Languish.org

Give reasons if you like.

Globalisation offers an escape from the damage wrought by past and present domestic governments.

I've studied and worked abroad, and my professional standing has benefited from it.

I'm not sure I'm a "winner" since I'm hardly wealthy, but I'm "fine".

I come from a formerly industrial area that went to hell after the 80s. I managed to get out eventually, but the journey wasn't fun.

I don't really do anything, so neither.

I voted to rescue Jaron from the Mormons.

I'm the terrible sort that Oex wrote about in the other thread.

People like cheap shit. Globalization is the price we pay. Although it's also used often as a liberal buzz word for "damn foreigners"

For the purposes of the poll I'm neither.

While I am not exactly holding down my six figure job in South Africa or whatever I think Texas in general has been a big winner. So I guess I am as well.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 02:25:24 AM
Give reasons if you like.

globalization expands markets.  Industrial companies have a larger client base and they need expansion of their buildings, wich I gladly provide.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2017, 05:02:26 AM
I come from a formerly industrial area that went to hell after the 80s. I managed to get out eventually, but the journey wasn't fun.

industrial production, in North America at least, is bigger than ever.  The problem is they need much less people for it.

Yes, apropos a remark made in another thread, it is probably automation  and technological innovation that is costing us the old industrial jobs rather than competition from abroad.

Yes. And there is nothing really governments can do about that. The world is changing and people are upset about it. The whole reaction carries a nostalgia for the 60s and 70s that I find rather unsettling anyway. Those days were not that great. Granted I was only alive for three years of the 70s.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 08:57:09 AM
Yes, apropos a remark made in another thread, it is probably automation  and technological innovation that is costing us the old industrial jobs rather than competition from abroad.

Can't blame immigrants for that, though.

Voted winner. Sweden depends on international trade.

Winner.  Goods are cheaper.  US companies have access to more customers.  I can invest in foreign markets.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2017, 09:06:31 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 08:57:09 AM
Yes, apropos a remark made in another thread, it is probably automation  and technological innovation that is costing us the old industrial jobs rather than competition from abroad.

Can't blame immigrants for that, though.

Can we blame them for you?  :P

Winner. I work in the corporate headquarter of a company that sells its products in like 150 countries. The domestic market would be way too small. Chinese and American luxury consumers pay my salary. I've personally lived in several other countries and travelled extensively.

EDIT: Germany in general - though not all individuals - is a huge globalisation winner.

I'm a provincial government employee in a job that is largely unchanged from even a century ago.  So in a lot of ways I'm unaffected by globalisation.

But still I can purchase goods made from all over the world at very low prices.  I have on several occasions travelled internationally.  I have certainly benefits by globalisation to that effect.

In my career I've been pretty unaffected.  My wife's current job wouldn't exist without it, though.

Excellent book on Globalization I read recently:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674660489

QuoteGlobalisation has changed fundamentally since the internet revolution in the 1990s. Whereas 20th-century trade involved competition between countries, 21st-century trade is fuzzier, with supply chains crossing borders. An American academic, working in Geneva, argues that, while it might be difficult to help the losers, reversing the trend is even harder.

I think we should include, as well as the direct economic benefits, things such as greater food variety - I remember British food from 50 years ago, pretty grim  :bowler:

Then there are things like computer games. It is not just that sales are better due to a worldwide market, but because the market is so unified we can get specialist games that appeal to various interest groups.

I hope those alt right kids realize the damage their reactionary policies might do to their computer game access. :P

Hey Tricky, did they still have rationing when you were a kid?  I do know it went on surprisingly late.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 08, 2017, 12:12:01 PM
Hey Tricky, did they still have rationing when you were a kid?  I do know it went on surprisingly late.

It was over by the time I was born, but I spent my early childhood in Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore where the food was comparatively good, so the return to England was disappointing. My grandma produced fantastic home-baked stuff but that was a rare highlight  :(

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
I think we should include, as well as the direct economic benefits, things such as greater food variety - I remember British food from 50 years ago, pretty grim  :bowler:

Then there are things like computer games. It is not just that sales are better due to a worldwide market, but because the market is so unified we can get specialist games that appeal to various interest groups.

Indeed. Technological progress in general has favoured the lower classes throughout history. (it basically made things that were exclusive to the rich more widely available) It is just the sad way of things that they always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age.

A winner, unless you view globalization through the lens of climate change caused by man with all the increased shipping, air traffic and greater industrialization that may be associated with it.

Quote from: PRC on May 08, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
A winner, unless you view globalization through the lens of climate change caused by man with all the increased shipping, air traffic and greater industrialization that may be associated with it.

I am working on it!

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2017, 03:33:03 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
I think we should include, as well as the direct economic benefits, things such as greater food variety - I remember British food from 50 years ago, pretty grim  :bowler:

Then there are things like computer games. It is not just that sales are better due to a worldwide market, but because the market is so unified we can get specialist games that appeal to various interest groups.

Indeed. Technological progress in general has favoured the lower classes throughout history. (it basically made things that were exclusive to the rich more widely available) It is just the sad way of things that they always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age.

People tend to prefer something more profound than things?

We are heading in an interesting direction with this one. The value of material things drops ever lower, manufacturing is getting ever easier. 
I just can't see an entirely idea, service and entertainment based economy supporting so everyone.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2017, 12:45:05 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 08, 2017, 12:12:01 PM
Hey Tricky, did they still have rationing when you were a kid?  I do know it went on surprisingly late.

It was over by the time I was born, but I spent my early childhood in Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore where the food was comparatively good, so the return to England was disappointing. My grandma produced fantastic home-baked stuff but that was a rare highlight  :(

If food was comparatively good in Germany back then I understand why I was still not impressed by food in the UK in the '90s.  :lol:

 :yawn: French food snobbery. How original.

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 04:56:10 PM
Luso-French/Latin/Welsch/Whatever food snobbery.

Por favor! French people have not been the ones complaining.

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Indeed. Technological progress in general has favoured the lower classes throughout history. (it basically made things that were exclusive to the rich more widely available) It is just the sad way of things that they always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age.

That's terrible history.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 07:42:51 PM

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Indeed. Technological progress in general has favoured the lower classes throughout history. (it basically made things that were exclusive to the rich more widely available) It is just the sad way of things that they always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age.

That's terrible history.

We're not talking about Hungary.

What can I say.  Hong Kong won't even exist without globalisation. 

Fuck yeah, I benefitted.

I am a substantial winner. I lived abroad for years, got married and brought back a sizeable amount (by middle class standards anyway) from overseas. I invest in international markets and am also something of a restaurant hound,  so I enjoy the multicultural cuisine options.

What is weird about this anti-globalist talk from Americans is that this is the system we set up. It was designed to benefit all the countries that play ball.  Mexico and China becoming wealthy is not a problem, it's part of the whole point of this.  Are there problems?  Of course, it isn't perfect, but hundreds of millions have been lifted out of dire poverty.  But the US trying to leave the global economic system would be like Great Britain trying secede from their own empire.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 07:42:51 PM

Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Indeed. Technological progress in general has favoured the lower classes throughout history. (it basically made things that were exclusive to the rich more widely available) It is just the sad way of things that they always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age.

That's terrible history.

how so?  was it a better world when only the very rich could own a car?

Quote from: viper37 on May 08, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
how so?  was it a better world when only the very rich could own a car?

Yes, that would explain the rare and economically out-of-reach Ford Model T.

Quote from: viper37 on May 08, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
how so?  was it a better world when only the very rich could own a car?

I don't have too much time, but the idea that history "proves" that technology guarantees a better future for all, and that the lower classes had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age is fairy-tale history for self-satisfied "classical liberals". One easy criticism is that what constitutes "best" is not adjudicated by technology, but by values drawn from political philosophy. One can be incredibly efficient at killing millions of people, and warfare now has the potential of being much deadlier than it ever was. Is that a better world? Conversely, the accessibility of incredibly efficient modes of killing has nonetheless accompanied a decline in homicide rates in Europe and North America. Is this thanks to technology?  Technological progress -- which, contrary to what the focus on automatization suggests is not limited to production -- also allowed much tighter control of enslaved and colonial population during the 19th century, and they certainly qualified for being "the lower classes". 19th century urbanization brought dreadful mortality - higher than, say, the 18th century countryside - that political activism reversed. And lower class reluctance has much more to do with the realization that they would *still* be the losers of a changing world. This would be akin to heaping scorn upon aristocrats for being reluctant to be dragged kicking and screaming at the guillotine - sorry, "into political modernity".

A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.

It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

And what we gained in deadlier weapons, we way over compensated with medicine, hygiene, nutrition etc.

Not every bit of technology is a collective good, but technology overall is.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 10:00:32 PM
I don't have too much time, but the idea that history "proves" that technology guarantees a better future for all, and that the lower classes had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age is fairy-tale history for self-satisfied "classical liberals". One easy criticism is that what constitutes "best" is not adjudicated by technology, but by values drawn from political philosophy. One can be incredibly efficient at killing millions of people, and warfare now has the potential of being much deadlier than it ever was. Is that a better world? Conversely, the accessibility of incredibly efficient modes of killing has nonetheless accompanied a decline in homicide rates in Europe and North America. Is this thanks to technology?  Technological progress -- which, contrary to what the focus on automatization suggests is not limited to production -- also allowed much tighter control of enslaved and colonial population during the 19th century, and they certainly qualified for being "the lower classes". 19th century urbanization brought dreadful mortality - higher than, say, the 18th century countryside - that political activism reversed. And lower class reluctance has much more to do with the realization that they would *still* be the losers of a changing world. This would be akin to heaping scorn upon aristocrats for being reluctant to be dragged kicking and screaming at the guillotine - sorry, "into political modernity".

Apologists of technology cannot have it both ways, claiming that technology is both value-neutral and a collective good.



Another is that the scale of technological change we have witnessed in the past 200 years is so unprecedented in scale and rapidity that history is a poor guide for the future.

Indeed, one could very well argue, for instance, that technology accompanied

We have become incredibly good at killing

Technology is only as good as the engineering priorities in its design which are determined by many different factors. We are headed rapidly in a direction now, nobody knows quite where. Instead of gnashing teeth about how it is not like the 18th century, or the 1960s and 1970s anymore people need to be thinking about the future and how we want things to go.

I don't see much point is sitting around bemoaning reality. The clock is not going to be turned back.

The funny part of what you are swaying is that you point to the horrors of factory labor. Well now what are we facing? People longing for a return to a factory labor system.

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 10:50:33 PM
A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.
It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

I don't know how one can meaningfully make that calculation outside an article of faith. At best, we end up self-congratulating ourselves for a history that seems inevitably to lead to us. I am happy we have philosophers. But I also know that philosophers emerged in societies that had had to become vastly unequal. Was it better to live a slave in the Roman Empire, or a free man amongst the Scythians or the Germans? How can we meaningfully answer these things? Was it better to work at the factory for 10-12 hours, or in the fields for 5-6? Is it better to have two weeks of paid vacation, or to live in a society where one day out of three is a holy day? We are products of societies which obviously value the kind of things which make us judge past societies as lacking, but that says little about the goods of technology. The "compensatory" technologies you evoke were not explicitly devised as compensation: only in this quite debatable cost-benefit analysis are we putting them side by side, as if "technology" was a self-animating force. In fact, I can very easily envision a society in which technology is used to enslave others (and to call this "a few negative effects" seems cold for something deployed at that scale): it's not the cotton gin that killed slavery, it's political activism. More technology doesn't necessarily makes us freer, or more equal, or even more comfortable if there is no political will to make it so.

Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
We are headed rapidly in a direction now, nobody knows quite where. Instead of gnashing teeth about how it is not like the 18th century, or the 1960s and 1970s anymore people need to be thinking about the future and how we want things to go.

I entirely agree. My point is that our answer to all political and economic challenges seem to always be "more technology" - it's faith in technology as an impersonal force for good. This is the point I am contesting. We need to be thinking politically about technology.

QuoteThe funny part of what you are swaying is that you point to the horrors of factory labor. Well now what are we facing? People longing for a return to a factory labor system.

When my father bemoans the end of the factory, it's not the 19th c. steel mill, or the 21st century sweatshop he bemoans; it's the factory that existed under social-democracy.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 08, 2017, 08:04:20 PM
What can I say.  Hong Kong won't even exist without globalisation.

So net negative then? :whistle:

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 11:10:58 PM
When my father bemoans the end of the factory, it's not the 19th c. steel mill, or the 21st century sweatshop he bemoans; it's the factory that existed under social-democracy.

I don't know man. Working in a coal mine seems shit no matter how generous the wages might be. Even the strip mining for lignite we do here in Texas.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 11:10:58 PM
When my father bemoans the end of the factory, it's not the 19th c. steel mill, or the 21st century sweatshop he bemoans; it's the factory that existed under social-democracy.

Easy enough to get there.  We just need to start another world war that wipes out half the world's industrial capacity.

Rather than simply using "technology" as a reckoning, I think it is interesting to look at "complexity" as the ongoing increase in human social systems.  Over the past 14k years or so, the human condition has been to have greater numbers of people living in systems that are more complex.  Technology is one aspect of that, but so too has religion, social differentiation, economic interaction, and so on...all seeing cycles that lead to greater complexity.

The forager at the end of the ice age would not just be astonished at what has been wrought, but also just how incomprehensible the actions and interactions of all aspects of society are.  We laud ourselves with notions that technology has been a good overall, as if it is somehow divorced from the rest of the social condition.  Even something as simple seeming as social status has undergone so many nuanced changes over this time that it would be strikingly unfathomable to this person.

Now, this said, the complexity of the present is something that has been ongoing this whole time.  Layers upon layers of new interactions, ideas, faiths, means of doing business, tools with which to do that business with...have become more complex.  The difficulty in all of this is that at the beginning of the Modern Period, the rate of increase in these complexities has kicked up.  What we are left with is culture often out of step with the change, and that leads to all manner of problems.

None of this is meant to judge, but rather it is important to look at more than simple the technology in the scope of human society and culture.

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 10:50:33 PM
A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.

It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

And what we gained in deadlier weapons, we way over compensated with medicine, hygiene, nutrition etc.

Not every bit of technology is a collective good, but technology overall is.

One problem with technology is that the first nuclear war will multiply by zero all the progress it has previously brought, and then subtract some more.

And that is not just the only way things might go terribly wrong.

Quote from: PDH on May 08, 2017, 11:30:13 PM
Rather than simply using "technology" as a reckoning, I think it is interesting to look at "complexity" as the ongoing increase in human social systems.  Over the past 14k years or so, the human condition has been to have greater numbers of people living in systems that are more complex.  Technology is one aspect of that, but so too has religion, social differentiation, economic interaction, and so on...all seeing cycles that lead to greater complexity.

The forager at the end of the ice age would not just be astonished at what has been wrought, but also just how incomprehensible the actions and interactions of all aspects of society are.  We laud ourselves with notions that technology has been a good overall, as if it is somehow divorced from the rest of the social condition.  Even something as simple seeming as social status has undergone so many nuanced changes over this time that it would be strikingly unfathomable to this person.

Now, this said, the complexity of the present is something that has been ongoing this whole time.  Layers upon layers of new interactions, ideas, faiths, means of doing business, tools with which to do that business with...have become more complex.  The difficulty in all of this is that at the beginning of the Modern Period, the rate of increase in these complexities has kicked up.  What we are left with is culture often out of step with the change, and that leads to all manner of problems.

None of this is meant to judge, but rather it is important to look at more than simple the technology in the scope of human society and culture.

A modern restatement of Durkheim?

I don't know if any group has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into technological progress.

However, I don't think any amount of intellectual mush can successfully make the case that technology hasn't vastly improved things like food security, shelter, healthcare etc for individuals, and greatly increased the number of individuals. Of course, whether those are positives or not is just a question of values where there is no correct answer. There are certainly many people who think they are negatives.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 11:07:30 PM

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 10:50:33 PM
A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.
It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

I don't know how one can meaningfully make that calculation outside an article of faith. At best, we end up self-congratulating ourselves for a history that seems inevitably to lead to us. I am happy we have philosophers. But I also know that philosophers emerged in societies that had had to become vastly unequal. Was it better to live a slave in the Roman Empire, or a free man amongst the Scythians or the Germans? How can we meaningfully answer these things? Was it better to work at the factory for 10-12 hours, or in the fields for 5-6? Is it better to have two weeks of paid vacation, or to live in a society where one day out of three is a holy day? We are products of societies which obviously value the kind of things which make us judge past societies as lacking, but that says little about the goods of technology. The "compensatory" technologies you evoke were not explicitly devised as compensation: only in this quite debatable cost-benefit analysis are we putting them side by side, as if "technology" was a self-animating force. In fact, I can very easily envision a society in which technology is used to enslave others (and to call this "a few negative effects" seems cold for something deployed at that scale): it's not the cotton gin that killed slavery, it's political activism. More technology doesn't necessarily makes us freer, or more equal, or even more comfortable if there is no political will to make it so.

Fair enough, I get your point now. But to me it is a hen and egg issue. Societal progress was often only possible after technological advances and technological advances only become a positive contribution when they are used in the right societal framework that is shaped by politics. As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:28:24 PM
As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:28:24 PM
As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Sweden is one of the best countries in the world thanks to, not despite social democracy.

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:28:24 PM
As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Sweden is one of the best countries in the world thanks to, not despite social democracy.

Even if we accept certain fictions, how many countries have even had social democratic regimes for any length of time? And bigger impact than stuff like artificial fertilizer or a number of other technological or socio-economic things that one can think of?

That's a very suspect statement Zanza.  First you're ignoring the massive amount of people lifted out of poverty in places like China.  Second the question of whether the people who's lives were improved by social democracy were actually living in poverty to begin with.

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
Even if we accept certain fictions, how many countries have even had social democratic regimes for any length of time? And bigger impact than stuff like artificial fertilizer or a number of other technological or socio-economic things that one can think of?

Western Europe and North America have had more or less social democratic governments at least since the end of WW2, sometimes earlier. No party in Sweden seriously questions universal healthcare, social security or labor rights, right? The only political question is the degree and mechanism, not the general concept anymore. It's not as pronounced in the United States as in other countries, but the US has had most elements of a social democracy since the New Deal, although it has certainly also weakened them the most in the last three and a half decades or so. The GOP does not really tackle entitlements anymore either as it has become consensus that these social democratic institutions are there to stay.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2017, 12:48:27 PM
That's a very suspect statement Zanza.  First you're ignoring the massive amount of people lifted out of poverty in places like China.  Second the question of whether the people who's lives were improved by social democracy were actually living in poverty to begin with.

China is actually interesting, but I conveniently limited myself to the 20th century.  :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2017, 09:58:25 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 08, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
how so?  was it a better world when only the very rich could own a car?

Yes, that would explain the rare and economically out-of-reach Ford Model T.

my grandparents were to poor to afford a car, they only had a horse and a truck for carrying lumber.
Only my dad could afford a car for the family.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2017, 10:00:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 08, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
how so?  was it a better world when only the very rich could own a car?

I don't have too much time, but the idea that history "proves" that technology guarantees a better future for all, and that the lower classes had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better age is fairy-tale history for self-satisfied "classical liberals". One easy criticism is that what constitutes "best" is not adjudicated by technology, but by values drawn from political philosophy. One can be incredibly efficient at killing millions of people, and warfare now has the potential of being much deadlier than it ever was. Is that a better world? Conversely, the accessibility of incredibly efficient modes of killing has nonetheless accompanied a decline in homicide rates in Europe and North America. Is this thanks to technology?  Technological progress -- which, contrary to what the focus on automatization suggests is not limited to production -- also allowed much tighter control of enslaved and colonial population during the 19th century, and they certainly qualified for being "the lower classes". 19th century urbanization brought dreadful mortality - higher than, say, the 18th century countryside - that political activism reversed. And lower class reluctance has much more to do with the realization that they would *still* be the losers of a changing world. This would be akin to heaping scorn upon aristocrats for being reluctant to be dragged kicking and screaming at the guillotine - sorry, "into political modernity".

on military history, you should really befriend Carl Pépin from the Royal Military College.  He had this great article on his facebook the other day about the brutality of combat in antiquity compared to modern era's fights.  Much more detailed and explained than anything I could post.

QuoteTechnological progress -- which, contrary to what the focus on automatization suggests is not limited to production -- also allowed much tighter control of enslaved and colonial population during the 19th century, and they certainly qualified for being "the lower classes".

well, here, one could argue that technological progress made slavery mostly irrelevant in agriculture.  Romans had a large slave industry.  They were technogically advanced for their time, but primitive by our standards.

The Southern US States were dependant on their slaves for agricultural production, as were the northern states before industrialization began.  As industrialization made its progress thoughout the world, slavery became a relict.  Nobody seriously thought of abolishing slavery (talking about an organized movement) in 1776 because there were no practical alternatives.  In 1860, there were beginning to be alternatives to this model though.  And the lower class of the South certainly had be dragged screaming&kicking toward progress.  They were the ones fighting, not just the rich elites.  They feared progress as much as the elites of the time, probably for the same reason people of today vote Trump of Lepen: they fear of becoming irrelevant.

Re: homicide rate.  One could say, yes, it is because of technological progress.  The technology to prevent death (medical), the technology to make our lives easiers (entertainment), the technology to track the criminals.  I think it would be very hard to dissociate the sociological progress from the technologicial ones.

Quote
19th century urbanization brought dreadful mortality - higher than, say, the 18th century countryside - that political activism reversed

yes, before technology could adapt to the rapid change, before we realized the causes of cholera, to name one.
Once technology evolved to prevent those deaths, once technology made its deployment cost effective, it was done.  Could we have massive water treatment plants for small cities without modern technology?  It would only be limited to Montreal and Quebec city.

Quote
And lower class reluctance has much more to do with the realization that they would *still* be the losers of a changing world. This would be akin to heaping scorn upon aristocrats for being reluctant to be dragged kicking and screaming at the guillotine - sorry, "into political modernity".

Aristocrats were dragged kicking and screaming to the guillotine because they refused progress.  They failed to envision a world without them.  They sought to keep society constrained in an antiquated form of government were they could maintain their priviledges to the expense of the well being of others.  Just like unions complaining about globalization and technological progress today.


The lower classes aren't exactly losers.  In the 19th century, even in the 1950s, we couldn't afford to maintain a working class not working.  A society could not afford 10% unemployement, inactivity rate wasn't even compiled.  My dad's grandfather left home as an 10 year old orphan to work in a mine.  How many 10 year old orphans work in mines in Canada or the US today?  We don't need as many miners as before, and we have technology that make it unnecessary to employ 10 year olds in mines.  How was this detrimental to the lower classes?  Which is more likely: that the orphan son of wealthy businessman/aristocrat/noble is sent to work in a mine to provide for himself or the son of a poor farmer is sent to work in a mine to pay his father's debt?   Who got the short end of the stick in this deal, really?

Again, I don't think societal changes happen out of nowhere: they happen because technology allows it.  People of the 12th century didn't travel to meet their step family every second week-end because transportation was more difficult.  It's not that we love our family more than our distant ancestors, it's that we have the means to visit them.

Plants aren't more secure because employers suddenly developped a conscience and think of security first, they did it because the technology to make it so is available relatively cheaply.  I can buy a machine that make my employees work safer in heights and makes me save money in wages compared to traditional scafholding methods: Technology allowed me that.  If the cost had been 1M$ instead of 100 000$, I might appear as caring a little less about my employee's security and more about my profit line.

Interestingly, in anthropology it has become something of a commonly accepted trope that the one technological complex that underlies basically all of human history was more than a bit of a mixed blessing when introduced - and that is agriculture/pastoralism.

Agricultural societies are significantly more violent than hunter-gatherer societies, as far as we can tell and on average (naturally, this only applies to the ones still around when people started to take records of such matters - and an argument could be made that these were the peaceful ones that got pushed to the margins by agriculturalists! Also, there are oddballs like West Coast native Americans). In some tribal agricultural societies, a violent death was a major cause of mortality. The reason: protecting good growing territory is very important, particularly as population densities increased (see for example Highland New Guinea). 

From forensic anthropology, it appears that hunter gatherers were healthier and lived longer: agricultural life tends to be one of unending hard work, greater population densities make for more diseases, and a diet based on a couple of staple crops isn't as healthy on the system as the mixed hunter gatherer diet; plus, crops were more susceptible to failing and creating sudden famines (a hunter gatherer had greater flexibility to switch to alternates if one food supply failed). 

Why then did agriculture come to dominate nearly everywhere suitable for it?

Because it supported a hugely greater population density. More people (particularly, aggressively territorial people) = more power. Hunter gatherers either became agriculturalists themselves, or got rudely shoved aside.

Each one of those folks was likely more miserable than the ones they replaced though. 

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 02:34:41 PM

Why then did agriculture come to dominate nearly everywhere suitable for it?

Because it supported a hugely greater population density. More people (particularly, aggressively territorial people) = more power. Hunter gatherers either became agriculturalists themselves, or got rudely shoved aside.

Each one of those folks was likely more miserable than the ones they replaced though. 

Probably helped ease the bust/drought years. you can save some extra food year to year. if you're a hunter gatherer a drought will mess with your tribe. An agricultural city can survive one (and depending on the complexity of the society more) bad years without a devastating cost.

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 01:59:29 PM
well, here, one could argue that technological progress made slavery mostly irrelevant in agriculture. 

And one would be wrong. I am sorry to say this, but you should read up on slavery for this particular debate - otherwise, it will devolve into specific arguments against generalities

Plenty of people thought of abolishing slavery in 1776, including, surprise surprise, many slaves themselves (see Haitian Revolutions). Industrialization did not make slavery a relict: political oppositions of all kinds made slavery increasingly costly. It was still quite productive, and generated plenty of profits - including at the time of the British abolition of the slave trade in 1807, including at a time when mechanization concerned spinning and weaving, not growing. The Russian and Indian growers who took over the production of the American South did not employ hugely mechanized techniques and had rather their own systems of coerced labor, and Brazil's own production was obtained through... slavery. 

The argument that can be made is that industrialisation provided investment opportunities for merchant capitalists who had previously politically embraced slavery, and made them increasingly open to abandon their commitment to maintaining it (and maintaining peace at all cost, in the United States). The blow to that market, and the transformation of the United States into a free (or freer) labor entity had necessarily global repercussions for slavery elsewhere.

QuoteOne could say, yes, it is because of technological progress.  The technology to prevent death (medical), the technology to make our lives easiers (entertainment), the technology to track the criminals.  I think it would be very hard to dissociate the sociological progress from the technologicial ones.

Except that the sharpest decline in the homicide rate is achieved by the end of the 16th century - not an especially shining moment of medical prowess.

The rest of your post is, paradoxically, a reiteration of technology as an independent force, and an economicist reading of it - which I am not getting into. We know where we stand on this topic anyway.

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 12:28:24 PM
As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Sweden is one of the best countries in the world thanks to, not despite social democracy.

most G20 countries are at the same level of human development, yet not all of them went full social-democrat like Sweden.

There is plenty of slavery around today after all.

Malthus do not forget about pastoral societies which were a prevalent alternative to agricultural societies for centuries.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 02:34:41 PM
Interestingly, in anthropology it has become something of a commonly accepted trope that the one technological complex that underlies basically all of human history was more than a bit of a mixed blessing when introduced - and that is agriculture/pastoralism.

Agricultural societies are significantly more violent than hunter-gatherer societies, as far as we can tell and on average (naturally, this only applies to the ones still around when people started to take records of such matters - and an argument could be made that these were the peaceful ones that got pushed to the margins by agriculturalists! Also, there are oddballs like West Coast native Americans). In some tribal agricultural societies, a violent death was a major cause of mortality. The reason: protecting good growing territory is very important, particularly as population densities increased (see for example Highland New Guinea). 

From forensic anthropology, it appears that hunter gatherers were healthier and lived longer: agricultural life tends to be one of unending hard work, greater population densities make for more diseases, and a diet based on a couple of staple crops isn't as healthy on the system as the mixed hunter gatherer diet; plus, crops were more susceptible to failing and creating sudden famines (a hunter gatherer had greater flexibility to switch to alternates if one food supply failed). 

Why then did agriculture come to dominate nearly everywhere suitable for it?

Because it supported a hugely greater population density. More people (particularly, aggressively territorial people) = more power. Hunter gatherers either became agriculturalists themselves, or got rudely shoved aside.

Each one of those folks was likely more miserable than the ones they replaced though.

Yes, you (successfully) reproduce then you win. Doesn't matter if you and your progeny are miserable.

I read an article many years ago about the Khoisan and their lifestyle, in general far preferable to that of an agricultural serf. At the end of the article the author then speculated that the Khoisan had it  ok in a marginal environment and think of how good it must have been for hunter-gatherers in prime zones like Europe.

Disease figures here too, the population densities have a strong adverse effect on the farmers.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 03:04:50 PM
Plenty of people thought of abolishing slavery in 1776, including, surprise surprise, many slaves themselves (see Haitian Revolutions). Industrialization did not make slavery a relict: political oppositions of all kinds made slavery increasingly costly. It was still quite productive, and generated plenty of profits - including at the time of the British abolition of the slave trade in 1807, including at a time when mechanization concerned spinning and weaving, not growing. The Russian and Indian growers who took over the production of the American South did not employ hugely mechanized techniques and had rather their own systems of coerced labor, and Brazil's own production was obtained through... slavery. 

Well, I was thinking in the US, and I did specify of an organized political movement.
Of course slaves would be opposed to slavery, I don't have to read about it to know that most of them did not like their condition, duh!
However, when the British abolished slavery in 1807, it did not extend to their colonies and they did not have the US as a huge slave-using colony either.
One could even say it was done to hurt the US.  Given how they fought to preserve slavery elsewhere after leaving the US, it's hard to see that action in a shining light at that time.

Quote
Except that the sharpest decline in the homicide rate is achieved by the end of the 16th century - not an especially shining moment of medical prowess.

And curiously, that is also about the time technological evolution permitted travel to distant lands and colonization an affordable adventure.  It also coincides with genocides of the indigenous people of North America for the Spanish, something that doesn't count in the homicide rates.

But I'd be interesting in comparing long term data trends, for when we have such records with the proliferation of various wars.  I'm expecting that in some conflicts, like WWII, outside of the war casualties, we would see less homocides.  Maybe because people had ways to earn respect with limited violence in a controlled environment (war), or in some case because they could "let got" of all social inhibitors (think of concentration camps, or for antiquity, the Crusades).  Of course, it's only a working theory.  I don't have the time, nor the resources to analyse sufficient data on the subject.

Quote
The rest of your post is, paradoxically, a reiteration of technology as an independent force, and an economicist reading of it - which I am not getting into. We know where we stand on this topic anyway.

C'EST PAS UNE RAISON POUR PAS SE DISPUTER  :mad: :mad: :mad:

:P

to be honest: still plenty of slaves around in this world. Including the in the west.

at least it's officially outlawed everywhere (and that only since 2007  :wacko:)

Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2017, 03:02:20 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 02:34:41 PM

Why then did agriculture come to dominate nearly everywhere suitable for it?

Because it supported a hugely greater population density. More people (particularly, aggressively territorial people) = more power. Hunter gatherers either became agriculturalists themselves, or got rudely shoved aside.

Each one of those folks was likely more miserable than the ones they replaced though.

Probably helped ease the bust/drought years. you can save some extra food year to year. if you're a hunter gatherer a drought will mess with your tribe. An agricultural city can survive one (and depending on the complexity of the society more) bad years without a devastating cost.

Not really.

First, for most of human history, agriculturalists did not live in cities - they lived in scattered villages. Villagers generally speaking did not have enough of a surplus to keep an entire year's food supply in storage. They needed to keep a certain amount of seed on hand to plant. A bad year could mean starvation for some; two bad years in a row, meant widespread starvation for many.

The difference with hunter gatherers is that (again, aside from oddballs like West Coast native Americans, who lived off the salmon run), they tended to be very flexible in what they would eat. This, plus low population densities, meant that in a bad year they could just switch to less-preferred foods and still survive - there was always *something* they could eat, even if not very tasty, or more work to get.

With higher population densities, agricultural populations were trapped - if they ran out of food they grew, the results were dire. There simply wasn't enough other things to eat. If they were down to their seed grain, they faced a truly grim choice - eat it and live for a few more months; don't eat it, and allow some to starve to death.

This is were urban civilizations had the advantage over tribes of villagers - they could be organized enough to trade food long distance, so could blunt the impact of a purely local famine.

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
However, when the British abolished slavery in 1807, it did not extend to their colonies and they did not have the US as a huge slave-using colony either.
One could even say it was done to hurt the US.  Given how they fought to preserve slavery elsewhere after leaving the US, it's hard to see that action in a shining light at that time.

My point was not that it should be seen as a beacon of morality, but that it followed trends for which the link with technological changes is remote, at best. And British abolitionism is definitely connected to American Independence, but not in so mechanistic manner as wanting to "spite them". I recommend Chris Brown's Moral Capital if you are interested.

QuoteAnd curiously, that is also about the time technological evolution permitted travel to distant lands and colonization an affordable adventure.  It also coincides with genocides of the indigenous people of North America for the Spanish, something that doesn't count in the homicide rates.

And so...? I am unsure of what you want to say here: homicidal maniacs depart for the colonies? You seem to be thinking that I am arguing that the past was awesome, and we should be returning to it. This is not my argument at all. I don't see how the decline in homicidal rates, well attested for, say, 16th century Sweden, is linked to technological advances which would make Swedish people leave for distant lands (Germany?).

QuoteBut I'd be interesting in comparing long term data trends, for when we have such records with the proliferation of various wars.  I'm expecting that in some conflicts, like WWII, outside of the war casualties, we would see less homocides.  Maybe because people had ways to earn respect with limited violence in a controlled environment (war), or in some case because they could "let got" of all social inhibitors (think of concentration camps, or for antiquity, the Crusades).  Of course, it's only a working theory.  I don't have the time, nor the resources to analyse sufficient data on the subject.

It's usually the reverse. War time unleashes violence, including between civilians: it's been the case after WWI (small increase) and after WWII (larger increase).

Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2017, 01:07:32 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
Even if we accept certain fictions, how many countries have even had social democratic regimes for any length of time? And bigger impact than stuff like artificial fertilizer or a number of other technological or socio-economic things that one can think of?

Western Europe and North America have had more or less social democratic governments at least since the end of WW2, sometimes earlier. No party in Sweden seriously questions universal healthcare, social security or labor rights, right? The only political question is the degree and mechanism, not the general concept anymore. It's not as pronounced in the United States as in other countries, but the US has had most elements of a social democracy since the New Deal, although it has certainly also weakened them the most in the last three and a half decades or so. The GOP does not really tackle entitlements anymore either as it has become consensus that these social democratic institutions are there to stay.

Is there anything you consider good that isn't social democracy and is there anything you consider bad that is?

We have very different ideas about what Sweden is like and has been like.

To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

To play Devil's advocate, what is the counter argument? 

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 03:04:50 PM
Plenty of people thought of abolishing slavery in 1776, including, surprise surprise, many slaves themselves (see Haitian Revolutions). Industrialization did not make slavery a relict: political oppositions of all kinds made slavery increasingly costly. It was still quite productive, and generated plenty of profits - including at the time of the British abolition of the slave trade in 1807, including at a time when mechanization concerned spinning and weaving, not growing. The Russian and Indian growers who took over the production of the American South did not employ hugely mechanized techniques and had rather their own systems of coerced labor, and Brazil's own production was obtained through... slavery. 

The argument that can be made is that industrialisation provided investment opportunities for merchant capitalists who had previously politically embraced slavery, and made them increasingly open to abandon their commitment to maintaining it (and maintaining peace at all cost, in the United States). The blow to that market, and the transformation of the United States into a free (or freer) labor entity had necessarily global repercussions for slavery elsewhere.

I'd be tempted to push the point farther - the industrial revolution gave a kind of second life to slavery in the US, because it increased the demand for raw material enormously.

In crude economic terms slavery is a kind of system of capitalized labor.  The plantation owner assumes certain fixed costs of acquiring, maintaining and coercing a labor force, but then saves in terms of variable cost of labor by not having to pay a free wage.  The economics of that kind of fixed investment work when there is a strong, reliable, and growing demand for the end product.  Textile industrialization supplied that in a big way.

Early industrialization also concentrates financial capitalism, with the rise of Wall Street dating from this period.  Political conviction is individual, but finance as a whole is blind and chases the best return.  A key political and economic dynamic of the antebellum period is the alliance between Southern plantation owners and New York-based merchant capital.  Again- with slavery from the plantation owner's perspective being a kind of capitalized labor that gives rise to returns over time, there is a nature demand for financing.  Not to mention the fact that the slave-produced cotton had to be sent to the mills up North, which of course meant building and financing ships and shipping lines, again dominated by Northern merchants, shippers and bankers.  The effect is that the old anti-slavery Yankee merchant types become increasingly implicated in the slave system at the same time that finance is becoming more institutionalized and concentrated. 

More general point - technical progress in itself is indifferent to whatever social system seeks to exploit it.  Technical progress in the early 18th century was used to strengthen slavery in America, but that happened because there already was a very substantial political and cultural infrastructure to support slavery in the South.  Slavery was not eradicated because technology rendered it obsolete.  It was eradicated by force.  It is instructive that having been compelled to abandon slavery, the South immediately turned to yet another form of coercive labor relations, supported by elaborate political-cultural institutions, and enforced by organized violence or threats of violence. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2017, 05:38:21 PM
I'd be tempted to push the point farther - the industrial revolution gave a kind of second life to slavery in the US, because it increased the demand for raw material enormously.

Well it certainly gave it a huge boost.

Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

But I thought the idea it gave it a 'second life' was based on the long since disproved nonsense that slavery was in economic decline prior to the 1790s. It's first life was still rolling along just fine. It was expanding and very profitable. But then it became super profitable.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 09, 2017, 03:19:13 PM
Yes, you (successfully) reproduce then you win. Doesn't matter if you and your progeny are miserable.

:hmm: I wonder if parallels can be drawn between liberals and conservatives in the modern world.

I also do not think serfs and peasants were all that badly off. They tended to be basically self governing in their villages, even if that sort of sounds like living under the Home Owners Association from hell. And if they were so desperately miserable then why were they so conservative and why was there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth when they had to leave their villages during industrialization?

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 04:33:32 PM
And so...? I am unsure of what you want to say here: homicidal maniacs depart for the colonies?

People find a way to persue their hobbies.  In the case of an artist, he will try to move to the cities where there are more opportunities to be appreciated and develop his passion.  In the case of an homicidal maniac, he will go where he feels he can pursue his homicidal habits the best.  Wars are great exultory, especially if they are unconstrained by morality.  Raping and killing a Christian women in Spain or France would be reprehensible while doing so to an indian in the colonies might not be as reprehensible.  It might not be a conscious decision, but there tends to be a drop in local homocides during wars, wether it is simply due to having less people around or something else, I do not know.  All I know, is there seems to be some sort of link.

Quote
It's usually the reverse. War time unleashes violence, including between civilians: it's been the case after WWI (small increase) and after WWII (larger increase).

Yes, but it's not counted in local homicide rates.  And in the chaos of post WWII, it would be poorly documented, or excused as part of something else (retaliations against collaborators, punishment against ethnic germans, etc) and would likely not figure in regular statistics when we seek only homicide rates.

But you would know more than me, and I will defer to your expert opinion if you tell me these deaths were all counted in the official statistics for the Eastern and Western bloc immediatly after WWII.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:18:03 PM
I also do not think serfs and peasants were all that badly off. They tended to be basically self governing in their villages, even if that sort of sounds like living under the Home Owners Association from hell. And if they were so desperately miserable then why were they so conservative and why was there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth when they had to leave their villages during industrialization?

But could they watch porn on their phones? I rest my case.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2017, 05:28:51 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

To play Devil's advocate, what is the counter argument? 

- Sweden wasn't destitute before WWII.  It used to be larger in the 17th-18th century, but it still benefited from large trade connections
- In a relatively stable country, wealth will appear despite any kind of government interventions, there will always be people who will find a way to earn more money, but there will be less than in a more open econimical system.  Richness is spread around so that no one starves, but that does not mean everyone is rich.
- In a social democracy, the gap between a more socialist county and a more capitalist one will be obscured in the general country's statistics.  You'd need to take a closer look at the economic activity of each of Sweden's areas and the various government transfers, direct or indirect going on to make a proper analysis of the effects, positive or negative of social democracy
- looking at Quebec in regards to the previous point, I see that the large cities, benefiting the most from government transfers are wealthier under a social democratic system, relative to the other areas, then they would be without it, benefiting from cheap resources production in remote areas and dependancy to finished materials from the cities, akin to the 3 way commerce system of old France and its colonies.  It used to be that people in the cities would starve while people in the countryside would never need worry about that, even when really poor.  Now, the cities never starve, but the regions are often left to fend for themselves, especially if there is more than one big crisis going on at the same time.  Well, actually, I can see it right now:  all the Federal and Provincial help go to Montreal and Ottawa/Gatineau area, while remote areas like Gaspesie had to find their own help, even if that means that people are dying.  A similar scenario happenned during the Lac Mégantic tragedy while the Partie Québécois let a huge chunk of forest burn in the lower Côte Nord area (Minganie) because the cameras were a lot closer to Montreal, and this was a prized destination for many Montrealers with cottages in the area, contrary to a more remote area, not even dignified of a Forest Minister attention while their homes were burning.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:06:55 PM
Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

my neighbours grow grass, wheat and other kinds of cereals.  Does it mean I live in an industrial area?  Afaik, "Avenue industrielle" is not where I live.  And there ain't any kind of culture in the place they call "Parc de l'innovation" either.  Yet, there are still fields there.  Is it an agricultural area because they depend on the wheat produced by the industrial wheat producers?

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:06:55 PM
Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

my neighbours grow grass, wheat and other kinds of cereals.  Does it mean I live in an industrial area?  Afaik, "Avenue industrielle" is not where I live.  And there ain't any kind of culture in the place they call "Parc de l'innovation" either.  Yet, there are still fields there.  Is it an agricultural area because they depend on the wheat produced by the industrial wheat producers?

The economy is based on industry, it cannot be described as being in opposition to industry when it is dependent on it. Especially not to the point it would result in a war. And the north was still overwhelmingly agricultural anyway, indeed the free soil platform was in service of agricultural interests not industrial ones.

Yet supposedly having these supposedly vastly different economies was the real cause of the war? Marxist nonsense. Granted nobody here was saying that but I just had to get that off my chest :P

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:06:55 PM
Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

Because it's an agrarian raw material.

QuoteBut I thought the idea it gave it a 'second life' was based on the long since disproved nonsense that slavery was in economic decline prior to the 1790s. It's first life was still rolling along just fine. It was expanding and very profitable. But then it became super profitable.

Certainly it was rolling along just fine; there was a philosophical belief by certain Founding Fathers that American political evolution would eventually cast off slavery as an antiquated concept--but that shit went out the window with the following generation, the cotton gin and the admission of new states.

Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

The Cotton Gin was such a simply device that once people heard about it they were easily able to make their own. Whitney did not make a dime off it. I think any decent engineer would have come up with something similar if they thought about the problem. So, you know, not a huge deal. Also it occurred well before the cotton boom was even possible with all those pesky Creeks in the way.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 07:08:25 PM
Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

QuoteThe Cotton Gin was such a simply device that once people heard about it they were easily able to make their own. Whitney did not make a dime off it. I think any decent engineer would have come up with something similar if they thought about the problem. So, you know, not a huge deal. Also it occurred well before the cotton boom was even possible with all those pesky Creeks in the way.

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 07:21:46 PM
I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

No that was what Ken Burns said in his damn documentary back in 1990 and it has perpetuated ever since. That is also where people got the idea that the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln in the Merryman case.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 07:24:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 07:21:46 PM
I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

No that was what Ken Burns said in his damn documentary back in 1990 and it has perpetuated ever since. That is also where people got the idea that the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln in the Merryman case.

As I do not recall Ken mentioning that, please cue up the specific minute for me, Belvedere.

Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2017, 06:30:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:18:03 PM
I also do not think serfs and peasants were all that badly off. They tended to be basically self governing in their villages, even if that sort of sounds like living under the Home Owners Association from hell. And if they were so desperately miserable then why were they so conservative and why was there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth when they had to leave their villages during industrialization?

But could they watch porn on their phones? I rest my case.

Technology ftw.

In what possible situations would one be looking at porn on their phone?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 06:56:48 PM
there was a philosophical belief by certain Founding Fathers that American political evolution would eventually cast off slavery as an antiquated concept--but that shit went out the window with the following generation, the cotton gin and the admission of new states.

Yeah, Southern politicians started moving from defending slavery as a necessary evil to extolling it as a positive virtue sometime around the War of 1812.  By the mid-1840s, you couldn't find hardly any politician in the South who hadn't adopted the latter notion.

Say they didn't want to put their contacts in, or sit in a desk chair.

Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2017, 09:03:00 AM
Yes. And there is nothing really governments can do about that. The world is changing and people are upset about it. The whole reaction carries a nostalgia for the 60s and 70s that I find rather unsettling anyway. Those days were not that great. Granted I was only alive for three years of the 70s.

I'm surprised no one's tried proposing farm style subsudies to keep them at work.

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 02:34:41 PM

Agricultural societies are significantly more violent than hunter-gatherer societies, as far as we can tell and on average (naturally, this only applies to the ones still around when people started to take records of such matters - and an argument could be made that these were the peaceful ones that got pushed to the margins by agriculturalists! Also, there are oddballs like West Coast native Americans). In some tribal agricultural societies, a violent death was a major cause of mortality. The reason: protecting good growing territory is very important, particularly as population densities increased (see for example Highland New Guinea). 

Healthier and longer lived is right, but this isn't remotely proven.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 03:04:50 PM

Except that the sharpest decline in the homicide rate is achieved by the end of the 16th century - not an especially shining moment of medical prowess.

The rest of your post is, paradoxically, a reiteration of technology as an independent force, and an economicist reading of it - which I am not getting into. We know where we stand on this topic anyway.

Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2017, 10:30:46 PM
Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

Whereas, clearly, harsh punishments were unknown before, and endemic warfare couldn't possibly provide an outlet for the vast amount of genetically designed monsters who roamed the countryside. Amazingly, this remarkable genetic selection manifested itself in a weirdly compact moment of time, a mere 50 years.

Terrible science AND terrible history.

What is supposed to be the cause of whatever happened 500 years ago and are we sure we have good enough statistics to draw conclusions from that long ago?

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 10:41:37 PM
Terrible science AND terrible history.

Timmy is a dual threat.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 10:43:55 PM
What is supposed to be the cause of whatever happened 500 years ago and are we sure we have good enough statistics to draw conclusions from that long ago?

Obviously, statistics have been a challenge, but specific towns and provinces have been studied with reliable accuracy in a variety of settings (good data for Lower Countries, Sweden, certain parts of Bavaria, northern France, etc.). They all indicate the same remarkable decline. (Italy is an outlier - the same level of strong decline only at the end of the 19th c.)

As for the cause, it's been debated for years. Multiple explanations have been provided since the trend has been noticed, from harsh repression (which, Tim notwhistanding, hasn't held up to scrutiny), to the rise of individualism, from internalisation of state control to the decline of honor and the end of vengeance, to the reliability of courts. It does correlate with the rise of litigation.

Quote from: PDH on May 09, 2017, 10:44:17 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 10:41:37 PM
Terrible science AND terrible history.

Timmy is a dual threat.

Triple. Terrible spelling too.  :D

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 11:00:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 10:43:55 PM
What is supposed to be the cause of whatever happened 500 years ago and are we sure we have good enough statistics to draw conclusions from that long ago?

Obviously, statistics have been a challenge, but specific towns and provinces have been studied with reliable accuracy in a variety of settings (good data for Lower Countries, Sweden, certain parts of Bavaria, northern France, etc.). They all indicate the same remarkable decline. (Italy is an outlier - the same level of strong decline only at the end of the 19th c.)

As for the cause, it's been debated for years. Multiple explanations have been provided since the trend has been noticed, from harsh repression (which, Tim notwhistanding, hasn't held up to scrutiny), to the rise of individualism, from internalisation of state control to the decline of honor and the end of vengeance, to the reliability of courts. It does correlate with the rise of litigation.

That does sound likely. Lawyers are the only thing keeping us from barbarism :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2017, 09:19:08 PM
In what possible situations would one be looking at porn on their phone?

- revenge porn
- easy sharing among friends
- collectors (a recent case involved hockey players from a small town sharing pictures&vids of underage girls in sex acts amongst themselves like hockey cards)
- frequent travellers
- people with the moto "small is beautiful"

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 11:32:37 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 11:00:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 10:43:55 PM
What is supposed to be the cause of whatever happened 500 years ago and are we sure we have good enough statistics to draw conclusions from that long ago?

Obviously, statistics have been a challenge, but specific towns and provinces have been studied with reliable accuracy in a variety of settings (good data for Lower Countries, Sweden, certain parts of Bavaria, northern France, etc.). They all indicate the same remarkable decline. (Italy is an outlier - the same level of strong decline only at the end of the 19th c.)

As for the cause, it's been debated for years. Multiple explanations have been provided since the trend has been noticed, from harsh repression (which, Tim notwhistanding, hasn't held up to scrutiny), to the rise of individualism, from internalisation of state control to the decline of honor and the end of vengeance, to the reliability of courts. It does correlate with the rise of litigation.

That does sound likely. Lawyers are the only thing keeping us from barbarism :(

And now we have solved Mass Effect greatest mystery.  Lawyers are the greatest evil of this universe, they are the ones pulling the strings behind the Collectors.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2017, 10:30:46 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 03:04:50 PM

Except that the sharpest decline in the homicide rate is achieved by the end of the 16th century - not an especially shining moment of medical prowess.

The rest of your post is, paradoxically, a reiteration of technology as an independent force, and an economicist reading of it - which I am not getting into. We know where we stand on this topic anyway.

Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

No, I side with Oex on this one.  Romans, Greeks, they all condemned urban violence pretty harshly, and after the fall of the Empire, when some semblance of authority was re-established locally, the local rulers never hesitated to employ violence against common criminals that got caught.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2017, 09:19:08 PM
In what possible situations would one be looking at porn on their phone?

Phones these days are like mini-tablets with internet browsers, games, YouTube and all that social channel bullshit. You can even read your email on them.

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 04:38:38 PMIs there anything you consider good that isn't social democracy and is there anything you consider bad that is?

Yes, a lot of things. Without the aforementioned technological advances and a capitalist economic order, social democracy has no wealth to redistribute and it is inherent in it that it stifles both innovation and entrepreneurship. It's a very fine balance between redistribution that makes society fairer and better and redistribution that is punitive, inefficient or anti-innovative.

Furthermore social democrats tend to favor other feel-good or nanny state policies that I do not support in many cases, either by treating different people too equal ignoring their differences or by outright trying to legislate a "better" society. Examples would be too much emphasis on non-productive immigration, all that modern gender stuff including women's quotas, opposition against free trade and technologies like gene modifications etc.

I am merely a supporter of the social state that createday institutions to alleviate some of the basic life risks from citizens through various insurances etc. and I think that strong collective labor rights are good.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:45:13 PM
The economy is based on industry, it cannot be described as being in opposition to industry when it is dependent on it. Especially not to the point it would result in a war. And the north was still overwhelmingly agricultural anyway, indeed the free soil platform was in service of agricultural interests not industrial ones.

Well, if you take it that way, then there is really one single economic activity in the whole world: industry.
Fishing?  It's for industries to transform the fishes.
Oil?  It's for the industries to transform it into gazoline and motor oil and plastic.
Lumber?  It's for the industries to make paper, construction wood and furnitures.

That's a little too broad to be practical.  That's akin to saying there's only one human species, so whatever political solutions makes sense for America is just as good for Sweden, France, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Quote
Yet supposedly having these supposedly vastly different economies was the real cause of the war? Marxist nonsense. Granted nobody here was saying that but I just had to get that off my chest :P

I never said they were the real cause of the war. Having different economies certainly was a cause.  Would the South have rebelled over States' rights if it didn't involved slavery?  A mass rebellion, with an organized army and overwhelming support from all classes (except the slaves, and the free blacks of the area, most likely, but not many Southern Whites seemed opposed to the war (yes, some fought for the North)) over trade tariffs imposed by the US Congress?

Slaves weren't useful for factories in the North. Had they been an economically viable alternative to the industrial labor used by the factories, the North would have still be trading slaves as it was in the 1600s.
Quebec had slaves, but never in numbers comparable to the Southern US states or the British&French sugar plantations in the Carribeans because there was no need for them here.  There was usually one crop per year and the fields weren't that large, so people usually banded together and made one field after another.  Richer people had slave servants though, as well as religious communities.  And there was identured servitude, but that's not cheptel slavery.  And defeated ennemy indian tribes were traded as slaves by allied indian tribes too.  I'm too lazy to search for their exact status compared to black slaves in the US at the same time, so I'll let Oex and his fantastic memory do it for me ;)  (althoug I suspect he keeps a 3rd screen active with ready made links&references just for the purpose of impressing us ;) )

So, again, I don't think it's just a question of morality that slavery tended to not appear or disapear from some areas and not others.  They had a better alternative, everything considered, they used it.  Capitalism is all about optimisation of resources.   To use a modern example, if a company requires many, many more hours of training and work for its employees to use a free software and a paid one, they'll take the paid option (MS Office at 100$/license/year) over the open source option (Libre Office totally free) nine times out of 10.

Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2017, 11:43:31 PM
And now we have solved Mass Effect greatest mystery.  Lawyers are the greatest evil of this universe, they are the ones pulling the strings behind the Collectors.

I knew it! They are just preparing to harvest us later!

Quote from: dps on May 09, 2017, 09:20:36 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 06:56:48 PM
there was a philosophical belief by certain Founding Fathers that American political evolution would eventually cast off slavery as an antiquated concept--but that shit went out the window with the following generation, the cotton gin and the admission of new states.

Yeah, Southern politicians started moving from defending slavery as a necessary evil to extolling it as a positive virtue sometime around the War of 1812.  By the mid-1840s, you couldn't find hardly any politician in the South who hadn't adopted the latter notion.

Started more around 1830s I think. Slavery was debated in the Virginia legislature in 1831-32

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 10:41:37 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2017, 10:30:46 PM
Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

Whereas, clearly, harsh punishments were unknown before, and endemic warfare couldn't possibly provide an outlet for the vast amount of genetically designed monsters who roamed the countryside. Amazingly, this remarkable genetic selection manifested itself in a weirdly compact moment of time, a mere 50 years.

Terrible science AND terrible history.

The death penalty in Western Europe was very limited after the fall of the Roman Empire due to the collapse of state power, the rise in influence of Christian bishops and the belief in retalitory violence among the new Barbarian elites as a positive good. The Death penalty was mostly limited to treason, cowardice in battle, etc. Murder you could pay off via wergild. The death penalty only really started to come back in vogue around the 13th century IIRC.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2017, 12:30:24 AM
Started more around 1830s I think. Slavery was debated in the Virginia legislature in 1831-32

No I think dps has it right. Certainly the 1830s were pivotal but opening up the gulf states after the War of 1812 was a pretty important moment.

Quote from: viper37 on May 10, 2017, 12:12:48 AM
Well, if you take it that way, then there is really one single economic activity in the whole world: industry.
Fishing?  It's for industries to transform the fishes.
Oil?  It's for the industries to transform it into gazoline and motor oil and plastic.
Lumber?  It's for the industries to make paper, construction wood and furnitures.

Not every economic activity then or now was to produce raw materials for factory production. That was the only client for Southern cotton. its price and viability was completely dependent on those factories and the planters and their business partners watched them closely to maximize their profits. Like any businessmen operating within an industrial economy.

QuoteThat's a little too broad to be practical.  That's akin to saying there's only one human species, so whatever political solutions makes sense for America is just as good for Sweden, France, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

I don't think so. I think it is pretty specific.

Quote
I never said they were the real cause of the war.

Indeed. Nobody here said it. I just had to get that off my chest :P

QuoteHaving different economies certainly was a cause.

The northern states had pretty dramatic economies from each other. The western states were pretty rural, New England was mostly based on shipping, etc...

QuoteWould the South have rebelled over States' rights if it didn't involved slavery?  A mass rebellion, with an organized army and overwhelming support from all classes (except the slaves, and the free blacks of the area, most likely, but not many Southern Whites seemed opposed to the war (yes, some fought for the North)) over trade tariffs imposed by the US Congress?

The tariff issue had already been won by the Democrats, since the South was not the only region of the US that was against the tariffs. The northern middlemen were not particularly happy about them. The tariffs only started to return when the southern states started seceding.

QuoteSlaves weren't useful for factories in the North. Had they been an economically viable alternative to the industrial labor used by the factories, the North would have still be trading slaves as it was in the 1600s.

Slaves are fantastic for factories. Virginia was able to achieve miracles during the war using slaves in their factories. And many other countries since have done so. But the north was hardly a giant industrial power in 1860, especially compared to Britain and sure as hell was not an industrial power back when most of the Northern States got rid of slavery.

Kind of glad they only discovered that right as slavery was ending.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 08, 2017, 05:02:26 AM
I come from a formerly industrial area that went to hell after the 80s. I managed to get out eventually, but the journey wasn't fun.

Me too, but the damage is considerable for the people who stayed.

I don't know what you did, but I fled to Texas.

The old coal mining towns of north England have nothing on the shitholiness that happened to my home town in Ohio. Today, the place survives on disability, narcotic prescriptions and the heroin trade.

Obamaphone credits are an alternative currency. Not kidding.

I think you guys were too romantic about hunting-gathering earlier.

In what way is that more comfortable or safe than agriculture? With agriculture you can stockpile, and predict. If you are a hunter-gatherer you are not less exposed to unpredictable natural forces, but more, much more.

Wrong. You are exposed to risk, only more in the large events, and less in the small ones.

The h-g can scatter the flocks, but if the crops burn, you're done.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2017, 02:17:22 AM
Wrong. You are exposed to risk, only more in the large events, and less in the small ones.

The h-g can scatter the flocks, but if the crops burn, you're done.

At the most, this danger was/is to the excess population that's over the limit that can be supported by hunting and gathering - I am pretty sure the farmers supplemented their diet with hunting and gathering. I am quite sure they had done so as recently as 50 years ago - for variety and not for necessity of course, but still.

However, when you are a hunter-gatherer you never know if you will eat something the next day or not. Not an issue with agriculture.

Besides, there had to be a good reason why farming overtook h&g in all civilisations that ever discovered it. You can't seriously propose that in all cases it was forced upon by some leadership in an unwilling population for generations until they were unable to return to h&g. I also saw that Antony Hopkins movie with the gorillas, you know, and it was silly.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2017, 02:17:22 AM
Wrong. You are exposed to risk, only more in the large events, and less in the small ones.

The h-g can scatter the flocks, but if the crops burn, you're done.

Hunter-gatherers don't have flocks. 

Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2017, 04:56:21 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2017, 02:17:22 AM
Wrong. You are exposed to risk, only more in the large events, and less in the small ones.

The h-g can scatter the flocks, but if the crops burn, you're done.

Hunter-gatherers don't have flocks.

I would think hunter-gatherers under the larger "nomadic peoples" subcategory, no? Some of them where bigly herders.   

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2017, 05:35:46 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2017, 04:56:21 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2017, 02:17:22 AM
Wrong. You are exposed to risk, only more in the large events, and less in the small ones.

The h-g can scatter the flocks, but if the crops burn, you're done.

Hunter-gatherers don't have flocks.

I would think hunter-gatherers under the larger "nomadic peoples" subcategory, no? Some of them where bigly herders.   

No. Pastoral societies have, AFAIK, nothing to do with hunter-gatherers.

Pastoral societies offered a much bigger competition to settled agricultural lifestyle.

Some farmers plant crops and some raise herds.

Quote from: Tamas on May 10, 2017, 05:37:08 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2017, 05:35:46 AM
I would think hunter-gatherers under the larger "nomadic peoples" subcategory, no? Some of them where bigly herders.

No. Pastoral societies have, AFAIK, nothing to do with hunter-gatherers.

Pastoral societies offered a much bigger competition to settled agricultural lifestyle.

OK.  I wasn't addressing that, but OK.  Beet herder.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 10, 2017, 05:44:11 AM
Some farmers plant crops and some raise herds.

By pastoral societies I mean the nomadic or semi-nomadic ones who raise their own herds and move around with them seasonally or after outgrowing grazing grounds. NOT farmers who happen to have animals.

Quote from: Tamas on May 10, 2017, 01:58:34 AM
I think you guys were too romantic about hunting-gathering earlier.

In what way is that more comfortable or safe than agriculture? With agriculture you can stockpile, and predict. If you are a hunter-gatherer you are not less exposed to unpredictable natural forces, but more, much more.

Agriculturalists were exposed to crop failures as well.  Think about all the references to famine in the Old Testament alone.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2017, 10:15:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 02:34:41 PM

Agricultural societies are significantly more violent than hunter-gatherer societies, as far as we can tell and on average (naturally, this only applies to the ones still around when people started to take records of such matters - and an argument could be made that these were the peaceful ones that got pushed to the margins by agriculturalists! Also, there are oddballs like West Coast native Americans). In some tribal agricultural societies, a violent death was a major cause of mortality. The reason: protecting good growing territory is very important, particularly as population densities increased (see for example Highland New Guinea). 

Healthier and longer lived is right, but this isn't remotely proven.

Can't be "proven", without a time machine; but the available evidence is very suggestive.

https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths/

The actual empirical evidence shows that rates of violent deaths go something like this.

Far and away, the safest societies in history are our own Western industrial ones - even taking into account our occasional horrible wars (at least, so far. If we nuke the planet that could change).

Next come relatively modern state-level societies.

Then come hunter-gatherers, who weren't the all-peaceful types some romantics make them out to be (they certainly had feuds and murders a-plenty, as you would expect in societies that by definition lack law enforcement and in which every person had access and knowledge of weapons).

Finally, at the bottom, far below the others, by far the most dangerous human societies in history: pre-state agriculturalists and pastoralists.

Quote from: Tamas on May 10, 2017, 01:58:34 AM
I think you guys were too romantic about hunting-gathering earlier.

In what way is that more comfortable or safe than agriculture? With agriculture you can stockpile, and predict. If you are a hunter-gatherer you are not less exposed to unpredictable natural forces, but more, much more.

It is a simple matter of risk management.

Farmers and pastoralists historically depend on a small number of living species. Every species has its peaks and low points in thriving - diseases, parasites and bad conditions bring about bad years.

If you are a hunter gatherer, you aren't tied to one food source, you collect from dozens - plus you are more mobile. If one is having a bad year, another may be having a good year. If one area isn't doing well, you could move to another.

That's why throughout history agricultural societies suffered periodic terrible famines.

Why agriculture then? Simple: despite the periodic famines, it could support a much higher population density than hunting and gathering - orders of magnitude higher.

Why couldn't farmers just switch to hunting and gathering when crops failed? Of course they could try - but didn't I just mention that bit about a population density orders of magnitude greater than could be supported by hunting and gathering?

If hunting and gathering could only support a low population, didn't they go through famines wen the population grew too fast? Apparently not - for a bunch of reasons. Most notably, they practiced birth spacing to keep populations down - having lots of kids was a disadvantage to a hunter gatherer, but an advantage to a farmer (the more kids, the larger the family labour force!). 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2017, 05:35:46 AM
I would think hunter-gatherers under the larger "nomadic peoples" subcategory, no? Some of them where bigly herders.   

No.  Rather, pastoralists fall (like agriculturalists) under the larger category of "post-Neolithic Revolution." Hunter-gatherers are associated with the Paleolithic era.  Pastoral people had things like iron weapons and tools, that HG types couldn't develop.

Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 09:11:10 AM

The actual empirical evidence shows that rates of violent deaths go something like this.

Far and away, the safest societies in history are our own Western industrial ones - even taking into account our occasional horrible wars (at least, so far. If we nuke the planet that could change).

Next come relatively modern state-level societies.

Then come hunter-gatherers, who weren't the all-peaceful types some romantics make them out to be (they certainly had feuds and murders a-plenty, as you would expect in societies that by definition lack law enforcement and in which every person had access and knowledge of weapons).

Finally, at the bottom, far below the others, by far the most dangerous human societies in history: pre-state agriculturalists and pastoralists.

That progression would suggest, while it doesn't always lead to a betterment of the human condition, in general, technological advance is a good thing.

Now, having said that, I would acknowledge that rates of violent death aren't the only measure of how well off a population is, and also that reasons for a given level of violence in a society are far more a result of social, rather than technological, conditions.  However, I'd also point out that our modern, Western industrial societies are (the best by this measure) couldn't exist without modern technology.

Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 09:22:36 AM

If hunting and gathering could only support a low population, didn't they go through famines wen the population grew too fast? Apparently not - for a bunch of reasons. Most notably, they practiced birth spacing to keep populations down - having lots of kids was a disadvantage to a hunter gatherer, but an advantage to a farmer (the more kids, the larger the family labour force!).

I've never heard that HG groups "practiced birth spacing" or any similar conscious practice (though certainly the lack of artificial means of providing for infant nursing would mean that paleolithic women would have birth at longer intervals due to longer nursing periods).  HG populations were largely kept down because infant mortality was extremely high (since they essentially lived outdoors and babies were no less fragile back then) and because tribes that were too large to hunt effectively broke apart.  If hunting grounds were too populated, rival bands almost certainly killed each others' hunters.

Hunter-gatherer types almost certainly went through the cycle of population boom and bust.

Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2017, 10:20:31 AM

I've never heard that HG groups "practiced birth spacing" or any similar conscious practice (though certainly the lack of artificial means of providing for infant nursing would mean that paleolithic women would have birth at longer intervals due to longer nursing periods). .

They are called "post-partum sex taboos" and they are widespread among many societies and have been documented to range between 30 days and four years. They existed in all types of societies, but hunter gatherers and horticulturalists tended to have the longer duration.

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 07:08:25 PM
Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

Slavery as an institution wasn't dying but the slaves were.  The demand for slaves in the 18th century was met by African slave trade.  And the Constitution permitted that trade to be shut down after a transition period.  The cotton gin meant that slaves could be redeployed from growing sugar (high mortality rates) to cotton.  The result was massive demographic growth in the slave population from the early 1800s up to 1860.

Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2017, 10:20:31 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 09:22:36 AM

If hunting and gathering could only support a low population, didn't they go through famines wen the population grew too fast? Apparently not - for a bunch of reasons. Most notably, they practiced birth spacing to keep populations down - having lots of kids was a disadvantage to a hunter gatherer, but an advantage to a farmer (the more kids, the larger the family labour force!).

I've never heard that HG groups "practiced birth spacing" or any similar conscious practice (though certainly the lack of artificial means of providing for infant nursing would mean that paleolithic women would have birth at longer intervals due to longer nursing periods).  HG populations were largely kept down because infant mortality was extremely high (since they essentially lived outdoors and babies were no less fragile back then) and because tribes that were too large to hunt effectively broke apart.  If hunting grounds were too populated, rival bands almost certainly killed each others' hunters.

Hunter-gatherer types almost certainly went through the cycle of population boom and bust.

Self-regulation of population among HGs is reasonably well documented. The best studied are probably the !Kung San.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/656392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Both biology (long weaning periods - much longer than for other folks) and cultural adaptations are thought to contribute to such self-regulation - though how much is "conscious" in terms of deliberate pursuit of a goal of not stressing the environment is of course a matter of debate.

Certainly such self-regulation is one factor which could lead to a very low rate of population increase (in this article, the group being studied increased at a rate of 0.5%) which tends to avoid problems of boom and bust (though no doubt they occurred anyway, just not to the same extent as among agricultural peoples, whose rate on natural increase tends to be much higher).

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 10, 2017, 11:13:20 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 07:08:25 PM
Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

Slavery as an institution wasn't dying but the slaves were.  The demand for slaves in the 18th century was met by African slave trade.  And the Constitution permitted that trade to be shut down after a transition period.  The cotton gin meant that slaves could be redeployed from growing sugar (high mortality rates) to cotton.  The result was massive demographic growth in the slave population from the early 1800s up to 1860.

IIRC I read somewhere that slaves, while of course they didn't want to be slaves at all, much preferred to not be sold to plantations in Louisiana, because that was likely to mean getting worked to death growing sugar crops, while being sold getting sold elsewhere likely meant easier, less unhealthy work growing cotton. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2017, 05:28:51 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 04:49:33 PM
To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

To play Devil's advocate, what is the counter argument?

The counter argument to the myth? Many things, among them that the Soc Dems didn't come to power until 1932 when Sweden already had experienced huge economic progress, progress which slowed down in the 1970s after the Soc Dems had made really major changes to tax rates etc over the course of the 60s. In the 30s-50s political changes were evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Another thing, if you think that care for the lesser well off was a major factor for growth, is that such care wasn't a Soc Dem invention but was already under way in the late 1800s with many political groups agreeing that society should help the poor. There is also generally a lack of plausible arguments put forward by the Soc Dem camp that would support the importance of social democracy over things like strong stable institutions, ongoing industrialization and similar.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2017, 12:37:40 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2017, 10:41:37 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2017, 10:30:46 PM
Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

Whereas, clearly, harsh punishments were unknown before, and endemic warfare couldn't possibly provide an outlet for the vast amount of genetically designed monsters who roamed the countryside. Amazingly, this remarkable genetic selection manifested itself in a weirdly compact moment of time, a mere 50 years.

Terrible science AND terrible history.

The death penalty in Western Europe was very limited after the fall of the Roman Empire due to the collapse of state power, the rise in influence of Christian bishops and the belief in retalitory violence among the new Barbarian elites as a positive good. The Death penalty was mostly limited to treason, cowardice in battle, etc. Murder you could pay off via wergild. The death penalty only really started to come back in vogue around the 13th century IIRC.

if you think a State's death penalty, yes, that was very limited, due to the King's weak power.  Local barons/lords/rulers did not hesitate to use death penalty though.

Quote from: Zanza on May 10, 2017, 12:11:18 AM

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2017, 04:38:38 PMIs there anything you consider good that isn't social democracy and is there anything you consider bad that is?

Yes, a lot of things. Without the aforementioned technological advances and a capitalist economic order, social democracy has no wealth to redistribute and it is inherent in it that it stifles both innovation and entrepreneurship. It's a very fine balance between redistribution that makes society fairer and better and redistribution that is punitive, inefficient or anti-innovative.

Furthermore social democrats tend to favor other feel-good or nanny state policies that I do not support in many cases, either by treating different people too equal ignoring their differences or by outright trying to legislate a "better" society. Examples would be too much emphasis on non-productive immigration, all that modern gender stuff including women's quotas, opposition against free trade and technologies like gene modifications etc.

I am merely a supporter of the social state that createday institutions to alleviate some of the basic life risks from citizens through various insurances etc. and I think that strong collective labor rights are good.

Fair enough, though of course I disagree that redistribution was what lifted people out of poverty.

Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 12:55:51 PM
Self-regulation of population among HGs is reasonably well documented. The best studied are probably the !Kung San.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/656392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Both biology (long weaning periods - much longer than for other folks) and cultural adaptations are thought to contribute to such self-regulation - though how much is "conscious" in terms of deliberate pursuit of a goal of not stressing the environment is of course a matter of debate.

Certainly such self-regulation is one factor which could lead to a very low rate of population increase (in this article, the group being studied increased at a rate of 0.5%) which tends to avoid problems of boom and bust (though no doubt they occurred anyway, just not to the same extent as among agricultural peoples, whose rate on natural increase tends to be much higher).

In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=7yCpBRAY22UC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=birth+rates+among+the+ikung&source=bl&ots=LIV5JYhw3Z&sig=NsaCol8Pz3FcUCEkdP-_PRv36cQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOveeok-bTAhWJ7YMKHb0QBC8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=birth%20rates%20among%20the%20ikung&f=false
one of the writers notes (p. 183) that (forgive transcription errors)

Quote... It is widely believed that the iKung's low fertility rates are due to their long interbirth intervals.  However, if more iKung women gave birth throughout the entire repoructive span, TFR [Total fertlity rate] would increase to more than 6 births.

Elsewhere, I have attributed the early termination of reproductive spans to epidemics of infectious infertility intensified by the migration of the Herero and other pastoralists to the region [cite].  iKung fertility rates declined following the migrations... the TFR of post-reproductive women was 4.  The cohort TFR of the neighboring Herero pastoralists was 2.7.   The fertility rates in the region began to rise after the introduction of health posts...

(p. 184) Among the Kutchin, the interbirth interval is the same for both cohorts [nomadic and settled] so the rise in birth rates can be largely attributed to differences in primary and secondary sterility rates... 

The indication is that it isn't a difference in IBI, but in the onset of sterility, that distinguishes the HG birth rates from those of more settled people.  It isn't, then, a matter of self-regulation.  A table (p. 182) notes that the Ache, HG tribes of Paraguay, have a TFR of 8 and an IBI of 37 months.  The key is that they have very low sterility rates. 

I agree that longer weaning periods probably account for most of the difference between IBI in agricultural/pastoral societies vs HG types.  I don't know of any evidence that sexual practices are different, though.  I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2017, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 12:55:51 PM
Self-regulation of population among HGs is reasonably well documented. The best studied are probably the !Kung San.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/656392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Both biology (long weaning periods - much longer than for other folks) and cultural adaptations are thought to contribute to such self-regulation - though how much is "conscious" in terms of deliberate pursuit of a goal of not stressing the environment is of course a matter of debate.

Certainly such self-regulation is one factor which could lead to a very low rate of population increase (in this article, the group being studied increased at a rate of 0.5%) which tends to avoid problems of boom and bust (though no doubt they occurred anyway, just not to the same extent as among agricultural peoples, whose rate on natural increase tends to be much higher).

In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=7yCpBRAY22UC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=birth+rates+among+the+ikung&source=bl&ots=LIV5JYhw3Z&sig=NsaCol8Pz3FcUCEkdP-_PRv36cQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOveeok-bTAhWJ7YMKHb0QBC8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=birth%20rates%20among%20the%20ikung&f=false
one of the writers notes (p. 183) that (forgive transcription errors)

Quote... It is widely believed that the iKung's low fertility rates are due to their long interbirth intervals.  However, if more iKung women gave birth throughout the entire repoructive span, TFR [Total fertlity rate] would increase to more than 6 births.

Elsewhere, I have attributed the early termination of reproductive spans to epidemics of infectious infertility intensified by the migration of the Herero and other pastoralists to the region [cite].  iKung fertility rates declined following the migrations... the TFR of post-reproductive women was 4.  The cohort TFR of the neighboring Herero pastoralists was 2.7.   The fertility rates in the region began to rise after the introduction of health posts...

(p. 184) Among the Kutchin, the interbirth interval is the same for both cohorts [nomadic and settled] so the rise in birth rates can be largely attributed to differences in primary and secondary sterility rates... 

The indication is that it isn't a difference in IBI, but in the onset of sterility, that distinguishes the HG birth rates from those of more settled people.  It isn't, then, a matter of self-regulation.  A table (p. 182) notes that the Ache, HG tribes of Paraguay, have a TFR of 8 and an IBI of 37 months.  The key is that they have very low sterility rates. 

I agree that longer weaning periods probably account for most of the difference between IBI in agricultural/pastoral societies vs HG types.  I don't know of any evidence that sexual practices are different, though.  I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

I don't understand this point - if birth spacing is something the HGs consciously control (your cite claims lactation can't explain birth spacing longer than 2 years at p. 198 - yet we know birth spacing longer than 3 years is the norm among HGs: see http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-302-barry-hewlett/melkonner.pdf , where the authors determiner that birth spacing greater than 3 years is found in each HG group they surveyed), and if diseases causing infertility have been prevalent throughout history (your cite, p. 199) - then why, in response to such limits, don't HGs simply decrease birth spacing to increase overall fertility? Your cite simply states that disease *must* account for low growth rates:

"Many authors believe that diseases affecting fertility are too new to have greatly affected reproduction in our species history. But even using the lowest hunter-gatherer survival rates, we cannot account for low growth rates without them".

There certainly are authors who claim that, in part, large family sizes are to some extent a conscious choice in premodern farming societies - which presumably means small family sizes may be in premodern HG societies, as well.   

You may find this interesting:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4694.full

QuoteThe rise of agriculture during the Neolithic period has paradoxically been associated with worldwide population growth despite increases in disease and mortality. We examine the effects of sedentarization and cultivation on disease load, mortality, and fertility among Agta foragers. We report increased disease and mortality rates associated with sedentarization alongside an even larger increase in fertility associated with both participation in cultivation and sedentarization. Thus, mothers who transition to agriculture have higher reproductive fitness. We provide the first empirical evidence, to our knowledge, of an adaptive mechanism behind the expansion of agriculture, explaining how we can reconcile the Neolithic increase in morbidity and mortality with the observed demographic expansion.

The point is this: even though the prevalence of disease increased with sedentary life, as did childhood mortality, fertility still increased even more.

For this debate, the interesting part is that the researchers don't even try to answer *why* fertility rates change - they simply note that the *do*:

QuoteWe found that more permanent camps had significantly higher childhood mortality rates, matching archaeological evidence from the Neolithic (6). Our results also revealed significantly higher fertility rates in settled women, particularly those transitioning from foraging to cultivation. Agriculture has long been associated with increases in fertility (85, 86), because the reduction in energy expenditure with settlement (87) and increased carbohydrate consumption (10, 88) are associated with increased BMI, which correlates with shorter interbirth intervals and higher fertility (89). The association between BMI and transition suggests a pathway through which increased cultivation could lead to increased fertility. An additional pathway, as suggested by Kramer and Boone (90), considers the increased economic productivity of children in agriculture, which reduces maternal constraints and thus increases a woman's fertility. Our study remains correlative, leaving unanswered the question of the causal direction between fertility, sedentarization, and food production.

They state that there *may* be different reasons: increase in BMI leading to decreased birth spacing (a non-conscious factor); and "... the increased economic productivity of children in agriculture, which reduces maternal constraints and thus increases a woman's fertility". They don't go into detail as to what these "maternal constraints" are.

This paper may be interesting, but requires purchase:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/340239

Are we arguing that in HG societies they practiced birth control by abstinence because they were aware of their limited ability to support children? :D

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2017, 01:20:05 AM
Are we arguing that in HG societies they practiced birth control by abstinence because they were aware of their limited ability to support children? :D

Depends on what you mean by "their limited ability to support children".

The argument is that they used various methods (either consciously or unconsciously) to control the number of children they had because it was simply too difficult (depending on environmental factors) for a band of HGs to take care of more than a limited number of children. This had the indirect effect of leading to a low rate of population increase.

Conversely, for settled agriculturalists, having lots and lots of children was, economically, a good idea: more kids = more workforce.

You see the same sort of thing in modern society. Today, in the industrialized West, having lots of kids is tough, economically. So family sizes are small, on average - below replacement rate in many cases.

The debate is this: in the modern West people control their birthrate through contraception. They do it consciously. HGs didn't have contraception, so how did they control it?

One theory was that they did it by lengthy weaning periods. This is known to have a contraceptive effect, and HGs take much longer to wean than settled folks. The problem is, this effect lasts at most 2 years (allegedly) and so can't fully account for lengthy HG birth spacing (known to be greater than 3 years).

One of the papers linked above addresses this question: if settling down to agriculture made people on average more disease ridden, and more likely to die younger, why was it so successful in increasing population? The answer: it lead to much higher birthrates.

Why?

Was it simply a physical process - settling down made people more fertile? Was there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*? 

QuoteWas there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

Quote from: Tamas on May 10, 2017, 01:58:34 AM
I think you guys were too romantic about hunting-gathering earlier.

In what way is that more comfortable or safe than agriculture? With agriculture you can stockpile, and predict. If you are a hunter-gatherer you are not less exposed to unpredictable natural forces, but more, much more.

You're asking this of someone using the handle "Malthus"

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2017, 10:24:43 AM
You're asking this of someone using the handle "Malthus"

:lol:

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2017, 09:41:43 AM

QuoteWas there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely.  I think that the explanation of difference in IBI being due to different female fertility rates (perhaps a result of diet or caloric stability) is a far more credible than the explanation that it was due to different sexual practices.

What I said your rationale for finding it unlikely?

As if nowadays rampant poverty and the inability to support more children adequately stops people from having more children. I refuse to believe  the humans of more than 14 thousand years before us would have a better grasp on procreation and it's effects on their local economic and natural circumstances, than people of today.

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2017, 09:41:43 AM

QuoteWas there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely.  I think that the explanation of difference in IBI being due to different female fertility rates (perhaps a result of diet or caloric stability) is a far more credible than the explanation that it was due to different sexual practices.

It may not have been a straightforward conscious decision to practice sex differently for the express purpose of limiting the number of children, but wrapped up in customary taboos and the like. We know various cultures had taboos that restricted sex at various times.

Allegedly, food taboos limiting what HG women were allowed to eat also had an impact in lowering fertility.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12283361

"In foraging populations, direct methods of contraception or to limit the number of children or increase the birth interval include rules concerning postpartum abstinence, induced abortion, and infanticide" - at p. 151, below: 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=kZwUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=taboos+limiting+fertility+in+hunter+gatherers&source=bl&ots=VuxPesEyuS&sig=DsOlY882hnlYkBJkAQtaCIpv7eE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2nPHlmejTAhWEx4MKHT44CYMQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=taboos%20limiting%20fertility%20in%20hunter%20gatherers&f=false

Restriction of sex is not the only way to deliberately limit number of children - there is also abortion and infanticide, which also happened (though to what degree is controversial).

It's an article of faith, then (I refuse to believe). Today's large families living in poverty are taking place in atomized societies which do not enforce strenuously sex taboos (quite different from the small, and highly cohesive hunter-gatherer or horticulturalist societies), and/or in societies themselves the inheritors of agricultural societies where having multiple children has been heavily encouraged for hundred, if not thousands of years. 

It's not like we don't have sources for that either, from hunter-gatherers themselves: 17th and 18th century missionaries in North America had that explained to them quite clearly by the people they attempted to convert (and, in the cases of Catholic missionaries, their celibacy became associated with the form of celebrated masculinity which proved their valor - their refusal to engage in battle proved more puzzling).

Paleolithic people =/= retarded.

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
As if nowadays rampant poverty and the inability to support more children adequately stops people from having more children. I refuse to believe  the humans of more than 14 thousand years before us would have a better grasp on procreation and it's effects on their local economic and natural circumstances, than people of today.

The problem of overpopulation in poor countries is like a Prisoner's Dilemma: everyone would be better off if everyone stopped having so many kids. However, individual parents require having as many kids as possible - because without a large family, there is no security. You need to have lots of kids to support you, individually: a big kin system = safety.

This is why, paradoxically, if a country transitions in such a way as to make things more "modern" (like developing some sort of social security net, more reliance on ways of like other than subsistence farming, etc.), the birth rate tends to go *down*. It is in part because folks cease needing lots of kids to survive. Also, as education becomes a priority, each kid costs more (but can deliver more).

There are plenty of other reasons as well - decline in adherence to religious traditions that stress fertility as a virtue, increase in the status of women. But it is hard to deny that there are some self-interested reasons behind this as well.

Thought it was established that subsistence hunter-gatherer societies had only as many children as could be reasonably carried by mothers when required to shift into Haul Ass Mode. Fake anthropological studies!  So sad!

Or, you know, they had exactly as many children as they could carry because the rest of the children died.


And so, the reason they had exactly as many children as they could support is that the excess just died.

lol Hunter

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2017, 11:46:01 AM
Or, you know, they had exactly as many children as they could carry because the rest of the children died.


And so, the reason they had exactly as many children as they could support is that the excess just died.

How many beets can you carry, mortality rates aside?

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
As if nowadays rampant poverty and the inability to support more children adequately stops people from having more children. I refuse to believe  the humans of more than 14 thousand years before us would have a better grasp on procreation and it's effects on their local economic and natural circumstances, than people of today.

nowadays situation is from the perspective of usually sedentary but Always non-hunter-gatherer societies where it's usually smart to have many children.

Ed's pastoral theme is "antebellum Mengele chic" featured in the April 2014 issue of Better Cults & Compounds.

Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
Restriction of sex is not the only way to deliberately limit number of children - there is also abortion and infanticide, which also happened (though to what degree is controversial).

Yeah, I've definitely seen it argued that infanticide was not uncommon but I have no idea whether that was someone's "just so" story or based on solid evidence.

Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2017, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
Restriction of sex is not the only way to deliberately limit number of children - there is also abortion and infanticide, which also happened (though to what degree is controversial).

Yeah, I've definitely seen it argued that infanticide was not uncommon but I have no idea whether that was someone's "just so" story or based on solid evidence.

My guess based on the things I've read off an on is this: researchers know that HGs fertility rate is low. They don't really know for sure why. There are two sets of reasons that get mentioned: one deals with physical causes beyond the control of individual HGs; the other, various reasons within the control of HGs. Unfortunately, hard evidence lacks as to the impact of these various mechanisms, so we can't definitively say HGs *deliberately* control their fertility, or if so, exactly how - though it certainly seems likely, and if they wanted to, there are ways.

All these mechanisms can be shown to exist to some extent, in different degrees with different groups, but their exact impact is hard to measure - particularly given the (very human) tendency of existing HGs to not really wish to discuss intimate details concerning sexual practices, or possibly upsetting details concerning abortion and infanticide, with some foreign researchers who just show up asking questions.

Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
All these mechanisms can be shown to exist to some extent, in different degrees with different groups, but their exact impact is hard to measure - particularly given the (very human) tendency of existing HGs to not really wish to discuss intimate details concerning sexual practices, or possibly upsetting details concerning abortion and infanticide, with some foreign researchers who just show up asking questions.

Simply solved with hidden cameras. Hell, if the HGs are truly backwards the cameras won't even have to be hidden. Surely we can study subjects who won't answer questions? Otherwise nuclear physics and ichthyology are pretty much screwed.

Quote from: The Brain on May 11, 2017, 01:34:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
All these mechanisms can be shown to exist to some extent, in different degrees with different groups, but their exact impact is hard to measure - particularly given the (very human) tendency of existing HGs to not really wish to discuss intimate details concerning sexual practices, or possibly upsetting details concerning abortion and infanticide, with some foreign researchers who just show up asking questions.

Simply solved with hidden cameras. Hell, if the HGs are truly backwards the cameras won't even have to be hidden. Surely we can study subjects who won't answer questions? Otherwise nuclear physics and ichthyology are pretty much screwed.

Hard to get funding for bugging the Kalahari Desert.  :lol:

Do we know of similar societal birth control mechanism for other mammals, or is this something that was developed than lost exclusively by Homo sapiens?

Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
Do we know of similar societal birth control mechanism for other mammals, or is this something that was developed than lost exclusively by Homo sapiens?

What do you mean "lost"? We in the West do these sorts of things right now.

What has changed is that the mix of techniques has totally changed.

We have added artificial contraception to the mix, hardly use lactation induced contraception at all, have basically no reliance on sexual taboos, have (probably) increased reliance on abortion, and far, far lower reliance on infanticide (which is now a crime).

No-one (or rather, very few) consciously think "well, if I have more kids, the carrying capacity of North America will be strained". Rather, they think things like "I can't afford to have more kids, it would totally screw up my lifestyle". 

Quote from: The Brain on May 11, 2017, 12:17:44 PM
lol Hunter

Out of curiosity, what is your Christian name?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2017, 04:21:30 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 11, 2017, 12:17:44 PM
lol Hunter

Out of curiosity, what is your Christian name?

I mentioned it once on Old Languish. I thought you kept track of posters?

That's Raz's job.

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

Quote from: dps on May 11, 2017, 06:07:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

I find that hard to believe.

Also, people are forgetting the benefits of butt secks. No babies. Maybe HG are freaks in the sheets :P

Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
Restriction of sex is not the only way to deliberately limit number of children - there is also abortion and infanticide, which also happened (though to what degree is controversial).

Naturally.  If that is what you meant by "they practiced birth spacing to keep populations down," then we are in agreement.

Quote from: dps on May 11, 2017, 06:07:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

This is sort of Clan of the Cave Bear type thinking.  It seems that there may well have been such a link at least as far back (50kya) as the increase in art, decoration, and burial rites among humans.  I do not have enough expertise to debate whether or not this goes further back, but the sex leads to babies seems to be at least more than a tenuous understanding for a long time.

Quote from: PDH on May 11, 2017, 09:20:06 PM

Quote from: dps on May 11, 2017, 06:07:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

This is sort of Clan of the Cave Bear type thinking.  It seems that there may well have been such a link at least as far back (50kya) as the increase in art, decoration, and burial rites among humans.  I do not have enough expertise to debate whether or not this goes further back, but the sex leads to babies seems to be at least more than a tenuous understanding for a long time.

You'd think observation of animals would make that clear even if their observations of themselves didn't.  Early man was as smart and observant as we are.

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 09:26:56 PM
You'd think observation of animals would make that clear even if their observations of themselves didn't.  Early man was as smart and observant as we are.

The only quibbleis if there was some sort of change around 50kya, with the established finds in art, tools, and such.  There might (and that is a tenuous might) have been some sort of change then that allowed the dispersal of information that allowed such findings to become cultural.  We don't have morphological change then, but we do have an explosion of changes in cultural remains.  Again, I am not an expert in this, just remembering old classes.

kilo years antes?

I didn't know year was a metric unit.  :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2017, 10:36:07 PM
kilo years antes?

kilo years ago, I'm guessing.

Quote from: dps on May 11, 2017, 06:07:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

wut

Big plot point in Clan of the Cave Bear

Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2017, 09:51:35 AM
Big plot point in Clan of the Cave Bear

My anthropological education has been sorely lacking, I now see. I never read  Clan of the Cave Bear.  :(

Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2017, 12:04:29 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 08, 2017, 10:50:33 PM
A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.

It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

And what we gained in deadlier weapons, we way over compensated with medicine, hygiene, nutrition etc.

Not every bit of technology is a collective good, but technology overall is.

One problem with technology is that the first nuclear war will multiply by zero all the progress it has previously brought, and then subtract some more.

Don't you mean the second one?

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 09:26:56 PM

Quote from: PDH on May 11, 2017, 09:20:06 PM

Quote from: dps on May 11, 2017, 06:07:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2017, 10:28:27 AM

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely. 

So do I, in large part because it was my understanding that humans didn't even realize the link between sex and pregnancy until shortly before the dawn of history.

This is sort of Clan of the Cave Bear type thinking.  It seems that there may well have been such a link at least as far back (50kya) as the increase in art, decoration, and burial rites among humans.  I do not have enough expertise to debate whether or not this goes further back, but the sex leads to babies seems to be at least more than a tenuous understanding for a long time.

You'd think observation of animals would make that clear even if their observations of themselves didn't.  Early man was as smart and observant as we are.

I thought it was an odd notion, too, but I didn't get it from Clan of the Cave Bear.  I can't remember where I did get it from, but it was somewhat backed up when I later came across a reference to the natives of the Nicobar Islands (I think it was the Nicobars) didn't know about the link between intercourse and pregnancy at the time they were first encountered by Europeans.

Quote from: dps on May 12, 2017, 04:46:53 PM

I thought it was an odd notion, too, but I didn't get it from Clan of the Cave Bear.  I can't remember where I did get it from, but it was somewhat backed up when I later came across a reference to the natives of the Nicobar Islands (I think it was the Nicobars) didn't know about the link between intercourse and pregnancy at the time they were first encountered by Europeans.

My first thought would be to take such things with a grain of salt.  The one of the major views in the Age of Discovery was that the natives were simple childlike people, and a lot of the things written about them were in this vein.

Clan of the Cave Bear movie :bleeding:

It'll make you rent Quest for Fire, so you can immolate yourself for watching it.

Clan of the Cave Bear (book) was talked about a lot when I was doing my MA in Anthropology.  Mostly it was talked about as wrong and how it got a generation of people into Anthropology with fucked up ideas...

Quote from: PDH on May 12, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Clan of the Cave Bear (book) was talked about a lot when I was doing my MA in Anthropology.  Mostly it was talked about as wrong and how it got a generation of people into Anthropology with fucked up ideas...

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/unfrozen-caveman-lawyer/2862211

Quote from: PDH on May 12, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Clan of the Cave Bear (book) was talked about a lot when I was doing my MA in Anthropology.  Mostly it was talked about as wrong and how it got a generation of people into Anthropology with fucked up ideas...

That is fucking stupid. I hate people who complain about populat culture in that manner.

If it gets people into anthropology, that is good. Full stop.

Anyone it gets in who is fucking stupid enough to be stunned once they get in that this work of fiction doesn't align well with actual science, was never going to make it as a scientist to begin with, so who cares?

Science needs to embrace *anything* in our fucking anti-science culture that gets people interested. Obscure, poorly funded, niche sciences like anthropology even more so than others.

Imagine 11B's surprise that the army wasn't like Sgt. Bilko at all. 

Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2017, 11:57:05 AM

Quote from: PDH on May 12, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Clan of the Cave Bear (book) was talked about a lot when I was doing my MA in Anthropology.  Mostly it was talked about as wrong and how it got a generation of people into Anthropology with fucked up ideas...

That is fucking stupid. I hate people who complain about populat culture in that manner.

If it gets people into anthropology, that is good. Full stop.

Anyone it gets in who is fucking stupid enough to be stunned once they get in that this work of fiction doesn't align well with actual science, was never going to make it as a scientist to begin with, so who cares?

Science needs to embrace *anything* in our fucking anti-science culture that gets people interested. Obscure, poorly funded, niche sciences like anthropology even more so than others.

Uh, anthropology isn't like physics or astronomy.  It doesn't weed out people with wrong ideas so easily.  Profoundly stupid ideas have remained mainstream in the "softer sciences".  You still have people trying to prove Margaret Murray's theories, which eventually became a religion.

Fuck off Raz. 

I didn't you were a Wiccan.  I am sorry for offending your cultural heritage.

Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2017, 11:57:05 AM

That is fucking stupid. I hate people who complain about populat culture in that manner.

If it gets people into anthropology, that is good. Full stop.

Anyone it gets in who is fucking stupid enough to be stunned once they get in that this work of fiction doesn't align well with actual science, was never going to make it as a scientist to begin with, so who cares?

Science needs to embrace *anything* in our fucking anti-science culture that gets people interested. Obscure, poorly funded, niche sciences like anthropology even more so than others.

You live in a very black or white world.  It brings in a lot of dross, dross that potentially takes away from more reasoned, focused, and thought out points.  As Raz slammed, it isn't a hard science, but it does rely on attempts at objectivity and critical theory-based knowledge.  Sure some might become worthwhile candidates to further the field (or hell, even just a bachelors in Anthropology), but most will hate when reality conflicts with their views.

An undergraduate class with several vocal idiots who refuse to accept that what they read in a work of fiction isn't true (and these types are quite willing to argue the points over and over ad nauseum) takes away from learning those more critical positions.  I saw this over and over - from the kid in the front row arguing with me about the factual nature of 300, to the student who demanded why I didn't talk about the prehistoric warrior empresses of the Near East.

What we need isn't a bunch of newly minted pseudo-powerwoman paleontologists (or graphic novel true believers) but rather more critical thinking culturally.  Attracting idiots into a class they are not ready for, won't understand, and later on will condemn as "awful" is not the way to fix the anti-science views of this land.

Then again, this was at a landgrant university that was tasked with allowing the students of Wyoming to come to 13th grade even if they weren't suited to ask "would you like fries with that?"  so my views might be a bit jaded.

Anthropology is just an excuse to look at boobs.

Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
Anthropology is just an excuse to look at boobs.

Well, yeah.

Quote from: PDH on May 14, 2017, 03:38:17 PM
You live in a very black or white world.  It brings in a lot of dross, dross that potentially takes away from more reasoned, focused, and thought out points.  As Raz slammed, it isn't a hard science, but it does rely on attempts at objectivity and critical theory-based knowledge.  Sure some might become worthwhile candidates to further the field (or hell, even just a bachelors in Anthropology), but most will hate when reality conflicts with their views.

An undergraduate class with several vocal idiots who refuse to accept that what they read in a work of fiction isn't true (and these types are quite willing to argue the points over and over ad nauseum) takes away from learning those more critical positions.  I saw this over and over - from the kid in the front row arguing with me about the factual nature of 300, to the student who demanded why I didn't talk about the prehistoric warrior empresses of the Near East.

What we need isn't a bunch of newly minted pseudo-powerwoman paleontologists (or graphic novel true believers) but rather more critical thinking culturally.  Attracting idiots into a class they are not ready for, won't understand, and later on will condemn as "awful" is not the way to fix the anti-science views of this land.

Then again, this was at a landgrant university that was tasked with allowing the students of Wyoming to come to 13th grade even if they weren't suited to ask "would you like fries with that?"  so my views might be a bit jaded.

Think of all the money we could save if we could simply reject idiots who want to talk about the historical validity of 300, etc, and then fire half the anthropology professors since there wouldn't be enough students left to require them.

Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2017, 04:35:55 PM
Think of all the money we could save if we could simply reject idiots who want to talk about the historical validity of 300, etc, and then fire half the anthropology professors since there wouldn't be enough students left to require them.

Might as well, they fired me.

Quote from: PDH on May 14, 2017, 04:01:40 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
Anthropology is just an excuse to look at boobs.

Well, yeah.

Ick.  National Geographic titties never have support. There's no lift and separation.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2017, 05:58:01 PM

Quote from: PDH on May 14, 2017, 04:01:40 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
Anthropology is just an excuse to look at boobs.

Well, yeah.

Ick.  National Geographic titties never have support. There's no lift and separation.

Well here's a fine pair for your edification.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb50ym1n8ryw31pmkr4671ui1c64.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F11%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F06%2F343605_BlueFootedBoobyDance_Galapagos_MeganandTrippMcCoy_640x455.jpg&hash=2ba275b4cdc9760609f9bd6c86ae5d34ab8bab8f)

Those look like boobies, not tits.  :sleep:

Anthropology sounds fascinating.  Useless but fascinating.  It would be essential for a small number of scholars to keep researching this stuff and to preserve the collective knowledge.  But most students should study coding, not anthropology  :P

Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
But most students should study coding, not anthropology  :P

Sure.  We remove all social sciences from universities, then we put 50% of our coders on unemployment and we fail to grasp why ;)

Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Anthropology sounds fascinating.  Useless but fascinating.  It would be essential for a small number of scholars to keep researching this stuff and to preserve the collective knowledge.  But most students should study coding, not anthropology  :P

Not sure I agree there.
The days where coding was the path to riches are over, and the ability to earn a  living from coding in the developed world is becoming less and less

Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Anthropology sounds fascinating.  Useless but fascinating.  It would be essential for a small number of scholars to keep researching this stuff and to preserve the collective knowledge.  But most students should study coding, not anthropology  :P

We will need someone to study the cultural habits of all those masses of unemployed coders.  :D

But seriously - one of the problems is that "picking winners" in terms of what kids today ought to study to do well in future years is tough. Computer programming is an example of where lots of folks got it wrong - when I was going to school it was thought to be the road to riches, and it may have been for some, but for others it was the road to working IT support at best.

Mind you, anthropology is and unlikely road to riches - if that road was straight (the demand for scholars in the field will never be high). It isn't bad, though, as a starting point for other things.

Quote from: PDH on May 14, 2017, 03:38:17 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2017, 11:57:05 AM

That is fucking stupid. I hate people who complain about populat culture in that manner.

If it gets people into anthropology, that is good. Full stop.

Anyone it gets in who is fucking stupid enough to be stunned once they get in that this work of fiction doesn't align well with actual science, was never going to make it as a scientist to begin with, so who cares?

Science needs to embrace *anything* in our fucking anti-science culture that gets people interested. Obscure, poorly funded, niche sciences like anthropology even more so than others.

You live in a very black or white world.  It brings in a lot of dross, dross that potentially takes away from more reasoned, focused, and thought out points.  As Raz slammed, it isn't a hard science, but it does rely on attempts at objectivity and critical theory-based knowledge.  Sure some might become worthwhile candidates to further the field (or hell, even just a bachelors in Anthropology), but most will hate when reality conflicts with their views.

I call bullshit. Most people who read clan of the cave bear and then take an anthro course are going to hate it if said course doesn't align with the work of fiction they read?

Got a cite for that? Some kind of evidence?

I think most people know that fiction is in fact fiction, and most people who take an anthropology course who would not otherwise are well served by doing so, and anthropology is well served by the increased interest.

Quote

An undergraduate class with several vocal idiots who refuse to accept that what they read in a work of fiction isn't true (and these types are quite willing to argue the points over and over ad nauseum) takes away from learning those more critical positions.  I saw this over and over - from the kid in the front row arguing with me about the factual nature of 300, to the student who demanded why I didn't talk about the prehistoric warrior empresses of the Near East.

Meh, I think this is more a imagined thing than a real thing. I went to college, and yeah, there is a small minority of dumbasses, but they are mostly ignored, and any mediocre professor has a half dozen tricks in their bag to shut down that kind of distracting crap.

And it exists no matter what anyway. There are always dumbasses in the world, and I don't think they increase by reading fiction that doesn't align with the latest thinking in anthropolgy or history.

Quote

What we need isn't a bunch of newly minted pseudo-powerwoman paleontologists (or graphic novel true believers) but rather more critical thinking culturally.  Attracting idiots into a class they are not ready for, won't understand, and later on will condemn as "awful" is not the way to fix the anti-science views of this land.

How does someone get ready for an undergrad introduction to anthropology or history?

interest is the #1 requisite for anyone taking an exploratory interest in a new field. Whining that their interest is not "pure" enough is elitist crap, IMO. Who cares why they are interested? THEY ARE INTERESTED! Channel it, mold it, and enlighten them and others. That is what teaching is about.

Not sticking your nose up and declaring that some history students interest is not ideologically pure enough to allow him in a college class because he was turned on to Greek history because he read 300 and thought it was cool.

Quote

Then again, this was at a landgrant university that was tasked with allowing the students of Wyoming to come to 13th grade even if they weren't suited to ask "would you like fries with that?"  so my views might be a bit jaded.

Yeah, I think they might be - silly students and their silly interest in learning!

Yeah that was PDH's problem. His students were just too interested in learning. Drove him nuts.  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2017, 09:30:00 AM
Yeah that was PDH's problem. His students were just too interested in learning. Drove him nuts.  :lol:

If they didn't come to their interest in learning via a pure enough path, he hated it.  But, since he doesn't still have the job anyway, that's a moot point.

There were times in my college classrooms when i would have been happy to have someone interested enough in the topic to argue about it.  That was community college, and so many students were there just because their parents made them "stay in school."

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 09:45:30 AM

If they didn't come to their interest in learning via a pure enough path, he hated it.

Not true. He has made many posts about his career over the years. Granted, mostly for entertainment value. I don't see any basis for attacking him professionally like this except for a cheap ad hominem.

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 09:45:30 AM

If they didn't come to their interest in learning via a pure enough path, he hated it.

It is nice to see you make stuff up to try and be funny.  Or, make stuff up to be an asshole.  Or both.

Quote from: PDH on May 15, 2017, 10:00:38 AM
It is nice to see you make stuff up to try and be funny.  Or, make stuff up to be an asshole.  Or both.

Just trying to imitate the master.  Could it be that neither of us was being entirely serious?

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 09:23:48 AM
How does someone get ready for an undergrad introduction to anthropology or history?

interest is the #1 requisite for anyone taking an exploratory interest in a new field. Whining that their interest is not "pure" enough is elitist crap, IMO. Who cares why they are interested? THEY ARE INTERESTED! Channel it, mold it, and enlighten them and others. That is what teaching is about.

"Does this fit my Gen Ed elective requirement for non-lab social science?  Sweet! Beer bong!"

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 09:23:48 AM
Got a cite for that? Some kind of evidence?

:huh: Is classroom experience not enough? You think PDH made stuff up? Isn't Languish, of all places, not evidence enough of that dynamic, of the detrimental effect to conversation when one argues obstinately any minute point of detail on matters where expertise was acquired five minutes before by googling about it? 

For what it's worth, what PDH expresses corresponds to some of my experience too, and I teach in a very, very selective college. It's never as simple as fiction vs non-fiction: trouble comes with fictions with truth-claims, and fictionalized documentaries... It's got nothing to do with pure vs impure interest. If students get into the Haitian Revolution because of Assassin's Creed, all the better for it. The fictionalized claims of Assassin's Creed are far enough from history to be unproblematic. But there are some topics which produce a lot of source material to sustain one's specific enthusiastic claims, say, "How the Irish Saved Civilization", and there is a moment when enthusiasm veers into douchebaggery, for very little worthwhile outcome (think clip vs magazine). And such are unequally distributed. As a student, my worse classrooms experience by far were my courses on WWII, because they were peopled with guys who thought the purpose of any lecture was to quibble over units and armament based on their knowledge of cardboard counters and their memorization of order of battle from the Osprey books. 

And if something has enough of a hold over the popular imagination, any class can easily transform into a Sisyphean task of dismantling what has been so passionately embraced. In that context - and in the context of social sciences and history taken as electives - it is highly debatable whether or not some of these works actually benefit a greater understanding of the matters at stake.

This is coming from the perspective of someone who *likes* to build courses around matters of popular imagination, but I do that precisely because one of the main purposes of those classes will be to fight the extremely ingrained worldview that these shows rely on. Not every class should be like this, and I can totally understand how, *sometimes*, about *certain* works, one could think it's more pedagogical trouble than it's worth, beyond your demands for unfailing celebration. 

Well, at least you've put to rest the idea that the problem is elitist whining about the purity of interest.

I guess we can go back to bitching about how much better the world would be without "wrong" fiction and Osprey books cluttering the minds of the peasants and making them interested in topics that should be reserved for those who already have embraced the particular world views of their instructors?

I've been to college as well, and taught as well. Of course, I taught useless stuff like computer science, where we never, ever had to spend time addressing the fact that the actual state of the science might not align with what intro students expect (especially self taught ones, lord knows THAT never happened), or are already convinced is THE TRUTH. So I guess I was just fortunate to find that doing so really wasn't all that hard, and managing students and their pre-conceived notions was simply a skill I was expected to either have, or at least learn as a matter of course. Certainly nothing herculean or in the top twenty things to find annoying about teaching 18 year old undergrads.

Personally, I don't find it all that debatable that things that spark the interest of people who otherwise might not even be exposed to a field are pretty much great - full stop.

I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
I guess we can go back to bitching about how much better the world would be without "wrong" fiction and Osprey books cluttering the minds of the peasants and making them interested in topics that should be reserved for those who already have embraced the particular world views of their instructors?

I guess those who were making those claims can get back to them. Whoever they were.

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

No, no, no.  Let him keep going.

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Someone is certainly missing some point somewhere.

Probably Seedy.

I need this elective, man. 

Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2017, 01:47:19 AM
Not sure I agree there.
The days where coding was the path to riches are over, and the ability to earn a  living from coding in the developed world is becoming less and less

iirc Steve Jobs advocated teaching everyone coding as a liberal art.

Well, he's dead now and you can't use your own headphones anymore, so there you go.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2017, 07:14:29 PM
Well, he's dead now and you can't use your own headphones anymore, so there you go.

:lol:

Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2017, 01:47:19 AM
Not sure I agree there.
The days where coding was the path to riches are over, and the ability to earn a  living from coding in the developed world is becoming less and less

it's becoming more like stats and basic calcules: not essential to live your life, but damn good to have.

Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
It isn't bad, though, as a starting point for other things.

Like law school?

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 15, 2017, 03:09:31 PM
where expertise was acquired five minutes before by googling about it? 

That's how I became an expert in human empathy  :glare:

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
I guess we can go back to bitching about how much better the world would be without "wrong" fiction and Osprey books cluttering the minds of the peasants and making them interested in topics that should be reserved for those who already have embraced the particular world views of their instructors?

That's not what Oex said.

Since we need to make it simpler these days, he's talking about pre-conceived ideas that persists after the facts are exposed.

Example:
-We need to prime the pump.  Did you ever hear about that?  Priming the pump?  I love it.
- Yes I heard about it.
- That surprises me, I just invented it, two days ago.  Priming the pump. It's excellent.
- I heard it many times before, I heard Krugan talk about it, and he was referring to Roosevelt using the term for his New Deal
- Really? Because I never heard it before.  I'm pretty sure no one talked about priming the pump before me.  That's fantastic.  I mean, it's a fantastic expression, "priming the pump".  No one ever tought of that before.  It's great.


That is the kind of bullshit PDH and Oex, I believe are talking about.

Or me teaching Oex about the life of sailors based on Pirates of the Caribean and refusing to read anything serious he sends me on the subject of piracy in the 17th-18th century.

I've known him for years on two different forums, we had and we still have many disagreements, but he's never seemed elitist (quite the opposite, in fact, on a very specific issue dealing precisely with that: "History to historians and no one else") about history and welcomes any debate about his discipline and his studies&teaching in particular (though it's a little too refined for many of us to really engage in the finer points of sailsmanship in the carribeans 1666-1674), so long as we stick with facts.  Interpretation of facts is one thing.  Different fields of interests is one thing (he doesn't like military history, but never said it was full of crooks/wizard/sorcerers nor ever gave any indication he was thinking such a thing), different level of understanding (studying a subject for years means you accumulate references amateurs won't have, even if Google is a very good search engine ;) ) is a given, just like any of us would have arguing with Paul Krugman.  But that does not make it "elitist", unless you've turned all Trumpist on us and knowledge is now less important than beliefs.

Quote from: Maximus on May 15, 2017, 07:08:17 PM

Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2017, 01:47:19 AM
Not sure I agree there.
The days where coding was the path to riches are over, and the ability to earn a  living from coding in the developed world is becoming less and less

iirc Steve Jobs advocated teaching everyone coding as a liberal art.

I'd have taken coding over art and music anytime.  When a teacher threatened us with doing maths instead of art if we did not stop speaking, I was the one speaking louder than everyone.  It never worked :(

Quote from: viper37 on May 15, 2017, 07:43:35 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 15, 2017, 03:09:31 PM
where expertise was acquired five minutes before by googling about it? 

That's how I became an expert in human empathy  :glare:

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Someone is certainly missing some point somewhere.

The irony is rich in this discussion.  I don't think you'll get very far in getting them to re-examine their "known truths," but it is fun to watch you try.  It's almost like I am in the very classrooms they describe.

Quote from: viper37 on May 15, 2017, 07:39:43 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
It isn't bad, though, as a starting point for other things.

Like law school?

Sure. Among other things.

Being able to analyze and understand messy facts about humans is valuable for a lot of professions dealing with, well, humans.  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 08:57:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Someone is certainly missing some point somewhere.

The irony is rich in this discussion.  I don't think you'll get very far in getting them to re-examine their "known truths," but it is fun to watch you try.  It's almost like I am in the very classrooms they describe.

Whats interesting is that they are talking about a particular stereotype - the annoying freshman who thinks they know ever so much about a subject they actually know very little about, but is quite convinced of their expertise.

Those people do exist. Lord knows I've had to deal with them.

But they are not new, they are not different, there are no more of them now then there ever was, and honestly, I think it is part of the job of a teacher to know how to

A) Deal with them in the classroom so as to not distract from the rest of the class, and
B) Try to channel their interest and enthusiasm in a constructive manner so that in the act of making sure to handle A, you don't destroy their interest.

And there is another stereotype that exists, and that is, IMO, a hell of a lot more damaging than individual students. The full of themselves professor who is pissed off they have had to lower themselves to teaching a bunch of damn freshman some intro course that is surely not worth their time and beneath their lofty status in the field. And they sure as hell aren't putting up with some punk 18 year old who thinks they know anything about anything. And that is how this comes across to me.

And the annoying freshman? A good teacher can handle them pretty easily, and they are one person who have little power to screw anyone else up if said instructor knows how to handle them.

The self important professor? There is not much that can be done about that guy once he stands up and starts teaching, and they are going to have a negative impact on the experience of the entire classroom.

In sum, my response to bitches about students who think they know more than they do is...."So what? That comes with teaching. You might as well complain about chalk dust or having to have office hours." Managing the classroom is your job.

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
Well, at least you've put to rest the idea that the problem is elitist whining about the purity of interest.

I guess we can go back to bitching about how much better the world would be without "wrong" fiction and Osprey books cluttering the minds of the peasants and making them interested in topics that should be reserved for those who already have embraced the particular world views of their instructors?

I've been to college as well, and taught as well. Of course, I taught useless stuff like computer science, where we never, ever had to spend time addressing the fact that the actual state of the science might not align with what intro students expect (especially self taught ones, lord knows THAT never happened), or are already convinced is THE TRUTH. So I guess I was just fortunate to find that doing so really wasn't all that hard, and managing students and their pre-conceived notions was simply a skill I was expected to either have, or at least learn as a matter of course. Certainly nothing herculean or in the top twenty things to find annoying about teaching 18 year old undergrads.

Personally, I don't find it all that debatable that things that spark the interest of people who otherwise might not even be exposed to a field are pretty much great - full stop.

I have taught classes similar to the type PDH is talking about where students come into class with very strong ideas about what the law is or should be (kind of like when Grumbler tells us that drunk girls should somehow be accountable when they get raped).  Debate and speculation about future trends in the law is good, but first the students need to know what the law is and how we got to where we are now.   If they don't understand that then it is very hard to have a reasoned discussion about what might happen next.  The problem is some student's don't let things like reading actual cases get in the way of their preconceived ideas of what the law is or should be and don't engage well in discussions about what the case law actually is.  That sort of dynamic may not happen much in a coding class and that is perhaps why you are having trouble understanding the point PDH and Oex are making.

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 08:39:39 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 08:57:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Someone is certainly missing some point somewhere.

The irony is rich in this discussion.  I don't think you'll get very far in getting them to re-examine their "known truths," but it is fun to watch you try.  It's almost like I am in the very classrooms they describe.

Whats interesting is that they are talking about a particular stereotype - the annoying freshman who thinks they know ever so much about a subject they actually know very little about, but is quite convinced of their expertise.

Those people do exist. Lord knows I've had to deal with them.

But they are not new, they are not different, there are no more of them now then there ever was, and honestly, I think it is part of the job of a teacher to know how to

A) Deal with them in the classroom so as to not distract from the rest of the class, and
B) Try to channel their interest and enthusiasm in a constructive manner so that in the act of making sure to handle A, you don't destroy their interest.

And there is another stereotype that exists, and that is, IMO, a hell of a lot more damaging than individual students. The full of themselves professor who is pissed off they have had to lower themselves to teaching a bunch of damn freshman some intro course that is surely not worth their time and beneath their lofty status in the field. And they sure as hell aren't putting up with some punk 18 year old who thinks they know anything about anything. And that is how this comes across to me.

And the annoying freshman? A good teacher can handle them pretty easily, and they are one person who have little power to screw anyone else up if said instructor knows how to handle them.

The self important professor? There is not much that can be done about that guy once he stands up and starts teaching, and they are going to have a negative impact on the experience of the entire classroom.

In sum, my response to bitches about students who think they know more than they do is...."So what? That comes with teaching. You might as well complain about chalk dust or having to have office hours." Managing the classroom is your job.

Wow, are you really trying to suggest PDH just wasn't up to it

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 09:00:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
Well, at least you've put to rest the idea that the problem is elitist whining about the purity of interest.

I guess we can go back to bitching about how much better the world would be without "wrong" fiction and Osprey books cluttering the minds of the peasants and making them interested in topics that should be reserved for those who already have embraced the particular world views of their instructors?

I've been to college as well, and taught as well. Of course, I taught useless stuff like computer science, where we never, ever had to spend time addressing the fact that the actual state of the science might not align with what intro students expect (especially self taught ones, lord knows THAT never happened), or are already convinced is THE TRUTH. So I guess I was just fortunate to find that doing so really wasn't all that hard, and managing students and their pre-conceived notions was simply a skill I was expected to either have, or at least learn as a matter of course. Certainly nothing herculean or in the top twenty things to find annoying about teaching 18 year old undergrads.

Personally, I don't find it all that debatable that things that spark the interest of people who otherwise might not even be exposed to a field are pretty much great - full stop.

I have taught classes similar to the type PDH is talking about where students come into class with very strong ideas about what the law is or should be (kind of like when Grumbler tells us that drunk girls should somehow be accountable when they get raped).  Debate and speculation about future trends in the law is good, but first the students need to know what the law is and how we got to where we are now.   If they don't understand that then it is very hard to have a reasoned discussion about what might happen next.  The problem is some student's don't let things like reading actual cases get in the way of their preconceived ideas of what the law is or should be and don't engage well in discussions about what the case law actually is.  That sort of dynamic may not happen much in a coding class and that is perhaps why you are having trouble understanding the point PDH and Oex are making.

You need to stop these feeble attempts of disproving Berkut's preconceptions with your relevant personal experiences.

Students ill-prepared for a small seminar or colloquium--like the psychology major jumping into an advanced IR Theory course with no relevant coursework background--can be a terrible distraction and a drag on the learning environment for both instructor and all students involved, but Berkut is always right when he knows what he's talking about, so fuck all you miserable academia cunts. 
You keep trafficking in the truth, B.  Don't let these ivory tower fucks get one over you.  Ignorant ass educators.

Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 08:39:39 AM
The full of themselves professor who is pissed off they have had to lower themselves to teaching a bunch of damn freshman some intro course that is surely not worth their time and beneath their lofty status in the field. And they sure as hell aren't putting up with some punk 18 year old who thinks they know anything about anything.

it is true, but beside the subject of this discussion.

Quote
And that is how this comes across to me.

And you asummed wrongly, clearly.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

Only to rubes like you who resent academics on principle.

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

He's not elitist, he's French (-Canadian) :P

Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2017, 10:33:31 AM

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

Only to rubes like you who resent academics on principle.

:huh:

That was a pretty rude thing to say in that context BB. I know that was not your intention.

BB's gonna take it out on the locals.  Warrants for everybody!

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 09:00:21 AM
...kind of like when Grumbler tells us that drunk girls should somehow be accountable when they get raped... 

Yep.  Feel like I'm right back in the classroom dealing with the kid who won't read the assignment because reading makes his head hurt, so he just decides for himself what he wants the words to mean.  Thanks for the flashback.

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 10:43:13 AM
That was a pretty rude honest thing to say in that context BB. I know that was not your intention.

FTFY   Why are we pretending that Oex is somehow not able to take any heat?

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Just embrace it.
Problem is being able to afford to play the role.  Cognac and champagne is pricy these days.  But you can just substitute Calvados and Cava, the ignorant hoi polloi here won't know the difference.

Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2017, 10:56:46 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 09:00:21 AM
...kind of like when Grumbler tells us that drunk girls should somehow be accountable when they get raped... 

Yep.  Feel like I'm right back in the classroom dealing with the kid who won't read the assignment because reading makes his head hurt, so he just decides for himself what he wants the words to mean.  Thanks for the flashback.

I see you've also been taking the UK ambassador to tusk:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39937822 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39937822)

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 09:02:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 08:39:39 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 08:57:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
I think you've completely missed the point Oex and PDH have been making.

Someone is certainly missing some point somewhere.

The irony is rich in this discussion.  I don't think you'll get very far in getting them to re-examine their "known truths," but it is fun to watch you try.  It's almost like I am in the very classrooms they describe.

Whats interesting is that they are talking about a particular stereotype - the annoying freshman who thinks they know ever so much about a subject they actually know very little about, but is quite convinced of their expertise.

Those people do exist. Lord knows I've had to deal with them.

But they are not new, they are not different, there are no more of them now then there ever was, and honestly, I think it is part of the job of a teacher to know how to

A) Deal with them in the classroom so as to not distract from the rest of the class, and
B) Try to channel their interest and enthusiasm in a constructive manner so that in the act of making sure to handle A, you don't destroy their interest.

And there is another stereotype that exists, and that is, IMO, a hell of a lot more damaging than individual students. The full of themselves professor who is pissed off they have had to lower themselves to teaching a bunch of damn freshman some intro course that is surely not worth their time and beneath their lofty status in the field. And they sure as hell aren't putting up with some punk 18 year old who thinks they know anything about anything. And that is how this comes across to me.

And the annoying freshman? A good teacher can handle them pretty easily, and they are one person who have little power to screw anyone else up if said instructor knows how to handle them.

The self important professor? There is not much that can be done about that guy once he stands up and starts teaching, and they are going to have a negative impact on the experience of the entire classroom.

In sum, my response to bitches about students who think they know more than they do is...."So what? That comes with teaching. You might as well complain about chalk dust or having to have office hours." Managing the classroom is your job.

Wow, are you really trying to suggest PDH just wasn't up to it

Not really. He could just be venting, but perfectly up to dealing with it.

But there are instructors out there who are not up to it, and instructors who have a generally shitty attitude towards their students, and comments like the ones he has made does remind of those professors, which are a lot more problematic than any number of dumbass students.

Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2017, 11:03:40 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 10:43:13 AM
That was a pretty rude honest thing to say in that context BB. I know that was not your intention.

FTFY   Why are we pretending that Oex is somehow not able to take any heat?

I am pretending no such thing. I have had many arguments with Oex in the past and he has never reacted in a snobby or contemptuous way. You, on the other hand, do so about 90% of the time.

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

BB, I think you have been spending too much time on anti-intellectual right wing internet sites.

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 11:20:25 AM

Not really. He could just be venting, but perfectly up to dealing with it.

But there are instructors out there who are not up to it, and instructors who have a generally shitty attitude towards their students, and comments like the ones he has made does remind of those professors, which are a lot more problematic than any number of dumbass students.

Ok, but you are on to a different topic.  PDH's point was that students who come with a false strongly held preconceived view of the subject matter are often reluctant to question their own views as part of the educational experience and in turn that detracts from the learning environment for all.   In my experience that is an entirely accurate assessment.   

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 05:53:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

BB, I think you have been spending too much time on anti-intellectual right wing internet sites.

Heh, don't say that about Languish, it's a forum not a 'site'.  :mad:

CurlingSS.org

QuoteOk, but you are on to a different topic.  PDH's point was that students who come with a false strongly held preconceived view of the subject matter are often reluctant to question their own views as part of the educational experience and in turn that detracts from the learning environment for all.   In my experience that is an entirely accurate assessment.   

Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something. I don't see why one couldn't use true information to do the same thing. I think it is very irresponsible to present things that are not true with regards to human history as entertainment. If you need things to be fictional to entertaining then just make fictional things or make your fiction so obviously outrageous that nobody could ever think it could be true like Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires or something.

But that is just me. I hate that stuff because it puts false ideas in my head that I have to unlearn and film and pop culture resonates powerfully so it is not a trivial thing to do.

Quote from: mongers on May 16, 2017, 06:15:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2017, 05:53:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2017, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
Clearly, Berkut's enthusiasm for pedagogy needs to be nurtured, and harnessed: look how productive this conversation is! Amazing outcome: PDH is incompetent, and I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Oex, love ya man, but you are a snooty ivory tower elitist. :hug:

BB, I think you have been spending too much time on anti-intellectual right wing internet sites.

Heh, don't say that about Languish, it's a forum not a 'site'.  :mad:

:D

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
nobody could ever think it could be true like Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires or something.

what?  Have I been fooled again?   :glare:

Quote from: viper37 on May 16, 2017, 06:52:16 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
nobody could ever think it could be true like Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires or something.

what?  Have I been fooled again?   :glare:

Wow I didn't think anybody actually saw the movie :P

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:53:33 PM
Wow I didn't think anybody actually saw the movie :P

I couldn't reach the remote.   :(

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something.

I watched an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and he was talking about how he had once been on a tour of Cape Canaveral and all these NASA engineers were talking to him about various systems like they expected him to know what they were talking about.  He didn't have a fucking clue what they were saying, but they talked to him like he was a peer, and he politely nodded accordingly. Because he was Spock.
To the end of his life, he was constantly receiving letters and notes from fans telling him that Spock was the reason they went into science, engineering, research.  And I don't think anybody would argue that TOS science would be the best base for an entry into the science fair, but there you are.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2017, 11:18:41 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 16, 2017, 09:42:35 AM
I am a snooty ivory tower elitist.

Just embrace it.
Problem is being able to afford to play the role.  Cognac and champagne is pricy these days.  But you can just substitute Calvados and Cava, the ignorant hoi polloi here won't know the difference.

We know the difference between Manhattan and Brooklyn though.  :(

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 12:03:15 PM
I am pretending no such thing. I have had many arguments with Oex in the past and he has never reacted in a snobby or contemptuous way. You, on the other hand, do so about 90% of the time.

:lmfao:  Right.  Like I am the guy making the ad hom attacks.

grumbler shoots to thrill.

Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2017, 09:26:42 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 12:03:15 PM
I am pretending no such thing. I have had many arguments with Oex in the past and he has never reacted in a snobby or contemptuous way. You, on the other hand, do so about 90% of the time.

:lmfao:  Right.  Like I am the guy making the ad hom attacks.

Wow you sure showed me grumbler :lol:

Hey you do you.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2017, 07:14:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something.

I watched an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and he was talking about how he had once been on a tour of Cape Canaveral and all these NASA engineers were talking to him about various systems like they expected him to know what they were talking about.  He didn't have a fucking clue what they were saying, but they talked to him like he was a peer, and he politely nodded accordingly. Because he was Spock.
To the end of his life, he was constantly receiving letters and notes from fans telling him that Spock was the reason they went into science, engineering, research.  And I don't think anybody would argue that TOS science would be the best base for an entry into the science fair, but there you are.

Star Trek is the worst thing to ever happen to science.

Fiction should probably just be banned, or at least discouraged. If someone cannot be inspired by Apollo 13, then they have no business in higher education.

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 09:33:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2017, 07:14:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something.

I watched an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and he was talking about how he had once been on a tour of Cape Canaveral and all these NASA engineers were talking to him about various systems like they expected him to know what they were talking about.  He didn't have a fucking clue what they were saying, but they talked to him like he was a peer, and he politely nodded accordingly. Because he was Spock.
To the end of his life, he was constantly receiving letters and notes from fans telling him that Spock was the reason they went into science, engineering, research.  And I don't think anybody would argue that TOS science would be the best base for an entry into the science fair, but there you are.

Star Trek is the worst thing to ever happen to science.

Fiction should probably just be banned, or at least discouraged. If someone cannot be inspired by Apollo 13, then they have no business in higher education.

Star Trek is obviously science fiction. I said pretty clearly that fiction is great. Did anybody read what I actually said? Granted that part of my post what cropped for some reason.

The very fact those engineers thought that actor actually knew something about science shows how powerful the medium is and reinforces my point. :mellow:

Sometimes Berkut goes Full Berkut and there are no survivors.

Star Trek > Babylon 5

Quote from: 11B4V on May 16, 2017, 09:39:23 PM
Star Trek > Babylon 5

Star Wars > Battlestar Galactica > Firefly > Star Trek

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 09:35:06 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 09:33:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2017, 07:14:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something.

I watched an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and he was talking about how he had once been on a tour of Cape Canaveral and all these NASA engineers were talking to him about various systems like they expected him to know what they were talking about.  He didn't have a fucking clue what they were saying, but they talked to him like he was a peer, and he politely nodded accordingly. Because he was Spock.
To the end of his life, he was constantly receiving letters and notes from fans telling him that Spock was the reason they went into science, engineering, research.  And I don't think anybody would argue that TOS science would be the best base for an entry into the science fair, but there you are.

Star Trek is the worst thing to ever happen to science.

Fiction should probably just be banned, or at least discouraged. If someone cannot be inspired by Apollo 13, then they have no business in higher education.

Star Trek is obviously science fiction. I said pretty clearly that fiction is great. Did anybody read what I actually said? Granted that part of my post what cropped for some reason.

The very fact those engineers thought that actor actually knew something about science shows how powerful the medium is and reinforces my point. :mellow:

You said that "false information" is bad. And the only kind of "false information" we have been talking about is fiction.

The basic point I am making is that bitching about someone getting excited about anthropology because they read Clan of the Cave Bear and that gave them incorrect ideas about anthropology is fucking stupid. No amount of "false information" makes the basic idea that someone getting excited about science where they would not have otherwise is a good thing, not something to whine about because it means you might have students who walk into class with some incorrect ideas.

This is really simple - my point is this:

A) People don't give a shit about anthropology and could not care less.

B) People care about anthropology so much that they actually decide to take a class on it, and maybe even pursue it as a career, but their interest came from fiction that contained, well, fiction about anthropology.

B is much, much better than A. Even if it means some professors will have to deal with (gasp!) intro students with incorrect ideas.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 16, 2017, 09:44:26 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on May 16, 2017, 09:39:23 PM
Star Trek > Babylon 5

Star Wars > Battlestar Galactica > Firefly > Star Trek

:o

Space Balls < Star Wars < The Expanse < Battlestar Galactica '04> Firefly > Star Trek

And that's why Creation Science is good.  It inspires kids to go into Biology.

Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2017, 09:26:42 PM
:lmfao:  Right.  Like I am the guy making the ad hom attacks.

I know, right? Completely preposterous :lmfao:

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 09:55:40 PM
A) People don't give a shit about anthropology and could not care less.

B) People care about anthropology so much that they actually decide to take a class on it, and maybe even pursue it as a career, but their interest came from fiction that contained, well, fiction about anthropology.

B is much, much better than A. Even if it means some professors will have to deal with (gasp!) intro students with incorrect ideas.

Or...

C) People care so much about about Clan of the Cave Bear that they'll bastardized anthropology to support their pet theories and spread their crank theories with a veneer of science acquired in a couple of classes. You know, much like most creationism and other Christian "science".

How many pages have you guys been talking about Clan of the Cave Bear and anthropology?  Asking for a friend.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2017, 11:44:56 PM
How many pages have you guys been talking about Clan of the Cave Bear and anthropology?  Asking for a friend.

"If that's not a lie as I situate on the common, what claim has your friend on our deference?"


(https://hbo.co.uk/uploads/components/cast/jack-langrishe-57a31de00a5f0.jpg)

Voted neither.  I work for Uncle Sam, and globalization matters little in my line of work.

Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2017, 11:31:34 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 09:55:40 PM
A) People don't give a shit about anthropology and could not care less.

B) People care about anthropology so much that they actually decide to take a class on it, and maybe even pursue it as a career, but their interest came from fiction that contained, well, fiction about anthropology.

B is much, much better than A. Even if it means some professors will have to deal with (gasp!) intro students with incorrect ideas.

Or...

C) People care so much about about Clan of the Cave Bear that they'll bastardized anthropology to support their pet theories and spread their crank theories with a veneer of science acquired in a couple of classes. You know, much like most creationism and other Christian "science".

I don't think C actually happens. It is just a excuse for Profs to whine about B.

And even if it does, it is some tiny fraction of people, and it isn't worth throwing out getting new people interested in science because there are some cranks out there. The cranks will just find something else to be a crank about anyway. Whining about fiction is complaining about a symptom, not the problem.

Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2017, 11:31:34 PM
Or...

C) People care so much about about Clan of the Cave Bear that they'll bastardized anthropology to support their pet theories and spread their crank theories with a veneer of science acquired in a couple of classes. You know, much like most creationism and other Christian "science".

Where does this perception come from that there is some sort of religion built around Clan of the Cave Bear?  Have you actually read about such a thing (a source would be nice) or experienced it firsthand?

And what, exactly, is the "crank theory" that you believe CotCB has injected in the anthropology student body? Is it just the first book that promotes this theory?  Do people who read the whole series become more, or less, infected with the mysterious crank theory, or do later books make no difference?

I must admit that this is the first time that I have heard of the destructive power of this book.  You'd think there would have been stories about it in some newspaper or journal in the 37 years since it came out, but I am finding nothing.  Cites would be helpful in educating us about this menace.

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:53:33 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 16, 2017, 06:52:16 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
nobody could ever think it could be true like Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires or something.

what?  Have I been fooled again?   :glare:

Wow I didn't think anybody actually saw the movie :P

it got me curious.  It wasn't as good as I expected though :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2017, 07:14:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Yeah I fundamentally disagree with Berkut's idea that false information is good if it inspires people to be more interested in studying something.

I watched an interview with Leonard Nimoy, and he was talking about how he had once been on a tour of Cape Canaveral and all these NASA engineers were talking to him about various systems like they expected him to know what they were talking about.  He didn't have a fucking clue what they were saying, but they talked to him like he was a peer, and he politely nodded accordingly. Because he was Spock.
To the end of his life, he was constantly receiving letters and notes from fans telling him that Spock was the reason they went into science, engineering, research.  And I don't think anybody would argue that TOS science would be the best base for an entry into the science fair, but there you are.

:lol:

Yes, and I agree that science fiction is a great introduction to the STEM fields and it is a fun source of wonder.  Even a professional engineer can speculate how her or she would build Iron Man's suit or the Batmobile or a deflector shield; and, who knows, that speculation might lead to discoveries.  The difference, I think, from what Oex and PDH are describing is that in STEM classes, so far as there is classroom discussion at all, we don't discuss dilithium or warp drive or tachyon beam communication.  The social studies seem to be fundamentally different in this regard.

Quote from: Savonarola on May 17, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
The difference, I think, from what Oex and PDH are describing is that in STEM classes, so far as there is classroom discussion at all, we don't discuss dilithium or warp drive or tachyon beam communication.  The social studies seem to be fundamentally different in this regard.

I don't think warp drives and tachyon beams are regularly discussed in the social sciences either. :unsure:

Except maybe this guy: http://www.standupeconomist.com/pdf/misc/interstellar.pdf

You get a similar problem in the CS world.

People who come into class self taught coders. Often very bright, but with incredibly bad habits and screwed up ideas (often religious in their fervor over why Java sucks, or real coders don't use Eclipse or whatever) about what computer science is, much less how it is practiced.

Quote from: Berkut on May 17, 2017, 06:58:55 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2017, 11:31:34 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2017, 09:55:40 PM
A) People don't give a shit about anthropology and could not care less.

B) People care about anthropology so much that they actually decide to take a class on it, and maybe even pursue it as a career, but their interest came from fiction that contained, well, fiction about anthropology.

B is much, much better than A. Even if it means some professors will have to deal with (gasp!) intro students with incorrect ideas.

Or...

C) People care so much about about Clan of the Cave Bear that they'll bastardized anthropology to support their pet theories and spread their crank theories with a veneer of science acquired in a couple of classes. You know, much like most creationism and other Christian "science".

I don't think

Fixed your post.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 17, 2017, 09:42:05 AM

Quote from: Savonarola on May 17, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
The difference, I think, from what Oex and PDH are describing is that in STEM classes, so far as there is classroom discussion at all, we don't discuss dilithium or warp drive or tachyon beam communication.  The social studies seem to be fundamentally different in this regard.

I don't think warp drives and tachyon beams are regularly discussed in the social sciences either. :unsure:

Except maybe this guy: http://www.standupeconomist.com/pdf/misc/interstellar.pdf

My mistake, I had meant that the bad science and technology of Star Trek is not discussed in STEM classes; but the bad anthropology of Clan of the Cave Bear is apparently discussed in social studies classes.

Social Studies classes always want classroom discussions. This usually means having to endure the prattling of grandstanding ignoramuses.

I love history but man those history classes were brutal.

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2017, 09:49:41 AM
Social Studies classes always want classroom discussions. This usually means having to endure the prattling of grandstanding ignoramuses.

I love history but man those history classes were brutal.

Evidently, despite what you say, you missed it ... since you voluntarily came here.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on May 17, 2017, 09:51:36 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2017, 09:49:41 AM
Social Studies classes always want classroom discussions. This usually means having to endure the prattling of grandstanding ignoramuses.

I love history but man those history classes were brutal.

Evidently, despite what you say, you missed it ... since you voluntarily came here.  :D

Context is important!

I came to that class to be enlightened unlike my purpose for coming here :P

Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 17, 2017, 12:23:10 AM
Voted neither.  I work for Uncle Sam, and globalization matters little in my line of work.

Actually, it does.  Less money pouring into the USA from commerce means a smaller army and less cool toys to play with.
Less commerce means less interests around the world, then less needs to deploy an army oversea.

Who knows, without globalization, you might still be working for uncle Sam, but you could be a lawyer too, like half the board :P

Quote from: Savonarola on May 17, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
:lol:

Yes, and I agree that science fiction is a great introduction to the STEM fields and it is a fun source of wonder.  Even a professional engineer can speculate how her or she would build Iron Man's suit or the Batmobile or a deflector shield; and, who knows, that speculation might lead to discoveries.  The difference, I think, from what Oex and PDH are describing is that in STEM classes, so far as there is classroom discussion at all, we don't discuss dilithium or warp drive or tachyon beam communication.  The social studies seem to be fundamentally different in this regard.

if people take finance to live a life like the Wolf of Wall-Street, they'll be disapointed :(

I don't think we ever discussed the movie Wallstreet in class, except once, with a teacher saying he loved that movie.
And there weren't a ton of movies made about finance or business admin when I studied.

I bang on my chest like Matthew McConaughey every time I add more money to Usury Quest  :blush:

Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2017, 10:14:02 AM
I bang on my chest like Matthew McConaughey every time I add more money to Usury Quest  :blush:

well, the coke part was real.

You know, Berkut, I don't think we will ever discover what is wrong with Clan of the Cave Bear; what 'crackpot theories" are ruining anthropology classes across the land.  The complainants seem to go silent when asked for details.  How unexpected.

In all fairness Gor has been a similar bane of gender studies.

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
You know, Berkut, I don't think we will ever discover what is wrong with Clan of the Cave Bear; what 'crackpot theories" are ruining anthropology classes across the land.  The complainants seem to go silent when asked for details.  How unexpected.

I can tell you some of the bits I remember from back when I read it, if you'd like?

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
You know, Berkut, I don't think we will ever discover what is wrong with Clan of the Cave Bear; what 'crackpot theories" are ruining anthropology classes across the land.  The complainants seem to go silent when asked for details.  How unexpected.

Well you don't read my posts, so that might be your problem right there.

Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2017, 03:47:56 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
You know, Berkut, I don't think we will ever discover what is wrong with Clan of the Cave Bear; what 'crackpot theories" are ruining anthropology classes across the land.  The complainants seem to go silent when asked for details.  How unexpected.

I can tell you some of the bits I remember from back when I read it, if you'd like?

You proposed "option C" which seemed absurd, but maybe you just don't remember as far back as yesterday.  I'll do the unthinkable and quote you:

QuoteOr...

C) People care so much about about Clan of the Cave Bear that they'll bastardized anthropology to support their pet theories and spread their crank theories with a veneer of science acquired in a couple of classes. You know, much like most creationism and other Christian "science".

That seems like a claim.  If you don't want to support it, I fully understand.  It seems pretty indefensible on the face of it.  If you don't even remember what the book was about, that seems like a pretty irresponsible claim.

But, hey, you live with what you can live with, intellectually speaking.

You know I thought about answering what I actually experienced, but I realized that the argument is not about reality.  I read:

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 09:45:30 AM
If they didn't come to their interest in learning via a pure enough path, he hated it.  But, since he doesn't still have the job anyway, that's a moot point.

And I remembered that baseless allegations that can be partially backtracked with:

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 11:00:08 AM
Just trying to imitate the master.  Could it be that neither of us was being entirely serious?

Sure I called you an asshole for the initial remark made without any data or even attempt at empathy.  The exchange meant I didn't answer then, and I won't now.

I liked it when daryl hannah took it doggie style in the cave.

Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2017, 08:03:15 PM
And I remembered that baseless allegations that can be partially backtracked with:

Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2017, 11:00:08 AM
Just trying to imitate the master.  Could it be that neither of us was being entirely serious?

Sure I called you an asshole for the initial remark made without any data or even attempt at empathy.  The exchange meant I didn't answer then, and I won't now.

Hey, I am kool with this.  As I noted, I wasn't serious and didn't think you were, either.  If you were serious, and intend no further communications with me, that's all right.  We only exchanged vague preferences about Wyoming football, anyway.  Feel free to ignore every single post I make.

I can live with not knowing the evils of Clan of the Cave Bear.  My indifference to that book could not be greater.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2017, 08:13:17 PM
I liked it when daryl hannah took it doggie style in the cave.

If doggy style is an important plot point, I might reconsider my stance on the book.

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 08:24:32 PM

Hey, I am kool with this.  As I noted, I wasn't serious and didn't think you were, either.  If you were serious, and intend no further communications with me, that's all right.  We only exchanged vague preferences about Wyoming football, anyway.  Feel free to ignore every single post I make.

I can live with not knowing the evils of Clan of the Cave Bear.  My indifference to that book could not be greater.

Let us just say that teaching is a very touchy subject with me.

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 08:25:56 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2017, 08:13:17 PM
I liked it when daryl hannah took it doggie style in the cave.

If doggy style is an important plot point, I might reconsider my stance on the book.

It is, as is the difference between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens cock.

Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2017, 10:58:11 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 08:25:56 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2017, 08:13:17 PM
I liked it when daryl hannah took it doggie style in the cave.

If doggy style is an important plot point, I might reconsider my stance on the book.

It is, as is the difference between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens cock.

Neanderthals didn't do it doggie-style?  No wonder they died out.

Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
Let us just say that teaching is a very touchy subject with me.

I apologize, then, if you will accept it.  No harm intended.

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 11:18:15 PM

Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
Let us just say that teaching is a very touchy subject with me.

I apologize, then, if you will accept it.  No harm intended.

:o

Ouch, my jaw.  :pinch: :pinch: :pinch:

Accepted.

Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2017, 11:18:15 PM

Quote from: PDH on May 18, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
Let us just say that teaching is a very touchy subject with me.

I apologize, then, if you will accept it.  No harm intended.

lol fag