Comments on: The Ugly Side of Tribalism http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:05:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-172776 Jason Godesky Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:47:05 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-172776 What else would you call it? What else would you call it?

]]> By: Anthony http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-172774 Anthony Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:10:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-172774 Quinns writing is "primitivist philosophy"? That's a first one for me. Quinns writing is “primitivist philosophy”? That’s a first one for me.

]]> By: The Anthropik Network » Thesis #5: Humans are neither good nor evil. http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-168852 The Anthropik Network » Thesis #5: Humans are neither good nor evil. Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:40:06 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-168852 [...] no greater than any other alpha predator would have made. Tribal societies suffer from the same ethnocentrism as all other human societies. Tribal societies are not idyllic utopias, and their members are not [...] […] no greater than any other alpha predator would have made. Tribal societies suffer from the same ethnocentrism as all other human societies. Tribal societies are not idyllic utopias, and their members are not […]

]]> By: Eric http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-29567 Eric Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:42:45 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-29567 Re sugar: human beings do _not_ need dietary sugar. The brain and certain other tissues require minimum amounts of glucose, but in the absence of dietary carbohydrate this is synthesized in the process called gluconeogenesis. People don't even need dietary carbohydrate, broadly considered, making it the only dietary macronutrient that isn't actually required. (I am thinking here of the undergrad nutrition text I saw which admitted that 'obligatory carbohydrate intake is apparently nil', but then nonetheless went on to say everyone should eat at least 150 grams of carbs 'to avoid catabolism of protein'... which later research is showing to be a myth.) Think of the Inuit. The 'we need carbs' stuff is a Neolithic thought pattern pushed in modern times by the USDA on behalf of ADM. Gotta sell that grain mountain somehow... Re sugar: human beings do _not_ need dietary sugar. The brain and certain other tissues require minimum amounts of glucose, but in the absence of dietary carbohydrate this is synthesized in the process called gluconeogenesis. People don’t even need dietary carbohydrate, broadly considered, making it the only dietary macronutrient that isn’t actually required. (I am thinking here of the undergrad nutrition text I saw which admitted that ‘obligatory carbohydrate intake is apparently nil’, but then nonetheless went on to say everyone should eat at least 150 grams of carbs ‘to avoid catabolism of protein’… which later research is showing to be a myth.) Think of the Inuit. The ‘we need carbs’ stuff is a Neolithic thought pattern pushed in modern times by the USDA on behalf of ADM. Gotta sell that grain mountain somehow…

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20824 Jason Godesky Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:43:08 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20824 Foragers enjoy the most varied, diverse diet of any subsistence type. A truly paleo diet is an incredibly diverse diet. Even grains, legumes and the rest can be tolerated in small quantities, but therein lies the key: <em>small</em> quantities. We've turned these things into <em>staples</em>! Even most people who think they're just eating a little bit of grain are, in fact, eating far, <em>far</em> more than the human body can really take. Remember, a forager might have a few handfuls of grain in a whole year. That's what our body's tolerance for grain is, about. Foragers enjoy the most varied, diverse diet of any subsistence type. A truly paleo diet is an incredibly diverse diet. Even grains, legumes and the rest can be tolerated in small quantities, but therein lies the key: small quantities. We’ve turned these things into staples! Even most people who think they’re just eating a little bit of grain are, in fact, eating far, far more than the human body can really take. Remember, a forager might have a few handfuls of grain in a whole year. That’s what our body’s tolerance for grain is, about.

]]> By: jhereg http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20822 jhereg Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:34:42 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20822 In truth, there's not really that many foods that don't have some nutritional downside of one kind or another. A highly varied diet does wonders to mitigate that tho'.... So, I kind of come down on both sides of the "paleo" diet debate. In truth, there’s not really that many foods that don’t have some nutritional downside of one kind or another.

A highly varied diet does wonders to mitigate that tho’….

So, I kind of come down on both sides of the “paleo” diet debate.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20821 Jason Godesky Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:19:53 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20821 <blockquote>I have trouble believing that paleolithic people would avoid eating a food because of some slow-building long term effect any more than modern people do. I really think that that theory is a piece of paleo-diet propaganda.</blockquote> You're right, but these are also foods that were generally difficult to acquire on a large scale, so if they're only slightly poisonous, it would have had little effect on them, while we, who eat them in bulk, could very easily kill ourselves. I remember as a child my mother stopping me from eating too much raw potato, lest I get sick.

I have trouble believing that paleolithic people would avoid eating a food because of some slow-building long term effect any more than modern people do. I really think that that theory is a piece of paleo-diet propaganda.

You’re right, but these are also foods that were generally difficult to acquire on a large scale, so if they’re only slightly poisonous, it would have had little effect on them, while we, who eat them in bulk, could very easily kill ourselves. I remember as a child my mother stopping me from eating too much raw potato, lest I get sick.

]]> By: jhereg http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20809 jhereg Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:04:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20809 Just re-reading through this, and I noticed this: [quote from=Chuck] wolves and coyotes are certainly different, but they're close enough to be pretty much the same.[/quote] I just wanted to duly note that wolves and coyotes are so close that can successfully interbreed. In fact in many parts of the US that's exactly _how_ the species are adjusting to environmental pressures. Just re-reading through this, and I noticed this:
[quote from=Chuck]
wolves and coyotes are certainly different, but they’re close enough to be pretty much the same.[/quote]

I just wanted to duly note that wolves and coyotes are so close that can successfully interbreed.

In fact in many parts of the US that’s exactly _how_ the species are adjusting to environmental pressures.

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20771 ChandraShakti Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:08:22 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-20771 "Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins. There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them raw, they can make you very sick." *Rolling my eyes.* So this is where you got that piece of malarkey from. I'll grant that it may apply to raw shell beans. If eaten after soaking but before cooking, they can cause bloat, but they also taste pretty terrible until cooked. I say it is malarkey because I regularly ate raw wheat and potatoes as a child and still regularly eat raw rolled oats, all will no discernable ill effect. I have trouble believing that paleolithic people would avoid eating a food because of some slow-building long term effect any more than modern people do. I really think that that theory is a piece of paleo-diet propaganda. Chuck, what's with the demand that similar creatures meet ALL of our distinguishing characteristics. That would be like demanding that all of the panthera species have males with manes. Oh, and I really do think that chimpanzees to show all of the characteristics you claim define humans, they just don't display them to the same extent. Sort of like swimming as a characteristic of panthera species. all of them can do it, but only tigers and jaguars come close to making a habit of it and only tigers actually seem to LIKE it. “Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins. There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them raw, they can make you very sick.” *Rolling my eyes.* So this is where you got that piece of malarkey from. I’ll grant that it may apply to raw shell beans. If eaten after soaking but before cooking, they can cause bloat, but they also taste pretty terrible until cooked. I say it is malarkey because I regularly ate raw wheat and potatoes as a child and still regularly eat raw rolled oats, all will no discernable ill effect. I have trouble believing that paleolithic people would avoid eating a food because of some slow-building long term effect any more than modern people do. I really think that that theory is a piece of paleo-diet propaganda.
Chuck, what’s with the demand that similar creatures meet ALL of our distinguishing characteristics. That would be like demanding that all of the panthera species have males with manes. Oh, and I really do think that chimpanzees to show all of the characteristics you claim define humans, they just don’t display them to the same extent. Sort of like swimming as a characteristic of panthera species. all of them can do it, but only tigers and jaguars come close to making a habit of it and only tigers actually seem to LIKE it.

]]> By: Chuck http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-1936 Chuck Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:42:32 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-ugly-side-of-tribalism/#comment-1936 Whether or not a species should be classified by learned behaviors does not change the fact that all humans engage in these learned behaviors. These behaviors, as well as many physical traits (including the ability to make vocal noises, see with color binocular vision, and locomote via bipedalism) are what makes us human. NONE of the other species in order primate (or indeed, in the world) have this EXACT set of characteristics. Of course, it's easy to simply say that lions and tigers are unique. Damn straight. Lions and tigers have different sets of characteristics; ergo, they are different species. However, the characteristics sets of tigers and lions are far closer to one another than the characteristics sets of humans and chimps (or gorillas, or orangutans, or even bonobos). Also, the characteristics set we carry is a unique one in that it allows us to make changes to the world in unprecedented ways (as clearly evidenced by, well, the existence of this website). It's not only that humans have a unique set of characteristics, (which I still stand by), it's that this characteristics set allows such an unusual pattern of behavior. - Chuck Whether or not a species should be classified by learned behaviors does not change the fact that all humans engage in these learned behaviors. These behaviors, as well as many physical traits (including the ability to make vocal noises, see with color binocular vision, and locomote via bipedalism) are what makes us human.

NONE of the other species in order primate (or indeed, in the world) have this EXACT set of characteristics.

Of course, it’s easy to simply say that lions and tigers are unique. Damn straight. Lions and tigers have different sets of characteristics; ergo, they are different species. However, the characteristics sets of tigers and lions are far closer to one another than the characteristics sets of humans and chimps (or gorillas, or orangutans, or even bonobos).

Also, the characteristics set we carry is a unique one in that it allows us to make changes to the world in unprecedented ways (as clearly evidenced by, well, the existence of this website). It’s not only that humans have a unique set of characteristics, (which I still stand by), it’s that this characteristics set allows such an unusual pattern of behavior.

- Chuck

]]>