Why hasn't anyone ever tried "Civilizing" Apes?

[druid91]

I've been reading, and supposedly we can communicate with apes in actual language... So why hasn't anyone tried, even as an experiment, to "Civilize" a group of apes? Teach them all language, and then get them to build a society, trading with their neighbors who are actually a bunch of volunteers...

I mean it might not work, but on the other hand... Apes with houses and suits.

[Vacant]

Check out:
Maurice K Temerlin
Gardener and Gardener
Kellog and Kellog

Also, because civilization was a kind of bad idea. Reifying the social into the societal is where everything went wrong.

[Winter_Wolf]

Someone on these very forums linked to Cracked.com and I ended up spending way too much time there today. :smallannoyed:

BUT, I did find a little tidbit about the complex economic system among I think it was chimps. How you could spot the ones with high demand skills because they were the best groomed (apparently they traded their skill for getting groomed). I think they're doing quite well on their own if that's true.

They also seem to have a pretty good sense about fair treatment.

Plus, you know, that whole thing about no one wanting to be the instigator in a real-life Planet of the Apes scenario. :smallwink:

[Orzel]

Because you'll start teaching them math and science then..
BOOM!

Gorrila Grodd.

[Draconi Redfir]

The reason?

Because at some point in their lives, everyone capable of doing so has seen at least one "planet of the apes" movie.

[Traab]

Because you'll start teaching them math and science then..
BOOM!

Gorrila Grodd.

Almost as bad, Monsieur Mallah!

[Tebryn]

The real question is, what would the benefit be? What is the outcome of doing it? They're still wild animals. Civilizing them would do...what?

[Orzel]

The real question is, what would the benefit be? What is the outcome of doing it? They're still wild animals. Civilizing them would do...what?

Raise banana prices by increasing demand.
Hmm..
Gotta make some phone calls.

[druid91]

Someone on these very forums linked to Cracked.com and I ended up spending way too much time there today. :smallannoyed:

BUT, I did find a little tidbit about the complex economic system among I think it was chimps. How you could spot the ones with high demand skills because they were the best groomed (apparently they traded their skill for getting groomed). I think they're doing quite well on their own if that's true.

They also seem to have a pretty good sense about fair treatment.

Plus, you know, that whole thing about no one wanting to be the instigator in a real-life Planet of the Apes scenario. :smallwink:

That's pretty interesting, and that's why you don't use the apes as a servant class.


Because you'll start teaching them math and science then..
BOOM!

Gorrila Grodd.

Sounds fun!


The real question is, what would the benefit be? What is the outcome of doing it? They're still wild animals. Civilizing them would do...what?


To see what happens! Will we get gorrilas in the wild building houses? Will they take up jobs as dentists?

Who knows?

[Ravens_cry]

There has been efforts to teach various primates sign language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29), but the results have been somewhat controversial.
There have also been efforts to teach primates about money and trading (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all), rather successfully on the whole.
But actually "civilizing" or "uplifting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_%28science_fiction%29)them would probably require more invasive techniques, such as genetic engineering.

[Tebryn]

There have also been efforts to teach primates about money and trading (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all), rather successfully on the whole.

There is evidence that many species knew about this before we came in and taught them. Some using sex to get food and things like that.

[Ravens_cry]

There is evidence that many species knew about this before we came in and taught them. Some using sex to get food and things like that.
Pretty much, but it was possibly a taught use of fiat currency.
Still, monkey prostitution, ain't science great?:smallbiggrin:

[Vacant]

That is the single saddest thing I've ever read. Wow.

[Starwulf]

Check out:
Maurice K Temerlin
Gardener and Gardener
Kellog and Kellog

Also, because civilization was a kind of bad idea. Reifying the social into the societal is where everything went wrong.

Uhh...what's wrong with civilization? I think I'd much rather be where we are now, then still living in trees or caves and having to battle other animals for my daily food.


The reason?

Because at some point in their lives, everyone capable of doing so has seen at least one "planet of the apes" movie.

Wrong ^^ I'm 30, and have never seen a single Planet of the Apes movie, and have no intention of ever watching one. Not my kind of movie.

[Juggling Goth]

They're already civilised. Gorillas aren't poaching our hands to use as ashtrays.

[Ravens_cry]

That is the single saddest thing I've ever read. Wow.
Interestingly, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the titular characters best bud Enkidu, a wild man, primitive and covered in hair, becomes civilized after snogging a prostitute for several days.

[Kindablue]

Wrong ^^ I'm 30, and have never seen a single Planet of the Apes movie, and have no intention of ever watching one. Not my kind of movie.

Are... are you capable of civilizing non-human apes?

[Fiery Diamond]

There has been efforts to teach various primates sign language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29), but the results have been somewhat controversial.
There have also been efforts to teach primates about money and trading (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all), rather successfully on the whole.
But actually "civilizing" or "uplifting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_%28science_fiction%29)them would probably require more invasive techniques, such as genetic engineering.

They're only controversial because some people have this irritating desire to believe that humans are superior in that regard. Koko and... what was his name... Michael or something? The one who made a picture of his deceased pet dog... definitely learned sign language as actual understood intentional communication.

[Draconi Redfir]

Wrong ^^ I'm 30, and have never seen a single Planet of the Apes movie, and have no intention of ever watching one. Not my kind of movie.

Are you a biologist, zoologist, or any other kind of specially-trained professional commonly found around apes?

[golentan]

Because... what works as a social structure for one species doesn't for others? I would think this should be obvious by now. For example, termites build complex hierarchical societies to the benefit of all members of the group without fraud or abuse, but try to apply that model to humans and you get massive collapse of the system. Or, to use examples from sapient or near sapient species; if you take a dolphin and pull it from its pod and you probably wind up with a suicidally depressed dolphin ill equipped to survive. But put more than one octopus in a tank and you wind up with a bunch of angry, dead octopi.

Human society is dependent on numerous factors. A very specific average level of self interest. A natural aptitude for language and certain kinds of tool use. An ability to interact in meaningful ways outside traditional tribal bounds. The ability to make fairly long term arrangements even for such immediate necessities as food. A general willingness to accede to unpleasant but necessary varieties of labor. A mostly fixed location with which to form a community. If you change those parameters a little bit, it doesn't work so well. More than that, it falls apart. Great apes are not necessarily stupider than humans (in general: It should be noted they have areas where they exceed human capability and areas where they fall short), but close as they are they are still different.

I know that I can hardly go a day without finding something wretchedly hateful about fitting in with human society, and that if I tried to impose my own view of how a civilization should function I would be called a monster. And rightfully so. My advice is to let sleeping dragons lie.

[Coidzor]

Ethics and money if you're talking about the modern day.

Limitations in human knowledge and no real inclination to do so if you're talking about the humans of antiquity.

I have no idea how early hominids and pre-civilization humans interacted with other great apes though.

[Vacant]

Interestingly, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the titular characters best bud Enkidu, a wild man, primitive and covered in hair, becomes civilized after snogging a prostitute for several days.

That's great. Way better than monkeymoney.

[Toastkart]

They're only controversial because some people have this irritating desire to believe that humans are superior in that regard. Koko and... what was his name... Michael or something? The one who made a picture of his deceased pet dog... definitely learned sign language as actual understood intentional communication.

That's not the only reason the subject is controversial. There are valid criticisms concerning to what extent the learned sign language is purely stimulus/response based (i.e. this sign means this treat, that sign means that toy, etc.). The question is: is learned sign language used as a language or is it merely an advanced behavioral response to get something they want, similar to dogs learning tricks to get treats.

Other criticisms revolve around how bad they are at sign language. They don't sign sentences, they respond with single words or short phrases, which are incredibly open to interpretation.

This conversation with Koko (http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html) shows a lot of interesting things. Yes, it appears quite clear that she is responding to the questions posed to her, but it's also quite clear that the more abstract questions (are you content, do you dream, do you like your caretakers) receive almost no answer, because the concepts have to be broken down so much for them to answer.


I've been reading, and supposedly we can communicate with apes in actual language... So why hasn't anyone tried, even as an experiment, to "Civilize" a group of apes? Teach them all language, and then get them to build a society, trading with their neighbors who are actually a bunch of volunteers...

Have you read Our Inner Ape by Frans de Waal? It's a really good book about what ape social interactions can teach us about our own. However, it also makes very clear how little we understand about their own social hierarchies.

[Abrexa]

I've been reading, and supposedly we can communicate with apes in actual language... So why hasn't anyone tried, even as an experiment, to "Civilize" a group of apes? Teach them all language, and then get them to build a society, trading with their neighbors who are actually a bunch of volunteers...

Depends, do you have 1oo.ooo years to waste? :smallconfused:


Also, because civilization was a kind of bad idea. Reifying the social into the societal is where everything went wrong.

What?? :smallconfused:


This conversation with Koko (http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html) shows a lot of interesting things. Yes, it appears quite clear that she is responding to the questions posed to her, but it's also quite clear that the more abstract questions (are you content, do you dream, do you like your caretakers) receive almost no answer, because the concepts have to be broken down so much for them to answer.

Um, I wonder if it's because apes can't understand these terms, or because researchers made a poor job of explaining them.

[Yora]

Like and dislike are had to establish in a small controlled environment. When everyone you know is part of your group, it's hard to understand the ideas of opponents or even "others".
And how do you explain the concept of dreams with very basic language?

[Kindablue]

What?? :smallconfused:

Farming shrank the variety of food that people ate, leading to a decrease in height and overall health (http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2011/06/dawn-of-agriculture-took-toll-on-health.html), and with more people living together all of the sudden, infectious diseases were rampant. Really, it wasn't until fairly recently that the health aspects of that exchange started paying off, with industrialized farming, the Green Revolution, and modern scientific medicine. The important thing about farming, though, is that it gave us free time, and we used that free time to go to the Moon. Bunch of dumb, hairless apes kicking up dirt on the doormat of the gods--who would've thought?

[Karoht]

Are... are you capable of civilizing non-human apes?Fixed that for you. :smallwink:


They're already civilised. Gorillas aren't poaching our hands to use as ashtrays.
My point exactly.


What possible benefit could we bring them by civilizing them, that couldn't be brought to them with considerably less effort, like oh I dunno, not hunting them to extinction or destroying their habitat?

[H Birchgrove]

Farming shrank the variety of food that people ate, leading to a decrease in height and overall health (http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2011/06/dawn-of-agriculture-took-toll-on-health.html), and with more people living together all of the sudden, infectious diseases were rampant. Really, it wasn't until fairly recently that the health aspects of that exchange started paying off, with industrialized farming, the Green Revolution, and modern scientific medicine. The important thing about farming, though, is that it gave us free time, and we used that free time to go to the Moon. Bunch of dumb, hairless apes kicking up dirt on the doormat of the gods--who would've thought?

Are you saying that going to the Moon was a *bad* idea? :smallconfused:

Edit: Never mind.

[golentan]

Are you saying that going to the Moon was a *bad* idea? :smallconfused:

I read it as he was holding that up as one of the few upshots.

[H Birchgrove]

I read it as he was holding that up as one of the few upshots.

I see. Thanks. :smallsmile:

[Ravens_cry]

Well, thanks to modern civilisation, we have a) lots more food variety available year round b) medicine that works, c) entertainment options undreamed of, d) access to knowledge and education impossible before even by the elite, e) shelter from the elements and comfort f) opportunities for the disabled and permanently injured unparalleled, g) and yes, we went to the Moon.
So I think there is a lot of side benefits to civilisation.
We are also exploring other planets robotically and have even returned samples from asteroids. We have detected planets around other stars and have even a imaged a few directly.
How cool is that?

[Tyndmyr]

Someone on these very forums linked to Cracked.com and I ended up spending way too much time there today. :smallannoyed:

BUT, I did find a little tidbit about the complex economic system among I think it was chimps. How you could spot the ones with high demand skills because they were the best groomed (apparently they traded their skill for getting groomed). I think they're doing quite well on their own if that's true.

They also seem to have a pretty good sense about fair treatment.

Oh, they experimented with this with actual "money" tokens. The apes picked up on it VERY quickly, then moved on to invent prostitution.

This brings up one excellent reason...ethics questions. Is it ethical to have and encourage monkey hookers, for instance?

[Starwulf]

Are... are you capable of civilizing non-human apes?


Are you a biologist, zoologist, or any other kind of specially-trained professional commonly found around apes?

lol, I apparently misread your original comment, I thought you were laying a blanket statement that everyone has watched a planet of the apes movie, not that anyone capable of civilizing apes has watched one. So, no, I'm not ^^

[Synovia]

Farming shrank the variety of food that people ate, leading to a decrease in height and overall health (http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2011/06/dawn-of-agriculture-took-toll-on-health.html), and with more people living together all of the sudden, infectious diseases were rampant. Really, it wasn't until fairly recently that the health aspects of that exchange started paying off, with industrialized farming, the Green Revolution, and modern scientific medicine. The important thing about farming, though, is that it gave us free time, and we used that free time to go to the Moon. Bunch of dumb, hairless apes kicking up dirt on the doormat of the gods--who would've thought?



Thats a common misconception. Evidence points to tribal man spending roughly 1 day a week huntin/performing his craft, and that being enough for food and shelter.

Modern man spends 5 days a week just to pay for his needs, and for a lot of people, that still isn't enough.


Evidence also points to tribal man having less incidence of anxiety, and other mental disease. Essentially, they were happier.

[Reluctance]

Going back to preagricultural lifestyles is easy. Who volunteers to starve to death to make up for the calorie shortfall?

[Mono Vertigo]

First, how do you define "civilizing" exactly?
Second, why not let apes civilizing themselves instead of forcing extra-species culture upon them?
Third, are you sure they haven't started civilizing in their own way already?

[Ravens_cry]

Going back to preagricultural lifestyles is easy. Who volunteers to starve to death to make up for the calorie shortfall?
Indeed. Who volunteers to starve to death after those that remain ravage wild food sources to the point of extinction?
Besides, one more plus of civilisation: beer (http://www.livescience.com/10221-beer-lubricated-rise-civilization-study-suggests.html).

[Kindablue]

What possible benefit could we bring them by civilizing them, that couldn't be brought to them with considerably less effort, like oh I dunno, not hunting them to extinction or destroying their habitat?


The apes picked up on it VERY quickly, then moved on to invent prostitution.

Blam.


I read it as he was holding that up as one of the few upshots.

Yeah, though I'll add that there are so many upshots to civilization that I really don't feel the need to defend it at all.

Anyway.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the apes that have been taught sign language have been unable to initiate conversation. They were, on a fundamental level, not creative enough to use language like we do. Without some form of relatively sophisticated communication, civilization is impossible.

[Kindablue]

Thats a common misconception. Evidence points to tribal man spending roughly 1 day a week huntin/performing his craft, and that being enough for food and shelter.

Modern man spends 5 days a week just to pay for his needs, and for a lot of people, that still isn't enough.


Evidence also points to tribal man having less incidence of anxiety, and other mental disease. Essentially, they were happier.

Let me rephrase that. "The important thing about farming, though, is that it allowed us to stay in one place and to do things that weren't just vanity and vexation of spirit. Things that would be remembered by oncoming generations, if not by the names of their creators then by the applications of their creations."

Also yes, I would say that we were happier in the Garden of Eden, but we don't belong there anymore.

[Toastkart]

Um, I wonder if it's because apes can't understand these terms, or because researchers made a poor job of explaining them.

I would think that question is basically impossible to answer.


This brings up one excellent reason...ethics questions. Is it ethical to have and encourage monkey hookers, for instance?

I don't think they need any encouragement, actually.


First, how do you define "civilizing" exactly?
Second, why not let apes civilizing themselves instead of forcing extra-species culture upon them?
Third, are you sure they haven't started civilizing in their own way already?

Leaving aside the sticky issue of 'civilizing', I think it's clear from what we do know that they have their own culture, even though it may not look much like ours.

[Dr.Epic]

I've been reading, and supposedly we can communicate with apes in actual language... So why hasn't anyone tried, even as an experiment, to "Civilize" a group of apes? Teach them all language, and then get them to build a society, trading with their neighbors who are actually a bunch of volunteers...

I mean it might not work, but on the other hand... Apes with houses and suits.

Where have you been for the past few months? Under a rock? Rise of the Planet of the Apes came out a few months ago and is on DVD soon. Do you want CGI apes based on Andy Serkis's movements to overthrow us all?:smallwink:

[H Birchgrove]

Indeed. Who volunteers to starve to death after those that remain ravage wild food sources to the point of extinction?
Besides, one more plus of civilisation: beer (http://www.livescience.com/10221-beer-lubricated-rise-civilization-study-suggests.html).
Producing alcoholic drinks (beer, mead, wine etc) was probably one of the major, if not the most important reason for mankind to start farming. Which I guess the article is stating.

[druid91]

Where have you been for the past few months? Under a rock? Rise of the Planet of the Apes came out a few months ago and is on DVD soon. Do you want CGI apes based on Andy Serkis's movements to overthrow us all?:smallwink:

Why yes, yes I have been under a rock. How did you know? :smalltongue:

As for what I mean by civilizing, I meant less "Get apes into our social system" and more "teach apes how to build a house"

I mean how hard can it be to teach and ape simple carpentry?*Famous last words I know.

*druid91 is later hospitalized for extreme hammer-wounds after attempting to teach a gorrila how to use a hammer. Not really.

[Phase]

I mean how hard can it be to teach and ape simple carpentry?

Considering that it took humans millions of years to reach the point where they could comprehend constructing objects to begin with... very hard.

[Juggling Goth]

Oh, if it's tool use you're after, you want crows.

[Vacant]

What?? :smallconfused:

I'm not a fan of how the experiment of "society" turned out in a lot of ways. I think the good it did could have been done without a lot of the awful, awful things essentially integrated into it. Social relations: pretty cool! Societal relations: varying between actively and passively homicidal.

[Savannah]

As for what I mean by civilizing, I meant less "Get apes into our social system" and more "teach apes how to build a house"

You know that they basically already do that (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/gorilla-nests1.htm), right?

Why do you think that their society needs to be identical to ours to be "civilized"? They have quite complex societies already (if you haven't read any books by Frans de Waal as suggested above, you should -- they're quite fun and you'd be surprised some of the stuff he describes).

[Ravens_cry]

@Vacant:
Sure, there is things to improve, but I think you're kind of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Vacant]

Well, yeah. I just see the baby less as a cute little human baby and more as, like, the scion of a demon prince who will poison the bathwater and everything it touches until nothing is left untouched by its malignancy. I think we should throw out the demon baby and go find the nice baby it beat up and stole the place of and nurse that baby back to health.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, yeah. I just see the baby less as a cute little human baby and more as, like, the scion of a demon prince who will poison the bathwater and everything it touches until nothing is left untouched by its malignancy. I think we should throw out the demon baby and go find the nice baby it beat up and stole the place of and nurse that baby back to health.
I see it as a human, very human, baby.
Yes, it has it's annoyances, and it has a long way to go, but it's making progress and it has already come so far.
I love and cherish it, for what it is and what it may become.
I love you apelings.
I do.
I cherish every single one of you.
I hate what you do sometimes; sometimes I just want to scream and cry for what you do, but I love you all the same.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not a fan of how the experiment of "society" turned out in a lot of ways. I think the good it did could have been done without a lot of the awful, awful things essentially integrated into it. Social relations: pretty cool! Societal relations: varying between actively and passively homicidal.

We literally could not exist in present numbers without modern society and technology.

I mean, even leaving aside the vast calories shortfall(we could never exist even vaguely as we do now on hunting and gathering), you have basic social problems. As a group increases, the amount of time it takes for everyone to get to know each other and keep in touch increases. You very quickly hit an upper limit of "no more time left". Then, you need some sort of structure for people. Without that, there are people you don't know/trust and whom will likely still affect your lives. Humans being humans, we tend to pick those we know over those we don't when making decisions, so this is a real problem.

This structure basically ends up being society and government. Power structures of some sort come into being, and you have a society.

So, if you don't want society, you pretty much have to accept that the vast majority of all people alive...could not be so anymore.

[Vacant]

We literally could not exist in present numbers without modern society and technology.
A lot of other things would exist a lot better without our present numbers.


I mean, even leaving aside the vast calories shortfall(we could never exist even vaguely as we do now on hunting and gathering), you have basic social problems. As a group increases, the amount of time it takes for everyone to get to know each other and keep in touch increases. You very quickly hit an upper limit of "no more time left". Then, you need some sort of structure for people. Without that, there are people you don't know/trust and whom will likely still affect your lives. Humans being humans, we tend to pick those we know over those we don't when making decisions, so this is a real problem.
What exactly is the connection between these two things? Calorie shortfall, sure, nobody said anything hunting, gathering, or any alternatives. I'm referring specifically to the size of a group increasing and its economic system becoming such that a regulatory body of the type you mentioned is "needed." Small communities and social groupings instead of nebulous, Hobbesian sovereign-states and societal groupings.

[Reluctance]

What exactly is the connection between these two things? Calorie shortfall, sure, nobody said anything hunting, gathering, or any alternatives. I'm referring specifically to the size of a group increasing and its economic system becoming such that a regulatory body of the type you mentioned is "needed." Small communities and social groupings instead of nebulous, Hobbesian sovereign-states and societal groupings.

You mean like Salem circa 1692?

[Vacant]

Maybe, I can't tell to which of the options you are referring.

[Starwulf]

Maybe, I can't tell to which of the options you are referring.

I think he's referring to your idea of small communities and social groupings being better, so he pointed out Salem, MA of the time period mentioned, ala The infamous "Salem Witch Trials", and while they were the most notorious, the truth of the matter is that behavior like that was highly prevalent all over the Country at that period in time, which would disprove your idea that small communities are better then the larger ones we have today(Since, ya know, in MOST(not all, but most) Civilized societies, burning people at the stake because you believe they are witches is NOT acceptable. In reality, until recent times, out-casting people from the group that you believed did not share the tribes belief system, or even worse, murdering them, was acceptable all throughout history UNTIL the last Century or two.

If you think we were better off then, well...I'll just say I strongly believe you're wrong. Or do you think slavery is acceptable as well? Because slavery was a perfectly accepted practice in large and small communities, even in the tiniest of hamlets throughout history as well, even when we were just nomadic tribes wandering the land slavery existed. Discrimination based not only on our skin, but hell, just about anything existed as well, making life interminably difficult for anyone that was just a little bit different. so, yeah, I'll take modern-day civilization any day of the week.

[Vacant]

In that case, no; Salem is certainly a societal, not a social, group. Most "civilized" societies not only believe, but hinge on the concept that disagreement with the prevalent, majority opinion of one issue or the next is punishable by, if not death, the removal of all agency on the part of those intending to express difference. America may not burn people at the stake any longer, but the death penalty still exists and prisons certainly still exist. The "Witch Trials" are merely one example of the exact kind of Hobbesian idea that is at the center of "society." What you claim is no longer acceptable is not only still acceptable, but actually institutionalized and even lionized. The role of the police is to enforce the dominant social morality with varying degrees of coercive force up to and including lethal force.

I think the distinction I'm making between social and societal is being misunderstood. Slavery, again, is a function of a societal system and, in fact, an exemplary one. Societal groupings are those in which the size of the group and a system of circulatory economics, including capitalistic and proto-capitalistic systems (such as feudalism), necessitate the existence of a sovereign "state" or other such Hobbesian governing body which, in the name of regulating the economic system, is able to impose conditions such as slavery (in both its more overt and subtler manifestations) by virtue of state terrorism/"a monopoly on legitimate violence."

[Dr.Epic]

Why yes, yes I have been under a rock. How did you know? :smalltongue:

I have cameras everywhere! EVERYWHERE!!!

[Tyndmyr]

A lot of other things would exist a lot better without our present numbers.

Examples? Sure, we've wiped out a few species and what not...but that is not actually an unusual result of a highly successful species. In fact, surviving where other species do not is pretty much the textbook definition of evolutionary success.

As far as human cultural things...our numbers are necessary for our achievements. Microprocessor design cannot exist as a cottage industry. Arts and culture would never have propagated fast enough to avoid dying off without at least a decent population density.


What exactly is the connection between these two things? Calorie shortfall, sure, nobody said anything hunting, gathering, or any alternatives. I'm referring specifically to the size of a group increasing and its economic system becoming such that a regulatory body of the type you mentioned is "needed." Small communities and social groupings instead of nebulous, Hobbesian sovereign-states and societal groupings.

Are you familiar with the term "monkeysphere"? It's the amount of people one can maintain a meaningful relationship with. While this number varies a bit from person to person...time is still finite for us all. So, the variance is rather small, because even the most social person needs to spend a decent amount of time on occasion to stay in touch with people. 200 is a decent estimate of the maximum most people are capable of associating with, and a great many do so with less.

Now, there's a very well known phenomenon in human culture. When forced to choose between a person we know, and a person we don't...we prioritize the one we know. That stranger might need that food just as bad as your little sister, but the vast majority of people will prioritize friends and family.

So, when the size of a society grows beyond the capability of everyone to know each other, you desperately need a framework within which people interact with each other, even if they're strangers. You need ways to adjudicate the disagreements that will eventually arise. A tribe of a couple dozen, mostly related people may not need a government(or a very nominal one at best, like an informally respected leader). A group of thousands of people? They do. Thus, government will always arise naturally in some form or another as population size increases.

[Asta Kask]

Oh, if it's tool use you're after, you want crows.

Chimps use simple spears for hunting.

[Zen Monkey]

Chimps use simple spears for hunting.

This is awesome. In the end times, my army will have chimp spearmen, er.. spearmonkeys... spear-simians? Either way, they will then learn shield usage and form a chimp phalanx. A wise enemy will not be distracted by their array of comical costumes and hats, for they serve only to lull you into a moment of weakness.

[Ravens_cry]

Chimps use simple spears for hunting.
Really? Source please.

[Savannah]

Really? Source please.

Three seconds of googling later (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html). There's apparently videos, too.

Really, I'm surprised by the suggestion to go to corvids for tool use -- yes, corvids use tools, but the great apes are talked about just as much when it comes to tool use :smallconfused:

[pffh]

I shall do it! I'll require 20 million Euros funding per year for the next 20 years with a possibility of increasing that to 30 million after 10 years if the preliminary experiments prove successful to some degree. After those 20 years I'll have full power to extend this by 5-10 years if needed.

So any takers?

[Ravens_cry]

@Savannah:
Corvids have shown modification of non-tools into tools (http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/page-family-corvidae.html).

[Savannah]

So have chimps. I'm not saying that corvids don't use tools, I'm saying I see no reason to say "oh, no, you don't want to look at great apes for tool use, you want to look at corvids instead". Both groups use tools. Why dismiss one?

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not, but some people are more impressed that something without hands and a much smaller brain is pulling off great ape level tool use.
Crows may also have names for each other and have domesticated humans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

[Juggling Goth]

I'm biased towards crows and secretly hate chimps. All chimps. They shall be mere minions to our corvid overlords.

Nah, I'd just heard of the Caledonian crows modifying tools to make them better, and using several tools in succession, and making the same tools out of different materials. And I hadn't heard of chimps doing the same. *shrug*

[Karoht]

Which then only brings up the natural question, why aren't we domesticating/Civilizing Corvids?

Mind you we have barely managed to domesticate some species of bird for use in the pet trade. And given how difficult and dangerous a Cockatoo can be (they're smart and noteably vicious) I can't imagine how hard it would be to domesticate a corvid. Much less civilize it.

[Yora]

I'm not, but some people are more impressed that something without hands and a much smaller brain is pulling off great ape level tool use.
Crows may also have names for each other and have domesticated humans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

In that case, housecats have developed full civilization 4,000 years ago. They even keep servants. :smallbiggrin:

[Vacant]

Which then only brings up the natural question, why aren't we domesticating/Civilizing Corvids?

Mind you we have barely managed to domesticate some species of bird for use in the pet trade. And given how difficult and dangerous a Cockatoo can be (they're smart and noteably vicious) I can't imagine how hard it would be to domesticate a corvid. Much less civilize it.

You literally have to start from birth, and raising them will take up the vast majority of your time. Bernd Heinrich has a great book about it.

[Ravens_cry]

In that case, housecats have developed full civilization 4,000 years ago. They even keep servants. :smallbiggrin:
They've one better, they have gotten another species to do it for them, while remaining they who walk alone (http://boop.org/jan/justso/cat.htm).

[Karoht]

You literally have to start from birth, and raising them will take up the vast majority of your time. Bernd Heinrich has a great book about it.
Yeup, and even then, that bird can still turn on you and peck out one of your eyes one day.
Just like Apes. Ask any zookeeper, no matter how long they've had a relationship with an ape (IE-From birth), it can all go sour in a blink of an eye.

I read a story once about a chimp who for whatever crazy reason, the keepers got this great idea about teaching karate to. I shook my head in disgust at the idiocy of such an idea. Any idea how crazy dangerous a chimp already is, without knowing how to properly throw a punch?

[Yora]

But he looks so keeeeewt in his little gi. :smallbiggrin:

[VanBuren]

A lot of other things would exist a lot better without our present numbers.


What exactly is the connection between these two things? Calorie shortfall, sure, nobody said anything hunting, gathering, or any alternatives. I'm referring specifically to the size of a group increasing and its economic system becoming such that a regulatory body of the type you mentioned is "needed." Small communities and social groupings instead of nebulous, Hobbesian sovereign-states and societal groupings.

Which would bring us all the way to tribalism and rampant violence and warfare between small tribes of people, rife with persecution in each tribe against those that don't fit into the particular expectations of the tribe, etc.

Clearly much better than the current situation and not at all the kind of thing we're generally quite proud of overcoming somewhat.

[Telonius]

I've been reading, and supposedly we can communicate with apes in actual language... So why hasn't anyone tried, even as an experiment, to "Civilize" a group of apes? Teach them all language, and then get them to build a society, trading with their neighbors who are actually a bunch of volunteers...

I mean it might not work, but on the other hand... Apes with houses and suits.

I thought we already had high schools ...?

[Mono Vertigo]

I thought we already had high schools ...?
Are we done with the insults yet?
The implication apes and highschoolers are equally bad is very insulting for apes. :smallannoyed::smallamused:

[Vacant]

Which would bring us all the way to tribalism and rampant violence and warfare between small tribes of people, rife with persecution in each tribe against those that don't fit into the particular expectations of the tribe, etc.

Clearly much better than the current situation and not at all the kind of thing we're generally quite proud of overcoming somewhat.

Not all small groupings fit in the realm of "tribal," so it's fallacious to assume that particular mode of small group interaction is the only one which would/could exist, given direct evidence against this. Even assuming that they will all fall into the kind of "tribal" group you're envisioning, institutionalized persecution pretty much requires a societal, rather than social, group. Therefore, seeing as I would take small-scale violence and non-institutionalized persecution over equally-to-more frequent largemassive-scale violence and organized, institutionalized forms of persecution, yes, I would say even the tribal model you cite is much better than the current situation.

[Starwulf]

Not all small groupings fit in the realm of "tribal," so it's fallacious to assume that particular mode of small group interaction is the only one which would/could exist, given direct evidence against this. Even assuming that they will all fall into the kind of "tribal" group you're envisioning, institutionalized persecution pretty much requires a societal, rather than social, group. Therefore, seeing as I would take small-scale violence and non-institutionalized persecution over equally-to-more frequent largemassive-scale violence and organized, institutionalized forms of persecution, yes, I would say even the tribal model you cite is much better than the current situation.

I'm....almost speechless. All I can say(because saying more would get me banned) is you have a god-awful dismal view of modern-day society, and I will NEVER be able to see eye-to-eye with your viewpoint.

[Vacant]

Fair enough, as I absolutely cannot understand how one could come to any other view and accordingly doubt I could share in it.

[Asta Kask]

Yeup, and even then, that bird can still turn on you and peck out one of your eyes one day.
Just like Apes. Ask any zookeeper, no matter how long they've had a relationship with an ape (IE-From birth), it can all go sour in a blink of an eye.

I read a story once about a chimp who for whatever crazy reason, the keepers got this great idea about teaching karate to. I shook my head in disgust at the idiocy of such an idea. Any idea how crazy dangerous a chimp already is, without knowing how to properly throw a punch?

I'm not so sure they'd be more dangerous with Karate training. Their physiology is different from ours and I wonder if Karate techniques (optimized for human physiology) would work on them.

[Tyndmyr]

Not all small groupings fit in the realm of "tribal," so it's fallacious to assume that particular mode of small group interaction is the only one which would/could exist, given direct evidence against this. Even assuming that they will all fall into the kind of "tribal" group you're envisioning, institutionalized persecution pretty much requires a societal, rather than social, group. Therefore, seeing as I would take small-scale violence and non-institutionalized persecution over equally-to-more frequent largemassive-scale violence and organized, institutionalized forms of persecution, yes, I would say even the tribal model you cite is much better than the current situation.

It is...historically quite unusual for small groups of different groups of people(with no overarching society) to NOT have at least occasional conflict.

Scattered small scale violence quickly adds up to large scale violence in overall scope. Nobody really knows how many people have died to inter-tribal war...but the fact remains that average life expectancy is a lot better in modern society than it is in a tribal culture. There's a lot of factors involved here, but it's a pretty notable difference overall.

Personally, being a fan of not dying or living with dehabilitating disabilities, I like the society that results in I and my friends living longer and healthier lives. Many of the people I know would not even be alive if not for modern medicine. Modern society is an easy choice.


I'm not so sure they'd be more dangerous with Karate training. Their physiology is different from ours and I wonder if Karate techniques (optimized for human physiology) would work on them.

Still humanoid. Some moves aren't going to translate great(a lot of the kicks, I imagine), but still...throwing a punch is throwing a punch. I imagine they could be effective with it. That said, biting and stuff like they already know how to do when angered? Already quite effective.

[Reluctance]

Still humanoid. Some moves aren't going to translate great(a lot of the kicks, I imagine), but still...throwing a punch is throwing a punch. I imagine they could be effective with it. That said, biting and stuff like they already know how to do when angered? Already quite effective.

The biggest trick to being a martial artist is actually using all those moves properly when you're scared/hurt/angry in the heat of battle. For a chimp to keep a cool head when in rage mode sounds astoundingly unlikely, as does one drilling itself until the moves become second nature. IOWs, not much more to it than a cute trick.

[Vacant]

It is...historically quite unusual for small groups of different groups of people(with no overarching society) to NOT have at least occasional conflict.
"At least occasional," small-group conflicts is a lot better than virtually constant conflict between very large groups with equally occasional small-group conflicts from inside those large groups. Now nation-states or even alliances thereof go to war, but that doesn't mean familial/gang/other small group feuds have stopped or slowed whatsoever.


Scattered small scale violence quickly adds up to large scale violence in overall scope. Nobody really knows how many people have died to inter-tribal war...but the fact remains that average life expectancy is a lot better in modern society than it is in a tribal culture. There's a lot of factors involved here, but it's a pretty notable difference overall.
Average life expectancy is a lot higher, not a lot better, for one thing. Secondly, that's a lot more to do with medical advances than it is us killing each other less. The idea that humanity is less violent now is laughable. Even countries not in external wars are in perpetual war against their own citizenry. Society is violence.


Personally, being a fan of not dying or living with dehabilitating disabilities, I like the society that results in I and my friends living longer and healthier lives. Many of the people I know would not even be alive if not for modern medicine. Modern society is an easy choice.
I really can't agree; while something may be better for me and my friends, I don't think it's fair to consider that in a vacuum, without considering as well what it means for the countless people I will never meet. Basically, I don't know if I need to live to by a hundred year-old man full of tubes, bedridden, seeing children of whom dementia has robbed me of all memories through a haze of my prolonged-hospice morphine at the expense of massive numbers of other people who will die young and miserable for me to have that dubious luxury.

EDIT: Actually, I think a chimp would probably pull that off better than a person. Visceral and conscious, "intellectual" reactions to pain are very different, in my experience. Drowning out the conscious voice and relying on muscle memory will work much better than giving yourself some kind of internal pep talk while trying to throw a flying knee.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yeah, but would you rather be a bed-ridden senile 40-year-old? The only thing that's changed is how comfy the bed is when you die, and how much later you die.
And it's hardly virtually constant conflict. Back when, EVERYONE would have to worry about small-scale conflict. I don't know where you live, but in Toronto, I don't have to worry about ANY conflict. The existence of the state is to protect from those familial/gang/other small group feuds. They HAVE slowed significantly

It used to be that every single group would feud constantly with every single other group. If you saw another group of people, you would threaten and yell at them, and hope it didn't escalate into throwing rocks, and beating each other with sticks.

[Vacant]

Yeah, but would you rather be a bed-ridden senile 40-year-old? The only thing that's changed is how comfy the bed is when you die, and how much later you die.
Well, how comfy the bed is, when, and how many people were horrifically oppressed to buy (quite literally) your added years and comfy bed.


And it's hardly virtually constant conflict. Back when, EVERYONE would have to worry about small-scale conflict.
"Back when" isn't a really clear historical indicator which allows me to have any idea what you mean. Back some thens that's true, back other thens that's not true at all. Or at least not any more so than it now is.


I don't know where you live, but in Toronto, I don't have to worry about ANY conflict. The existence of the state is to protect from those familial/gang/other small group feuds. They HAVE slowed significantly
You don't have to worry about any conflict as long as you capitulate to the state, no. If you don't, you have to worry very, very much about it. Again, society is the institutionalization and "legitimation" of violence.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

... Yes. Yes, if you attempt to rebel against the thing keeping you safe, you will be harmed. Are you surprised by this?

Back when I'm talking about pre-civilization times. Pre-farming, up to and including early farms, maybe up to the earliest towns.

[Starwulf]

Well, how comfy the bed is, when, and how many people were horrifically oppressed to buy (quite literally) your added years and comfy bed.

Uhh, you do realize that we've come a LOOONNNGG ways from the days of child-labor and what not, right? I mean, granted, there are SOME countries that still have issues with forcing people to work in cramped factories for sub-par wages, but you want to know a secret? Don't buy products made by them. It's pretty simple. I myself, before my back Injury, proudly helped make things that people bought, mainly I helped build RV campers(Prowlers, by Fleetwood). No slave labor there, and I'll be damned, I certainly wasn't oppressed.


You don't have to worry about any conflict as long as you capitulate to the state, no. If you don't, you have to worry very, very much about it. Again, society is the institutionalization and "legitimation" of violence.

Yeaaahhh...no offense, but only third world countries are like that. Many countries are just fine with protesters, as long as they don't get out of hand. If you want to voice your complaints, go right ahead. Just don't do so in countries that don't allow it. And if you want to change those countries, stop being an anonymous voice on the internet whining about the injustice of it all. Go out there and lobby your countries government to go do something about it. OR!!! OR!! are you perhaps saying we shouldn't have to follow all of a governments laws? If so, you do realize that laws are put in place(for the MOST Part) to keep a countries citizens safe, right? Or do you believe we should have the right to murder and rob other people based on the color of their skin, or religion, their sexuality, or hell, just for the fun of it? I mean, really, you need to go back to the times of the caveman to reach a point in time where there were NOT a body of laws set in place for the regular person to be guided by.

Really, your entire position is almost entirely indefensible. It makes almost literally no sense. You really can't expect people to believe that we were better off a few hundred years ago(or farther back) then we are now. Hell, take ME for example. I'm a living, breathing example of the benefits of modern day society. With my back injury being such as it is, I'm unable to work. Yet I'm able to provide for my family because of the society I live in taking care of me. If I lived a few hundred years ago, my life would be EXTREMELY short, as I would be expected to still go out and work(because people in the society YOU think was good, were expected to do their share no matter their infirmity), and doing so with my back injuries would mean I'd be unable to walk within a year of my injury. I'd have likely been put up in a bed somewhere and giving minimum food, likely not even enough to really survive, in the hopes that I would die much quicker.

Hell, what about all the starving children in third-world countries that other countries help out? What were they doing 100, 200 years ago? Still starving, but with no help from other countries because we weren't quite civilized enough to realize that everyone in the world needed food. We were too concerned with filling our own bellies to worry about others.

Seriously, you need to take a long hard look at your viewpoint before you start talking about it on internet forums There are so many holes in your theories that if it were a bucket, it wouldn't hold an inch of water if you held it underneath a waterfall.

Don't get me wrong, modern-day society has it's flaws, but it is in absolutely no way, shape, or form, worse then it was in any point in time in history before it.

[Vacant]

The state keeps things safe for the homogeneous group at the top of the societal hegemony, sure, in that they do so by removing the danger of them being at any other place in society by making things very, very dangerous for everybody else. Globalization sees this trend displaced from a single state to a larger societal grouping, but the result is the same, if not worse.

What is your source, exactly, on what happened back then? I'm curious because nobody is entirely certain about how farming came to be on even a very elementary level, which makes it rather problematic to assert what social conditions were like in early farming communities.


Uhh, you do realize that we've come a LOOONNNGG ways from the days of child-labor and what not, right?
If by "we've come a long way" you mean "we have moved child labor a long way from us, spatially" then, yes, I do know that. I just don't see how that is better in any way.


I mean, granted, there are SOME countries that still have issues with forcing people to work in cramped factories for sub-par wages, but you want to know a secret? Don't buy products made by them.
So, like, anything?


It's pretty simple. I myself, before my back Injury, proudly helped make things that people bought, mainly I helped build RV campers(Prowlers, by Fleetwood). No slave labor there, and I'll be damned, I certainly wasn't oppressed.
Where did the parts come from? The metal? You see where this is going, I assume. Where do their profits go, on what other boards do their CEOs sit? You see where this is going as well, I imagine. It's really not that simple at all.


Really, your entire position is almost entirely indefensible.
Seeing as you said you disagreed with it and literally would not ever agree, I imagine you think so, yes.


It makes almost literally no sense.
It makes quite a bit of sense. The utility I derive from society's convenience and pretense of decency is less than the immense cost I see behind those things. Therefore, I would opt for a grouping to which those immense costs are not inherent.


You really can't expect people to believe that we were better off a few hundred years ago(or farther back) Hell, take ME for example. I'm a living, breathing example of the benefits of modern day society. With my back injury being such as it is, I'm unable to work. Yet I'm able to provide for my family because of the society I live in taking care of me. If I lived a few hundred years ago, my life would be EXTREMELY short, as I would be expected to still go out and work(because people in the society YOU think was good, were expected to do their share no matter their infirmity), and doing so with my back injuries would mean I'd be unable to walk within a year of my injury.I'd have likely been put up in a bed somewhere and giving minimum food, likely not even enough to really survive, in the hopes that I would die much quicker.
To reiterate, it's not a "few hundred." I don't get why you seem to think that I am talking about the past few hundred years when I have explicitly said that that was no the case. More importantly, I do not think any society is good. The entire crux of what I am saying is that I think social groups are good, or at least have the potential to be, while societal groups are not and do not.


Hell, what about all the starving children in third-world countries that other countries help out? What were they doing 100, 200 years ago? Still starving, but with no help from other countries because we weren't quite civilized enough to realize that everyone in the world needed food. We were too concerned with filling our own bellies to worry about others.
A: We are still too concerned with filling our own bellies/pockets to worry about others. Now we just donate money to the flashiest commercials so we feel better about it. Also, you know children still starve in developed countries, right?
B: Well, 100-200 years ago, they were probably crushed under the colonial yoke of "civilized" nations and accordingly well on their way to their current predicament. So, yes, still starving, but with and largely because of "civilized" people "helping" them.
C: Again, why are you even asking about 100-200 years ago, exactly? You should maybe figure out which metaphorical bucket is mine before you go poking holes in it. :smallwink:

[Starwulf]

The state keeps things safe for the homogeneous group at the top of the societal hegemony, sure, in that they do so by removing the danger of them being at any other place in society by making things very, very dangerous for everybody else. Globalization sees this trend displaced from a single state to a larger societal grouping, but the result is the same, if not worse.

What is your source, exactly, on what happened back then? I'm curious because nobody is entirely certain about how farming came to be on even a very elementary level, which makes it rather problematic to assert what social conditions were like in early farming communities.


If by "we've come a long way" you mean "we have moved child labor a long way from us, spatially" then, yes, I do know that. I just don't see how that is better in any way.

So, in other words, you blame the entire world, for a few countries issues? You hold all of us at fault for being unable to stop other countries from treating their citizens the right way? You give absolutely no credit to the countries that DON'T treat their citizens as cattle? Pretty crappy view there buddy. It's not like things HAVEN'T been improving over the last century. Wasn't to long ago that working conditions for the average person in the United States was equivalent to a third-world countries working conditions. They aren't like that anymore though(by and large. I'm sure if you look hard enough, yeah, you'll find a shoddy workplace SOMEWHERE that's skirting the law. But you can find that at anywhere, at ANY POINT IN TIME, even the mystical fabled time that you keep referring to). The world isn't getting worse ya know, it's getting better, every day people become more and more informed to the hardships that other countries endure, and the more people that become aware, the larger the outcry, and eventually, those things will be changed. Don't hold the entire world at fault just because some countries are a bit backwards still.



So, like, anything?

Uhh, Working conditions in the United States is quite well, and, FYI, I live less then three hours away from one of the largest steel mill producers in the United states. GO PITTSBURGH!. (This correlates to your response below as well). Just because you have this incredibly morbid view of the world does NOT mean anyone else shares it. I would actually be willing to wager that there isn't a single other person on this entire thread who agrees with your line of thought. It's pretty far out there man, really.



Where did the parts come from? The metal? You see where this is going, I assume. Where do their profits go, on what other boards do their CEOs sit? You see where this is going as well, I imagine. It's really not that simple at all.

As I said: Pittsburgh. There are a HUGE multitude of examples of products built solely in the United States, by materials MADE in the United States, farmed/refined/whatever IN THE UNITED STATES, and quite frankly, I'm quite willing to bet that other major countries have their own products made in their own country and weren't done so by utilizing child labor or other types thereof.



Seeing as you said you disagreed with it and literally would not ever agree, I imagine you think so, yes.


It makes quite a bit of sense. The utility I derive from society's convenience and pretense of decency is less than the immense cost I see behind those things. Therefore, I would opt for a grouping to which those immense costs are not inherent.


To reiterate, it's not a "few hundred." I don't get why you seem to think that I am talking about the past few hundred years when I have explicitly said that that was no the case. More importantly, I do not think any society is good. The entire crux of what I am saying is that I think social groups are good, or at least have the potential to be, while societal groups are not and do not.


A: We are still too concerned with filling our own bellies/pockets to worry about others. Now we just donate money to the flashiest commercials so we feel better about it. Also, you know children still starve in developed countries, right?
B: Well, 100-200 years ago, they were probably crushed under the colonial yoke of "civilized" nations and accordingly well on their way to their current predicament. So, yes, still starving, but with and largely because of "civilized" people "helping" them.
C: Again, why are you even asking about 100-200 years ago, exactly? You should maybe figure out which metaphorical bucket is mine before you go poking holes in it. :smallwink:

Oh, so in other words, you think we would probably be better off as Nomadic tribes wandering the wilderness? What IS your viewpoint, really? All you've done in this entire thread is spout of fancy(yet ultimately meaningless) words, almost as if you're quoting from some book by an author whose work you admire. You have yet to give ANY concrete examples as to how the world would be better off without modern-day civilization. And every-time you're questioned about it, you deflect, and try to make other people do the work for you, but I got news for you, you're the one espousing a viewpoint so radical and virtually unheard of, not us, so the burden of proof, is on you. Stop talking in circles, and actually give some concrete, 100% real proof with actual studies that PROVE that we would be better off without modern-day society, or please, just stop arguing. It's getting old(and also quite a bit political, I'm honestly surprised this thread hasn't been shut down yet).

[Asta Kask]

Isn't this politics?

[Zen Monkey]

I'm starting to believe that the "all societies are bad" assertion is just a troll. Society, the protection of the group and it's laws/customs/morals, is the only thing keeping the larger guy living in the next cave from coming over to your cave and taking your collection of food and sharp sticks. If nobody is looking out for your interests, even if only as a mutual assurance of their own interests, then you better be the biggest, strongest, meanest guy around. Even then, you'll need to sleep sometime. If you aren't some sort of immortal ubermensch, then you're going to start making social contracts with others if you want to survive.

[Worira]

Guys we're getting off topic

This thread is about teaching monkeys simians kung fu martial arts

I think gorillas would be more suited to being instructed in martial arts than chimpanzees, due to being more patient, willing to learn, and generally less jerkacious than chimps. But would they be more suited to hard or soft styles?

[Vacant]

Isn't this politics?

I've been trying to keep to more generalized philosophical arguments to avoid that. Seeing as that is becoming increasingly difficult and few, if any, responses have actually about the point for which I argued (perhaps my word choices haven't been clear?) instead of how great technology is, I'm done with this.

As for wushu apes, I'm thinking gorillas should make the most of hard styles. They've already got a massive edge in physical strength, and I feel like soft styles could be much harder to teach them. Of course, if it's not an either/or debate, cross-training is almost always the ideal choice.

[Karoht]

I personally don't think this is talking politics so much as it's talking sociology, but that could just be my take on it.

What's being discussed really is the differences of one societal model VS another. More specifically, Modern Society as we know it VS The Wild.

Is there a benefit to introducing Apes to modern society and climatizing them as such? Not so much.
Are there massive hurdles? Of course.

As for humans viewing 'The Wild' there are certainly benefits to non-society. There are also benefits to society. Many of the modern benefits have drawbacks, ranging from minor to severe. Environmental impact is one of them. Social impact (culture, rights and freedoms) is another impact.

It's very hard to suggest that modern society as we know it is the better way, when we can't even really imagine a better way ourselves. Look at the daunting task of transitioning to more sustainable practices. We were unable to predict the impacts of our unsustainable ways, I'm not entirely convinced we can predict all the impacts of sustainable practices Though the benefits are very attractive and the vast difference between the research conducted 'back then' as opposed to now speaks volumes.

If you want a great example, look at water cycles in various environments. Country X is losing all it's water, yet it isn't exporting any and there is no drought. Where is the water going? Well, Country X is growing lettuce and selling it to Country Y as a cash crop. So while they aren't directly exporting their water, they're shipping it out of the country, with no return of water.

I won't say one system is worse than the other. But then again I don't view human life as better or more special than that we find in the wild, and I'd wager that Vacant has a similar viewpoint. Sure, it's amazing that we've built the internet and sent people to the moon, but that doesn't make us better than an ape. Just my opinion mind you.

[Tyndmyr]

I personally don't think this is talking politics so much as it's talking sociology, but that could just be my take on it.

Agreed. Sure, you need to have a society to really have politics, but that doesn't make general discussion of society inherently always political.


What's being discussed really is the differences of one societal model VS another. More specifically, Modern Society as we know it VS The Wild.

Is there a benefit to introducing Apes to modern society and climatizing them as such? Not so much.
Are there massive hurdles? Of course.

I think the only reason it would happen would be because someone viewed it as the morally right thing to do. It's not economically practical or anything...but perhaps "uplifting" other species to intelligence/society will one day be seen as desirable.


As for humans viewing 'The Wild' there are certainly benefits to non-society. There are also benefits to society. Many of the modern benefits have drawbacks, ranging from minor to severe. Environmental impact is one of them. Social impact (culture, rights and freedoms) is another impact.

But, it's fairly inarguable than I am better off in modern society. Statistically, everyone is. A fair proportion of us have statistically had events happen in our lives that we would probably not have survived without the medical knowledge provided to us by society. On a very basic level, continuing to live is a HUGE thing for which you must provide a great deal of evidence to overcome. Most people are unwilling to give that up.


It's very hard to suggest that modern society as we know it is the better way, when we can't even really imagine a better way ourselves.

That does not follow. An inability to imagine a better way indicates that the current way IS good. Not bad.


Look at the daunting task of transitioning to more sustainable practices. We were unable to predict the impacts of our unsustainable ways, I'm not entirely convinced we can predict all the impacts of sustainable practices Though the benefits are very attractive and the vast difference between the research conducted 'back then' as opposed to now speaks volumes.

Humanity altered it's environments before it had a true society/culture, hunting many animals to extinction. Plenty of other creatures have done the same.

Culture and technology have given us the ability to predict and thus, alter the impact of our actions. Are these abilities perfect? No. But they've vastly improved, and this could not possibly have happened without technology and social development. Going backward will not improve this capability further.


If you want a great example, look at water cycles in various environments. Country X is losing all it's water, yet it isn't exporting any and there is no drought. Where is the water going? Well, Country X is growing lettuce and selling it to Country Y as a cash crop. So while they aren't directly exporting their water, they're shipping it out of the country, with no return of water.

*shrug* They should probably import some water, then.


I won't say one system is worse than the other. But then again I don't view human life as better or more special than that we find in the wild, and I'd wager that Vacant has a similar viewpoint. Sure, it's amazing that we've built the internet and sent people to the moon, but that doesn't make us better than an ape. Just my opinion mind you.

Better/worse is incredibly subjective. I prefer to avoid such vague terminology.

Human life is, in general, and mainly thanks to our technology and culture, vastly more capable of accomplishing things than say, an ape. Thus, from a practical pov, humans have a greater value for achieving most goals.

[Karoht]

I think the only reason it would happen would be because someone viewed it as the morally right thing to do. It's not economically practical or anything...but perhaps "uplifting" other species to intelligence/society will one day be seen as desirable.Without getting too far into it, I would like to point out that this was the motivation for... erm... educating? socializing? certain racial groups. If it isn't obvious, I'm trying to tiptoe around some sensitive words and topics here. I'll trust that most people can fill in the blanks here.
I agree though that someone someday might try to justify such a project on the grounds of moral reasons rather than objective reasons.
Be that as it may, moral decisions usually aren't scientific decisions, though they can be made scientifically. Or at least I have had a few examples described to me over the years where they can be. Typically by analysis of cost VS benefit. But that's probably a whole different discussion right there.



But, it's fairly inarguable than I am better off in modern society. Statistically, everyone is. A fair proportion of us have statistically had events happen in our lives that we would probably not have survived without the medical knowledge provided to us by society. On a very basic level, continuing to live is a HUGE thing for which you must provide a great deal of evidence to overcome. Most people are unwilling to give that up.I wholeheartedly agree. I suffered a skull fracture when I was 11, involving a piece of my skull going quite deep into my brain. I have no doubt that in the wild I would be dead. I also broke a leg, and while that is treatable on one's own, I would likely not be able to provide food for myself or keep predators at bay long enough to recover. This is assuming I survived things like the potential infection, or set the bone properly myself such that the marrow didn't get out and cause a fatal clot in my brain.



That does not follow. An inability to imagine a better way indicates that the current way IS good. Not bad.The caveman was unable to imagine a better way. Clearly there was. While this is entirely hindsight (I'm sure there is a special name for this, confirmation bias maybe?), one could extrapolate on modern society and estimate that there are probably much better ways we could be handling all manner of modern concerns. This is before we look at some other proposed systems and evaluate them, better or worse.
EDIT: You are correct though.



Humanity altered it's environments before it had a true society/culture, hunting many animals to extinction. Plenty of other creatures have done the same.I'll make the token arguement of 'not on the same scale as humans' and point out that in many cases we had a choice not to. Take wolves for example. If hunters had it there way, these creatures would be long since dead. Seeing as there is no longer a need or necessity to hunt them, this is a moral choice is it not? Thankfully some have chosen to prevent their extinction, along with other species, but these species would likely not be in danger if not for human intervention.



*shrug* They should probably import some water, then.Or export something less water intensive. But you get the gist of it.



Better/worse is incredibly subjective. I prefer to avoid such vague terminology.
Human life is, in general, and mainly thanks to our technology and culture, vastly more capable of accomplishing things than say, an ape. Thus, from a practical pov, humans have a greater value for achieving most goals.Indeed, and an excellent way of phrasing this.

[Tyndmyr]

I'll make the token arguement of 'not on the same scale as humans' and point out that in many cases we had a choice not to. Take wolves for example. If hunters had it there way, these creatures would be long since dead. Seeing as there is no longer a need or necessity to hunt them, this is a moral choice is it not? Thankfully some have chosen to prevent their extinction, along with other species, but these species would likely not be in danger if not for human intervention.

It might be a moral choice or a practical one. The decision might be made on either basis, and the choice of how to choose is one that people are unlikely to agree on.

Certainly, there might be motivation to hunt them in certain areas. For instance, wolves occasionally attack humans. It isn't terribly frequent, but it does happen. More frequently, they attack things(livestock, often) that people place value on. I personally almost had my dog killed by a wolf on the deck of my home on one occasion.

From a pragmatic perspective, you can certainly argue that the value in retaining the wolf species is less than that saved by removing them. Extinction is not always a negative outcome from all perspectives.

[Karoht]

It might be a moral choice or a practical one. The decision might be made on either basis, and the choice of how to choose is one that people are unlikely to agree on.

Certainly, there might be motivation to hunt them in certain areas. For instance, wolves occasionally attack humans. It isn't terribly frequent, but it does happen. More frequently, they attack things(livestock, often) that people place value on. I personally almost had my dog killed by a wolf on the deck of my home on one occasion.

From a pragmatic perspective, you can certainly argue that the value in retaining the wolf species is less than that saved by removing them. Extinction is not always a negative outcome from all perspectives.Or instead of hunting them we could not encroach on their environment, we could build better fences, we could leave their natural food sources alone, etc. Plenty of solutions that do not involve killing them, hence killing them is a choice, not really a necessity.

Another example are the seal hunts which take place every year. We wouldn't need to cull the seals if we didn't decimate the fish stocks that they feed off. While there is some cerimonial purpose to the hunt (cultural) ultimately these hunts wouldn't have to happen if we didn't put these animals in this position in the first place.

Personally, I see no purpose in exterminating a species for being a nuisance, when we are the ones who put them in that position in the first place. We're being the nuisance to them, for the most part animals leave us alone.


============
Getting back to apes and civilization, one possible reason why we might civilize them is because we've destroyed that much of their natural environment, and their adaptation to civilization is one of few ways to ensure their survival. Kind of like going a step beyond zoos.


Question: If we do civilize Apes, do we give them the same rights as humans? I vote yes. If we're going to burden them with all the responsibilties of being "people" then they more than deserve all the rights and freedoms and protections that go with it.

[Zen Monkey]

Question: If we do civilize Apes, do we give them the same rights as humans? I vote yes. If we're going to burden them with all the responsibilties of being "people" then they more than deserve all the rights and freedoms and protections that go with it.

Elections get real strange once candidates start pursuing the monkey vote. I imagine a program of unusually high banana subsidies.

[Tyndmyr]

Or instead of hunting them we could not encroach on their environment, we could build better fences, we could leave their natural food sources alone, etc. Plenty of solutions that do not involve killing them, hence killing them is a choice, not really a necessity.

I don't claim it's a necessity. Merely that by a cost/benefit analysis, wiping out a species might be desirable. In fact, with some things, like diseases, we put rather a lot of resources into attempting such things. The extinction of malaria would likely be met with celebration. Failing that, the mosquito(or at least, certain populations of them) dying off would also probably be a net win for humanity since, as carriers of malaria, they kill off more humans than any other creature.




Another example are the seal hunts which take place every year. We wouldn't need to cull the seals if we didn't decimate the fish stocks that they feed off. While there is some cerimonial purpose to the hunt (cultural) ultimately these hunts wouldn't have to happen if we didn't put these animals in this position in the first place.

Firstly, we're not considering extinction in this situation, as nobody is attempting that, and it's unlikely to happen.

Secondly, all predator/prey relationships tend to take on a boom/bust cycle in nature. In short, predators naturally reproduce until they outbreed the prey. The excess then starve off. So, on a sheer deaths scale, we're really not making more die over the long term...we've merely changed the when and the how.

This brings up interesting side effects like possible forcing for different evolutionary traits, but it's not a notable moral issue based on deaths alone.


Personally, I see no purpose in exterminating a species for being a nuisance, when we are the ones who put them in that position in the first place. We're being the nuisance to them, for the most part animals leave us alone.

Competition is a natural part of life. If you're not in competition with anything else, you're either in a VERY obscure biological niche or you're dead. There is no "we put them in that position" any more than it is their fault for being in that position. It is simply the natural order of things, and merely by existing, you must engage in competition. If this competition takes place directly or indirectly matters fairly little in the end.


============
Getting back to apes and civilization, one possible reason why we might civilize them is because we've destroyed that much of their natural environment, and their adaptation to civilization is one of few ways to ensure their survival. Kind of like going a step beyond zoos.

Making them better capable of seeing to their own survival is perhaps an interesting goal. I'm not sure if it's practical or not, but I would love to see the results of a dedicated effort to uplift a community of them.


Question: If we do civilize Apes, do we give them the same rights as humans? I vote yes. If we're going to burden them with all the responsibilties of being "people" then they more than deserve all the rights and freedoms and protections that go with it.

I would say it depends on their capabilities. If they can attain similar progress compared to humans...why not? And yes, rights and responsibilities would have to go hand in hand.

However, I suspect the sticky bit is trying to determine what exactly human-like is. How close to us does something have to be to count? And how do you define it in such a way as to not exclude unusual people that we normally would call human? Defining humanity is incredibly difficult.

[Karoht]

I don't claim it's a necessity. Merely that by a cost/benefit analysis, wiping out a species might be desirable. In fact, with some things, like diseases, we put rather a lot of resources into attempting such things. The extinction of malaria would likely be met with celebration. Failing that, the mosquito(or at least, certain populations of them) dying off would also probably be a net win for humanity since, as carriers of malaria, they kill off more humans than any other creature.I never stated that you claimed it as a necessity, nor attempted to imply it. However, the point of pest species is an excellent example, and a point where cost/benefit analysis really does do it justice.
The mosquito example is a slight bit short sighted. You'd be harming the food supply of many other species such as spiders, bats, and birds. Given the damage birds and bats are capable of, I really don't think one would want to mess with their food supply and subsequently encourage them to be a new pest. Sure, another insect species might take it's place as a prey species, so the predators might only suffer short term, but the new species could bring problems as well. The 'cost' would naturally have to factor these elements in and weigh against the benefit.
Malaria gone? That's easy. Gin and Tonic for all! :smallbiggrin:
But yes, Malaria is indeed a fairly easy cost/benefit analysis. I don't know much that feeds on Malaria these days.



Secondly, all predator/prey relationships tend to take on a boom/bust cycle in nature. In short, predators naturally reproduce until they outbreed the prey. The excess then starve off. So, on a sheer deaths scale, we're really not making more die over the long term...we've merely changed the when and the how.But by interfering with the food supplies of both example species (wolf and seal) we've now put ourselves and the species in this position. Going back to the cost/benefit analysis, we are the reason why the analysis is even being made.



Competition is a natural part of life. If you're not in competition with anything else, you're either in a VERY obscure biological niche or you're dead. There is no "we put them in that position" any more than it is their fault for being in that position. It is simply the natural order of things, and merely by existing, you must engage in competition. If this competition takes place directly or indirectly matters fairly little in the end.Very well. We could suggest that humanity is now out-competing. Or we can own up and acknowledge the damage we are causing (not that you are denying it), which would likely not be caused if we were not around. The endangered species list is rife with examples that we have caused.
One could also flip this somewhat and suggest that we don't really compete anymore, or at least, we don't compete in quite the same way. One could also point out that we can greatly minimize how much we compete with other species, and leave our competition mostly internal, or merely among ourselves.

I'm sure the wolves and seals could just adapt or compete better or compete differently, but until some evolutionary adaptations kick in, there isn't much they have a choice or say in. Meanwhile, we do have a choice and say in what goes on. Hence we are culpable, or so the arguement goes.



Making them better capable of seeing to their own survival is perhaps an interesting goal. I'm not sure if it's practical or not, but I would love to see the results of a dedicated effort to uplift a community of them.I doubt it would be practical. But you know, the more I think about it, the more curious I get, if it were approached under this reasoning. It would be a real test of adaptation as well.
Mind you it could also be rife with potential for disaster, which is why I'm content with it remaining a thought exercise. But say centuries from now, the world is decimated and the only way to save the apes is to make them part of our society? If necessity drove it, somehow it doesn't feel as wrong, for reasons I can't put my finger on.



I would say it depends on their capabilities. If they can attain similar progress compared to humans...why not? And yes, rights and responsibilities would have to go hand in hand.Well, I think it would totally depend on the norms and values of the day. But say they can hold down a job (not slave labor, not just flipping burgers either) and be contributing members of society (whatever contributing counts as in that time period) I could see it going... not disasterously.
If an ape can get by being an artist or a rocket scientist as easily as a human can (broad example) then yeah, why not? Big if with a few complications, but there it is.



However, I suspect the sticky bit is trying to determine what exactly human-like is. How close to us does something have to be to count? And how do you define it in such a way as to not exclude unusual people that we normally would call human? Defining humanity is incredibly difficult.And how. This right here has probably been one of the biggest sticking points of human/animal rights since the get-go. To sum it up, why would a Dolphin deserve rights and freedoms and not the mosquito? I remember a few comedians pointing this out, we only want to protect the cute animals. Poor cockroaches, they got it tough.


========

Elections get real strange once candidates start pursuing the monkey vote. I imagine a program of unusually high banana subsidies.I am all over that. Can't be much worse than the monkeys we have today right? :smallwink:

If a million monkeys on a million typewritters can reproduce shakespear, does that mean a million monkey politicians can eventually reproduce all of the great political speeches of the 20th/21st century?

[Vacant]

But, it's fairly inarguable than I am better off in modern society. Statistically, everyone is.
Actually, statistics don't make value judgments.


A fair proportion of us have statistically had events happen in our lives that we would probably not have survived without the medical knowledge provided to us by society. On a very basic level, continuing to live is a HUGE thing for which you must provide a great deal of evidence to overcome. Most people are unwilling to give that up.
A fair proportion of us people who can afford computers and the internet, yes. Of everyone? Certainly not.
Secondly, it's a fallacious argument to directly equate medical knowledge with a certain social model; rejecting modern society and civilization is not the same as primitivism, despite their overlaps. Arguing that things would have been better had they moved in a different direction is not the same as arguing they would have been better had they stood still.


That does not follow. An inability to imagine a better way indicates that the current way IS good. Not bad.
No, it indicates that the current way is ingrained to the point one imagines no actual alternatives; all the counter-arguments I've received have essentially amounted to "the current way with less technology was not as good."


Better/worse is incredibly subjective. I prefer to avoid such vague terminology.

Human life is, in general, and mainly thanks to our technology and culture, vastly more capable of accomplishing things than say, an ape. Thus, from a practical pov, humans have a greater value for achieving most goals.
Accomplishing what, exactly? Structures that will rust and decay, great art that will be forgotten, a flag on an empty, desolate rock in our orbit? Transience is transience, however grandiloquently articulated.

[ninja_penguin]

Why hasn't anybody tried civilizing apes?:

Well, basically because they're not the same species, so it doesn't work out well. Baseline communications are seriously important. Note how much social interactions are off just between some countries. Now start changing all the rules for body language, facial expressions, and it's not worth the effort.


For the rest of the massive derail that is this thread:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

[Zen Monkey]

If a million monkeys on a million typewritters can reproduce shakespear, does that mean a million monkey politicians can eventually reproduce all of the great political speeches of the 20th/21st century?

I think the internet has already established that a million monkeys hammering on a million keyboards just produces stuff like twitter. Who'd have thought we'd ever get to actually test that old saying?

[Karoht]

I think the internet has already established that a million monkeys hammering on a million keyboards just produces stuff like twitter. Who'd have thought we'd ever get to actually test that old saying?
I think twitter proves that monkey's could use the internet. But now we're off topic.

So, civilizing apes. That includes teaching them to use computers if their capacity allows for it. Imagine some of those facebook posts. The tweets. Think of the tweets!

[Zen Monkey]

Monkey Congress. Even if political disagreements were kept away from violence, I imagine there would still be a lot of ... flinging.. going on. Of course, it might make C-Span watchable.

It would probably take a lot of conditioning to instill concepts like rights or equality, as opposed to their usual structure of 'bigger apes get more food, because they're bigger and therefore in charge.' "I, John Q. Gorrillaburg, deserve to have my vote counted twice. Why? Because I'm large, of course."

[Bhu]

Regarding simian wu shu:

Apes have very little stamina in certain regards. They're designed for a massive output of power for a very brief span of time. Old time circuses used to try to train them to lift heavy weights to help take down and put up the tents and such. They found out quickly it was almost impossible to get them to focus on the task, and they ran out of energy quickly. That gorilla may be able to tear you limb from limb without training easily, but in a minute or two he'll have blown up and have no energy left. You might be able to teach one to use striking, but you would need to come up with a reward system that could keep his attention, and you would run the risk of the ape realizing at some point that it could easily take you (meaning when you tried to reinforce some sort of reward/punishment system it simply bashed in your skull and took the reward because it realized you had no way of saying no).

Regarding op's question about civilizing apes:

If by civilizing you mean make them more human, it's not possible without serious genetic manipulation. Humans as a species are the primates most capable of displaying sympathy or concern for their fellows, even if they don't know them, though there is an argument still to be made that this is simply self-deception on our part and in truth we do nothing that doesn't potentially lead to some sort of benefit in return. For example if you do nice things for people, they will think well of you, and may aid you in return when you need it. The idea being that all human interaction is based on self interest, even if we fool ourselves into believing differently. Studies show that most apes have even that miniscule response of sympathy under developed compared to us. A chimp won't aid any chimp it doesn't know personally, it expects something in return for the favor, and may become violent if the favor is not repaid. Building a human style civilization among them would be difficult for that reason, because by our standards it would immediately devolve into what we would consider widespread sectarian violence and criminal corruption. They also have difficulties in learning some concepts we take for granted. In short their brains are wired very differently, and despite being our closest animal cousins, apes are very alien to us mentally.

[Tyndmyr]

I think the internet has already established that a million monkeys hammering on a million keyboards just produces stuff like twitter. Who'd have thought we'd ever get to actually test that old saying?

Oddly on topic...

Also, it's been tested. With virtual monkeys (http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-shakespeare/), granted. Some works have been recreated, the quest to get the complete collection from randomness continues.


Actually, statistics don't make value judgments.

They support them. Placing a non-zero value on your life can be assumed. We're all living, and thus, can be assumed to value life to at least some degree. Normally, this is a fairly high-value thing.

Therefore, living longer and healthier is a thing that all of us can be expected to value.


A fair proportion of us people who can afford computers and the internet, yes. Of everyone? Certainly not.

You don't actually have to own a computer to benefit from the discoveries made with their assistance.


Secondly, it's a fallacious argument to directly equate medical knowledge with a certain social model; rejecting modern society and civilization is not the same as primitivism, despite their overlaps. Arguing that things would have been better had they moved in a different direction is not the same as arguing they would have been better had they stood still.

We would simply not have modern medical knowledge and capabilities without culture and society. You need gobs of people in rather close physical proximity to make technical things like cat scans or xray machines, or hell, even to gather data to properly study things like epidemiology.

I have not bothered to try to support a specific social structure in this thread, so this seems to be somewhat of a non-sequiter.


No, it indicates that the current way is ingrained to the point one imagines no actual alternatives; all the counter-arguments I've received have essentially amounted to "the current way with less technology was not as good."

Not at all. People logically try to take the best available way. And nobody would seriously say that modern society is perfect, but it's remarkably better than not having it, and it continues to improve.


Accomplishing what, exactly? Structures that will rust and decay, great art that will be forgotten, a flag on an empty, desolate rock in our orbit? Transience is transience, however grandiloquently articulated.

All these things happen, true. But they inspire, support, and influence other, better things.

Focusing on the transience won't help you make a value judgement, because you're focusing on an equality. That's not how you measure things...you focus on differences. When comparing a gallon of water and a thousand gallons of water, shrugging and saying "they're both wet" is trivially true, but it's not really the important bit.

[Vacant]

They support them. Placing a non-zero value on your life can be assumed. We're all living, and thus, can be assumed to value life to at least some degree. Normally, this is a fairly high-value thing.

Therefore, living longer and healthier is a thing that all of us can be expected to value.
So what you mean is that everyone thinks they're better off. Not that everyone's better off. Statistics support the conclusion logically drawn from the premise provided only that the premise is true.


You don't actually have to own a computer to benefit from the discoveries made with their assistance.
No, but the best cancer treatment in the world won't help you when you a) can't afford it and b) are probably going to starve to death or die in a civil war funded by a richer country before you are old enough to get cancer. Similarly with numerous other medical advances.


We would simply not have modern medical knowledge and capabilities without culture and society. You need gobs of people in rather close physical proximity to make technical things like cat scans or xray machines, or hell, even to gather data to properly study things like epidemiology.
You wouldn't have the same modern medical knowledge, necessarily, because the same knowledge wouldn't be necessary; while you need a large group of people to study epidemiology, you also need a large group of people to have an epidemic. Let's not forget the massive hindrance our societal model (for that matter, the societal model itself) has always been to all kinds of science. See: London Cholera epidemic.


I have not bothered to try to support a specific social structure in this thread, so this seems to be somewhat of a non-sequiter.
You support society (unless I'm mistaken), while I do not. Hence we think that from pre-societal times, humanity should have moved in two different directions; you advocate the move towards modern society, while I advocate retaining a fundamentally social, not societal, system of relating to one another.


Not at all. People logically try to take the best available way. And nobody would seriously say that modern society is perfect, but it's remarkably better than not having it, and it continues to improve.
People logically try to take the best available way for them. This tends to be a pretty serious problem for any less-powerful non-thems, especially when the thems all get together to make sure of it. The more powerful, institutionalized, and widespread this phenomenon becomes, the worse things get.


All these things happen, true. But they inspire, support, and influence other, better things.
Which also decay and disappear. Just saying.


Focusing on the transience won't help you make a value judgement, because you're focusing on an equality. That's not how you measure things...you focus on differences. When comparing a gallon of water and a thousand gallons of water, shrugging and saying "they're both wet" is trivially true, but it's not really the important bit.
Or we have different values. Mine are less about arbitrary representations a species/culture creates of itself and more about the species itself and how it reacts to and influences the world around it.

[Tyndmyr]

So what you mean is that everyone thinks they're better off. Not that everyone's better off. Statistics support the conclusion logically drawn from the premise provided only that the premise is true.

Of us having the discussion, yes. Nobody here has spoken up to say differently, so my assumption that they all value living notably seems...quite reasonable.


No, but the best cancer treatment in the world won't help you when you a) can't afford it and b) are probably going to starve to death or die in a civil war funded by a richer country before you are old enough to get cancer. Similarly with numerous other medical advances.

The "civil war funded by a richer country" borders on politics, so I'll avoid addressing it directly. If you are so poor that you are going to starve to death, you are in a country that is...on the "less developed" spectrum of society or are entirely lacking in modern society.

You don't starve from poverty in first world places(You'd have to work at it to pull it off. If you end up in the hospital for starvation, they'll try to feed you). You CAN starve without any society at all. Quite easily. Society is pretty awesome at preventing starvation.

So...I'm not seeing the up side to no society.


You wouldn't have the same modern medical knowledge, necessarily, because the same knowledge wouldn't be necessary; while you need a large group of people to study epidemiology, you also need a large group of people to have an epidemic. Let's not forget the massive hindrance our societal model (for that matter, the societal model itself) has always been to all kinds of science. See: London Cholera epidemic.

No. It would merely mean that an epidemic will be on a smaller scale. Without information transfer from remote locations, introduction of a new disease can be quite lethal, and you are not likely to have any defenses at all against it, either inherited or social.


You support society (unless I'm mistaken), while I do not. Hence we think that from pre-societal times, humanity should have moved in two different directions; you advocate the move towards modern society, while I advocate retaining a fundamentally social, not societal, system of relating to one another.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but the formation of some sort of society is inevitable. The details vary widely, but larger amounts of people interacting makes more things possible(which brings all sorts of benefits). On the flip side, the greater the number of interactions, the more potential for harmful interactions. So, some sort of defense against this is needed. This invariably ends up being some flavor of power structure.


People logically try to take the best available way for them. This tends to be a pretty serious problem for any less-powerful non-thems, especially when the thems all get together to make sure of it. The more powerful, institutionalized, and widespread this phenomenon becomes, the worse things get.

Which also decay and disappear. Just saying.

So? If you focus your value only on absolute permanence, then all sets of values and all actions are equal.

This is not a useful metric by which to measure the value of actions.


Or we have different values. Mine are less about arbitrary representations a species/culture creates of itself and more about the species itself and how it reacts to and influences the world around it.

I never limited myself to statutes and what not. Society enables humankind to better do all manner of things, including influencing the world around it and changing itself.

[GolemsVoice]

Which also decay and disappear. Just saying.

So, when was the day you decided to stop eating because you will too, eventually, decay, and continuing to eat just postpones the end?

Pointing at society's flaws is easy (and neccessary, in a way) and wishing it was another way (while at the same time enjoying society's benefits and living in the safe knowledge that you'd never have to actually realize this alternate style of living one imagines) is easy. The hard part is seeing the flaws and working on changing them at the level that one can. Claiming that an alternative is better, while at the same time knowing this alternative is unreachable is cheap, why don't you go and actually DO something about the problems you've mentioned? Sure, you'll say, society is wrong from the beginning, but that's no reason to not try to improve it, and by doing so, improve the life of people in it.

[Vacant]

The "civil war funded by a richer country" borders on politics, so I'll avoid addressing it directly. If you are so poor that you are going to starve to death, you are in a country that is...on the "less developed" spectrum of society or are entirely lacking in modern society.
I am using society purely to refer to the model of human relations within a group of people. Under this definition, they don't lack modern society, or at least don't lack society, at all; they merely lack the financial and technological benefits we are in the habit of associating with it. My entire point is that the societal model of community works only when it can support itself with enough surplus to make itself seem necessary, which generally tends to involve the exploitation of elements of the community in question or, increasingly, the exploitation of other communities in order to build that kind of prosperity.


You don't starve from poverty in first world places(You'd have to work at it to pull it off. If you end up in the hospital for starvation, they'll try to feed you). You CAN starve without any society at all. Quite easily. Society is pretty awesome at preventing starvation.
It's not as common, but deaths from malnutrition (even discounting anorexia and poorly-chosen diets) probably aren't as rare as you think, especially among infants. Besides that, of course, first-world countries often see waves and waves of deaths among the homeless during the winter and many other causes of death directly related to poverty; starvation was only one example.


So...I'm not seeing the up side to no society.
That's because you're still operating on the entirely unfounded assumption that a lack thereof would cause starvation because, under certain circumstances, the presence thereof can prevent it. Not only does this reasoning not necessarily make sense, the fact that society is sometimes able to prevent some causes of death (which, again, does not mean other systems of community-building could not) does not necessarily measure up to its inherent disadvantages.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but the formation of some sort of society is inevitable. The details vary widely, but larger amounts of people interacting makes more things possible(which brings all sorts of benefits). On the flip side, the greater the number of interactions, the more potential for harmful interactions. So, some sort of defense against this is needed. This invariably ends up being some flavor of power structure.
I think you missed the earlier post in which I explained the differences between "social" and "societal" as I was using them. Since some readers found that unclear to begin with, I suggest reading Lee and LiPuma's "Cultures of Circulation," since that's where I find the delineation to be most clearly explained.


So? If you focus your value only on absolute permanence, then all sets of values and all actions are equal.
My only point was that our so-called achievements are transient monuments, not that they're purely transient. We make more and more advances for ourselves and our egos, often at an immense cost to the world around us. My point isn't that the empire state building is going to fall down, but that when it does it will have done very little good compared to a tree.


I never limited myself to statutes and what not. Society enables humankind to better do all manner of things, including influencing the world around it and changing itself.

It's better at influencing the world around it in a primarily extremely negative way.

[Zen Monkey]

A number of people trying to function without a society is like one of those particles that scientists can only bring into existence for some tiny fraction of a second. As soon as a few common occurrences take place, people will fall into social arrangements.

You live in your hut, and I live in mine. One day, because you're stronger and maybe not so nice, you come over and take the roots and berries out of my hut. Getting tired of this pattern, I team up with one or two other people that you're terrorizing, and use our pointy sticks to take back our stolen goods. We just made a little society. If you get another big person, I'll go get three more small ones. We just invented war. Maybe I figure out how to raise chickens, and you figure out how to grow corn. Once we've traded a few times and figured out an agreeable ratio, we're building an economy. Here comes a guy selling furs, we can probably both trade with him.

When human beings interact regularly, they form social contracts. You refrain from stabbing me in my sleep, and I'll do the same for you. Maybe we then put our huts close together and share the fire, keeping the scary animals away. You got wood last time, so I'll go get some next time. Or maybe I'm not good at it, so I prepare the food instead. It's human nature to make these little deals, and most society stems from arrangements built to protect life, property, and similar goods.

[Tyndmyr]

Zen is correct.

The only way to avoid this, is to avoid having any notable number of humans living together. And doing this limits you pretty harshly to a subsistence lifestyle. Humanity will never advance if you do this(which, honestly, is pretty hard to even do. We're a social creature). Living life solo/with only a single family, in the wild...you will never develop anything of note. You lack the resources to do so.

The *vast* majority of people prefer modern society over such a lifestyle. I mean, you *could* try to wander into the wild and subsist on your own if you really wanted to. It's not a popular life choice.

[Asta Kask]

Which really makes me wonder why Vacant is sitting in front of a computer, the epitome of all that he hates and despises, instead of hiking with the Yanomamo. They're still too advanced for his taste, as they have primitive agriculture but at least he could have a go at the lifestyle.

Why don't you, Vacant?

[Tyndmyr]

I spent a lil' chunk of my childhood living without electricity in a shack deep in the woods. This is...already more advanced( a shack? woah! ), but it left me with an abiding appreciation for civilization.

[Asta Kask]

To be more precise, domestication of dogs began some 25-30 000 years ago. If we consider this the 'fall of Man' then we need to go back to late Paleolithic times. This is before slings and arrows were invented, so hunting should be up and personal. It is also before tanning, so your fur skin will only last so long before it starts rotting. We don't know much about inter-tribal relations, of course, but in an average contemporary South American Stone Age society, a man has about a 40% risk of being killed by another male - either as a result of war or something more personal. The corresponding risk for a male in the 20th century West (including the two World Wars) was 2%.

Writing all that made me really grateful for living in the 21st century.

[Vacant]

On the Social Contract and so on: That's one particular cultural theory. While it has gained particular credence in modern society, especially in the West, because it is the assumption (not the fact) upon which our societal hegemony is predicated, that does not necessarily mean it is any more correct than any other. They're circular theories; if we assume that events occurred a certain way for certain reasons, and follow that pattern, events will continue to occur in that way for those reasons, thereby "proving" the inevitability of that pattern, or at least "proving" that pattern to be the only viable option. Most of the "evidence" behind the idea of the social contract with an absolute enforcer (under any name) is the assumption that it was in place before its articulation based on its practice after its articulation and then the mimetic practice of that articulation thereafter because on the assumption that it was in place before its articulation. This isn't to say it's inherently wrong, just that any "proof" that it's right and/or the only option isn't really proof.


Which really makes me wonder why Vacant is sitting in front of a computer, the epitome of all that he hates and despises, instead of hiking with the Yanomamo. They're still too advanced for his taste, as they have primitive agriculture but at least he could have a go at the lifestyle.

Why don't you, Vacant?

I'm afraid I'm wholly unable to hike, seeing as I am made of canvas and filled with straw, and all. :smalltongue: Seriously, though, I think you're misunderstanding and therefore misstating my position, since I've mentioned several times that I'm not really advocating primitivism. As such, computers are not "the epitome of all that " any more than hiking and primitive agriculture have much to do with the ideas for which I was advocating.

Overall, as I've said, I really don't want to continue this; neither side is going to convince the other and I'm tired of repeating the same explanations of terminology, explanations of my actual argument, and so on every time a new participant enters and argues against something unrelated to the opinion I'm trying to express.I'm not saying that people aren't listening or this is anybody's fault, by any means; entering the discussion [i]in media res one would have to read back carefully through several pages of what has passed, which isn't really fair to ask in a friendly message-board debate. However, with no offense to anybody else involved, I'm also not really interested in repeating the same ideas over and over on account of those logistical factors. It feels rude to ignore people when they continue to respond, so understand that I mean no offense, I'm honestly just tired of the rather circular course this discussion happens to have taken by virtue of its format.

Basically, I don't like the transition from social into societal (as I defined the terms initially), without any regard to temporal or technological factors (that is to say, referring purely to the model of community-building in place) and if you do, you are welcome to disagree with me all you'd like, but I really am through discussing it and would prefer to return to discourses of simian wuxia.

[Starwulf]

I'm afraid I'm wholly unable to hike, seeing as I am made of canvas and filled with straw, and all. :smalltongue: Seriously, though, I think you're misunderstanding and therefore misstating my position, since I've mentioned several times that I'm not really advocating primitivism. As such, computers are not "the epitome of all that [I hate and despise]" any more than hiking and primitive agriculture have much to do with the ideas for which I was advocating.



no, but the way of life you are advocating would never have been enough to invent computers, or many of the multitudes of modern inventions that we have. Small groupings of people would never have been enough for the advances that modern society are responsible for, so therefore, you shouldn't be using computers or anything like it, because in the world you wish existed, they wouldn't.

[Vacant]

Firstly, that's impossible to know; since things only happened one way, we can't really say what would have been different had they happened any other way. Secondly, me not using a computer won't change anything whatsoever about everything that has happened up to this point, so I really don't see what me using one has to do with anything; even if we take for granted that the world I wish existed wouldn't have anything like computers, the lack of computers won't turn this world into the world I wish existed and me not using a computer certainly won't do so. I hope that clarifies what I was saying. If there are any other points of confusion, I will clarify them, but, again, I would really rather not continue the debate.

[Starwulf]

Firstly, that's impossible to know; since things only happened one way, we can't really say what would have been different had they happened any other way. Secondly, me not using a computer won't change anything whatsoever about everything that has happened up to this point, so I really don't see what me using one has to do with anything; even if we take for granted that the world I wish existed wouldn't have anything like computers, the lack of computers won't turn this world into the world I wish existed and me not using a computer certainly won't do so. I hope that clarifies what I was saying. If there are any other points of confusion, I will clarify them, but, again, I would really rather not continue the debate.

A: I've always felt that a person should live their life in accordance with their beliefs. As such, you should be living your life the way you believe the world should be. Who knows, maybe you'll convince others to do the same and you can form your small-grouping community.

B: Actually, we do know that many modern inventions wouldn't exist. Without larger gatherings of people encouraging the convergence of ideas of great minds, not to mention the ability to better collect statistics and manage studies of scientific theories, many things we take for granted now-a-days almost certainly would NOT exist. Hell, people would still be dying of simple things that we can cure or control with a single pill. Your way of living, while it may not be "primitivism" is certainly close enough to it.

And just because you don't want to continue the debate, doesn't mean others don't. You're the one that derailed this thread on literally the first(or maybe second, I'm honestly in to much of a hurry to check) response to the OP. Many people seem to take issue with your idea/belief, and we are intent on arguing it into the ground, whether it will change your mind or not.

[Vacant]

A: I tend to agree that one should live according to one's beliefs, however, my beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or lack of computers, really. So living my life in accordance with my beliefs has little to do with my use of a computer or, at least, has no more to do with my use of a computer than it has to do with me living at all, since if history had happened differently, it's very unlikely that all of my ancestors would've met under the exact same circumstances they did to produce me. My point is that regardless of my opinion on the events of the past, my actions in the present cannot change those events and that, moreover, picking and choosing to shun arbitrary aspects of modern life which are at most loosely correlated to the traits to which I actually object seems, truly, to be an exercise in futility. In short, I have no objection to computers in-and-of themselves, using computers will not change the past, and so I really see no way in which not using computers is related to "living according to my beliefs." I hope my position is now clear.

B: No, we know that modern inventions existed with larger gatherings of people under a certain communal model. This does not mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) that they (or something functionally similar) would not exist without larger gatherings of people under that communal model. You can assume that this is the case, but there's really no way to know if either side is correct for certain without actually testing the theory. Obviously, you're welcome to your assumption and it's as correct as mine, since both are purely theoretical.

Finally, my response was the first after the OP. It listed the various attempts from animal psychologists/behaviorists of which I am aware to civilize apes to some degree beyond language-learning alone, and then expressed my opinion of why human should not try to civilize apes. I then explained what I meant by that statement after several questions on the subject, and have spent the rest of this debate doing little more clarifying misinterpretations (generally the same misinterpretations, no less) of that explanation and trying to extricate myself from doing so without ignoring others' responses, which, as I've said, seems rude. May I request that this continues in PMs, rather than in this thread? I think that will make it easier on all parties including and especially those not involved.

[Starwulf]

A: I tend to agree that one should live according to one's beliefs, however, my beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or lack of computers, really. So living my life in accordance with my beliefs has little to do with my use of a computer or, at least, has no more to do with my use of a computer than it has to do with me living at all, since if history had happened differently, it's very unlikely that all of my ancestors would've met under the exact same circumstances they did to produce me. My point is that regardless of my opinion on the events of the past, my actions in the present cannot change those events and that, moreover, picking and choosing to shun arbitrary aspects of modern life which are at most loosely correlated to the traits to which I actually object seems, truly, to be an exercise in futility. In short, I have no objection to computers in-and-of themselves, using computers will not change the past, and so I really see no way in which not using computers is related to "living according to my beliefs." I hope my position is now clear.



I'll spell it out for you in simple and clear terms: You advocate that modern society is the wrong model for humanity to be living in. You advocate living in smaller groups of people. Computers(and the internet, which you are intent on using to expound upon your beliefs) are a function and major facet of modern day society. Computers facilitate and encourage modern day society and LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE by making communication with other large groups of people all over the globe possible(much more so then a simple telephone, which of course is something else you should be against). so if you believe humanity should only function in smaller groupings, then you shouldn't be using a computer because a computer is major way we keep modern day society intact. If there were no computers, our modern-day society would not exist such as it is, and it would be a big step in taking us back to small-group communities. Therefore, as you firmly believe we should live in small-groups, you should not use computers.

Nor should you use telephones, or use the postal system, or really, any form of mass communication, since mass communication is the building block of ANY society in the modern world. Even third world countries rely on mass communication to survive, since without the ability to communicate with other countries they wouldn't be able to ask for assistance when they are starving.


I then explained what I meant by that statement after several questions on the subject, and have spent the rest of this debate doing little more clarifying misinterpretations (generally the same misinterpretations, no less) of that explanation

Allow me to disagree here. You made a highly volatile and inflammatory statement that pretty much said we(humanity as a whole) was living in the wrong way, and when people criticized you and called you out on that view, have consistently tried to defend/backpedal and then get upset when every single statement you make has been argued against with pretty clear logic, and when it was eventually obvious that no-one else shared your sentiment and was intent on arguing it down, you asked for it cease. The problem is, however, that once you open pandora's box, it's very hard to close it again. Hell, I actually did try 2 pages ago, asking you to drop it, and you did, to your credit, once I(and the poster right after) mentioned the subject matter was getting increasingly political in it's nature. However, it was then later opened up again by others, and instead of staying silent on the subject matter, you decided to chime in AGAIN, instead of just ignoring it.

I will say however, that I'm more then willing to let the subject drop, because it doesn't appear as though you're willing to listen to anything anyone else says that criticizes or refutes your statements, and it's VERY obvious that no-one else on the thread agrees with your assertions, so yes, let's end it ^^

Monkeys and martial arts and poo-flinging politics GO!

[Reluctance]

Starwulf: You're not going to reach Vacant. I've seen his type before in situations where they can name the political group they trumpet everywhere they can. It's no less a political loggerheads when specific parties aren't named.

[Sholos]

Oddly on topic...

Also, it's been tested. With virtual monkeys (http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-shakespeare/), granted. Some works have been recreated, the quest to get the complete collection from randomness continues.

Not to derail this any further, but that experiment isn't really the same thing if I read it correctly. From what I understand, he's pulling bits of Shakespeare from gibberish here and there. To me, the saying would be a straight composition of Shakespeare without gibberish in between. That's like saying if you roll 10 million dice, you'll eventually get all sixes, and then rolling a bunch of dice over and over until you get 10 million sixes.

[Devils_Advocate]

For my own and others' reference, I'm gonna quote the post that explains what Vacant means by the terms "social" and "societal" in this conversation:


In that case, no; Salem is certainly a societal, not a social, group. Most "civilized" societies not only believe, but hinge on the concept that disagreement with the prevalent, majority opinion of one issue or the next is punishable by, if not death, the removal of all agency on the part of those intending to express difference. America may not burn people at the stake any longer, but the death penalty still exists and prisons certainly still exist. The "Witch Trials" are merely one example of the exact kind of Hobbesian idea that is at the center of "society." What you claim is no longer acceptable is not only still acceptable, but actually institutionalized and even lionized. The role of the police is to enforce the dominant social morality with varying degrees of coercive force up to and including lethal force.

I think the distinction I'm making between social and societal is being misunderstood. Slavery, again, is a function of a societal system and, in fact, an exemplary one. Societal groupings are those in which the size of the group and a system of circulatory economics, including capitalistic and proto-capitalistic systems (such as feudalism), necessitate the existence of a sovereign "state" or other such Hobbesian governing body which, in the name of regulating the economic system, is able to impose conditions such as slavery (in both its more overt and subtler manifestations) by virtue of state terrorism/"a monopoly on legitimate violence."
Now then, I would like to try to take this discussion in a slightly different and hopefully more fruitful direction. To wit: Vacant, what are you proposing could have plausibly happened to prevent humans from forming large and thus societal groups? After all, it's silly to just say that in an ideal world, humans wouldn't form groups that large; in an ideal world, large groups simply wouldn't necessitate the sort of coercive governing body that you're complaining about! So you seem to be saying that the formation of societies was not inevitable, and that it's not radically improbable (at least so far as we know) that humanity could have gone down a different road. But how might that have played out?

I'm no anthropologist, but it seems pretty likely to me that if one could rewind history to before society and then start things over again, and did so a thousand times, humans would form societies pretty much a thousand times. Haven't humans formed large groups pretty much spontaneously in various times and places? Again, I'm not an anthropologist, so I don't really know. But what alternative would have kept them in smaller groups instead? Or what reason is there to believe that there is such an alternative (that isn't radically improbable)?

To make a convincing case that a particular sort of scenario is a plausible alternative history that's preferable to real history, you've got to argue not only that that sort of scenario is preferable, but that it's plausible, right? And since the factors that make a scenario plausible may also have implications for whether it is preferable, it seems like you're sort of putting the cart before the horse, maybe?


you should be living your life the way you believe the world should be.
Starwulf, are you a pacifist, or does violence have a place in your ideal world?

Here's the thing: The categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)s of "Never engage in violence" and "Only use violence in response to violence" would result in the same sort of world if everybody had always followed them, but have significantly different implications in the real world; e.g., the latter leaves the option of self-defense while the former does not. One could argue for the simpler commandment based on the principle that our ethics should not be formulated with their real-world consequences in mind... but saying that we shouldn't care about what actually happens in the real world seems positively deranged to me (and thus, those of Kant's arguments that implicitly assume this seem to me correspondingly deranged for the implication)! Indeed, isn't "Care about what actually happens in the real world" pretty much a categorical imperative itself?

(And why is it that the vast majority of philosophical arguments seem to consist largely of plausible-sounding statements that don't stand up to a significant level of scrutiny? Even the ones ostensibly based on "pure reason"? More importantly, how the frick do they get taken so seriously, given this?)

[Vacant]

I'm not sure if I'm even saying it's not improbable for groups to be social instead of societal, I'm only saying that I think it would almost certainly be better if that had happened, which is why I, amongst others, would avoid trying to push another species down the path we've gone. I agree that the formation of societal groupings is, if not inevitable, at least more probable than not, since there's going to be someone who wants power over others and can convince the others in the group that it's necessary to give him or her that power. That is to say, I think the relationship between probably and preferable is, in this case, inverse. I think hindsight is just about the only way (besides a whole lot of luck) to be certain of avoiding the societal formation. In this case, by seeing the flaws inherent in that system and not passing them on as a legacy to forms of life to whom those flaws have already caused more than enough harm. Similarly, in the event something catastrophic happens and things end up largely starting over (or things end up largely starting over for much happier reasons, I suppose :smalltongue:), knowing the pitfalls of the system, we could strive to avoid it.

[Sholos]

Vacant, I find myself interested in what sort of justice system your proposed path would have; and, don't say there wouldn't need to be a justice system, because there will be at least one person who acts against others, and some sort of justice system will arise, even if it's just "might makes right". I really have absolutely no idea what your idea of humanity would look like, let alone how it would survive, and I'd like to get a better picture of it. Another thing I'm interested in is how decisions on a large scale be made? I'm talking about the kind of decisions that "society" makes now. Is everyone left to their own devices (anarchy)?

[GolemsVoice]

Another thing I'm interested in is how decisions on a large scale be made?

I guess decisions WOULDN'T be made on a large scale, because there IS no large scale, from what I've understood.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure if I'm even saying it's not improbable for groups to be social instead of societal, I'm only saying that I think it would almost certainly be better if that had happened, which is why I, amongst others, would avoid trying to push another species down the path we've gone.

"Better" for what? For the ecosystem? For other species? For the individual humans that have existed over the past 10,000 odd years since humanity established the first "societal" rather than "social" systems?

As for "monopoly on legitimate violence"- that's something that goes right back to animal days. In an animal grouping, when two lower-ranking animals are scrapping, those animals with authority (usually, but not always, the biggest and strongest) will come over and break it up. "Unsanctioned violence is stopped/punished" is something that's likely to be present in any grouping- even a pre-societal one.