somachristou,

"...that’s not Christianity – it’s a part of the Mosaic law given to Israel."

Marcionism lives on!

I wonder, J. Stanton.

Some research was done a few years ago attempting to quantify murder rates in medieval England up to the present, with an unexpected result: per capita murder rates have been dropping over the last 500 years, and cities seem to lead the charge while rural areas lag. Now, why would that be?

I'm willing to admit that life was pretty good while it lasted for hunter-gatherers who survived to adulthood. That statement, however, includes two huge caveats: "survived to adulthood" and "while it lasted." Infant mortality was fantastically high in societies without modern medicines or other protections from the natural world, and infant and child starvation was also relatively common. Also, if you suffered any serious injury, you would probably either die directly from it or be unable to feed yourself and die of starvation later.

Furthermore, there were no "rich" and "poor" in hunter-gatherer societies because the rich were the only ones left. The poor had all starved to death a long time ago. Food was scarce, and harsh necessity kept populations small. Sure, food sharing could keep people alive if they suffered a temporary setback or if times were generally hard, but if someone didn't have the fundamental ability to provide for himself over the long term, he would starve sooner or later.

The problems you describe are real problems that have caused a great deal of suffering for a lot of people. As some other commenters have pointed out, though, these problems were caused by one thing: more people living in less space. The only comprehensive solution to these problems is fewer people. Odds are that, had we been born into a hunter-gatherer society, both Mr. Stanton and I, along with most of the people who've commented on this post, would be dead.

Most people don't like sitting on their butts all day working drone desk jobs until they go home and poison themselves with unhealthy, nutritionally bankrupt food. They'd rather do that than not be alive, though. "What about war, genocide, or crime?" one might ask. The brutal fact of the matter is that the young men killed in war at least survived long enough to become men, which they probably wouldn't have without civilization. Same goes for the rest. I'm not saying we should embrace the defects of civilization without trying to correct them, but there's a reason we don't all chase down our food and stab it with sticks anymore.

Wow, I love this article.
This explains EXACTLY what I've been feeling my entire life.
I never understood as a teenager why I have to go to school/college and then work a job day in day out until I am old and die. Why do I have to be a slave to the Dollar? (or in my case it was the german Mark, now Euro).
Why isn't there an alternative to being a slave?
Now I live in the states, in a small town but still suburbs. I am happy for the most part since going Primal, but I just don't feel free!
How lucky are those small farmers that grow their own food (including animals)!?

I think you have overlooked a few key issues in the definition of civilisation. The fact that humans are intelligent and interested, curious and skilled in stuff other than the act of hunting and gathering. Before agriculture there were specialists who traded food for skill, arrow makers, leather workers, etc etc stuff thatwould not get done if they were all out for number one filling their stomachs. Agriculture was the first leverage where everyone could specialise in some way..even if it was just working for "da man". Just because they settled down "as opposed to hunting and gathering does not logically follow they are civilised..as demonstrated by the screed about war and slavery. Society faced different challenges by settling and the way they fixed these issues are still with us today...we have to have a way to fix the rape and pillage of the biosphere from the smallest level to a planet wide level....problems we may never have faced as hunters but that is irrelevent, the issue exists and at this current time no one has been able to raise it to a sufficient level of urgency...so can we now blame the planters of grain for global warming and environmental destruction ?

Living by our own wits and skill is all very well but will as of now not be sufficient to ensure survival.

Wow I don't know how I missed this article. I guess I just haven't been spending enough time here. My personal view though is that we are a bunch of monkey's fighting over bananas and sex. We are just in a self created zoo. The zoo has rules that give the resources that we work to hard for to the zoo keepers. Most of the monkeys don't know any better. One day thought the zookeepers will end up burning the damn zoo down.

interesting. basically it seems HG peoples were all socialists then.
they all worked togather to support all of them together.
please note i am not a socialist or pro-socialism.

maybe this is why so many people want socialism to work? because that is our evolved background, but of course it does not work due to dependants.
and of course back then someone born with certain "defects" would not survive to adulthood and become a burden on the rest, whereas we encourage their survival and (at least in UK) then the state supports them.

the main problem with capitalism in many ways is (in this context) that in a small tribe of say 30 some would be hunters and one would be the best (there will always be someone better at other people at something in groups. even if they'e all competent) that person would likely be looked up to and maybe even "lead" but not overly dominate. other hunters would still help support by providing food. (extend this to storage of food so it does not spoil, gathering, building of shelters even temporary, clothing etc everything a tribe would need)

however in a capitalist situation and the modern one too we'd take the very best at their job, those guys who are in the top say 80% would all be useful, those between 40-79% are not needed. we tend to get the very best who get very well paid, they then lead less useful people and teach them enough to do a simplified version of the job but get paid next to nothing.

in fact it all comes down to money: as soon as you can charge x amount for something it becomes problematic.
and i can pay someone else to do my fair share of the hunting or whatever purely because my parents are rich and so i am born rich.
i then never need to add value to the community.
you can argue (and many will) that i add value through the use of my money, but i would argue that is my parents continuing to add value, even after their deaths, my own addition may not exist at all.

it is however a tricky situation that we cannot resolve i feel.