How far back do I want to daisy chain this? Well, to the point where I am satisified that daisy-chaining further will be irrelevant. Obviously, you have already reached that point for yourself. Of course, that is already much further than most people are willing to go–for many, going back to the 1970s without their cell phones and video players is too far.

For me, though, from an ecological standpoint, the ‘evil’ or fallenness inherent in humanity did not begin with agriculture; it began with the rise of power itself. So no, going as far back as scavenging is absurd. And, tool use to a certain extent is also irrelevant. But not all tool use is irrelevant. The use of tools which permitted humanity to fill niches that were not vacant, whereby they displaced other species while not concurrently vacating their previously occupied niches, meant a decrease in diversity, or the opposite of the primary good. Yes, niches are ‘constantly’ filled and vacated by various species, but only humanity began taking over niches at a RAPID rate that they ‘had no right to take over.’ This alarming decrease in diversity, as a result of takeover, which resulted from the power of [language, thought, ego: choose one, I haven’t yet], is the basis for my accusation of the ‘evilness’ of humanity.

Since you have already responded to the issues I have raised, either here or elsewhere, and I’ve gone on quite long enough for a ‘comment’, I’m going to answer Bill Maxwell’s question regarding this language/power issue on the Illusion- of- scarcity- thread.

I’m not throwing up my hands and damning the human race–I think. I consider myself an optimist as well. I also don’t believe humanity needs to be exterminated, but what happens to humanity is ultimately independent of either of our desires or hopes.

Keep up your good work, Jason.

Geoff

We can either throw up our hands and just damn the whole human race, or we can take a look at why some cultures went so awry while others turned out just fine. I prefer the latter; you seem to prefer the former. I don’t think that leaves us much more to discuss. I’m proud of being human, and I don’t think we’re “fallen” or inherently evil, and I don’t think we need to be exterminated.

Can you give me a link for that one? I can’t find it.

TIA.

Whatever that ability was, then, is the cause of the agricultural revolution, since without that ability, the Big man could not have convinced, cajoled, and persuaded.

What was this ability: Language? Undefined charisma? What is charisma? Prestige? What did that prestige derive from? In other words, why was the emerging elite, ‘elite’? It can’t be because they “convinced, cajoled and persuaded,” since that is circular logic.

The term “Big Man” is a clumsy one–in fact, a “Big Man” can be male or female. As for their spouses, I’m not sure why this would be such a hurdle. Emerging elites rarely see the downturn in their society as a whole, being too focused on their rising relative status.

I’m still not certain how subjective it is or how it should be underestimated as a potential situation. The discussion of the proto-Sumerians movement to the salt plains indicates that things would have gotten worse relatively quickly (and not gradually) for them to take up agriculture full time. Even though the elites suffer less, within the tribal social construct, there still would have been considerable pressure from the women to do something about the situation.

It’s also my understanding that women have, in general, a substantial impact on tribal decisions; in many cultures, they are well respected for being harbingers of life. This doesn’t, of course, make their situation idyllic but it seems to me any ‘Big Man’ scenario should take some stock in the ‘Big Woman’ who goes along with it.

Really, with such a subjective element, who can say? As we know, the elites never suffer the way their subjects do. Their own children would be the last to become sick, and even though there had to come a point of no return somewhere along the line, I do believe it was probably a gradual transition, such that there was little opportunity for such a scene to unfold.

In order for a Big Man to possess influence within his society, one of the things he must possess is some sort of lineage; in essence, mating and the resulting kids must occur. That means that the ‘Big Man’ can’t exist as a closed system. He must listen to the wife.

Just for humor’s sake, I picture it as such.

“Honey, guess what! The feasts this year will be bigger than ever.”

“That’s nice but this new stuff — what do you call it… wheat? — well, it’s making the kids sick and our neighbors’ wifes, my friends are complaining too!”

“But honey… I did tell you it’s going to be a really big feast! We’ll be known for 10,000 years!”

“Hm. Looks like someone’s going to be sleeping on the rocks outside tonight.”

I hope you take it with the humor it’s meant to be read with (I just finished reading the “On Optimism” thread and the passionate arguments on that). In a more sensible vein, I ask if you’ve considered (or read about) the Big Man’s mate’s effect on the situation. While I understand that she also benefits from the social boost, that’s tougher for a mom to justify when she observes a direct negative physical effect on her children.

Most of this piece was recycled from a paper I wrote years ago, where I simply let the reference stand on its own. I’ve elaborated that into a whole other article, “The Illusion of Security.”

Jim,

That’s damned high praise. Thank you.