Comments on: Maintaining And Creating Egalitarian Social, Economic and Political Structures After the Collapse http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:31:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: maintaining and creating egalitarian social, economic and political structures after the collapse | Dismantle Civilisation http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-181667 maintaining and creating egalitarian social, economic and political structures after the collapse | Dismantle Civilisation Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:09:55 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-181667 [...] article, by Steve Thomas, on the anthropik network looks at an all important subject. In the west, at least, we have attained a reletavely high level [...] […] article, by Steve Thomas, on the anthropik network looks at an all important subject. In the west, at least, we have attained a reletavely high level […]

]]> By: y a b a n ı l » Arşiv » Çöküşten Sonra Eşitlikçi Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Politik Yapıların Korunması ve Yaratılması http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-17204 y a b a n ı l » Arşiv » Çöküşten Sonra Eşitlikçi Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Politik Yapıların Korunması ve Yaratılması Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:21:46 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-17204 [...] [The Anthropik Network sitesinden alınmıştır] [...] […] [The Anthropik Network sitesinden alınmıştır] […]

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-8590 ChandraShakti Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:39:59 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-8590 "Reverse polygamy" made me laugh. Polygamy means multiple spouses for someone, no gender implied. Thus no way to reverse it. Multiple wives is polygyny. And as Jason pointed out, multiple husbands is polyandry. “Reverse polygamy” made me laugh. Polygamy means multiple spouses for someone, no gender implied. Thus no way to reverse it. Multiple wives is polygyny. And as Jason pointed out, multiple husbands is polyandry.

]]> By: hassysmacker http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-8425 hassysmacker Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:43:28 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-8425 <b>I'm curious: why do all these end-of-civilization models neglect semi-archaic power sources like coal? The industrial revolution was mostly coal-powered until the end of the 19th century and beyond, and more importantly there's enough coal in the ground to sustain an 1800-scale society for a long time. (A lot longer than the oil will last us.)</b> The estimated supply of coal is 2 trillion tons. And yes, you can wrench oil out of coal. In fact, as we speak, about 23 percent of all energy of the world comes from coal. But the down side to this is that coal will run out eventually, too. Some say it will last 18 years, others say longer. And that's not all. We'd have to adapt all of our factories and power plants and refineries, which would require HUGE investments. And then, coal is another very dirty fossil fuel. It chokes up the atmosphere even more than oil does. I’m curious: why do all these end-of-civilization models neglect semi-archaic power sources like coal? The industrial revolution was mostly coal-powered until the end of the 19th century and beyond, and more importantly there’s enough coal in the ground to sustain an 1800-scale society for a long time. (A lot longer than the oil will last us.)

The estimated supply of coal is 2 trillion tons. And yes, you can wrench oil out of coal. In fact, as we speak, about 23 percent of all energy of the world comes from coal.

But the down side to this is that coal will run out eventually, too. Some say it will last 18 years, others say longer. And that’s not all. We’d have to adapt all of our factories and power plants and refineries, which would require HUGE investments. And then, coal is another very dirty fossil fuel. It chokes up the atmosphere even more than oil does.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1759 Jason Godesky Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:35:19 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1759 No, it's not, which is why I spoke of a tendency and nothing more. There's a very wide umbrella that covers "feminism," and some of them I couldn't agree more with, and some of them would simply replace one kind of oppression with another. Not every Enlightenment philosopher went totally overboard in their reaction to religion, either, but there was a definite tendency in the Enlightenment as a whole to overshoot and end up with something equally wrong, only in the other direction. No, it’s not, which is why I spoke of a tendency and nothing more. There’s a very wide umbrella that covers “feminism,” and some of them I couldn’t agree more with, and some of them would simply replace one kind of oppression with another. Not every Enlightenment philosopher went totally overboard in their reaction to religion, either, but there was a definite tendency in the Enlightenment as a whole to overshoot and end up with something equally wrong, only in the other direction.

]]> By: Steve Thomas http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1757 Steve Thomas Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:15:27 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1757 I'm pretty sure "beta male" was being clever. Giuli: Very well said. I agree entirely. <blockquote>That's the problem with reactionary movements like feminism--they have a tendency to overshoot and end up with something just as bad, only in the other direction. </blockquote> You're generalizing..."Feminism" is hardly a unified movement. I’m pretty sure “beta male” was being clever.

Giuli: Very well said. I agree entirely.

That’s the problem with reactionary movements like feminism–they have a tendency to overshoot and end up with something just as bad, only in the other direction.

You’re generalizing…”Feminism” is hardly a unified movement.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1754 Jason Godesky Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:31:25 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1754 "Reverse polygamy" is called polyandry. It is practiced ... very rarely.... Besides the fact that this is basically taking the natural, biological advantages that evolution has bestowed on the two genders and making sure you never use any of them .... it's not the "patri" that bothers me, it's the "archy," so I don't see how any matriarchy would be any better. That's the problem with reactionary movements like feminism--they have a tendency to overshoot and end up with something just as bad, only in the other direction. “Reverse polygamy” is called polyandry. It is practiced … very rarely….

Besides the fact that this is basically taking the natural, biological advantages that evolution has bestowed on the two genders and making sure you never use any of them …. it’s not the “patri” that bothers me, it’s the “archy,” so I don’t see how any matriarchy would be any better.

That’s the problem with reactionary movements like feminism–they have a tendency to overshoot and end up with something just as bad, only in the other direction.

]]> By: Giulianna Lamanna http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1753 Giulianna Lamanna Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:18:39 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1753 I don't see how a reversal of present gender roles is "combating sexism." It's just replacing the inequality we have now with a slightly different kind of inequality. Why can't we just let people be people? If a girl wants to hunt, let her hunt. If a guy wants to forage, let him forage. Same thing if a guy wants to hunt and a girl wants to forage. Why force anyone into any restrictive gender role? I know that <em>I</em> sure don't want to hunt and fight. Nor do I want "half a dozen or so metrosexual house husbands." (By the way, why do they have to be feminine in order to take the role of a "house husband"? Isn't that just as sexist as forcing an actual woman to take that role?) In the society you describe, I'd feel just as restricted as I imagine I'd feel in 1950s America. I don't want to take on the masculine role of hunting and fighting. It's not in my nature. Nor do I want to be forced to do nothing but cook and clean and pop out babies. I want to be <em>me</em>. I was under the impression that tribes allowed people that option. I don’t see how a reversal of present gender roles is “combating sexism.” It’s just replacing the inequality we have now with a slightly different kind of inequality.

Why can’t we just let people be people? If a girl wants to hunt, let her hunt. If a guy wants to forage, let him forage. Same thing if a guy wants to hunt and a girl wants to forage. Why force anyone into any restrictive gender role?

I know that I sure don’t want to hunt and fight. Nor do I want “half a dozen or so metrosexual house husbands.” (By the way, why do they have to be feminine in order to take the role of a “house husband”? Isn’t that just as sexist as forcing an actual woman to take that role?)

In the society you describe, I’d feel just as restricted as I imagine I’d feel in 1950s America. I don’t want to take on the masculine role of hunting and fighting. It’s not in my nature. Nor do I want to be forced to do nothing but cook and clean and pop out babies. I want to be me. I was under the impression that tribes allowed people that option.

]]> By: Beta male http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1749 Beta male Fri, 07 Oct 2005 05:29:58 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1749 Sure, why not, especially if you refer to a reverse polygamy where in one alpha female has half a dozen or so metrosexual house husbands. Sure, why not, especially if you refer to a reverse polygamy where in one alpha female has half a dozen or so metrosexual house husbands.

]]> By: JCamasto http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1748 JCamasto Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:54:52 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/09/maintaining-and-creating-egalitarian-social-economic-and-political-structures-after-the-collapse/#comment-1748 why settle for pairs... why settle for pairs…

]]>