Robber Baron? Or capitalism in action?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some of the cave paintings show people lined up facing each other shooting arrows while others show smaller group surrounded by a larger group as they shoot arrows at one another. Not much needs to be assumed.

That interpretation may be correct but we cannot knowthat with certainty.

Moreover, excavations of remains from the Paleolithic show, in cases where there are enough remains to be able to make a determination, that there are more instances of people having died by acts of human initiated violence percentwise than in later times.

On such limited and fragile evidence can the cause of the violence be ascertained? Nor can we eliminate injury caused by large prey during hunts or attacks from other predators.

And as time went on fewer and fewer people (percentwise) died as a result of warfare and related violence.

That reads vaguely like the sort of thing Prof. Pinker might contend.

There was a pretty good article in either Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer several years ago that covered this. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Thank you.

[Mountain Man]

That it may be more commonplace in some societies today does not suppose that such behaviour is innate and has always existed in every human society [as Sparko contends] "all throughout history".

And yet even a cursory examination of human history shows that greed and exploitation are common to the point of being unremarkable, so if these behaviors are not inherent to humans then what's your explanation?

[Mountain Man]

That interpretation may be correct but we cannot knowthat with certainty.

"But- but we can't know for certain!"

The final, desperate cry of someone who knows she lost the debate.

[rogue06]

"But- but we can't know for certain!"

The final, desperate cry of someone who knows she lost the debate.

And in this particular case an awfully weak objection.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"But- but we can't know for certain!"

The final, desperate cry of someone who knows she lost the debate.

Do you have detailed and attested evidence of human history going back some 300,000 years?

.

[CivilDiscourse]

Do you have detailed and attested evidence of human history going back some 300,000 years?

.

I take it you find Polling to be bad, since we can't ask every single person their opinion on something, there's no way we can know for certain.

[Sparko]

Do you have detailed and attested evidence of human history going back some 300,000 years?

.

Do you?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet even a cursory examination of human history shows that greed and exploitation are common to the point of being unremarkable, so if these behaviors are not inherent to humans then what's your explanation?

Here are a few possibilities although none of them can be proven.

Perchance such behaviour is learned and in societies with a wide disparity between those who have and those who have not, it is considered by some to be the way to become one of the haves.

Perhaps such behaviours stem from a surplus.

Perhaps population densities are too large. Living in large cities is, after all, comparatively recent in human evolution.

Perhaps among some of our early ancestors such behaviour was deemed disruptive and destructive and the individual was ejected from the clan.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you?

I am not the one making the claim that "The history of the human race proves you wrong. The less civilization (i.e. rules) the more violent people have been all throughout history."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I take it you find Polling to be bad, since we can't ask every single person their opinion on something, there's no way we can know for certain.

[sarcasm intended] Don't tell me. Let me guess. You have at your disposal a poll taken from among disparate early human clans from 250,000 years ago!

[CivilDiscourse]

[sarcasm intended] Don't tell me. Let me guess. You have at your disposal a poll taken from among disparate early human clans from 250,000 years ago!

No, once again using your argument to show how foolish your objections end up being.

[rogue06]

Thank you.

I was literally starting to write that I couldn't find it -- even finished the first sentence -- when I happened to look at a small pile of books by the credenza and found the issue of Skeptic I was looking for at the bottom. Volume 9 No.1 from 2001. An issue about anthropology. As soon as I saw it in the back issues I knew that was the one I was searching for. The article is called Whence the "Noble Savage" and was written by Patrick Frank and is on pages 54 through 60.

The article is available online HERE if you have access.

s-l400.jpg

[Sparko]

I am not the one making the claim that "The history of the human race proves you wrong. The less civilization (i.e. rules) the more violent people have been all throughout history."

Some things are obvious just by looking at history. If you have never read a history book, I guess that is your problem. Even in modern times if you look at countries with less civilization you will see more violence. Compare what goes on in many African countries or the Middle East, where warlords go around murdering people for power, or Central and South America where drug cartels basically run the countries and kill indiscriminately. If you want to claim that greed and violence are NOT innate to the human race, then it would be upon YOU to provide evidence for that claim, because it is true on the face of it that people resort to violence and greed whenever possible just by observing what goes on in the world. We would not need governments and laws if everyone was innately nonviolent and loving.

[Mountain Man]

Here are a few possibilities although none of them can be proven.

Perchance such behaviour is learned and in societies with a wide disparity between those who have and those who have not, it is considered by some to be the way to become one of the haves.

Perhaps such behaviours stem from a surplus.

Perhaps population densities are too large. Living in large cities is, after all, comparatively recent in human evolution.

Perhaps among some of our early ancestors such behaviour was deemed disruptive and destructive and the individual was ejected from the clan.

So what you're saying is that the human tendency towards greed and exploitation will rise to surface under a wide variety of circumstances, yes?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some things are obvious just by looking at history. If you have never read a history book, I guess that is your problem. Even in modern times if you look at countries with less civilization you will see more violence. Compare what goes on in many African countries or the Middle East, where warlords go around murdering people for power, or Central and South America where drug cartels basically run the countries and kill indiscriminately. If you want to claim that greed and violence are NOT innate to the human race, then it would be upon YOU to provide evidence for that claim, because it is true on the face of it that people resort to violence and greed whenever possible just by observing what goes on in the world. We would not need governments and laws if everyone was innately nonviolent and loving.

And that comment makes it quite clear that you have not read particularly widely or deeply about various historical topics.