Americans, what do you bet? "Class warfare" will be one of those words/phrases of the year next year, right?

For the rest of you here, here is an article about the kerfuffle here in the states. One side of the political fence wants to decrease taxes to the rich, thus encouraging the creation of more jobs and stimulating the economy. On the other side of the political fence, the poor and middle class are complaining that the onus of the economy has been on them for years. And on and on it goes....

If the acquisitive class weren't separate from the consumer class we'd have an egalitarian society. If we were hunter-gatherers, we'd have egalitarianism, since everybody would have to work for the survival of the clan. The switch, some 10,000 years ago, to agrarianism fostered the notion of ownership, and the development of classes, and the development of warfare to allow the acquisitive types to acquire more. So, all we need is a good cataclysm to toss us back to the stone age, and we'll wipe out class warfare. Simple, no?

I wonder how hunter-gatherers define vegetarianism. And, since I'm well past the normal life-expectancy age for for a neo-neo-lithican, I'll live forever. Huzzah!

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
I wonder how hunter-gatherers define vegetarianism.

Since herbivorous mammals turn vegetation into meat, eating them is the same as eating highly refined grass.

What do Inuits and Aleuts eat? Not much vegetation where they dine. I guess all the vegetarian Eskimos died out.

quote:

What do Inuits and Aleuts eat?

Frozen vegetables.

quote:

If the acquisitive class weren't separate from the consumer class we'd have an egalitarian society. If we were hunter-gatherers, we'd have egalitarianism, since everybody would have to work for the survival of the clan. The switch, some 10,000 years ago, to agrarianism fostered the notion of ownership, and the development of classes, and the development of warfare to allow the acquisitive types to acquire more. So, all we need is a good cataclysm to toss us back to the stone age, and we'll wipe out class warfare. Simple, no? Razz

You are sounding much more Indianan these days, and much less Oregonian.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
You are sounding much more Indianan these days, and much less Oregonian.

Nah, I'm sounding as though I were influenced by a book I've almost finished reading - one which supports some suppositions I've had for some time - entitled "Sex at Dawn." Despite the title, its primary focus is on the structure of hunter-gatherer societies and the errors anthropologists have made in understanding them. The authors throw the Hobbsian and Malthusian interpretations of these societies right out on their ears, or rears, or something. (There, Kalleh, that's just for you!) This is a must read for anyone interested in anthropology, IMHO.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
"Sex at Dawn."

I've heard of this book. It seems very problematic.

So Ellsworth doesn't like it. Fine. He writes quite a long refutation, so maybe they've got him worried!

quote:

Sex at Dawn sets out to topple what the authors call the “standard narrative of
human sexual evolution” (p. 7), with its emphasis on the centrality of pair-bonding and
monogamous mating, and fundamental conflicts of reproductive interests in the evolution
of human sociality and sexuality.

Hmmm, I suggest the authors read "The Beak of the Finch." It discusses the rigorous studies, over years, of Peter and Rosemary Grant that, for the most part, support and extend Darwin's findings.

Okay, I can see I got taken up in the lengthy review of "Sex at Dawn" that Goofy posted. After PMing with Geoff about this book and rereading the review, I can understand Geoff's point that the authors propose that Darwin hadn't developed his ideas of human sexuality. It's a good point.