• 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    @Athena @universeness

    Yeah... I was referring human civilization. There have been lots of plans and schemes and strategies and agendas, but always short term - a couple of decades, max. The overall tendency of all city-states have been to subsume their neighbours and become nation-states, and from there, empires, bigger and bigger empires, as transport and weapon technology advanced. I don't think anyone in the steering elite of Athens or Kashi or Zanzibar sat down and worked out a timetable of imperialism - it's just that the pressures of growing population and the prospect of increasing wealth tend to escalate aggressive trade to open intimidation and finally conquest.
    Power goes to men's heads; it's addictive; as long as they're successful, they can't stop. And their people - the peasants and artisans whose sons are pressed into the armies, have little say in the matter. If the emperor is savvy, he actively promotes his adventuring as "the glory of Rome" or wherever and persuade the population that his success is their success; his power over another nation is their individual power over the men of that nation. People who are perfectly competent to design a barn or calculate the number of horseshoes they can make from a 10 lira load of iron turn their brains off and start waving flags. Women, too, when the fever spreads wide enough. The very people called upon to make the greatest sacrifices take pride in their nation, their empire (I'm sure there are still a few old Brits who indulge in that nostalgia), their mighty sovereign.
    Now, it's done mostly with money, but the troops still troop dutifully off to foreign lands.
    Vera Mont

    Thanks for your reply!

    This makes me think of George Carlin’s comedy routine about ‘stuff’.
    Reveal
    George Carlin on Stuff transcript.

    Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That’s all, a little place for my stuff. That’s all I want, that’s all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table, everybody’s got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that’s your stuff, that’ll be his stuff over there. That’s all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That’s all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn’t have so much stuff, you wouldn’t need a house. You could just walk around all the time.

    A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you’re taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody’s got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn’t want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you’re saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That’s what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get…more stuff!

    Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else’s house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else’s stuff is all over the place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven’t used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven’t moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there’s usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there’s NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else’s shit is on the dresser.

    Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, “Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!”

    Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It’s the second version of your stuff. And you’re gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. “Here’s a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff–you put your stuff there, I’ll put some stuff–here’s another place for stuff, look at this, I’ll put some stuff here…” And even though you’re far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That’s when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, “Hey, why don’tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here.”

    Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you’ve gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui–I mean you’re really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend’s house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, “All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay.” That’s when your friend says, “Aaaaay, I think tonight we’ll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over.”

    Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right–you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you’re gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you’re gonna need.

    All material written and owned by George Carlin.


    We all have stuff. We all need stuff. We all make stuff…
    Heck, we ARE stuff… at least our bodies are.
    (Our thoughts and ideas aren’t stuff exactly, though our opinions may be stuffy).
    But seriously though… :grin:

    We obviously need things and material goods.
    A well-made product or tool is a thing of wonder and beauty.

    Even if indigenous people sometimes found colonial ‘visitors’ to be odd or
    oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle.
    Things they didn’t make themselves and maybe never had seen before, but were
    undoubtedly ’good stuff’.

    In any society’s growth, I’d imagine that at least two factors are critical for long term existence.

    One aspect is social: the overall balance and equilibrium of the culture and people.
    The other aspect is physical: the overall balance and equilibrium of the culture with the natural environment and its overall physical structure.

    If the first aspect is unbalanced, there’s disorganization and strife.
    It either falls apart through neglect or is ripped apart by fighting and battles for control.

    If the second aspect is unbalanced, the society runs out of physical necessities, toxifies the area, or both.

    As you noted, many civilizations have used slavery to quicken its growth and expansion.
    This would seem like it makes the civilization unbalanced in BOTH the aspects mentioned above.

    Concerning societal imbalance, a revolt by those enslaved is almost an eventual certainty.
    Concerning environmental and structural issues, if the masses are revolting there is going to be a stoppage in growth and a disruption in even ordinary maintenance.
    If all those enslaved escaped, they would have to be replaced by others if the civilization were to continue.
    And if those ‘others’ happened to be the ordinary citizens themselves, the rulers probably wouldn’t object.

    So slavery is not only morally wrong, disgusting, dehumanizing… it’s inherently unstable and unsustainable on multiple levels.
    As if the moral reasons weren’t persuasive enough to avoid it.
    But the the temptation of quick growth and the power to dominate others and the environment are seductive, even if there’s a curse or terrible price to eventually pay.
    Like steroid use on a civilizational level, a deal with the devil or Rumplestiltskin that seemed like a good idea at the time, but…

    Just one of many examples of how our Civilization (as great as its achievements have been) is unstable on both a societal level and a physical structural level.
    (Which most people would probably agree with, though the causes and solutions offered would be different).
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    @Vera Mont @Athena

    There are no significant settlements of highly organised humans, that we have evidence for, that pre-date early settlements such as Jericho . There are earlier settlements, but an early city style human civilisation has a cut off population size, for it to be considered a 'civilisation.' Perhaps an estimate of at least 10,000 residents. The first recorded human civilisation is argued, but we are not talking about roving bands of aboriginal hunter gatherers, when we employ the term 'human civilisation.'
    When do you think the notion of a global population of humans was first considered by living humans?

    If we take a character like Alexander the butcher. He, it seems, wanted to 'conquer the world' and impose the Macedonian/Greek notion of what civilisation was and create a human world that lived the way dictated by Alex and his cronies. Of course, the entire world as we know it today was not accessible for Alex and his mob.
    universeness

    Good question… thanks. :up:

    How about using words for groups people, in an increasing scale:

    Cultures (small to medium sized)…
    Civilization (large with cities, division of labor etc)…
    Global Civilization (the whole ball of wax).

    The notion of a Global Civilization could be somewhat arguable, since someone may see
    parts of it that that are in complete opposition to each other.

    What i was trying to describe was our Civilization, looked at two points in time.
    Looking at it now, I call it ‘Civilization’.
    Looked at when it was just beginning thousands of years ago, I call it ‘culture’.

    No culture seemed to have a definite purpose or goal …Until the emergence of our particular Civilization about 10,000 years ago. Our Civilization has the beginning, the middle, and the ending all mapped out for our convenience. It has the teachings, the means of production and implementation, and the goal.0 thru 9

    I don't understand this. The early human city states had very definite purposes and goals imo.
    These goals were all about keeping/protecting what they had built, the moral code/laws/culture of every day behaviours they had initiated and the notions of expansion they held.
    They differed greatly in exactly what these acceptable every day behaviours were, and what hierarchical structure of authority would/should be imposed.
    universeness

    Early human states had purposes? Yes, of course!
    I meant this is a comparison to the Civilization that became the one we live in now.

    The distinguishing characteristic of our Civilization according to my view that that
    it promotes and chooses expansion of population, land, and means of production
    over nearly every other possible characteristic, not the least of which are
    stability or sustainability).
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    These, combined with the eventual more formal education, instill in the child a general picture of the world and what goals are considered most important.
    Whatever ’level’ or ‘class’ one may happen to identify with doesn’t alter the overall story that the child is told.
    0 thru 9

    Yes!! [vintage reference]Romper Room may teach the little tykes about responsibility and good citizenship, but it's immediately followed by Tom and Jerry or Buggs Bunny. [/vintage reference] So the children internalize, before they have the remotest chance of being able to analyze it, that we have to pretend civility while preying on others and doing them down; that ultimately, all conflict must be resolved with fists or guns. We have to be charitable, but only tough guys get any respect. Plus the prettiest/richest girl, who will thenceforward meekly do his bidding.

    I think the word ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ is appropriate here... any teaching about meaning, purpose, destiny, etc is in the realm of story, myth, and shared wisdom.
    I use these terms neutrally and without any negative connotations (ie myth = untrue).
    0 thru 9
    :clap: :clap: :clap:
    That's an idea I have been largely unable to convey. One of the perversions of 20th century American English (I've been making an informal study of this phenomenon for decades now) has been to equate mythology (the story of a people's origin, identity and relationships) with specific small-scale lies; i.e. to cheapen mythology, in the same way that art is debased by printing copies of famous paintings on neckties and coffee mugs. That is part of the homogenization of cultures to which you referred earlier (becoming one global civilization) - by the simplest, easiest method: bring everything down to a mass-produced commodity.

    oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle.0 thru 9

    So, you have seen The Gods Must Be Crazy
    Some good lessons there!

    Cultures (small to medium sized)…
    Civilization (large with cities, division of labor etc)…
    0 thru 9
    Empires - civilization that expands aggressively
    Global Civilization (the whole ball of wax).
    The logical end-game of imperialism.

    Early human states had purposes?0 thru 9

    Day-to-day, year-to-year purposes. Fortify the walls. Deepen the irrigation canals. Raid Nubia for more slaves to build a road. Open a new trading route to the Occident.
    That's not the same as an overarching long-term plan. 5th century Gaul didn't plot its way to 21st century EU any more than evolution had Mighty Man in Mind when it preserved the more efficient mosquito or longer-tailed lyre bird. Civilizations are no more intelligent or aware than is nature.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k


    :hearts: Wow, thanks for the response and the agreement!
    (Getting both is a nice experience, because of its rarity lol).

    When I was younger and hearing of the discipline of philosophy for the first time, I thought it was about the actual ideas that directly affected our culture as a whole… laid out in an intelligible way.
    It may be that way in some manner, but I was naively looking for some ‘owners manual’ for our civilization, or for life itself.

    Upon maturity, it is easy to see it was asking for a lot, maybe asking for easy answers.
    I imagine that maybe some power brokers wouldn’t want to show their cards.
    It might reflect badly on them, or give their opponents / victims an advantage.
    Or maybe the concept to too difficult to pin down?
    Or maybe it is just a ‘work in progress’?

    What is our philosophical modus operendi? (Or PMO, for short).

    I guess I was unaware of Structuralism at the time and Big History was not yet ‘a thing’. :nerd:
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    Upon maturity, it is easy to see it was asking for a lot, maybe asking for easy answers.0 thru 9

    To your credit, you didn't fall back on religion as so many do. That's the main draw of religion: absolute certainty; simple answers to hard questions like "How should we live?" "What are right and wrong?" "What do owe one another and our society?" "What is the purpose of life?"
    Contrary to what many atheists like to repeat, religion was not the answer to "How did the world begin?" or "What causes thunder?" - those questions either do no arise of their own accord, or are dealt-with in myth, legend and folklore - no gods required. Gods were invented to hand down commandments and to favour us with supernatural power if we please them. That is: they command us and we manipulate them.
    Thence comes also the divine right of kings and infallibility of popes and evangelists, and of political dogma and the rise of dictators. They give us rules, solidarity, certainty and purpose - "something greater than myself" to belong to. (For me, clan, tribe and biota are bigger enough.)

    I imagine that maybe some power brokers wouldn’t want to show their cards.
    It might reflect badly on them, or give their opponents / victims an advantage.
    Or maybe the concept to too difficult to pin down?
    Or maybe it is just a ‘work in progress’?
    0 thru 9
    Make that all power-brokers and all of the above. Having an edge, an advantage is all. What to do with the advantage is to be decided, one win at a time.

    and Big History was not yet ‘a thing’. :nerd:0 thru 9

    Thanks, I'll look into that my next month or so of lunches by the stove.
  • 180 Proof
    14.3k
    That's the main draw of religion: absolute certainty; simple answers to hard questions like "How should we live?" "What are right and wrong?" "What do owe one another and our society?" "What is the purpose of life?" Contrary to what many atheists like to repeat, religion was not the answer to "How did the world begin?" or "What causes thunder?" - those questions either do [not] arise of their own accord, or are dealt-with in myth, legend and folklore - no gods required. Gods were invented to hand down commandments and to favour us with supernatural power if we please them. That is: they command us and we manipulate them. Thence comes also the divine right of kings and infallibility of popes and evangelists, and of political dogma and the rise of dictators. They give us rules, solidarity, certainty and purpose - "something greater than myself" to belong to.Vera Mont
    :clap: :100: Amen, sista!

    "Lots of horrible shit in this world gets done for something larger than ourselves." ~Sandor Clegane
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k

    With all the references, like it's some kind of cultural icon, I almost wish I had seen that show. Unfortunately, ever since the travesty of Merlin, the trailer of every new midievaly, magicky tv series breaks me out in hives.
    Best joke of the gods: they make us special, choosing us and placing us at the tippy-top of [their] creation... and then plop a naked emperor down on our heads. The Klingons did one intelligent thing: killing their gods - not that it seems to have profited them any.
    I
  • Athena
    3k
    I think that our culture (being a culture, as well as being a civilization, as well as being/becoming a global civilization) shares with smaller societies the drive to spread its ideas and memes among its members, and even to spread its beliefs beyond its borders.
    This informational imprinting on a child starts right after birth.
    As noted above, the ever-present and ever-growing media presence is a powerful teacher, perhaps equal to (or surpassing) parental and family ‘teaching’.
    0 thru 9

    I had a hard time wrapping my mind around "memes". That is a complete abstract. They can not exist without the humans infected by them. I could not grasp a firm boundary for the word. However, I totally get the importance of the "story". We have shared stories and private ones. Joseph Campbell said mythology is very important and when we do not have a shared mythology we will make up our own, using the people in our lives and the characters for our private mythology.

    In the past, that media presence would have been the clan's storyteller. Different cultural stories of creation fascinate me. It seems to me those civilizations that have creation stories that begin with a conflict of the gods were more apt to develop technology. Those with a creator or Earth Mother and no conflict between the gods seem less apt to develop technology.

    There were tribes that raised their young to be aggressive warriors. Like Sparta, this begins the day a child is born. There were tribes that focused on compassion the opposite of the warrior mentality. I claim the change in education, in 1958 has led to the violence we are seeing today and a very serious cultural clash. A cultural clash results from people holding different stories.

    https://openpediatricmedicinejournal.com/contents/volumes/V8/TOPEDJ-8-1/TOPEDJ-8-1.pdf

    Public education is the most important factor in defending democracy because only when the principles of democracy are learned do they become functional memes.

    Last night I watched a very interesting Public Broadcasting show about how technology changed our culture. With your help in understanding memes, I now get where that technology can function as a meme. The development of different forms of energy has been a major culture changer.

    Wars are also extremely important to cultural change.

    Not done with the reply but I am out of time.
  • Athena
    3k
    If we take a character like Alexander the butcher. He, it seems, wanted to 'conquer the world' and impose the Macedonian/Greek notion of what civilisation was and create a human world that lived the way dictated by Alex and his cronies. Of course, the entire world as we know it today was not accessible for Alex and his mob.universeness

    I wish I had more time!! I just read about preparing the young to be warriors for my post above and immediately I see a failure to see life from a different point of view when one assumes he has the right to conquer the world. That seems to come with our cultural heritage and was made worse with religion and entering wars believing that is God's will.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    That seems to come with our cultural heritage and was made worse with religion and entering wars believing that is God's will.Athena

    Yep, The good the bad and the ugly, all claim to be working in accordance with the will of their chosen god or gods. :roll: From good folks like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, to bad influencers like shamen, witch doctors, druids, popes, priests, imams and rabbis. all the way to ugly horrors like Hitler and Jack the ripper.
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    I warmly recommend this book The Dawn of Everything. Very well researched, packed with information and pleasant to read.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    That's how I've been calling it, too, when I say civilization was where the human race went drastically wrong. But, in fact, the previous, low-density cultures were not quite so haphazard as you depict them here. Many were settled in one place, or migrated back and forth between winter and summer residences, had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and farming, had complex language and folklore, advanced handicrafts, knowledge of their environment and resources and extensive networks of commerce and social interaction, alliances and treaties, as well as border disputes, with other tribes.Vera Mont

    :up: It seems like something went askew with civilization at some early juncture.
    It probably was inevitable that humans started clumping together in larger and larger cities.
    How can we do that sustainably and not have to be selling out future generations, “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?

    There were so very many benefits from having so many creative people in close proximity in these early cities.
    The evidence is all around us. So much knowledge started or was refined there.
    This knowledge can (and must) be updated and applied to the ‘fly in the ointment’ which are the hidden imbalances in civilization that are now not so hidden.
    The best of Civilizational knowledge joined with the core of Indigenous knowledge might be the general direction to proceed.

    The Earth seems to be in autoimmune disease mode… is it sending us a message?
    Can we discover a way to go along with the ways of nature AND have continue to have large cities?
    If we don’t adjust, the Earth just might act as if we are a virus. :mask: :monkey:
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    I warmly recommend this book The Dawn of Everything. Very well researched, packed with information and pleasant to read.Vera Mont

    Thanks! I started to read it earlier this year. Didn’t finish it then, but now I’m tempted to try again, maybe with an audiobook version from the library.

    I had this reaction from the first part of the book, in another thread

    Excellent reading suggestion, thanks! :up: I’m part way through it now. Might have to renew the e-book a few more times. A long book isn’t a problem when it’s interesting... and digital books don’t weigh 20 lbs, lol.

    Early in the book, the authors make a striking (to me) claim: that European contact with Native Americans heavily influenced, if not outright caused, the European Age of Enlightenment. Specifically, the interactions of English-speaking Natives and European settlers which were transcribed. In a nutshell, the fluent Natives proved to be so rational and intelligent, and most importantly, devastatingly critical of the European way of life (both in America and in Europe), that it influenced many who read it. And it spread from there. Some Natives visited Europe, of course, where they got a first hand view that repelled them. They thought the Europeans to be savages!

    The authors also theorize that modern Westerners might actually be closer overall in thought to the Natives, with their ideas of freedom (equality is a more complicated thing, which the authors dwell on later). The rigid hierarchical society of Europe would seem stifling and bizarre to us (if I’m understanding their position).
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    It seems like something went askew with civilization at some early juncture.0 thru 9
    The first thing that went wrong was commercial agriculture. That is, previously, people had cultivated some crops alongside their hunting, fishing, trading and gathering activities. They grew enough food for the tribe, plus a little extra to preserve for winter.
    Once urbanization and social stratification came into effect, the peasant class had to produce a huge amount of surplus, to feed the urban population of non-producers. Increasingly, too, the people who worked the land did not own the land. And so, very quickly (over a short period as prehistoric time is reckoned), the urban people were alienated from the land and the rural people became the enemies of nature. That's the day humanity lost its innocence, fell from grace, or however you word it: the parable of Eden.
    The best of Civilizational knowledge joined with the core of Indigenous knowledge might be the general direction to proceed.0 thru 9
    Yes, that's about the size of it. I'm not sure enough of an effort is being made to preserve tribal wisdom, but there are many books and videos on living in and with nature, most of them safely archived for an unforeseen future.
    Can we discover a way to go along with the ways of nature AND have continue to have large cities?0 thru 9
    Probably not so large as New York and Tokyo. But the early and very idea-fertile city states only had populations of 10-30,000. That size is sustainable, I think, especially if the construction is designed properly, along the lines of the Venus Project, Earthship neighbourhoods or co-housing units, that incorporate independent home workshops, educational facilities and urban farming. I think it's important to be within walking distance of all one's basic necessities and social interactions.
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    I started to read it earlier this year. Didn’t finish it then, but now I’m tempted to try again, maybe with an audiobook version from the library.0 thru 9

    I haven't finished it either. There is a lot of material to digest. I have it on my kindle and read a section between lighter fare, novels and proofreading. (That's done now, thank whomever! But I'm vaguely contemplating a new project.)
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    And so, very quickly (over a short period as prehistoric time is reckoned), the urban people were alienated from the land and the rural people became the enemies of nature. That's the day humanity lost its innocence, fell from grace, or however you word it: the parable of Eden.Vera Mont

    Daniel Quinn take on the parable of Eden is different than any others I’ve heard…

    Reveal
    “THERE IS A VERY SPECIAL knowledge you must have if you’re going to rule the world,” Ishmael said. “I’m sure you realize that.”
    “Frankly, I’ve never thought about it.”
    “The Takers possess this knowledge, of course—at least they imagine they do—and they’re very, very proud of it. This is the most fundamental knowledge of all, and it’s absolutely indispensable to those who would rule the world. And what do you suppose the Takers find when they go among the Leavers?”
    “I don’t know what you mean.”
    “They find that the Leavers do not have this knowledge. Isn’t that remarkable?”
    “I don’t know.”
    “Consider it. The Takers have a knowledge that enables them to rule the world, and the Leavers lack it. This is what the missionaries found wherever they went among the Leavers. They were quite astonished themselves, because they had the impression that this knowledge was virtually self-evident.”
    “I don’t even know what knowledge you’re talking about.”
    “It’s the knowledge that’s needed to rule the world.”
    “Okay, but specifically what knowledge is that?”
    “You’ll learn that from the story. What I’m looking at right now is who has this knowledge. I’ve told you that the “Takers have it, and that makes sense, doesn’t it? The Takers are the rulers of the world, aren’t they?”

    “Yes.”
    “And the Leavers don’t have it, and that too makes sense, doesn’t it?”
    “I guess so.”
    “Now tell me this: Who else would have this knowledge, besides the Takers?”
    “I have no idea.”
    “Think mythologically.”
    “Okay….The gods would have it.”
    “Of course. And that’s what my story is about: how the gods acquired the knowledge they needed to rule the world.”

    “Chapter 4
    ONE DAY (ISHMAEL BEGAN) THE gods were considering the administration of the world in the ordinary way, and one them said, “Here’s a spot I’ve been thinking about for a while—a wide, pleasant savannah. Let’s send a great multitude of locusts into this land. Then the fire of life will grow prodigiously in them and in the birds and lizards that will feed on them, and that will be very fine.”
    The others thought about this for a while, then one said, “It’s certainly true that, if we send the locusts into this land, the fire of life will blaze in them and in the creatures that feed on them—but at the expense of all the other creatures that live there.” The others asked him what his point was, and he went on. “Surely it would be a great crime to deprive all these other creatures of the fire of life so that the locusts and the birds and the lizards can flourish for a time. For the locusts will strip the land bare, and the deer and the gazelles and the goats and the rabbits will go hungry and die. And with the disappearance of the game, the lions and the wolves and the foxes will soon be dying too. Won’t they curse us then and call us criminals for favoring the locusts and the birds and the lizards over them?”

    Now the gods had to scratch their heads over this, because they’d never looked at matters in this particular light before. But finally one of them said, “I don’t see that this presents any great problem. We simply won’t do it. We won’t raise a multitude of locusts to send into this land, then things will go on as before, and no one will have any reason to curse us.”
    Most of the gods thought this made sense, but one of them disagreed. “Surely this would be as great a crime as the other,” he said. “For don’t the locusts and the birds and the lizards live in our hands as well as the rest? Is it never to be their time to flourish greatly, as others do?”
    While the gods were debating this point, a fox came out to hunt, and they said, “Let’s send the fox a quail for its life.” But these words were hardly spoken when one of them said, “Let’s send the fox a quail for its life.” But these words were hardly spoken when one of them said, “Surely it would be a crime to let the fox live at the quail’s expense. The quail has its life that we gave it and lives in our hands. It would be infamous to send it into the jaws of the fox!”
    Then another said, “Look here! The quail is stalking a grasshopper! If we don’t give the quail to the fox, then the quail will eat the grasshopper. Doesn’t the grasshopper have its life that we gave it and doesn’t it live in our hands as truly as the quail? Surely it would be a crime not to give the quail to the fox, so that the grasshopper may live.”

    Well, as you can imagine, the gods groaned heavily over this and didn’t know what to do. And while they were wrangling over it, spring came, and the snow waters of the mountains began to swell the streams, and one of them said, “Surely it would be a crime to let these waters flood the land, for countless creatures are bound to be carried off to their deaths.
    “But then another said, “Surely it would be a crime not to let these waters flood the land, for without them the ponds and marshes will dry up, and all the creatures that live in them will die.” And once more the gods were thrown into confusion.
    Finally one of them had what seemed to be a new thought. “It’s clear that any action we take will be good for some and evil for others, so let’s take no action at all. Then none of the creatures that live in our hands can call us criminals.”
    “Nonsense,” another snapped. “If we take no action at all, this will also be good for some and evil for others, won’t it? The creatures that live in our hands will say, ‘Look, we suffer, and the gods do nothing!’ ”
    And while the gods bickered among themselves, the locusts swarmed over the savannah, and the locusts and the birds and the lizards praised the gods while the game and the predators died cursing the gods. And because the gods had taken no action in the matter, the quail lived, and the fox went hungry to its hole cursing the gods. And because the quail lived, it ate the grasshopper, and the grasshopper died cursing the gods. And because in the end the gods decided to stem the flood of spring waters, the ponds and the marshes dried up, and all the thousands of creatures that lived in them died cursing the gods.

    And hearing all these curses, the gods groaned. “We’ve made the garden a place of terror, and all that live in it hate us as tyrants and criminals. And they’re right to do this, because by action or inaction we send them good one day and evil the next without knowing what we should do. The savannah stripped by the locusts rings with curses, and we have no answer to make. The fox and the grasshopper curse us because we let the quail live, and we have no answer to make. Surely the whole world must curse the day we made it, for we are criminals who send good and evil by turns, knowing even as we do it that we don’t know what ought to be done.”
    Well, the gods were sinking right into the slough of despond when one of them looked up and said “Say, didn’t we make for the garden a certain tree whose fruit is the knowledge of good and evil?”
    “Yes,” cried the others. “Let’s find that tree and eat of it and see what this knowledge is.” And when the gods had found this tree and had tasted its fruit, their eyes were opened, and they said, “Now indeed we have the knowledge we need to tend the garden without becoming criminals and without earning the curses of all who live in our hands.”
    And as they were talking in this way, a lion went out to hunt, and the gods said to themselves, “Today is the lion’s day to go hungry, and the deer it would have taken may live another day.” And so the lion missed its kill, and as it was returning hungry to its den it began to curse the gods. But they said, “Be at peace, for we know how to rule the world, and today is your day to go hungry.” And the lion was at peace.

    And the next day the lion went out to hunt, and the gods sent it the deer they had spared the day before. “And as the deer felt the lion’s jaws on its neck, it began to curse the gods. But they said, “Be at peace, for we know how to rule the world, and today is your day to die just as yesterday was your day to live.” And the deer was at peace.
    Then the gods said to themselves, “Certainly the knowledge of good and evil is a powerful knowledge, for it enables us to rule the world without becoming criminals. If we had yesterday sent the lion away hungry without this knowledge, then indeed it would have been a crime. And if we had today sent the deer into the lion’s jaws without this knowledge, then indeed this too would have been a crime. But with this knowledge we have done both of these things, one seemingly opposed to the other, and have committed no crime.”
    Now it happened that one of the gods was away on an errand when the others were eating at the tree of knowledge, and when he returned and heard what the gods had done in the matter of the lion and the deer, he said, “In doing these two things you have surely committed a crime in one instance or the other, for these two things are opposed, and one must have been right to do and the other wrong. If it was good for the lion to go hungry on the first day, then it was evil to send it the deer on the second. Or if it was good to send it the deer on the second day, then it was evil to send it away hungry on the first.”
    The others nodded and said, “Yes, this is just the way we would have reasoned before we ate of this tree of knowledge.”

    “What knowledge is this?” the god asked, noticing the tree for the first time.
    “Taste its fruit,” they told him. “Then you’ll know exactly what knowledge it is.”
    So the god tasted, and his eyes were opened. “Yes, I see,” he said. “This is indeed the proper knowledge of the gods: the knowledge of who shall live and who shall die.”

    “WHEN THE GODS SAW THAT Adam was awakening, they said to themselves, “Now here is a creature so like us that he might almost be one of our company. What span of life and what destiny shall we fashion for him?”
    One of them said, “He is so fair, let’s give him life for the lifetime of this planet. In the days of his childhood let’s care for him as we care for all others in the garden, so that he learns the sweetness of living in our hands. But in adolescence he will surely begin to realize that he’s capable of much more than other creatures and will become restless in our care. Shall we then lead him to the other tree in the garden, the Tree of Life?”

    But another said, “To lead Adam like a child to the Tree of Life before he had even begun to seek it for himself would deprive him of a great undertaking by which he may gain an important wisdom and prove his mettle to himself. As we would give him the care he needs as a child, let’s give him the quest he needs as an adolescent. Let’s make “the quest for the Tree of Life the occupation of his adolescence. In this way he’ll discover for himself how he may have life for the lifetime of this planet.”
    The others agreed with this plan, but one said, “We should take note that this might well be a long and baffling quest for Adam. Youth is impatient, and after a few thousand years of searching, he might despair of finding the Tree of Life. If this should happen, he might be tempted to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil instead.”
    “Nonsense,” the others replied. “You know very well that the fruit of this tree nourishes only the gods. It can no more nourish Adam than the grasses of the oxen. He might take it into his mouth and swallow it, but it would pass through his body without benefit. Surely you don’t imagine that he might actually gain our knowledge by eating of this tree?”
    “Of course not,” the other replied. “The danger is not that he would gain our knowledge but rather that he might imagine that he’d gained it. Having tasted the fruit of this tree, he might say to himself “This is all wrong. Why should I have to share the fire of life with all these creatures? Look here, the lions and the wolves and the foxes take the game I would have for myself. This is evil. I will kill all these creatures, and this will be good. And look here, the rabbits and the grasshoppers and the sparrows take the fruits of the land that I would have for myself. This is evil. I will kill all these creatures, and this will be good. And look here, the gods have set a limit on my growth just as they’ve set a limit on the growth of all others. This is evil. I will grow without limit, taking all the fire of life that flows through this garden into myself, and that will be good.’ Tell me—if this should happen, how long would Adam live before he had devoured the entire world?”

    “If this should happen,” the others said, “Adam would devour the world in a single day, and at the end of that day he would devour himself.”
    “Just so,” the other said, “unless he managed to escape from this world. Then he would devour “the entire universe as he had devoured the world. But even so he would inevitably end by devouring himself, as anything must that grows without limit.”
    “This would indeed be a terrible end for Adam,” another said. “But might he not come to the same end even without having eaten at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Might he not be tempted by his yearning for growth to take the fire of life into his own hands even without deluding himself that this was good?”
    “He might,” the others agreed. “But what would be the result? He would become a criminal, an outlaw, a thief of life, and a murderer of the creatures around him. Without the delusion that what he was doing was good—and therefore to be done at any cost—he would soon weary of the outlaw’s life. Indeed this is bound to happen during his quest for the Tree of Life. But if he should eat of the tree of our knowledge, then he will shrug off his weariness. He will say, What does it matter that I’m weary of living as a murderer of all the life around me? I know good “and evil, and this way of living is good. Therefore I must live this way even though I’m weary unto death, even though I destroy the world and even myself. The gods wrote in the world a law for all to follow, but it cannot apply to me because I’m their equal. Therefore I will live outside this law and grow without limit. To be limited is evil. I will steal the fire of life from the hands of the gods and heap it up for my growth, and that will be good. I will destroy those kinds that do not serve my growth, and that will be good. I will wrest the garden from the hands of the gods and order it anew so that it serves only my growth, and that will be good. And because these things are good, they must be done at any cost. It may be that I’ll destroy the garden and make a ruin of it. It may be that my progeny will teem over the earth like locusts, stripping it bare, until they drown in their own filth and hate the very sight of one another and go mad. Still they “must go on, because to grow without limit is good and to accept the limits of the law is evil. And if any say, “Let’s put off the burdens of the criminal life and live in the hands of the gods once again,” I will kill them, for what they say is evil. And if any say, “Let’s turn aside from our misery and search for that other tree,” I will kill them, for what they say is evil. And when at last all the garden has been subjugated to my use and all kinds that do not serve my growth have been cast aside and all the fire of life in the world flows through my progeny, still I must grow. And to the people of this land I will say, “Grow, for this is good,” and they will grow. And to the people of the next land I will say, “Grow, for this is good,” and they will grow. And when they can grow no more, the people of this land will fall upon the people of the next to murder them, so that they may grow still more. And if the groans of my progeny fill “the air throughout the world, I will say to them, “Your sufferings must be borne, for you suffer in the cause of good. See how great we have become! Wielding the knowledge of good and evil, we have made ourselves the masters of the world, and the gods have no power over us. Though your groans fill the air, isn’t it sweeter to live in our own hands than in the hands of the gods?”

    And when the gods heard all this, they saw that, of all the trees in the garden, only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could destroy Adam. And so they said to him, “You may eat of every tree in the garden save the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for on the day you eat of that tree you will certainly die.”


    Excerpt From
    Ishmael
    Daniel Quinn
    https://books.apple.com/us/book/ishmael/id420055326
    This material may be protected by copyright.


    Here’s a summary and analysis of that chapter.
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    I read a couple of his books, some time ago, so the memory is hazy. I did like them. The story you cite touches on some aspects of the Genesis story, but I think he's overcomplicated it. I think it was a fairly straightforward myth (originating possibly in Ur, as an exercise in nostalgia) of how change from a diverse nature-based economy to a solidly agricultural one came about, and what was lost thereby.
    The same sentiment is echoed in the story of Cain and Abel: the conflict between settled farmers and nomadic herders. The early Hebrews were nomadic herders, but all the great nations around them were fortified cities surrounded by agricultural lands where they and their herds were unwelcome. At that point, they felt marginalized, perhaps persecuted. The god that would eventually choose them demanded sacrifices of animal blood and burned fat, but that wasn't documented until much later... oddly enough after they had taken Jericho and its fertile farmlands.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    I had a hard time wrapping my mind around "memes". That is a complete abstract. They can not exist without the humans infected by them. I could not grasp a firm boundary for the word. However, I totally get the importance of the "story". We have shared stories and private ones. Joseph Campbell said mythology is very important and when we do not have a shared mythology we will make up our own, using the people in our lives and the characters for our private mythology.Athena

    Thanks for your reply. :up:
    Yes, ‘memes’ are a deep and interesting topic, and I understand them as little as their physical counterpart ‘genes’ lol.
    Using the word ‘stories’ is fine by me… has a traditional ring to it!
    Joseph Campbell understood myths from the inside and out, he warned against taking myths literally, while missing the deeper symbolic and universal meanings and implications.
    I believe he would have been a critic of the fundamentalist movements happening.
    Cambell joked that “mythology is other peoples’ religion”.

    The problem isn’t someone’s particular spiritual or religious belief so much as the psychological stability of the person, and their empathy and the ability to see outside of their own ‘bubble’ (as the link you provided refers to).

    We are surrounded by organizations trying to become a political and economic giants by turning its followers into weapons and forcing its preferences and traditions upon everyone.
    ‘Pick a side, and fight like hell against the evil enemies’ seems to be the common ‘meme’.
    Which leads to dehumanizing everyone and falling prey to propaganda, conformism, and mind control.

    I claim the change in education, in 1958 has led to the violence we are seeing today and a very serious cultural clash. A cultural clash results from people holding different stories.Athena

    Why was 1958 so pivotal?
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    I think this goal existed long before we invented gods to justify such. This is straight from our experiences of the rules of surviving in the wilds. Be the best predator in existence and destroy all competitors. The competitive capitalist is it's direct inheritor. That's our greatest shame, imo, that so many of us, have so far, been unable to stop acting like we are still in the wilds, living under raw Darwinian rules.
    It's not the concept of human civilisation that's wrong, it's that fact that our attempts to form a human community that is totally civilised has so far, in all the historical and current examples we have, failed.
    But we are still here, and there are 8 billion of us and we are not extinct yet, so we can do better as long as time still ticks for us.
    universeness

    Thanks for your input. :up:

    I would agree that capitalism (as a general worldview) at its core is destructive in reaching its aims.
    The Earth is its raw material, and the Market is its battleground.

    I would quibble with the subtle possible implications of your statement about “in the wilds, living under raw Darwinian rules”.
    As far as I can tell, war and conquest are human inventions.
    I don’t see human war as a purely natural thing, like a wolf eating a snake who ate a mouse who ate the grain growing in the field…
    Animals are not at war with each other; each has a role to play.
    They exist in a balance, with the grazers and the predators and the scavengers forming a system with the land and seas.
    Nature is bloody, but no more bloody than a person eating a steak.
    If we really and truly followed the natural way of the animals there would be less catastrophic problems, even with us living in cities.

    Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
    Our intelligence and unique abilities (joined with some ignorance) got us into this predicament.
    Will we use our boundless intelligence and inventiveness for a solution now?

    But we are stuck with civilization and its ups and downs, like it or not.
    We are trying to live in it and fix it, which may feel like trying to repair a car while driving it!
  • universeness
    6.3k
    As far as I can tell, war and conquest are human inventions.0 thru 9

    Do animal groups not war with each other to gain control over an area of land/resources?
    Have you ever watched a program about how insect colonies war with each other? Ants and termites for example?
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k


    The word ‘war’ is of course loaded with connotations, mostly negative.
    So personally I would not use that term for animals, but ‘territorial fighting’ seems accurate.
    Even when animals spread their territory, they are kept in check by the overall system.
    Billions of years of animals eating each other, but the planet was fine… thriving in fact.
    The evolving continued, and continues still. :flower:

    I think the point I was making was about the remarkable balance of nature, including humans.
    That is until fairly recently, in the grand scheme of time.
    In the past few thousand years, humans have become clever enough to leverage the situation,
    to attempt to turn the whole world into humans, and into our food and possessions.

    This may sound reasonable and profitable on paper; in reality it is disaster.
    Are we smart enough to learn from less intelligent animals, to know our place in the grand scheme?
    Human exceptionalism is unscientific, technically we are mammals. :smile:
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    Do animal groups not war with each other to gain control over an area of land/resources?universeness

    Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources. Predatory ants attacking a termite colony does not constitute a war: they're hunting for food, not fighting over contested territory. Some kinds of food can defend themselves better than other kinds of food.

    Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.0 thru 9
    I wholly agree with this. The sane species get what they need - if they can - and then rest or play. They migrate when they need to, arrive at summer or winter feeding ground, and stay there. Man, I think, is the only animal (besides a few of our pets) that can't quite grasp the concept of "enough".
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle.
    — 0 thru 9

    So, you have seen The Gods Must Be Crazy
    Some good lessons there!
    Vera Mont

    Ah yes… the bottle falling from the sky. Wonderful movie!
    Unfortunately, it seems like the versions on YouTube are all the mediocre sequels.
    If you can find a link to the original movie, please share. Maybe the library has it.

    Probably not so large as New York and Tokyo. But the early and very idea-fertile city states only had populations of 10-30,000. That size is sustainable, I think, especially if the construction is designed properly, along the lines of the Venus Project, Earthship neighbourhoods or co-housing units, that incorporate independent home workshops, educational facilities and urban farming. I think it's important to be within walking distance of all one's basic necessities and social interactions.Vera Mont

    Yes! We must use every means to be more efficient with our use of materials.
    I’d love to install some solar panels and reuse the rain water from my home… it’s on the list
    but lower than I’d like.

    I was thinking about cars, and how they get so incredibly hot in the summer.
    Car companies really have to up their game… how about solar panels on the top of the vehicle?
    That would provide shade and power for some fans to cool a parked cars.
    Add more fans and vents etc to keep the temperature below boiling! :sweat:
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
    — 0 thru 9
    I wholly agree with this. The sane species get what they need - if they can - and then rest or play. They migrate when they need to, arrive at summer or winter feeding ground, and stay there. Man, I think, is the only animal (besides a few of our pets) that can't quite grasp the concept of "enough".
    Vera Mont

    Thanks! :smile:

    If people are worked until they are mentally and physically exhausted, they will have little energy
    to do much more than stumble home after going to the store to buy some edible products (that may or may not actually contain nutritional value) and get lottery tickets and dream of what could be… or maybe the way it should’ve been all along.

    Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources.Vera Mont
    :monkey: Oh noes! Not our closest relatives! (I have a second cousin who’s a chimp). How about the
    peaceful and sexy bonobos? :hearts:
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources.Vera Mont

    All animals fight their own species over food, territory etc. A lion pride will war with another lion pride trying to enter their territory, or steal their kills. same with wolf packs to groups of meerkats. They will also fight, even to the death, over such as exclusive access to females etc, just like early humans and even some modern ones.

    Predatory ants attacking a termite colony does not constitute a war: they're hunting for food, not fighting over contested territory.Vera Mont

    Wrong!
    Ants and termites fight because they combat for resources like shelter and nutrition. These deadly enemies can attack the opponent’s larvae and queen to get rid of territorial competition. Moreover, ants eat termites and obtain nutrients from protein-rich meat. A predator-prey relationship exists between ants and termites that leads to the death of any one of them. Furthermore, fire ants, black ants, and Argentine ants quickly kill the termites.

    Here's another example: Why do wasps kill bees?
    Wasps are predatorial insects and need food for themselves and their young.
    Wasps use honey bee colonies as hosts for their larva.
    Wasps are after the honey or protein (the brood).

    Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
    — 0 thru 9
    I wholly agree with this.
    Vera Mont

    So do I, but for different reasons. Humans are the only species we know of, that can create more purpose/meaning/significance for planet Earth, beyond that of acting as a mere container for lifeforms, that imo, don't do much and especially, don't do much, or any, science. The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve? They also had no chance at all of preventing their own extinction. I would suggest we have more chance of preventing our own extinction, compared to any other species that has ever existed on this planet, so far.
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    Car companies really have to up their game… how about solar panels on the top of the vehicle?0 thru 9

    I'm still waiting for my solar-powered car. The one I want
    . There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, though neither, I think will serve so many people over such distances as we are wont to travel now. Me, I hate speed. I hate having to drive on the highway. But country living means we do have the solar array for our house, and a wood-burning stove and room to grow some vegetables.


    All animals fight their own species over food, territory etc. A lion pride will war with another lion pride trying to enter their territory, or steal their kills. same with wolf packs to groups of meerkats. They will also fight, even to the death, over such as exclusive access to females etc, just like early humans and even some modern ones.universeness
    Okay, if you want to call every form of conflict "war". My definition of war is less comprehensive.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Okay, if you want to call every form of conflict "war". My definition of war is less comprehensive.Vera Mont

    We can ask an independent source. Chat GPT?

    Do animals war with each other?

    ChatGPT:

    Yes, some animals engage in behaviors that could be described as a form of warfare or intergroup conflict. These conflicts often arise from competition for resources, territory, or mates. Here are a few examples:

    Ants: Ant colonies sometimes engage in territorial warfare with neighboring colonies. They may engage in aggressive behaviors, such as raids on rival colonies, to protect their territory and resources. Some ant species are even known to enslave members of other ant species.

    Lions: Male lions may engage in territorial conflicts with rival males to establish or defend their territory and access to a pride of females. These conflicts can be quite fierce and sometimes result in injuries or fatalities.

    Chimpanzees: Chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, engage in aggressive behaviors, including territorial disputes and intergroup conflicts. These conflicts can involve physical violence, such as attacks on rival chimpanzee groups.

    Elephants: Male elephants, known as bulls, may engage in aggressive encounters with each other, especially during mating seasons when competition for access to females is high. These conflicts can result in injuries or even death.

    Birds: Some bird species engage in territorial disputes, with males defending their breeding territories from intruders. These disputes can involve vocalizations, displays, and physical confrontations.

    Insects: Various insect species engage in aggressive interactions, including battles between rival males for access to mates, territory, or resources. Examples include male stag beetles competing for mating sites or male butterflies fighting over territory.

    It's important to note that while these behaviors may resemble warfare or conflict, they are typically instinctual responses to competition for survival and reproductive success. They are not driven by the same complex motivations and strategies as human warfare. Additionally, not all animal species engage in such behaviors, and the level of aggression and conflict varies widely among different species.
  • Vera Mont
    3.5k
    Yes, some animals engage in behaviors that could be described as a form of warfare or intergroup conflict.universeness
    Any conflict is war if you want to call it war. I prefer Webster:
    a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
  • 180 Proof
    14.3k
    The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve?universeness
    They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement compared to h. sapiens (quasi-eusocial self-destructive mass-murderers) which have only existed for around 200 thousand years and already are knowingly on the brink of a number of self-inflicted extinctions. :mask:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.