Totally agree. It will take us awhile to move away from 'survival of the fittest' mode. There have been so many movies, stories, songs all based on this wrong assumption. Even Darwin didn't have this as a premise for humans, he said we could only get so far in survival of the fittest mode but for humans to be as successful as they were in all of the earth's ecosystems, they needed their higher ordinances of love and compassion.
Obviously we didn't want to hear this at the time so we took a bite sized phrase from him that suited our projected dysfunction and have used it for a century.
It's outdated thinking now. And it's nice to see the beginnings of us opening up to those higher ordinances.
David Graeber and Micheal Hudson deal with these issues with a bit more factual historical information. The emergence of debt obligations, did not emerge from land. There are entire cultures that get entangled in webs of debt and obligation that have nothing to do with land.
That doesn’t mean that it eventually gets mixed together, but that’s not the origin of it.
You are right. I'm a big fan of Graeber, but I wrote the earliest version of this as a parable for my children prompted by the Rousseau quote, before I'd read 'The Dawn Of Everything'. Although my little story is set in the pre-Roman early commons era of England, rather than the Sumerian example given in '5000 years of debt', and my focus was more on hierarchy rather than debt. But it seems there is a need for a more historical article to address the origin of these concepts as well, although as I recall Graeber's research also supports that exclusive ownership of previous common resources is often used to enable and justify hierarchy.
Thank you, so helpful and i will sharing this with my 17-year-old twins so they understand better how we got here, I really appreciate your insight and education. We can change this and i plan to spend the rest of my days trying😔
ICYMI, The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire
Book by Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery. However, they only look at the past 5,000 years. Now we know there were cities 12,000 years ago (Gobekli Tepe, etc.). And before that, during the last Ice Age, sea level was 400 feet lower than now, and since human cities tend to be coastal, the remains of those cities would be under water. The Ice Age cave paintings have an interesting feature: a set of 32 graphic symbols used for 25,000 years. If they are a syllabary, then you need to know the language in order to read them (which is why we can't read Linear A). That suggests a language that lasted 25,000 years. Though we use the Latin alphabet, few people speak Latin today.
The conclusion of The Creation of Inequality is that it started with gender discrimination. The men built a "men's house" where women were not allowed. Again, this is based on evidence only 5,000 years old. Human associations with canines go back through the Ice Age, and some anthropologists have suggested that maybe humans learned hierarchy from hunting with wolf packs. Wolf packs have two hierarchies, male and female.
In my little story I introduced patriarchy a little later - some other researchers tie it to settled farming and bigger families , others to religion creating male ownership of things and people (which is the route I took, with a nod to the other). The Dawn Of Everything (if I'm remembering it rightly) seems to suggested a multi-pronged approach, where some different civilisations ended up with similar results from different starts.
ps. there's a very good book on Darwin by David Loye called 'Darwin's Lost Theory' where he word counted Darwin's works to see where Darwin's emphasis was. Obviously he found it wasn't survival of the fittest.
You have stayed on the outside looking in this entire time. It all makes perfect sense. However your linear logic is missing the forest for a single tree. Somehow the heart is missing. If only you could do the same thing but from the inside looking in…
The intellect is not the gateway to the solution. It is the problem. An entirely different perceptual approach is called for.
There is an internal dimension to allowing and submitting to hierarchy, to accepting coercion, and adapting to exploitation - as individuals and culturally. It is worthy of deeper exploration, although my many attempts have rarely resulted in an article on the subject, although my articles ‘The Moral Question’, ‘The Myth Of Merit’ and ‘Are We Born Evil’ touch upon aspects of it.
Totally agree. It will take us awhile to move away from 'survival of the fittest' mode. There have been so many movies, stories, songs all based on this wrong assumption. Even Darwin didn't have this as a premise for humans, he said we could only get so far in survival of the fittest mode but for humans to be as successful as they were in all of the earth's ecosystems, they needed their higher ordinances of love and compassion.
Obviously we didn't want to hear this at the time so we took a bite sized phrase from him that suited our projected dysfunction and have used it for a century.
It's outdated thinking now. And it's nice to see the beginnings of us opening up to those higher ordinances.
David Graeber and Micheal Hudson deal with these issues with a bit more factual historical information. The emergence of debt obligations, did not emerge from land. There are entire cultures that get entangled in webs of debt and obligation that have nothing to do with land.
That doesn’t mean that it eventually gets mixed together, but that’s not the origin of it.
You are right. I'm a big fan of Graeber, but I wrote the earliest version of this as a parable for my children prompted by the Rousseau quote, before I'd read 'The Dawn Of Everything'. Although my little story is set in the pre-Roman early commons era of England, rather than the Sumerian example given in '5000 years of debt', and my focus was more on hierarchy rather than debt. But it seems there is a need for a more historical article to address the origin of these concepts as well, although as I recall Graeber's research also supports that exclusive ownership of previous common resources is often used to enable and justify hierarchy.
You will find Micheal Hudson of equal interest if you haven't seen much of his material. He studied credit and debt in antiquity.
A marvel to listen to, although his speech is suffering in age.
Thank you, so helpful and i will sharing this with my 17-year-old twins so they understand better how we got here, I really appreciate your insight and education. We can change this and i plan to spend the rest of my days trying😔
ICYMI, The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire
Book by Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery. However, they only look at the past 5,000 years. Now we know there were cities 12,000 years ago (Gobekli Tepe, etc.). And before that, during the last Ice Age, sea level was 400 feet lower than now, and since human cities tend to be coastal, the remains of those cities would be under water. The Ice Age cave paintings have an interesting feature: a set of 32 graphic symbols used for 25,000 years. If they are a syllabary, then you need to know the language in order to read them (which is why we can't read Linear A). That suggests a language that lasted 25,000 years. Though we use the Latin alphabet, few people speak Latin today.
The conclusion of The Creation of Inequality is that it started with gender discrimination. The men built a "men's house" where women were not allowed. Again, this is based on evidence only 5,000 years old. Human associations with canines go back through the Ice Age, and some anthropologists have suggested that maybe humans learned hierarchy from hunting with wolf packs. Wolf packs have two hierarchies, male and female.
Fascinating stuff! I'll hate to read it.
In my little story I introduced patriarchy a little later - some other researchers tie it to settled farming and bigger families , others to religion creating male ownership of things and people (which is the route I took, with a nod to the other). The Dawn Of Everything (if I'm remembering it rightly) seems to suggested a multi-pronged approach, where some different civilisations ended up with similar results from different starts.
ps. there's a very good book on Darwin by David Loye called 'Darwin's Lost Theory' where he word counted Darwin's works to see where Darwin's emphasis was. Obviously he found it wasn't survival of the fittest.
Excellent synthesis on origins of hierarchy. Wondering if there's affinity with Daniel Quinn's The Story of B?
I haven’t read ‘Story Of B’ yet, but read Ishmael about a decade ago, so the author has definitely been an influence.
You have stayed on the outside looking in this entire time. It all makes perfect sense. However your linear logic is missing the forest for a single tree. Somehow the heart is missing. If only you could do the same thing but from the inside looking in…
The intellect is not the gateway to the solution. It is the problem. An entirely different perceptual approach is called for.
There is an internal dimension to allowing and submitting to hierarchy, to accepting coercion, and adapting to exploitation - as individuals and culturally. It is worthy of deeper exploration, although my many attempts have rarely resulted in an article on the subject, although my articles ‘The Moral Question’, ‘The Myth Of Merit’ and ‘Are We Born Evil’ touch upon aspects of it.