Did humans use to care more?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

Well - in a future that I would really very much like, people would group in smaller groups, in which they would care for each other because they know each other. There might also be less crime than in big cities because people know each other. It seems that in a group of 100-200 people, everyone still can handle to know each other person. But such a structure is not easily established and I would not know how. Maybe small towns or small parts of cities getting together to form such communities? Of course, something would also be needed to support a community that has been hit by some hardship, so maybe some kind of federal system after all. But the key I think is the small size of the communities opposed to cities with millions.
But such ponderings are probably more fantasy than anything else and I believe that some kind of "more social" democratic system would be good. I am not so discontent with the ways some european states do it, except many try to adapt a more US like system to the disadvantage of the people at the lower end of income.

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

True, because the Omaticaya were designed to be like that. We don't know how the other clans really are, maybe they're more like native Americans (clan of he plains) or Inuit.

Ever read the Dynotopia books?

Sadly no. From what you tell here about it, I think I'll look it up. Sounds nice. Are they really good?

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:

Yes, I know some of them. I stated of course the one I happen to think most plausible. Another one I really like is, that people started to make beer-like beverages with grain and started to grow grain for that purpose and at some point discovered bread and all that comes with it.
But I think since nothing therelike happened for a long time in history, I would not believe any continous development theory, but rather would assume some kind of change, people had to adapt to. And it would be rather a coincidence if the development of agriculture would fall at the end of the ice age without having a connection to the climate change that happened at that time.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by 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.

I guess you are right to do that. Phew - I got caught up in this debate.

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

Yeah - I also think ,that the detachment from nature began with getting sedentary and especially with agriculture. The traditional Mongolians are nomadic, right, so they are still not really sedentary. But I think that that detachment may not have been so bad at first. People probably cared about their fields and forests at first, but as the "tended property" became less connected to nature, I think the detachment began to worsen. If people start to care more about their fields and dometic animals than about the rest of the land and the other animals, it starts to go bad. So as long as people still at least partially depended on nature's foods by hunting and gathering (fruits, honey, ...) they also cared about that nature.

, 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.[/QUOTE]

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Well - in a future that I would really very much like, people would group in smaller groups, in which they would care for each other because they know each other. There might also be less crime than in big cities because people know each other. It seems that in a group of 100-200 people, everyone still can handle to know each other person. But such a structure is not easily established and I would not know how. Maybe small towns or small parts of cities getting together to form such communities? Of course, something would also be needed to support a community that has been hit by some hardship, so maybe some kind of federal system after all. But the key I think is the small size of the communities opposed to cities with millions.
But such ponderings are probably more fantasy than anything else and I believe that some kind of "more social" democratic system would be good. I am not so discontent with the ways some european states do it, except many try to adapt a more US like system to the disadvantage of the people at the lower end of income.

The people of my neighborhood as well as many others do assemble every now and then to discuss with police and other government entities matters of neighborhood security and other issues as well, So I guess it could start with something like that and breaking it down to divide the areas if necessary in manageable numbers. Still there are people in my own block I hardly know while others I've known nearly all my life.

Truth be told given the decadent state of our current society in which we have 9 year olds planing rapes and such, I don't think it can last much longer.

Without core moral values of any kind no society can survive and worst of all, how can people that don't even care about themselves or anything whatsoever other than immediate gratification and to hell with the consequences even start to care about the environment, freedom or any actual deep stuff? They cannot.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

True, because the Omaticaya were designed to be like that. We don't know how the other clans really are, maybe they're more like native Americans (clan of he plains) or Inuit.

In the movie we see some clans that do build dwellings as in cabins and in the game we see some that have even built bridges. So the Na'vi are far more advanced that people give them credit for. Now Built bridges are important because no nomadic hunter gatherer tribe has been known to built them and yet the Na'vi (some clans anyway) have them.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Sadly no. From what you tell here about it, I think I'll look it up. Sounds nice. Are they really good?

Dinotopia is a fictional utopia created by author and illustrator James Gurney. It is the setting for the book series with which it shares its name. Dinotopia is an isolated island inhabited by shipwrecked humans and sentient dinosaurs who have learned to coexist peacefully as a single symbiotic society. The first book has "appeared in 18 languages in more than 30 countries and sold two million copies." Dinotopia: A Land Apart from Time and Dinotopia: The World Beneath both won Hugo awards for best original artwork.

Since its original publication, over twenty Dinotopia books have been published by various authors to expand the series. A live-action TV mini-series, a brief live-action TV series, an animated film, and several video games have also been released.

Links here and here!

And here is a video clip of the Disney miniseries based on the books.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yes, I know some of them. I stated of course the one I happen to think most plausible. Another one I really like is, that people started to make beer-like beverages with grain and started to grow grain for that purpose and at some point discovered bread and all that comes with it.
But I think since nothing therelike happened for a long time in history, I would not believe any continous development theory, but rather would assume some kind of change, people had to adapt to. And it would be rather a coincidence if the development of agriculture would fall at the end of the ice age without having a connection to the climate change that happened at that time.

That we know off, the date for how far civilization sprang keeps going back further every time a new discovery is made. And what of the lost civiliztion in the Amazon that created the misterous so called Terra preta

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

The people of my neighborhood as well as many others do assemble every now and then to discuss with police and other government entities matters of neighborhood security and other issues as well, So I guess it could start with something like that and breaking it down to divide the areas if necessary in manageable numbers
Without core moral values of any kind no society can survive and worst of all, how can people that don't even care about themselves or anything whatsoever other than immediate gratification and to hell with the consequences even start to care about the environment, freedom or any actual deep stuff? They cannot.

Yes - I think breaking it down in smaller groups is a good thing. I am not sure if it will work for people in cities who are used to their anonymity. Also it does not help if people move around as much as they do because of jobs. Also society tries hard to get more and more people together in bigger cities, bigger buildings, bigger nations. Individual people seem to try differently by wanting to live in smaller communities instead of large blocks, regions that rather want to be independent from bigger nations and some nations even fractioning in smaller pieces. Ususally this fractioning and splitting is somehow seen as something negative in politics and economics, but people themselves seem to prefer this.
I think, people have a morale understanding in them at birth. The problem is, that in a society that works as ours does, it is early learnt how to overcome these morals either for other "benefits" like having fun or getting money or out of a self destructive attitude. The latter is something I connect with our society or maybe even certain kind of civilization. To me it seems like the destructive ways we exhibit to the outside, on nature and the planet has creeped into our society and we became self-destructive. People do not really drink a lot or take drugs or vandalize public property for true fun - it is in a way a (self-) destructive behaviour that I deem is not inherent to humans but a product of life as we live it.

In the movie we see some clans that do build dwellings as in cabins and in the game we see some that have even built bridges. So the Na'vi are far more advanced that people give them credit for. Now Built bridges are important because no nomadic hunter gatherer tribe has been known to built them and yet the Na'vi (some clans anyway) have them.

Yes - i was wondering about that in the movie also. The Na'Vi are not primitive, no. They are very inventive and have quite a bit of advances, just they use different means like mostly natural materials for almost anything down to protective glasses for their flight goggles! The Na'Vi are no nomadic hunter and gatherer tribe. Their environments are probably productive enough to not require a nomadic lifestyle, so they are something that is rather rare on earth - sedentiary hunter gatherers.

Thanks for the info on dinotopia. I think I want that miniseries...

That we know off, the date for how far civilization sprang keeps going back further every time a new discovery is made. And what of the lost civiliztion in the Amazon that created the misterous so called Terra preta

You mean these? Really nice, but they are not that ancient. Like <1500 years old.
The "origin of civilization" is of course also something that can hardly be pinpointed. Why it is not really a continous development from the first humans using stone tools up to now, it is also not like there was a single event that was the invention of civilization. There have been events that made people change rather quickly but also pauses. The question now is what makes a civilization. Agriculture used to be a major point, but Obviously there are also differences to be made between gardening (like the Amazonians did), larger fields of grain, irrigated fields, terraces,...etc. Gardening would be a supplement, larger fields that may even require irrigation or terraces are a different thing that requires a lot of investment in terms of work. So regarding some of the more dangerous effects of agriculture would probably be such an investment that had to be protected and was subject to failure. Domesticated animals are another civilized thing. And they also posed an investment (though a less work intensive one if they are fed by grazing) that could be stolen or lost. So I guess the ill effects of civilization came from the concept of investing work for a later gain with the risks of failure, loss or other people taking it attached to it. Such a requirement for protection can easily lead to division - from nature (which may destroy crops by unforseen climate) and other people (who could try to just take some of the earnings).

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yes - I think breaking it down in smaller groups is a good thing. I am not sure if it will work for people in cities who are used to their anonymity. Also it does not help if people move around as much as they do because of jobs. Also society tries hard to get more and more people together in bigger cities, bigger buildings, bigger nations. Individual people seem to try differently by wanting to live in smaller communities instead of large blocks, regions that rather want to be independent from bigger nations and some nations even fractioning in smaller pieces. Ususally this fractioning and splitting is somehow seen as something negative in politics and economics, but people themselves seem to prefer this.

Well actually even people in cities form what could be construed as their own tribes which are composed of their immediate family, relatives and friends, the need to divide ourselves in small nurturing groups is embedded in our genes and humanity would have never been able to make it for as far it has had that not being the case.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I think, people have a morale understanding in them at birth. The problem is, that in a society that works as ours does, it is early learnt how to overcome these morals either for other "benefits" like having fun or getting money or out of a self destructive attitude. The latter is something I connect with our society or maybe even certain kind of civilization. To me it seems like the destructive ways we exhibit to the outside, on nature and the planet has creeped into our society and we became self-destructive. People do not really drink a lot or take drugs or vandalize public property for true fun - it is in a way a (self-) destructive behaviour that I deem is not inherent to humans but a product of life as we live it.

Not quite didn't you ever read Lord of the flies?

It was families that first began to instill to their progeny the values we most endear and now society longs for. But then again this society has gone out it's way to destroy the very essence of what a family is supposed to be so that should come as no surprise.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yes - i was wondering about that in the movie also. The Na'Vi are not primitive, no. They are very inventive and have quite a bit of advances, just they use different means like mostly natural materials for almost anything down to protective glasses for their flight goggles! The Na'Vi are no nomadic hunter and gatherer tribe. Their environments are probably productive enough to not require a nomadic lifestyle, so they are something that is rather rare on earth - sedentiary hunter gatherers.

Yes they do seem to be a bit of horticulturists as well.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Thanks for the info on dinotopia. I think I want that miniseries...

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

You mean these? Really nice, but they are not that ancient. Like <1500 years old.
The "origin of civilization" is of course also something that can hardly be pinpointed. Why it is not really a continous development from the first humans using stone tools up to now, it is also not like there was a single event that was the invention of civilization. There have been events that made people change rather quickly but also pauses. The question now is what makes a civilization. Agriculture used to be a major point, but Obviously there are also differences to be made between gardening (like the Amazonians did), larger fields of grain, irrigated fields, terraces,...etc. Gardening would be a supplement, larger fields that may even require irrigation or terraces are a different thing that requires a lot of investment in terms of work. So regarding some of the more dangerous effects of agriculture would probably be such an investment that had to be protected and was subject to failure. Domesticated animals are another civilized thing. And they also posed an investment (though a less work intensive one if they are fed by grazing) that could be stolen or lost. So I guess the ill effects of civilization came from the concept of investing work for a later gain with the risks of failure, loss or other people taking it attached to it. Such a requirement for protection can easily lead to division - from nature (which may destroy crops by unforseen climate) and other people (who could try to just take some of the earnings).

Well the risk of other people taking it has always been around as there has always been people that find it easier to steal than to do the work to get it in the first place whether it was the fruits of a successful hunting party to crops etc being raided by such people is a tale as old as time itself. When civilization came along those same people found ever more inventive ways to obtain from others what they could not do themselves.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Well actually even people in cities form what could be construed as their own tribes which are composed of their immediate family, relatives and friends, the need to divide ourselves in small nurturing groups is embedded in our genes

Exactly! But the settings we live in make it hard to form such groups and often we are members of many groups. I talked to a guy who does group mentoring and we agreed, that people can handle groups of less than 200 people well. But if we have to split this number up between family, friends, workmates, the people at the sports club, maybe even internet chats - at some point we cannot handle this and additionally by moving around, changing jobs etc - we loose chunks of our "tribe(s)" quite often. That is what I meant that our way of life hinders the formation of stable "tribal-like" connections.

Not quite didn't you ever read Lord of the flies?

Well - It is a story. It is biased. And it is from the 1950ies. It is a possibility things would evolve like that in such a situation, but it is not a recount of actual events. Oh and there is another story: Two Years' Vacation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is the same situation basically, but the kids deal with it much less destructive than in LOTF. More cooperation. (I have read only plot summary, not the book)

I agree however, that without a society that holds true to the morale that is within us and incorporates all generations, things go ill. Small families who move around every couple of years, loosing contact with the grandparents and even an increasing seperation between parents and children as well as children and their peers does not make it better.

Yes they do seem to be a bit of horticulturists as well.

Yes? How do you figure? I have not seen them doing any kind of planting in the movie.

Well the risk of other people taking it has always been around as there has always been people that find it easier to steal than to do the work to get it in the first place whether it was the fruits of a successful hunting party

Well - if you eat what you hunt or gather right away (and this was usually done), you do not have a lot of stocks that can be raided. Maybe a little bit for travels. Once people started to stockpile, to produce surplus, this was when the possibility to successfully stealing emerged. A different thing may be a tribe that suffers from hunger, they may be inclined to steal from someone who has even a little stockpile to survive, but as long as you live with your tribe in an area with natural resources like game to hunt and fruits to eat, there is not really a need to steal.