When has humanity been at its most peaceful in history?

[Iuchi_Zien]

I still think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm not arguing that humans are inherently 'good'. Humans are omnivores and as such are as capable of killing and violence as any other predator. I've raised the point previously of infanticide occuring in prehistoric human societies and I'm sure that murder, rape and other nasty acts occurred early societies. What I'm suggesting is only that we've developed from a cooperative society to a competetive society. I'm talking about mass social behaviour not individualistic behaviour. The society as a whole can still be cooperative even if a small minority engage in sporadic cases of violence. Modern society is competetive and violent.

 

I see no evidence of weaponry that was only designed to kill humans and not animals- perhaps you could point me to what you're talking about in a link? As far as I know weaponry was always long range- spears, bows etc that were designed to kill an animal from a safe distance. The sword only appears in the Bronze Age.

 

With regard to Ötzi's remains, the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) man from the Alps, well even a quick glance through Wiki should tell you that my argument still holds up:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

 

He was one of the early people involved in trying to control the trade of copper in an age with no police force to protect him. From its very earliest days the concept of private property has created violence and competition in society.

 

I tend to be very wary of using Wiki as a source!

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/stone-age-weapons-a260919

 

Of particular importance is the use of Stone clubs. Spears/Bows/Knifes/Axes all have a use in hunting. Bearing in mind the risk of injury in closing to within range of an animals claws/teeth and that the result of that injury would be, almost certainly, fatal, added to which clubs are actually of little use whereas hunting, axes, blades serve much better for dispatching crippled/disabled prey, the conclusion I would draw is that clubs are an anti-personnel weapon. I may be in a minority in that view but....

[Iuchi_Zien]

Can I make it:

 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but shared power, created through equality, corrupts nobody because they would be quickly squished by the rest of the group?

 

Hahaha

 

Like happened in Animal Farm? Shared power simply results in the power being concentrated in a minority, at the expense of the majority. Look how many democracies/republics have been subverted.

[Cavegirl]

I tend to be very wary of using Wiki as a source!

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/stone-age-weapons-a260919

 

Of particular importance is the use of Stone clubs. Spears/Bows/Knifes/Axes all have a use in hunting. Bearing in mind the risk of injury in closing to within range of an animals claws/teeth and that the result of that injury would be, almost certainly, fatal, added to which clubs are actually of little use whereas hunting, axes, blades serve much better for dispatching crippled/disabled prey, the conclusion I would draw is that clubs are an anti-personnel weapon. I may be in a minority in that view but....

 

I would suggest that clubs actually serve better than knives for dispatching crippled prey. With a stab wound you must wait for a long period for the blood to drain from the beast before it dies plus there is a chance of the knife getting stuck in the flesh and thus you lose your weapon if the animal doesn't die. A swift club to the head (ah remember the baby seals?, but fishermen too prefer to club a fish) can kill an animal outright or at least dull its senses, plus it doesn't ruin the pelt.

 

If you look at a military history website you should expect that it will focus upon warlike behaviour and not offer a reasoned view. They have no evidence to suggest that people were killed by these tools or they would discuss the skeletal evidence. Where are the mass graves of the war dead with all the associated trauma on the skeletons that date from the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic? The truth is that occasional people died of violence, but people simply didn't engage in military style behaviour, no matter how primitive, until the Bronze Age. It would have been too costly for them. So they had no need to make weaponry designed specifically for killing other human beings- the tools they had would have sufficed on the odd occasion that it happened.

 

I take your point with Wiki, I was just being a bit lazy. It's quite difficult to link to academic papers because you have to pay the journal. Still, in the interests of decency I've hunted out an academic link for you that confirms what was stated on Wiki. Page 394 here:

 

http://rdsinc.com/pdf/samples/sp806681.pdf

[Cavegirl]

Like happened in Animal Farm? Shared power simply results in the power being concentrated in a minority, at the expense of the majority. Look how many democracies/republics have been subverted.

 

Then how do you explain the fact that for hundreds of thousands of years of social development power did not end up concentrated in the hands of the few? Again it's about control over land, goods and resources- this is why some people want power and control. Soviet Russia was a horribly failed experiment, but one that could definately be learnt from in the future. If the situation arises again and people decide to form a liberal Communist society then they would have to learn the lessens from history and put in place safeguards to prevent it happening again. All perfectly acheivable if the masses understand the situation.

[Longcol]

Then how do you explain the fact that for hundreds of thousands of years of social development power did not end up concentrated in the hands of the few?

 

Because the world was sparsely populated and little competition for resources?

[Cavegirl]

Because the world was sparsely populated and little competition for resources?

 

Exactly the point I was making Longcol yes.

[Longcol]

Exactly the point I was making Longcol yes.

 

So co-operation can only work if there isn't competition for resources?

[Harleyman]

[QUOTE=Iuchi_Zien;7612145]Like happened in Animal Farm? Shared power simply results in the power being concentrated in a minority, at the expense of the majority. Look how many democracies/republics have been subverted.

 

As far as I can tremember the pigs took over the farm at the end of the story and shared power with no one.

Orwell's simplification of the aftermath of the Russian revolution

[Mangoes]

Four legs good, two legs better.

[Cavegirl]

So co-operation can only work if there isn't competition for resources?

 

No. There is a right wing liberal capitalist political theory which recognises that non-hierarchical societies can operate within a completely unregulated free-market competetive environment. It suggests, in a sense, that individuals are given equal opportunity to obtain goods and services, education, healthcare etc and that the market, if given free-reign will quickly adapt to ensure that these needs are met. It's a kind of selfish cooperation (cooperative because each person has an equal share of the power and responsibility to change society), but it operates in a competetive market environment.

 

These liberal capitalists would need to ensure that no corporate monopoly ever formed because this could lead to fascism. If a monopoly did begin to form they would have to spend their purchasing power elsewhere to bring it down.

 

Liberal communists remove the idea of competition completely by removing the idea of private property and replacing it with voluntarism and sharing, but again, for liberalism to work you need to have a pro-active political society that is aware of the ever present dangers of totalitarianism and has in place measures to prevent it from occurring. Just as we need to be vigilant in our own conservative society of the signs and dangers of totalitarian fascism.