Is politics primal? page 2

[DavidBrennan]

....when it comes down to it, it's all about our families and neighbors, and it should make people think.

I totally agree that life is about our friends and neighbors (I'd put "family" at the front of that list, personally). But I don't see any of that in modern American pop politics. I can scrutinize every debate and see precisely zero mention of my family, friends, and neighbors. Nor will watching CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al help me assist my family, friends, and neighbors in any way whatsoever. To the contrary, watching pop politics is only a drain on my resources, and it would be time better spent actually on my family. Pop politics clearly weakens and shatters connectivity with our friends and family rather than strengthens it (well, unless you're actually making your money in the political industry). This last point is evidenced by all the idiot people on Facebook I have to restrict because they bark out their gay political nastiness in post after post after post. These people are not celebrating the births of newborns or tending to ill family members. They're just cable news addicts, and that addiction demonstratively severs relationships rather than aids them.

Anyway, the root question was whether politics was Primal. Worrying about things outside of your control (the cause of anxiety and therefore cortisol) and something which did not exist in pre-agricultural societies is, by definition, not Primal.

[j3nn]

If by primal you mean criminal, then yes!

[Grok]

Watched a rousing debate on TV tonight.

Figures you would watch that. Why would you want to watch those two clowns?

I watched Judge Jim Gray watch, and criticize the "debate" last night.

[Grok]

Politics is not primal, what is primal is the absence of politics.

It was grains that made slavery profitable and enabled the state. Before grains, there was no state and no politics.

[bloodorchid]

politics are primal, it's the delivery that is not

fight to the death for succession!

[Grok]

politics are primal, it's the delivery that is not

fight to the death for succession!

Iiii.....don't think so.

This is what happens when you have a state.

Before there were grains, there were no slaves to control to fight to the death over.

[bloodorchid]

i don't believe it

every tribe had their Fetch It bit-uh-cha

[Grok]

i don't believe it

every tribe had their Fetch It bit-uh-cha

I think tens of thousands of years ago, when one group of humans ran across another group of humans, they most likely made love to each other rather than fight each other to the death and enslave one another.

The practice of slavery and wars only became profitable after the agricultural revolution.

[bloodorchid]

having experienced ppls, the way that i have, i have to say, i disagree

unless by make love you mean OH GODS THEY'RE KILLING AND EATING THE CHILDRENS

[Grok]

having experienced ppls, the way that i have, i have to say, i disagree

unless by make love you mean OH GODS THEY'RE KILLING AND EATING THE CHILDRENS

Those people got that way because of the state. It's not a natural human condition to be a slave.

I bet if you lived 80,000 years ago you would have a different opinion about people.