Is politics primal? page 4

[Grok]

Bull crap. Plenty of human tribes have been violent without agriculture. We are sometimes a violent species. No way around that.

The whole "sexuality" comparison to bonobos makes no sense. We are more like chimpanzees than bonobos.

I never made a sexuality comparison to bonobos, you did.

I simply made some remark about sexy sexy time, and you inferred bonobos from that. I'm sure humans didn't just run towards each other and immediately engage in some kind of group sex orgy.

Human tribe? I doubt tribes even existed back then. I bet the largest group of humans was an extended family or clan.

[tfarny]

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.

I thought that pre-agricultural slavery and war (both common, by the way) were the Fed's fault? I'm confused now.

[magicmerl]

Human tribe? I doubt tribes even existed back then. I bet the largest group of humans was an extended family or clan.

Back then I thinkthat clan, extended family and tribe were interchangeable terms.

[Grok]

I thought that pre-agricultural slavery and war (both common, by the way) were the Fed's fault? I'm confused now.

Citation please.

Back then I thinkthat clan, extended family and tribe were interchangeable terms.

No, back then I don't think they even had words to describe groups of humans.

[tfarny]

When you've read a single book of paleoanthropology (or just anthro focused on pre-agricultural people) that's not Clan of the Cave Bear, or authored by Ron Paul, I'll give you some reading suggestions. The first one is up to you, though. It's certainly true that slavery as a legal institution cannot exist without laws, but then again neither could the internet.

[wiltondeportes]

I never made a sexuality comparison to bonobos, you did.

I simply made some remark about sexy sexy time, and you inferred bonobos from that. I'm sure humans didn't just run towards each other and immediately engage in some kind of group sex orgy.

Human tribe? I doubt tribes even existed back then. I bet the largest group of humans was an extended family or clan.

An extended family can be a tribe. I'm pretty sure that is how humans have lived as long as we've been humans.

[wiltondeportes]

I never made a sexuality comparison to bonobos, you did.

I simply made some remark about sexy sexy time, and you inferred bonobos from that. I'm sure humans didn't just run towards each other and immediately engage in some kind of group sex orgy.

Human tribe? I doubt tribes even existed back then. I bet the largest group of humans was an extended family or clan.

No, I'm not making a sexuality comparison. That's somewhat widespread in this community. Sex At Dawn is a popular book on it, and I apparently made the wrong assumption that you followed along those lines.

You saying "sexy sexy time" made me think you were saying essentially to 'make love, not war', which is a bunch of baloney.

[Grok]

When you've read a single book of paleoanthropology (or just anthro focused on pre-agricultural people) that's not Clan of the Cave Bear, or authored by Ron Paul, I'll give you some reading suggestions. The first one is up to you, though. It's certainly true that slavery as a legal institution cannot exist without laws, but then again neither could the internet.

That's what you call a citation?

Stop pretending to know what you're talking about and provide me a link.

An extended family can be a tribe. I'm pretty sure that is how humans have lived as long as we've been humans.

A tribe is different than a band society or a clan.

Hunter-gatherers were nomadic migratory people who lived in band societies of maybe 20 people maximum.

A tribe would imply being sedentary, and a population of 50-100 people.

Researchers are very careful to use the terms clan and band instead of tribe when describing hunter-gatherer societies.

'make love, not war' is a bunch of baloney.

I don't think it's a bunch of baloney.

[saturnfan]

Are politics primal? This is an odd, but interesting question. For one, how does one define primal? Is it in a pre-agricultural sense, in which we base our assumptions on how humans behaved before the rise of agriculture? Or is it in a strictly biological sense, where we are bound by the laws of nature and not some abstract philosophy?

For the former, I’m not sure. I don’t really know that much about pre-agricultural man, how they organized and how they behaved. I probably know more about it then some random person off the street, but certainly not enough to make a well formed opinion.

For the latter, I would say yes to a degree. I am a big proponent of the notion that man, as an animal, is significantly shaped by biological factors and not by the so called societal ones. We are not exempt from the laws of nature, and while we possess the unique ability to actively and consistently fight against biological realities, the overwhelming majority of people will succumb to them and act in a predictable fashion. Prolix aside, political allegiance probably has a strong biological component, stronger than most are willing to admit. And I guess that is primal.

[saturnfan]

When you've read a single book of paleoanthropology (or just anthro focused on pre-agricultural people) that's not Clan of the Cave Bear, or authored by Ron Paul, I'll give you some reading suggestions. The first one is up to you, though. It's certainly true that slavery as a legal institution cannot exist without laws, but then again neither could the internet.

This has nothing to do with Grok, but I'd be interested in some books on paleoanthropology.