Is Social Order Important?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is Social Order Important?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
Yes - or something like.Belindi wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 3:06 pm I understand your objection to the term 'tribalism' but it's common usage now to contrast with 'universalism'. Are you really saying that in order to survive climate change emergency we must be social units like the tribal kingdoms and chiefdoms of years gone by?
The way nation-states are set up now, they have very little ability to affect change. They're lumbered with entrenched religious and economic power-blocs, with administrative structures that were made according to a certain order of things - many of which will no longer exist, but the agencies can't change direction, can't be retooled, quickly enough. There are some agencies that were designed to meet the challenges of climate change, but they are politically powerless: if a government perceives a threat to the economy, it will choose an oil pipeline over ecological concerns, every time; if a president sees immigration as an immediate threat, he can redirect emergency funds from flood-relief to border control. The power-structure as it stands at the national level is slow, cumbersome, staffed by people whose perceived self-interest is in denial; commanded - increasingly - by fatheads and blowhards who can't find their ass with both beringed hands.
What's required for deep adaptation is the ability to assess one's environment, predict what dangers and potential it holds, use the resources available to the best effect for mutual protection and sustenance. No national policy can tell Lost Horseshoe, WY what power-source is best to serve them when the grid falls down, or what food-plants to grow, or how to build their shelters.
No, that's not quite true. FEMA and many other agencies at various levels of government actually have guidelines for various regions, and plans to cope with all kinds of foreseeable emergencies. FEMA climate change preparedness and resilience Unfortunately, it's based on assumptions that are frankly unrealistic: it's based on an optimistic past civilization.
It's like a tank. It doesn't turn fast enough to avoid falling into a trench; too heavy to go over a wooden bridge; when the diesel runs out it's stranded, and the men inside are hot, cramped, thirsty and blind. A pony has none of those disadvantages.
Here's another pretty good book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/157 ... d-remember
As for universalism, I'm afraid that was a dream of the 20th century. If, after WWII, they had turned international affairs over to the UN - maybe.
But they didn't - and look at all the new messes! Nobody, but I mean no nation on Earth, will be able to cope with the displaced populations that have already begun to migrate and will only increase in numbers as water and land and homes disappear.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Is Social Order Important?
No, they did not. They made only one change --- at some point one of their members (probably a woman, since in hunter-gatherer communities women were the gatherers and thus most familiar with plants and their habitats and growth cycles), upon returning to a previous wintering site discovered that where she had discarded some wild wheat chaff and seeds the previous year, new plants had sprouted. She showed the other women, and this year they deliberately scattered some more seeds, marked the spot, and were rewarded the following year with another new sprouting. No doubt it took several generations of women teaching daughters, gaining knowledge and refining techniques, before they were able to persuade the men to allow some of the members to stay behind to tend the crops.
All the other changes followed the transformation to civilized social structures.
No mistake. Static means unchanging; it is contrasted with dynamic. Stable means persisting, maintaining coherence; it is contrasted with unstable, or chaotic. Tribal societies were indeed stable, but also static. Dynamic societies (and most other complex adaptive systems) are also stable.Stability is often mistaken for stagnation by the lemming chorus.
I was. But it's hard to ignore such egregious errors.Ahem. I thought you were ignoring me!
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Is Social Order Important?
Ah, another addition to the voluminous corpus of apocalyptic literature. They're always amusing.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
I'm familiar with the accidental invention of farming story. Except, though it might have happened that way in one place, one time, there were different kinds of farming carried on in very different ways by peoples on different continents.
And,of course, long before that, tribal peoples migrated out of Africa and learned to live in places as different and the equator and subpolar, along rivers and lakes, on mountains, in savanna and forest and bog-land and islands; to hunt all the different kinds of game on all the continents, to fish in fresh and salt water; to gather the fruits, nuts, fungi, grains, roots, flowers, bark and seed of all the various plants they found; to build shelters of hide, mud, log, reeds, palm-fronds, stone, cedar boughs and snow; to make boats of hollowed logs, willow twigs, animal skins and bundled rushes; to clothe themselves against all climates, to make fire, brew beer, concoct medicine, dig up salt and domesticate everything from a wolf to a water-buffalo.
More changes followed, yes, for some tribes.All the other changes followed the transformation to civilized social structures.
No mistake. Static means unchanging; it is contrasted with dynamic. Stable means persisting, maintaining coherence; it is contrasted with unstable, or chaotic. Tribal societies were indeed stable, but also static.
Events you didn't witness didn't happen. Check. I'm sure you have a standard of longevity, a degree of complexity and a definition of stability to apply, and examples of such societies.
I can't think any of civilization that meets my criteria.
There's usually a function that does it automatically to save you the effort.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is Social Order Important?
The first paragraph paints a nice credible scenario for regions that could support wheat , oats and other annual plants. You say "other civilised structures" however living in towns with merchant and service classes, and new urbanisations supported by industrial labourers , minerals, and power sources is a long development from how edible annual crops came to be the norm. Aren't social group sizes, and social orders for governance, always structurally integral with means of subsistence whatever those may be at whatever stage of technology?No, they did not. They made only one change --- at some point one of their members (probably a woman, since in hunter-gatherer communities women were the gatherers and thus most familiar with plants and their habitats and growth cycles), upon returning to a previous wintering site discovered that where she had discarded some wild wheat chaff and seeds the previous year, new plants had sprouted. She showed the other women, and this year they deliberately scattered some more seeds, marked the spot, and were rewarded the following year with another new sprouting. No doubt it took several generations of women teaching daughters, gaining knowledge and refining techniques, before they were able to persuade the men to allow some of the members to stay behind to tend the crops.
All the other changes followed the transformation to civilized social structures.
That question matters because means of subsistence is soon to be radically changed and includes sudden intimacy with weather, the soil ,crude power sources, and pathogenic bacteria that has not been really experienced by most people for hundreds of years. It's not an evolution but a revolution. There's no stability there's sudden forced change.
I can see Alias's vision for small communities like blood tribes once were. I doubt that all of those would be stable social structures without vendetta controls. Tribes are fine when you are one of the kindred but there was interfamily warfare . For instance Muhammad acted so to amalgamate the Arabian tribes and put a stop to their vendetta system with centralised religious controls. I spent my childhood in the Scottish Borders where a few old local families and their helpers once earned their bread by armed reiving i.e.stealing cattle from their neighbours in England and Scotland.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is Social Order Important?
Supposedly, it was the desire to brew beer that really gave people the incentive to grow crops, and perhaps led us to 'civilization'.GE Morton wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 9:31 pm They made only one change --- at some point one of their members (probably a woman, since in hunter-gatherer communities women were the gatherers and thus most familiar with plants and their habitats and growth cycles), upon returning to a previous wintering site discovered that where she had discarded some wild wheat chaff and seeds the previous year, new plants had sprouted. She showed the other women, and this year they deliberately scattered some more seeds, marked the spot, and were rewarded the following year with another new sprouting. No doubt it took several generations of women teaching daughters, gaining knowledge and refining techniques, before they were able to persuade the men to allow some of the members to stay behind to tend the crops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV36ytSgC3o
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
I said it was stable, not that it was idyllic! Or even nice. We're talking about humans, after all.Belindi wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:56 am Tribes are fine when you are one of the kindred but there was interfamily warfare . For instance Muhammad acted so to amalgamate the Arabian tribes and put a stop to their vendetta system with centralised religious controls. I spent my childhood in the Scottish Borders where a few old local families and their helpers once earned their bread by armed reiving i.e.stealing cattle from their neighbours in England and Scotland.
Cross-border raiding, banditry, piracy, rustling and feuding on a small scale have always been part of tribal life - at least where territory was constrained, as on islands. Not as much, but still noticeable, where vast forest and prairie put distance between peoples. But inter-family rivalry and occasional clashes are not at all the same as xenophobia (they weren't fighting strangers, but cousins, whose ways and mores they knew intimately, whose daughters they stole or bought for their own sons). It sometimes became necessary, as in Muhammad's time, to amalgamate several tribes for mutual defense against some bigger (civilized?) aggressor: the Christians, the French, the Spanish, the Romans, the Vikings, the Sassenach....
There will be plenty more fighting and killing before things settle down again - presumably with a more manageable-sized human population. Of course, now we have weapons that leave a big blot on the landscape for a long time. One of the main short-term problems our successors will face is the sheer volume of corpses, especially in the wake of pandemics. In the long term, their major problem will be the scarcity of insects... https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access ... 99176.html
...ironic, given that the abundance of insects was a major concern of early farmers.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is Social Order Important?
Might we now try to make some sort of list of the attributes of a viable tribe , after the Catastrophe? For instance the best number of individuals, choosing the leader, patri or matri locality, patri or matri ownership of children and spouses, ownership of chattels and land, slavery.
I'd like to think that the new leaders would be individuals who knew basic technologies such as waste disposal, shelters, water collection, use of water powered or wind powered energy sources, and herbal remedies e.g. aspirin from willow bark, morphia from poppies.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
I'll have to give that some thought, after I finish entering all the data in our tax accounting program.Belindi wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 11:51 am Might we now try to make some sort of list of the attributes of a viable tribe , after the Catastrophe? For instance the best number of individuals, choosing the leader, patri or matri locality, patri or matri ownership of children and spouses, ownership of chattels and land, slavery.
Much can be learned and retained from the various government agency preparedness documents I referred to earlier - worth a look - especially any put out by your local one, relating to your particular situation. (It's not as if some smart people haven't thought about this!) We don't have to start from 0.I'd like to think that the new leaders would be individuals who knew basic technologies such as waste disposal, shelters, water collection, use of water powered or wind powered energy sources, and herbal remedies e.g. aspirin from willow bark, morphia from poppies.
Another model that already exists is NA first nations' traditional forms of organization. http://www.fngovernance.org/pillars
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Is Social Order Important?
The progression from the discovery of agriculture to the development of cities with merchants, craftsmen, traders, scholars, and bureaucrats no doubt took several centuries --- perhaps a millennium --- but that is not long on evolutionary time scales. The transformation was quite rapid, considering that over the first 200,000 years of human pre-history things changed very little --- the lifestyles of those early humans barely differed from those of other primates: the major difference being the propensity of humans to make and use stone and bone tools and weapons.Belindi wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:56 am
The first paragraph paints a nice credible scenario for regions that could support wheat , oats and other annual plants. You say "other civilised structures" however living in towns with merchant and service classes, and new urbanisations supported by industrial labourers , minerals, and power sources is a long development from how edible annual crops came to be the norm. Aren't social group sizes, and social orders for governance, always structurally integral with means of subsistence whatever those may be at whatever stage of technology?
Those first farmers were novices, ignorant, and their efforts often unsuccessful. But over time they learned, about optimum soil conditions for various crops, how to irrigate, how to use animal waste as fertilizers, etc. And eventually their yields could reliably feed the entire group. Since the efforts of everyone were no longer needed to secure food, some individuals were freed to pursue other interests and tasks; a division of labor developed.
Yes, it was a revolution. That hypothetical woman, whose only thought was to augment the tribe's food supply for the next year, launched the most profound, far-reaching revolution in the human experience, before or since.* Though it did not seem revolutionary to anyone at the time, and it was not sudden. Nothing much would have changed over the lifespan of an individual. But the pace of that change slowly accelerated, though it stalled periodically (the several "dark ages"). Civilizations collapsed, for various reasons, but the knowledge they had gained lived on, and was soon applied by other peoples.That question matters because means of subsistence is soon to be radically changed and includes sudden intimacy with weather, the soil ,crude power sources, and pathogenic bacteria that has not been really experienced by most people for hundreds of years. It's not an evolution but a revolution. There's no stability there's sudden forced change.
"Stability" is relative. No human social structure devised to date has proved to be eternal. But a system that survives for a few centuries has to be counted as stable. Human societies are complex adaptive systems, and the defining characteristic of those systems is that they are unpredictable in the long term, dynamic but stable in the short term.
The social instincts (affinities for kin, wariness of strangers, devotion to tradition, the attraction to authoritarian figures --- gods and "Alphas" --- and the longing for brotherhood) we inherited from our primate ancestry are hard-wired into our psyches. Civilization affronts those instincts at every turn, provoking angst, envy, enmities, rebellions, wars. The "revolution" will not be complete until those instincts go the way of the stone tools.I can see Alias's vision for small communities like blood tribes once were. I doubt that all of those would be stable social structures without vendetta controls. Tribes are fine when you are one of the kindred but there was interfamily warfare . For instance Muhammad acted so to amalgamate the Arabian tribes and put a stop to their vendetta system with centralised religious controls. I spent my childhood in the Scottish Borders where a few old local families and their helpers once earned their bread by armed reiving i.e.stealing cattle from their neighbours in England and Scotland.
*Jared Diamond called this discovery "the greatest mistake in human history."
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
I've been talking about how humankind may be able to survive - not whether we should.
But, in keeping with the conspicuously absent Athena's original intent for this thread, we might start, not with the ways and means of the next phase, but with the values that could sustain a surviving remnant over a longer term than a half dozen millennia before the next apocalypse.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Is Social Order Important?
That is a respectable theory, and may well have supplied much of the motivation for learning how to cultivate the necessary crops. Recipes for beer are found in the Sumerian tablets, and there is evidence that it (or similar beverages) were produced also in ancient China and pre-Columbian America. But wheat (in the Near East), rice (in China), and maize (in Mesoamerica) appear to have been cultivated earlier than barley (or the maguey plant in America).chewybrian wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 7:08 am
Supposedly, it was the desire to brew beer that really gave people the incentive to grow crops, and perhaps led us to 'civilization'.
Here is the full Discovery program on that theory:
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-bee ... the-world/
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is Social Order Important?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023