Welcome to Gaia! ::

CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
Beautiful Blue Kangaroo
I understand that in modern society that most of you are sheltered sheep, but the truth of the matter is: Killing other human beings is perfectly natural, and if you had lived 800 years ago, you likely would have killed or been killed by another human being. Anyone who disagrees is a sheltered kid who was obviously from circumstances fortunate enough to avoid Military Service.
Or the person might be familiar with anthropology and know you are wrong. 800 years ago, sure. But evidence suggests that human-on-human violence was not commonplace until people stopped being egalitarian. It was after the formation of social systems that supported concepts like possessions and casts that we get evidence of humans killing other humans. So no, it is not in human nature to kill others, it is in our social construct.


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
Beautiful Blue Kangaroo
I understand that in modern society that most of you are sheltered sheep, but the truth of the matter is: Killing other human beings is perfectly natural, and if you had lived 800 years ago, you likely would have killed or been killed by another human being. Anyone who disagrees is a sheltered kid who was obviously from circumstances fortunate enough to avoid Military Service.
Or the person might be familiar with anthropology and know you are wrong. 800 years ago, sure. But evidence suggests that human-on-human violence was not commonplace until people stopped being egalitarian. It was after the formation of social systems that supported concepts like possessions and casts that we get evidence of humans killing other humans. So no, it is not in human nature to kill others, it is in our social construct.


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.


Egality is a modern concept.
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
Beautiful Blue Kangaroo
I understand that in modern society that most of you are sheltered sheep, but the truth of the matter is: Killing other human beings is perfectly natural, and if you had lived 800 years ago, you likely would have killed or been killed by another human being. Anyone who disagrees is a sheltered kid who was obviously from circumstances fortunate enough to avoid Military Service.
Or the person might be familiar with anthropology and know you are wrong. 800 years ago, sure. But evidence suggests that human-on-human violence was not commonplace until people stopped being egalitarian. It was after the formation of social systems that supported concepts like possessions and casts that we get evidence of humans killing other humans. So no, it is not in human nature to kill others, it is in our social construct.


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
Beautiful Blue Kangaroo
I understand that in modern society that most of you are sheltered sheep, but the truth of the matter is: Killing other human beings is perfectly natural, and if you had lived 800 years ago, you likely would have killed or been killed by another human being. Anyone who disagrees is a sheltered kid who was obviously from circumstances fortunate enough to avoid Military Service.
Or the person might be familiar with anthropology and know you are wrong. 800 years ago, sure. But evidence suggests that human-on-human violence was not commonplace until people stopped being egalitarian. It was after the formation of social systems that supported concepts like possessions and casts that we get evidence of humans killing other humans. So no, it is not in human nature to kill others, it is in our social construct.


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


The construction of society is in our nature.

societies sure, but the ones we have chosen have nothing to do with our inherent nature or there wouldn't be so many different types. Egalitarian is a type of society that was formed which did not show evidence of human-on-human violence.


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?

There isn't. Many anthropologists argue otherwise. I am using it in the colloquial fashion.
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


Egality is a modern concept.

No, it is ancient. The earliest human societies were egalitarian bands. We don't see tribes, chiefdoms, or states until far later.


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?

There isn't. Many anthropologists argue otherwise. I am using it in the colloquial fashion.


It is fine to be colloquial but not where it is ambiguous if you are using language in a more formal context.
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?

There isn't. Many anthropologists argue otherwise. I am using it in the colloquial fashion.


It is fine to be colloquial but not where it is ambiguous if you are using language in a more formal context.
Hence the clarification. I thought initially that based on the context for the thread we were using it informally. Since your post required my clarification I gave it.
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


Rousseau's noble savage is a modern concept.

If you consider 17-century to be modern. I'm not saying people are inherently good, just that anthropological evidence suggest that it is not so much in human nature to kill others it is in the societies we have chosen.


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?

There isn't. Many anthropologists argue otherwise. I am using it in the colloquial fashion.


It is fine to be colloquial but not where it is ambiguous if you are using language in a more formal context.
Hence the clarification. I thought initially that based on the context for the thread we were using it informally. Since your post required my clarification I gave it.


I'm not cross, don't worry. It's just best to not mix language like that as it leads to miscommunication.
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO
Sergeant Pancakebatter
CH1YO


Modernity began around about the sixteenth century.

What anthropological evidence is there to suggest that human nature is a valid category?

There isn't. Many anthropologists argue otherwise. I am using it in the colloquial fashion.


It is fine to be colloquial but not where it is ambiguous if you are using language in a more formal context.
Hence the clarification. I thought initially that based on the context for the thread we were using it informally. Since your post required my clarification I gave it.


I'm not cross, don't worry. It's just best to not mix language like that as it leads to miscommunication.

Agreed

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games