you describe is this: Planned economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - and it is not at all the only economic system that works in a more social political system. Gee - why do people always have to think black and white. Basically I only want to have a certain paragraph in our constitution to be realized to the fullest extent: "Ownership obligates to benefit the public good". But yes - a non monetary system like a resource based economy would even be better.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yeah right, so it is better to live in a system where not the majority, but a minority decides such a thing? This is completely devoid of any logic! Having a constitution or none has zip to do with what kind of government you have!
And if you want an example that a "better democracy" is possible (even though it is still not perfect) look at Switzerland. It is the prime example of a bottom-up democracy. Yes, it may lead to strange stuff like people prohibiting mosque towers, but what use would it be to deny people such a decision? The only better system would be something called consensus decisions, where you'd need a 90% agreement on important decisions, but this may be hard to reach on a national level and still be effective. Still - constitutional changes in many countries require a 3/4 or 2/3 majority already. The two-party system of the US is a joke when it comes to democracy. To represent the different opinions of the people, you have to have a multitude of parties and they all have to work together. That would be a working representative democracy.

Actually it does because the constitution is what guarantees your rights not what the majority or minority decide.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

SRSLY? That is just plain stupid! Just because someone talks some socialist ideas or tries to find the origins of the social problems we face, people jump into the images of the bad examples of it in the past. Soviet Union and China are not seriously communist or socialist states - even less so than America is a true Democracy. I believe in self-ownership, but I do not believe common goods beeing in the hands of private persons. If you have private persons owning the roads and the sky above you and everything else - money becomes even more important and money and the need for it (or rather the inequality in chances to aquire it) drives what makes this society so insane and unequal.
What you describe is this: Planned economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - and it is not at all the only economic system that works in a more social political system. Gee - why do people always have to think black and white. Basically I only want to have a certain paragraph in our constitution to be realized to the fullest extent: "Ownership obligates to benefit the public good". But yes - a non monetary system like a resource based economy would even be better.

OK First of all no private person has owned the roads or the sky in recorded history. They have always been public goods used by both nobility and peasants alike so your argument is moot and irrelevant as it will never happen.

In regards to your so called resource based economy it seems to have exactly the same problem Socialism and Communism has that it offers no incentive for the individual to work whatsoever. Without reward there is no point in doing any job. That would be like going to a tribal society and telling the hunters they have to give up all their catch to a buro or something like that.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

OK First of all no private person has owned the roads or the sky in recorded history. [...] so your argument is moot

Please do a little abstraction when I put out examples. I try to visualize the problems by overstating the consequences, like SciFi does. And besides that, it is simply not true. In many countries the highways are owned by companies, who will charge you money for using them! Or you have to pay toll for using a bridge. And not to mention the iron roads - named railways - on which much of our goods are transported. In many countires these also belong to private companies which as a result are in control of the basic means of supply to the people. Germany is about to sell off its railway system to private investors. What is already happening in that light? Connections to small towns are cut, only the high profit systems stay alive and the small towns see more people leaving. What is the result could be seen in the UK, where the railway system basically went to hell after privatization.

In regards to your so called resource based economy it seems to have exactly the same problem Socialism and Communism has that it offers no incentive for the individual to work whatsoever. Without reward there is no point in doing any job. That would be like going to a tribal society and telling the hunters they have to give up all their catch to a buro or something like that.

That is a rather narrow view of humanity. The "homo economicus" is a nice hypothesis but not proven to be true. To assume, that you have to wave with the carrot of becoming a millionaire to move the masses (of which less than 1% will reach that carrot) is nonsense. Especially if you want to have a system that lets the other 99% live in relative wealth. Look at the model of cooperatives, which is basically small scale socialism. Companies in which the manager earns little more than the common worker? What would be the incentive for the manager to do all that business training if he cannot drive a bigger car in the end? Oh - maybe it is just what he likes to do rather than sitting at home and getting bored. The assumption that all people would just sit and do nothing just because they can is flawed, as the vast majority of people actually want to do something. Just maybe not standing in front of a Wal*Mart and repeat "Welcome at Walmart" 10000 times a day. They may want to work in a garden, care for children, build cars, do science or teach. We have the technology already to make most of the "mundane" jobs obsolete. And if you really think that people still would rather sit at home, you could implement systems that reward those who do not. Just not by paying a small number of people millions while others barely make enough for the day!

But the hunter argument is the best - LOL - actually this is exactly how it works. The hunter brings the catch and gives it all up to the tribe. The gatherers collect crops and give them all to the tribe. The craftsmen make tools and build huts and give them all to the tribe. And then everybody in the whole tribe gets meat, potatos, the tools they require and a place to sleep in. And if someone did not do anything of that but paints the walls of the cave or speaks to the gods then this is also a service to the community. With a free market monetary capitalist system, the only advantage is, that some people can get immensely rich and other can become immensely poor, but still maintain the hope (by the promise of freedom) that they one day also will become insanely rich.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Please do a little abstraction when I put out examples. I try to visualize the problems by overstating the consequences, like SciFi does. And besides that, it is simply not true. In many countries the highways are owned by companies, who will charge you money for using them! Or you have to pay toll for using a bridge. And not to mention the iron roads - named railways - on which much of our goods are transported. In many countires these also belong to private companies which as a result are in control of the basic means of supply to the people. Germany is about to sell off its railway system to private investors. What is already happening in that light? Connections to small towns are cut, only the high profit systems stay alive and the small towns see more people leaving. What is the result could be seen in the UK, where the railway system basically went to hell after privatization.

And yet Amtrack in the US being a private company works like a smooth oiled machine with excellent service and transportation of cargo.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

That is a rather narrow view of humanity. The "homo economicus" is a nice hypothesis but not proven to be true. To assume, that you have to wave with the carrot of becoming a millionaire to move the masses (of which less than 1% will reach that carrot) is nonsense. Especially if you want to have a system that lets the other 99% live in relative wealth. Look at the model of cooperatives, which is basically small scale socialism. Companies in which the manager earns little more than the common worker? What would be the incentive for the manager to do all that business training if he cannot drive a bigger car in the end? Oh - maybe it is just what he likes to do rather than sitting at home and getting bored. The assumption that all people would just sit and do nothing just because they can is flawed, as the vast majority of people actually want to do something. Just maybe not standing in front of a Wal*Mart and repeat "Welcome at Walmart" 10000 times a day. They may want to work in a garden, care for children, build cars, do science or teach. We have the technology already to make most of the "mundane" jobs obsolete. And if you really think that people still would rather sit at home, you could implement systems that reward those who do not. Just not by paying a small number of people millions while others barely make enough for the day!

Not necessarily a millionaire but a system that does not allow the creation of wealth and thus something to show for your work other than the sweat stains on your shirt is worthless.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

But the hunter argument is the best - LOL - actually this is exactly how it works. The hunter brings the catch and gives it all up to the tribe. The gatherers collect crops and give them all to the tribe. The craftsmen make tools and build huts and give them all to the tribe. And then everybody in the whole tribe gets meat, potatos, the tools they require and a place to sleep in. And if someone did not do anything of that but paints the walls of the cave or speaks to the gods then this is also a service to the community. With a free market monetary capitalist system, the only advantage is, that some people can get immensely rich and other can become immensely poor, but still maintain the hope (by the promise of freedom) that they one day also will become insanely rich.

Not it doesn't he doesn't give it for free, he expects his catch to be cooked and and with whatever else has been collected to be fed and clothed etc in exchange, is basically a bartering system. Giving it for free would mean giving what you worked for and expect nothing in return.

Here is few videos as food for thought one is about the Cuban revolution and another is an scene from the Aviator:

in the form of a Moving Minutes clip from Cuban-born actor and director Andy Garcia. Garcia lived through the Cuban Revolution—and in "Saxophones!", a segment from his 2005 film "The Lost City," he movingly evokes the betrayal of liberty committed by a dictatorship that, fifty years on, still has Cuba in a violent and repressive stranglehold.

Although he was himself born into wealth, the entrepreneur Howard Hughes multiplied his fortune by dint of hard work. Here, he displays a deep appreciation for the challenges and rewards of making ones way in the world, and memorably defends the creation of wealth.

Filmmaker Stuart Browning provides a cautionary lesson about a politicized health care system where politicians and bureaucrats determine medical priorities.

The short film adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, 2081 depicts a dystopian future in which, thanks to the 212th Amendment to the Constitution and the unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General, everyone is finally equal. The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

More than enough reason to discard Socialism in my opinion.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

And yet Amtrack in the US being a private company works like a smooth oiled machine with excellent service and transportation of cargo.

I never said, that privately owned railways cannot work. I am sure, the German Bahn will work perfectly and put out lots of profits just like Amtrak. But just like Amtrak, it will focus on the parts of the business that are profitable. Long distance travel, Cargo, Logistics. My agrument, and that is maybe not compareable to the US is the following. Here in Germany many small towns and villages have a railway station. People could actually without owning a car go almost everywhere. I can go skiing in the Alps just by using trains and a short bus ride from the train station to the lifts. But of course, it is not profitable to stop at each such little station and collect 10$ from the few persons entering the train there. Still overall it is better than all these people having to own cars and driving around. Maybe these people also do not have the money to buy a car and gas at prices at 2$/liter. But a private company would not care. They would take the rails in these towns and sell them for scrap metal. The peole in these villages will move away, only some old people remain and everyone else goes into the city. This is already happening. The loss of infrastructure is seriously bad. Sometimes just taking a complex system apart in single elements and then telling each of them to work with maximum profit does not work. How could it? The idea (and this is where it comes to socialism again) is to provide public services for the benefot of all people, so even the ones that are not "profitable" in one way should be supported. It may be most profitable to chuck all people in large skyscrapers in cities and leave the land for a few peasants, but I doubt this is what the people desire.

Not necessarily a millionaire but a system that does not allow the creation of wealth and thus something to show for your work other than the sweat stains on your shirt is worthless.

True. You have to gain something. There is a model that is currently debated in Germany to give every citizen a certain amount of money every month. If that person has no job, it could be considered welfare (we have a rather good welfare system compared to the US). If that person manages to find work or bakes cakes for their neighborhood or cares for the kids of their neighbors, that person gets some additional income or services in return. This is an interesting system per se, just one would have to take care that the difference between wages are not too high. The worlds most happiest countries are the ones in which the difference between the wages of top managers compared to the workers ate lowest. They may still earn 3 or 4 or even 10 times as much, but not 50 or 100 times as much as in a purely capitalist system.

Not it doesn't he doesn't give it for free, he expects his catch to be cooked and and with whatever else has been collected to be fed and clothed etc in exchange, is basically a bartering system. Giving it for free would mean giving what you worked for and expect nothing in return.

Ok, then I misunderstood that, but giving it for free is also not socialism. Socialism is exactly that system - you give what you can do best and others give what they can do best and what comes out of it is given to all people. You work in an electronics company and produce special goods for society but you get clothes and food from society in return.

Here is few videos as food for thought one is about the Cuban revolution and another is an scene from the Aviator:

Here we have that mixup again. True socialism is NOT totalitarian, authoritarion regimes with stupid propaganda. All the countries that claim to be socialist or communist are anything but socialist or communist. They are as much so as the US is a true democracy. Both opponent blocks of the cold war managed to use words for themselves that did not really have anything to do with the true systems. But these words stuck.

A truely socialist system would not have the need to keep people from travelling, to scream out propaganda and forbid using of saxophones or other such utter nonsense. Same way a true constitutional democracy would probably not need Guantanamo Bay. These actions and restrictions in the peoples liberty are not coming from the social system, but rather from the politics of fear and opposition and from the fact, that the systems are just not what they claim to be. In the US, you can have a president that has been elected by a minority of all people. In the pre 1989 german socialist state (East Germany), a state in which supposedly the people ruled, you could vote only one party and people stayed in power for decades. Both examples show, that these systems do not hold true to the values such a system would imply, if it was taken seriously.

[PunkMaister]

@AuroraGlacialis: Frankly I see no reason why should people have to give up what they have rightfully earned through the sweat of their brows. As long as they rightfully earned it and did not steal it etc. They should be able to keep it and not put a cap on it, again as long as it has been rightfully earned.

[Tsyal Makto]

I haven't read through this last page of the thread, but I personally believe that part of the problem lies in our biology. I wrote a blog at AF on it.

The Na'vi, Humanity, and Post-Technologicalism - Blogs - Avatar-Forums.com

While a lot of tribes survive(d) in the wild, the majority of people on Earth couldn't. Only a portion of the Earth is naturally lush enough to support a sustainable hunter-gatherer society. Pandora, on the other hand, is nearly fully (barring the poles) covered with thick, fertile forest. Desert/tundra/other naturally barren regions led people to develop agriculture, and later civilization. That's not even including other Human/Earthly shortcomings like disease, the general weakness of the human body, and darkness at night - problems which are nonexistent on Pandora.

Had humans evolved in a world similar to Jurassic-era Earth, a world quite similar to Pandora (including Ikran-sized Pterosaurs), I think things would have been different.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I haven't read through this last page of the thread, but I personally believe that part of the problem lies in our biology. I wrote a blog at AF on it.

The Na'vi, Humanity, and Post-Technologicalism - Blogs - Avatar-Forums.com

While a lot of tribes survive(d) in the wild, the majority of people on Earth couldn't. Only a portion of the Earth is naturally lush enough to support a sustainable hunter-gatherer society. Pandora, on the other hand, is nearly fully (barring the poles) covered with thick, fertile forest. Desert/tundra/other naturally barren regions led people to develop agriculture, and later civilization. That's not even including other Human/Earthly shortcomings like disease, the general weakness of the human body, and darkness at night - problems which are nonexistent on Pandora.

Had humans evolved in a world similar to Jurassic-era Earth, a world quite similar to Pandora (including Ikran-sized Pterosaurs), I think things would have been different.

Had the world being like that our civilization would like Dynotopia, I do not think we would have been able to get rid of wars entire but if the whole of Earth would have been like the amazon , plust Pteranodons to tame and fly around like in Dynotopia, the need for war over resources would have been minute.

Let's put it this way, necessity is the mother of invention. The reason tribes in the tropical forests of the world never developed much advanced tools or technology is not because they are less intelligent or capable but because they never had a need to invent anything beyond what they had already developed or created.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

@AuroraGlacialis: Frankly I see no reason why should people have to give up what they have rightfully earned through the sweat of their brows.

Well - for once, much of what is "earned" these days in western economics is not earned by the means of "sweat of their brows", but by investment, speculation and by the sweat of other people, often half way around the globe. Or would you produce a MP3 player from scratch for 3,99?
And the other is the concept od social networks. Humans are proud to claim for themselves to be social. In fact archaeologists define intelligence and advancement often by this feat. Neanderthals have been lifted from beeing stupid apes to almost human because people found mended bones and dead people who must have suffered from disabling diseases and be cared for by their tribe despite not "producing" anything for a long time. We draw a line between us humans, maybe include some of the "higher apes" from animals by the development of intelligence and social behaviour. And this social behaviour is the basis on which I would give up what I have earned if every other person in my tribe does the same. It is for the benefit of all and actually increases overall success of the tribe.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

While a lot of tribes survive(d) in the wild, the majority of people on Earth couldn't. Only a portion of the Earth is naturally lush enough to support a sustainable hunter-gatherer society.

Yes, Earth is not Pandora, but don't dismiss seemingly barren places as such. There are still active hunter/gatherer or other kinds of societies living in the tundra or even half-deserts. Actually as civilized people did not know what to do with these lands, they have survived quite a long time (Inuit, Massai, Sami). Also don't you think a seemingly lush Jungle is always a good terrain for survival. In our group we have had some debate over these things and a jungle can be quite a hard terrain to find food and at the same time avoid the dangers. Hunter and Gatherer Societies have been prevalent all over the world even in Ice ages.

What is true however is obviously that todays overshot population could not return to such a lifestyle.

[quoteHad humans evolved in a world similar to Jurassic-era Earth, a world quite similar to Pandora (including Ikran-sized Pterosaurs), I think things would have been different.[/QUOTE]
LOL - we'd all have to take care not beeing eaten by the big sauropods like in Jurassic Park

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Let's put it this way, necessity is the mother of invention. The reason tribes in the tropical forests of the world never developed much advanced tools or technology is not because they are less intelligent or capable but because they never had a need to invent anything beyond what they had already developed or created.

This is probably at least partly true. Our civilization started in the desert, probably out of necessity to get over droughts and therelike. And I am quite sure that from this origin also stems our ways of seeing nature as an enemy that has to be conquered and controlled. I am still not quite sure, why civilization started at that point in time. I mean - people faced such trouble for tens of thousands of years. Maybe it was the end of the ice age and global change resulting from that. Probably people settled before that for some other reason and because of this they faced danger, as nomads could just have moved on if there is low food in one area.

But tech is not always a product of need. It is often also a child of curiosity. Like building ships that can cross the Atlantic or develop tools to look at the stars.

[Sight]

Hmm, it seems like every other thread derails into marxism versus consumerism/capitalism and/or statism versus corporatism. I'm not going to touch that argument with a metaphorical twenty foot pole. However, in direct response to the purpose of the thread: yes, and no. Depending on the tribal group or society and the amount of progress that the group had undergone, the group could be in varried stages of "connection" with "nature". Generally, once a group had become sedentary and agriculturally based the members of the group began to drift away from nature: as they no longer exist within but slightly without. Instead of being a part of nature, the group could now circumvent nature and become the "master" of it. However, some groups defy the "drift" and still practice generallized reverance of nature: trivial or otherwise. For instance, in traditional Mongolian culture it is paramount to never disturb the soil itself, and herdsmen even take this belief so far as to only secure their "Gers" with rope and stone. As opposed to stakes in the ground, of course.

[X.,.Pandora.,.X]

Originally Posted by Cyan

Rewatching avatar again, made me realise, at some point in our early existence we must have been similar to them in some respects. Prehaps we were more inclinded to a spiritual being, and if you believe such things times were better because god could connect with us, as he stuggles to with us now. I dont know the details, but it sounds like at some point we were much more appreciative and connected with our surroundings.

Yes of course we were, Nomadic tribes, Indian tribes (once you think about it Avatar is the same thing we (early Americans) did to the Native Americans. Same outcome (kinda) too.) Im willing to bet most Indians who live on reserves are like the Na'vi (minus being huge blue ...things).

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Well - for once, much of what is "earned" these days in western economics is not earned by the means of "sweat of their brows", but by investment, speculation and by the sweat of other people, often half way around the globe. Or would you produce a MP3 player from scratch for 3,99?
And the other is the concept od social networks. Humans are proud to claim for themselves to be social. In fact archaeologists define intelligence and advancement often by this feat. Neanderthals have been lifted from beeing stupid apes to almost human because people found mended bones and dead people who must have suffered from disabling diseases and be cared for by their tribe despite not "producing" anything for a long time. We draw a line between us humans, maybe include some of the "higher apes" from animals by the development of intelligence and social behaviour. And this social behaviour is the basis on which I would give up what I have earned if every other person in my tribe does the same. It is for the benefit of all and actually increases overall success of the tribe.

The analogy is erroneous because Neanderthals and in fact many nomadic tribes do not exceed 8 or 12 members top and in the case of Neanderthals it was far fewer many times, meaning they were mostly members of the same family. Point is as a result they knew who they were caring for which is not the same as a state collecting your money for someone you have never met and probably never will and in which case most of that money will end up lining the pockets of those who distribute it in the first place, that's welfare for you.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yes, Earth is not Pandora, but don't dismiss seemingly barren places as such. There are still active hunter/gatherer or other kinds of societies living in the tundra or even half-deserts. Actually as civilized people did not know what to do with these lands, they have survived quite a long time (Inuit, Massai, Sami). Also don't you think a seemingly lush Jungle is always a good terrain for survival. In our group we have had some debate over these things and a jungle can be quite a hard terrain to find food and at the same time avoid the dangers. Hunter and Gatherer Societies have been prevalent all over the world even in Ice ages.

The ones that are most Na'vi like do live in Jungle parts of the world.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

What is true however is obviously that todays overshot population could not return to such a lifestyle.

Even if was not why would everyone suddenly decide to go back to live in caves and such?

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

LOL - we'd all have to take care not beeing eaten by the big sauropods like in Jurassic Park

Ever read the Dynotopia books?

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

This is probably at least partly true. Our civilization started in the desert, probably out of necessity to get over droughts and therelike. And I am quite sure that from this origin also stems our ways of seeing nature as an enemy that has to be conquered and controlled. I am still not quite sure, why civilization started at that point in time. I mean - people faced such trouble for tens of thousands of years. Maybe it was the end of the ice age and global change resulting from that. Probably people settled before that for some other reason and because of this they faced danger, as nomads could just have moved on if there is low food in one area.

Actually that's not exactly accurate, what you are doing is presenting one of many theories about how the Neolithic revolution started here are the others:

# The Oasis Theory, originally proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1908, popularized by Vere Gordon Childe in 1928 and summarised in Childe's book Man Makes Himself. This theory maintains that as the climate got drier due to the Atlantic depressions shifting northward, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals, which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. However, today this theory has little support amongst archaeologists because climate data for the time actually shows that at the time, the climate of the region was getting wetter rather than drier.
# The Hilly Flanks hypothesis, proposed by Robert Braidwood in 1948, suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, where the climate was not drier as Childe had believed, and fertile land supported a variety of plants and animals amenable to domestication.
# The Feasting model by Brian Hayden[9] suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as giving feasts, to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food, which drove agricultural technology.
# The Demographic theories proposed by Carl Sauer and adapted by Lewis Binford[11] and Kent Flannery posit an increasingly sedentary population that expanded up to the carrying capacity of the local environment and required more food than could be gathered. Various social and economic factors helped drive the need for food.
# The evolutionary/intentionality theory, developed by David Rindos[12] and others, views agriculture as an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, it led to specialization of location and then full-fledged domestication.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

But tech is not always a product of need. It is often also a child of curiosity. Like building ships that can cross the Atlantic or develop tools to look at the stars.

Well actually the building of such ships came out of necessity to try to open new trade routes too.
Telescopes however where indeed very much a product of curiosity.