patrick.net

"it seems to me that most people get rich by the perpetration of a ‘con’ of sorts, e.g. bill gates conned IBM into licensing DOS instead of selling it"

Pity for Goliath? (IBM at that time, lest we forget.)

Maybe we are thinking on a different scale. I'm not thinking of the richest guy on Earth, but of the run of the mill working millonare. I have read of people who were truck drivers at Walmart who retired as (barely)millionares bcause they put away part of thier pay into stock purchases. How about a middle class couple who saves part of one salary and banks the other? They could be millionares by retirement. How about the joe who (pre-bubble) bought a series of single family homes, using the combination of rents and his work salary (even pre-bubble, rents were lower than mortgages) to pay off the homes over 20 years? I do not see how any of these people "coned" or "manipulated" anyone.

The Neolithic Revolution is the term for the first agricultural revolution, describing the transition from nomadic hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement, as first adopted by various independent prehistoric human societies, in numerous locations on most continents between 10-12 thousand years ago. The term refers to both the general time period over which these initial developments took place and the subsequent changes to Neolithic human societies which either resulted from, or are associated with, the adoption of early farming techniques and crop cultivation - the domestication of plants and animals. The first agricultural revolution introduced a completely new way of human existence, of dramatic social changes: including an increasing population density, specialization in non-agricultural crafts, such as clay figurine making in Catalhoyuk, barter and trade, the organization of a hierarchical society; the introduction of slavery, armies, the state, marriage and personal inheritance. This revolution marked a dramatic expansion of human "control" over nature and of humans over humans.

In particular, in opposition to the moveable personal property and communal property of the nomadic hunter-gatherer, a new way of life began that introduced private property, private ownership of land and buildings, valuable artifacts (and later accumulated money) - a private ownership system protected by the state that allowed one man to have control over the livelihoods of others. Systemic slavery also emerged in human evolution in this period, in almost all continents, where captured humans were considered as "things", the private property of wealthy individuals and families. The walled town of Jericho was established almost 12,000 years ago, in which captured hunter-gatherers were enslaved.

continue reading...

"anyone who owns a house outright in sydney by now is almost by definition a millionaire, or well on the way to it. you only had to inherit a house someone paid $30,000 for in 1970 to do it…"

My mistake. I assumed that the blogger millionares were refering to one million in productive assets (bank accounts, rental property, stocks). Adding residence equity (real or imagined) would skew things a bit.

the cliche and concept of a millionaire has been attenuated by inflation anyhow -- its currency has been debased over the decades -- owning a net $10 million may be a better cut-off point to be 'rich' -- plenty of pensioners are asset-rich and income-poor, for instance. i'm thinking more about the basis of differentiation or departure from the 'regular stiff's dream' of owning a single house, with 2 cars in the drive, with 2.6 kids, with 1 or 2 household incomes (although of course, the price of houses has escalated with dual incomes, for one, in a market response), in a regular paid job, and paying off a regular mortgage, rather than resorting to buying multiple houses (thus forcing others to rent from you, possibly in perpetuity) or any other scheme -- investing in shares is really taking indirect advantage of my theory of multiples. of course you need entrepreneurs and risk-takers to establish companies in the first place, people who don't take a wage from somebody else. however, i'm just trying to atomise what it is that makes the difference between gatesy, your average charismatic CEO on a bloated salary (as per the topic of the thread), or Tom Anderson of myspace, or whoever, and the average wage worker...

DS: I'm not much of a sparkling wine guy. More of a cabernet, pinot noir, merlot drinker. It goes well with some fresh bruschetta or a Caprese salad and fresh baguette.

The Neolithic article was interesting reading, but I'm not sure what point we were meant to infer? The way I'm interpreting the conversation, it seems that people believe that hunter-gatherers were happier than agrarian cultures? Quoting:

Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, in their book Origins, explain the human transition from cooperative and sharing communities, to agricultural settlement: "Why then, is recent human history characterised by conflict rather than compassion? We suggest that the answer to this question lies in the change in way of life from hunting and gathering to farming, a change which began about ten thousand years ago and which involved a dramatic alteration in the relationship people had both with the world around them and among themselves. The hunter-gatherer is part of the natural order: a farmer necessarily distorts that order. But more important, sedentary farming communities have the opportunity to accumulate possessions, and having done so they must protect them. This is the key to human conflict, and it is greatly exaggerated in the highly materialistic world we now live in."

I find this to be a highly suspect premise. First, we have very little evidence of the psychological disposition of hunter-gatherer societies. We have so few artifacts and bodies that it's impossible to conclude that all H-Gs were peaceful. Contact with Native American H-G tribes showed that some of them were considerably hostile, notably about their hunting lands.

Second, I am not willing to write off the accumulation of possessions solely as a result of a sedentary lifestyle. Villages are an enabler to collecting items, but they are not the cause. Value is always the key to mating. In a H-G society, value is effectiveness in securing food, strength to protect one's offspring and social standing within a tribe. In an agrarian society, value is based on the productivity of one's land, the comfort which one can provide to one's mate and inheritable advantage for future offspring.

In short, in a H-G society, perceived value is based primarily on physical attributes. In an agrarian society, perceived value is based on wealth as represented by the accumulation of valuable and pleasing assets.

It's really just primates showing off. We haven't evolved past that yet. :)

"In particular, in opposition to the moveable personal property and communal property of the nomadic hunter-gatherer, a new way of life began that introduced private property, private ownership of land and buildings, valuable artifacts (and later accumulated money) - a private ownership system protected by the state that allowed one man to have control over the livelihoods of others. "

Are you saying that humanity went straight from hunter-gatherer to capitalism? That "one man" who had "control over the livelyhood of others" has been known throught the centuries as "king," "pharoh," "emperor," "khan," "kalifa," etc. The whole of human history since the Neolithic age has used the social order of king-priest-slave, save for some short time on Greece, Rome. and isolated areas in the last 2 centuries.

Why do you think that although some of the king-priest-slave civilizations achieved a high level, they never had an industrial revolution? Was it perhaps that since all increases in production would become the property of the monarch, thus no incentive to advance techniques? Maybe the real industrial revolution took place where the power of the nobilty to confiscate had decreased to the point where the inventors would be able to keep enough of thier earnings to make inventing productivity enhancements worthwhile.

"rather than resorting to buying multiple houses (thus forcing others to rent from you, possibly in perpetuity)"

Where does the "force" come from? People are free to buy a house if they want, rent apartments, or rent other houses. And there is such a thing as a vacancy. Perpetuity? I do not know about apartments, but in the single familiy homes I rented out, most of the tenants only stayed about 2 years. Some were new to the area and wanted to get to know the area before buying, others were only planning to live in the area a short while.

Force is used by the folks who bring you taxation and eminent domain.

Eliza

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position so that I got it better. In general, I agree. Where we part is on the function of the market and the purpose of scale operations. Things are shipped around the world in ag for a very simple reason: because that is where the markets are.

I like sushi, Acia berries, and out of season apricots. I can't get those here, but will pay to have them shipped to me. This enriches my life because I can consume yummy foods, it enriches the lives of the producers because they have more than their local yak herders to sell to, and it enriches thousands of other people who are put to work captaining boats, driving trains, flying planes, accounting for it all, building software to track it all, etc.

There is a large echo of elitism to those who oppose this system. But then, most people also don't quite understand how trade works and how it is responsible for increasing their standard of living. Not to mention that global trade is the largest anecdote to warfare. Vigorous trade tends to make the real costs of war (in economic terms) too high to wage the war in the first place.

"It’s really just primates showing off. We haven’t evolved past that yet."

Hey. be glad that human women do not have the irresistable urge at the time of optimal ovulation to stick thier bright red but high in the air for servicing by the closest male. That would really disturb a college lecture.

"But then, most people also don’t quite understand how trade works and how it is responsible for increasing their standard of living."

Wonder why this is? It is not like we have a shortage of examples.

Headset, what world do you live in?!? That's just crazy talk. You only say that because The Man has taught you to think that way. :o

All renters are forced to rent in perpetuity! When you buy a house to rent it out, you are making other people your slaves. Only The Man wants you to think of it as an exchange of temporary housing for monetary compensation. That's just so The Man can hold you down. A landlord provides no value, they just force you at gunpoint to hand over your hard-earned money, crushing your happiness. It's all a big con, a way to forcibly separate people from their hard-earned assets in a zero sum game. Landlords are the Devil incarnate. And when they're done eating your soul, they're going to invent more technology and productivity so they can dominate even more renter-slaves via asset accumulation.

That is why homeownership is the American Dream. If you're renting, you're a victim of the system, a silly peon paying the mortgage for The Man while he reaps incredible profits from his ill-gotten gains. Do you want to be a victim? Owning your house is the only way to freedom.

Although, in a way, I suppose that means the only way to defeat The Man is to become The Man.

Except if you're a Hunter-Gatherer. That's the best strategy. Then you think that housing sucks because it allows accumulation of possessions, which apparently drains all compassion out of an otherwise utopian society. Let's face it, if I could escape being a slave-renter in a materialistic society, I'd totally chance getting savagely eaten by a saber-toothed tiger. It's all about carrying your possessions on your back, my friend. No assets, nothing to fight over, right? It's just me, the sun, my loving mate, my adoring kids and the possibility of a drought that kills off the mammoth herd, resulting in my excruciating starvation.

Author's Note: For everyone without a grasp of satire, this post is not really my viewpoint, nor do I think Headset is crazy. I agree with him. Nobody forces renters to rent, nobody forces you to own a computer, nobody forces you to drive a car.

The whole 'forced to rent' thing is a topic in itself -- I would argue that houe prices have been bid up to the point where people can't afford to buy, therefore they are forced to rent. If they can't afford to rent, they get public housing, or live on the street. I use the word 'forced' in that being homeless is not really a tenable outcome, and we are talking about essential human shelter, whereas owning a PC or driving a car are discretionary items.

Randy,

Firstly, sorry if my previous post came across as criticism; it wasn't intended that way.

Anyone can be more efficient on a micro-farm or in a garden.
Yes, my point exactly. In essence, that's Java/Bangladesh/etc. peasant agriculture. I'm not saying it produces a superior society, far from it, but only that is more productive on one particular measure.

nice to see the thoughtful comments stemming from 2 paras of a wiki entry though -- and then being told 'I' was arguing those points. you will have to write to richard leakey and the wiki author to have a debate about the content. i did a subject in anthropology concerning the rise of power in different societal types tho, so i'm pre-read -- you have to do some more thinking when you say that the proposal is that things went from 'HG to capitalism', headset, you are jumping to too many conclusions at once in your reading. further, you are wrongly assuming that 'the monarch' suddenly appeared on the scene in societal evolution and that the monarch owned everything, both of which are not really true, especially when you look at the Magna Carta, the beheading of Charles I, the French Revolution and so on. The 'kingdom' is one societal type, though, yes, and they tended to be rather despotic societies, but many societal types have co-existed in the world and even in the same region at the same time.

Jimbo,

What are you talking about? Garbage collection IS automated where I live, massively so. One guy drives a big truck down the street and stops outside every house and presses the button for the automated doohickey to do its stuff lifting/emptying/setting back down the wheelie bin.

where is the age of leisure and the 2-day working week we were promised? even Marx saw the benefits of industrialism and felt that machines should make our lives easier, not harder.

The working masses don’t have leisure time, they’re too busy trying to survive or work multiple low wage jobs due to cover rent, childcare, car repairs, medical.

Folks who have so much leisure time to write long opinions here are among the “rich”.”

I really have to wonder how much time you have spent amongst any actual poor people, to make a statement like this. Most of the poor I have known are on public assistance and have nothing but free time. One of my stepbrothers is diagnosed manic-depressive and gets $770/mo to do nothing but take his meds and sit around and watch television. Another one has been in and out of prison more times than I can keep track of and every time I visit him, he is usually watching television, often stoned. I have no idea how he makes his small amount of money, but whatever it is, it does not take much of his time. I won't even start to go down the list of stepsisters, most of whom have children that have kept them on public assistance.

Maybe you are talking about the "working poor" and the illegal immigrants who seem to do most of the really hard work in California. I don't doubt that they have long days and not much free time, especially if they have children.

they found in one national survey that the working poor had the worst sex lives of all, due to their long working days.

DS

The fact that you, of all people, are suggesting that physical stress is equivalent or parallel to psychological stress, I take as either (a) you're just being sarcastic at a level too clever or (b) you're applying some kind of post-modernism to something you know better than to.

The very fact you are citing psychological and emotional stresses -- which no one denies by the way -- yet failing to acknowledge the fact that these are subordinate to physical stresses which have largely been removed for more now than ever before in human history is just dishonest. And you know it. Even those beloved, isolated indigenous tribes you love to refer to were under orders of magnitude more physical stressors than a Western industrialized welfare-recipient is today.

For example, most of their children died either during the process of being born or within 5 years thereafter.

Seriously, if you cannot at least acknowledge the advances of modernity then why bother arguing neo luddism on the Internet at all?

Who's arguing for neo-Luddism? I already typed 2 clever replies to this, but there were 2 power failures that wiped them out each time due to instabilities here after rain... and my UPS overloaded from trying to support a PC and a Mac at the same time... I'm reflecting on typing a 3rd brilliant exposition, this time with the Mac disconnected...

Jimbo,

Most of the poor I have known . . . have nothing but free time.

I'm with you on this one.

I have also had contact with poor people in a rich society, once through disabled sport and once through a nephew's ex-partner who basically used him as a sperm donor so she could get her own flat/pension.

Since the child of this pairing was at the time my mother's only great-grandchild, I was prevailed upon to visit from time to time even after they split up. During these visits I got to know several of the residents of the adjoining flats, all of whom were in similar circumstances.

I once worked out that these single parents could have lived quite comfortably on their benefits, given that they had free healthcare and that they were renting a 2/1 flat for a fixed 25% of their official income. (Plain, I grant you, and not particularly well maintained, but structurally sound and perfectly adequate for a parent and child. Perfectly adequate for a couple and child, in fact.)

However the unfortunate reality is that most of them actually lived in absolute squalor. A lot of this had to do with their lack of life skills, but some was caused by group dynamics and some by excessive tobacco/alcohol/illegal drug consumption which I suspect was partly due to sheer boredom.

Oh, and these people were continuously getting credit card offers.

Infant mortality may well have been higher in societies other than H-G for most of the history of 'civilisation', due to overcrowding and association, and the movement of diseases from domesticated animals to humans (such as 'flu, smallpox and measles. You could even argue bubonic plague needed large populations, trade routes and urbanised settlements where rats could breed and spread disease) especially as domesticated animals used to co-habitate within the same structures as their owners for safe-keeping and convenience. HIV is believed to have spread from baboons due to certain ritual practices. Then there are the human practices that led to the spread of BSE (from feeding animals to animals, not from soil prions) and bird flu.

The other 'diseases of civilisation' include obesity, diabetes and heart disease from eating a surplus of refined carbohydrates, sugars and fats.

People in HG societies tend to be fairly lean and rangy throughought the lifespan, on the other hand, but their physical stresses are no more than an active, healthy person who plays some sport would do in our society. What's the difference between a fit young man throwing a spear or playing squash? Modernity has created a sedentary population who need to artificially construct exercise opportunities and create substitute hunting and gathering activities to avoid disease and overweight. You could read ethnographies of any simple society such as in Africa, Australia, Papua New Guinea or North or South America to see how people live/d in these societies.

There is no doubt that post-HG societies were all about controlling the environment and planning for the future, which allowed for burgeoning populations to be free from the vagaries of the natural environment to a greater extent than previously -- better shelter, warmth, and better control over an animal and plant food supply. A surplus and stability allowed for creativity and further invention.

However, it was only with the hygiene movement of the early 20th century and the development of 'germ theory' that infant mortality really started to come down. My own area of Chippendale here and other areas in inner Sydney were hotbeds of typhoid fever right up until the 20th century. Malnutrition was common right up until after the 2nd world war in the UK. Improved hygiene and nutrition are responsible for more lives being saved than most medical breakthroughs, in potentially fit and healthy populations. Medical science itself has really only come into its own in the last century. Antibiotics are only about 70 years old.

Child labour under terrible conditions was only banned in England in 1867.

So the current affluence and comfort we possess has really been about the last 50 years out of an experiment that has lasted 10,000 years.

You could look at the light-hearted series The Worst Jobs in History to see just how bad things were for people right up through and including Victorian history. Before the invention of the internal combustion engine and hydraulic equipment, train line routes were dug and laid by hand by teams of navvies doing back-breaking work, and one person died for every mile of track laid.

All these observations are fairly incidental, though, as I have perfectly well acknowledged the advances of modernity but you also have to look at the price that has been paid in new disease types, pollution, psychological stress, and so on, and the price that has been paid over generations in getting to where we are. There is also the question of a viable global population size and the sustainability of our current practices with regard to world energy resources, over-foresting and harvesting of resources, and even the creation of greenhouse gases like methane, CFCs and CO2.

The overarching and very simple point I was trying to make though is that there are good features of other societal types that have been somewhat lost under modernity. Marx pointed to Australian Aboriginal societies as a form of 'primitive communism' in his writings, for instance. Marx himself was writing in reaction to the early conditions of the early Industrial Revolution -- the satanic mills and sweatshops, etc, which we've conveniently forgotten all about in late modernity.

Don't Dismiss Our Dismal Savings Rate
By BOB MCTEER

The main fallacy in monetary theory and policy is the confusion of money and wealth. Money is wealth from the individual perspective since individuals can usually exchange it for goods and services. Money -- and financial assets easily converted to money -- may not be wealth for society as a whole if the production of goods and services has not kept pace with claims on it. Early spenders may have some success, but inflation will dilute the buying power of others. The bottom line is that real wealth has to be produced; it can't be printed.
...
A parallel is the farmer who hopes for a good crop year. But, if all or most farmers have a good crop year, the decline in prices may more than offset higher yields. What our farmer really needs is a good crop in a bad crop year. Then he could look for a popular restaurant that isn't crowded.

I realize this is not very sophisticated stuff, but it's on my mind because of the many talking heads I hear dismissing the adverse consequences of our low personal saving rate by saying it ignores capital gains as a source of spending. "Properly measured," they say, saving is not a problem.

Again, that may be true for the few, but not for the many. A penny saved may be a penny earned, but it matters whether it was earned by producing more or by a rise in the price of existing financial assets. A stock or housing market boom creates apparent wealth in the form of capital gains, but trying to convert it to real wealth en masse can make it disappear.
...
The problem goes beyond government entitlement programs. Consider the baby boomers whose IRAs, 401(k)s and personal investments helped drive the stock market to record highs. What happens when cash-in time comes? There will be a mountain of paper claims on output, but will there be an equally tall mountain of output?

The great French economist, Frederic Bastiat, said that "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." It's time to get real about producing real wealth, not just financial claims on wealth.

DS asks: where is the age of leisure and the 2-day working week we were promised?

Who promised us a 2-day working week?

People in HG societies tend to be fairly lean and rangy throughought the lifespan, on the other hand, but their physical stresses are no more than an active, healthy person who plays some sport would do in our society. What’s the difference between a fit young man throwing a spear or playing squash?

Lean and rangy is a sign of health in a sedentary society. What about nutrition and periods of starvation in H-G societies? You ask what's the difference between a spear-thrower and a squash player. Well, for starters, the squash player isn't going to die if he can't find a ball for two weeks.

You could read ethnographies of any simple society such as in Africa, Australia, Papua New Guinea or North or South America to see how people live/d in these societies.

I'm dreadfully curious. If agrarian societies didn't provide access to modern healthcare, shelter, nutrition, safety and stability to modern H-G cultures, what would their life expectancy be? You can debate quality of life, but Randy is right about physical exertion vs. psychological stress. The simple life sounds great until your lifespan is 50 at the outside.

Anyway, if the H-G lifestyle is so great, why aren't you living it, Sean? Give up the computer, car, healthcare and house. Then your carbon footprint would be zero. There's still enough fish and game in the world that you could live like a hunter-gatherer.

ozajh and Jimbo:

Wasn't talking about the sloths who squandered their opportunity entitlements in favor of government assistance entitlements. I have relatives like that too.

There's a whole world of working poor, too. I think Jimbo at least acknowledged the possibility of it.

If you don't take the time to get to know the person who cleans the toilets in the office building you work in, or the tired 50-ish matriarch who asks you if you'd like fries with that, then you can read "Nickel and Dimed in America".

Nostalgia for the fabled "golden eras" of history has long been a staple of straw men arguments. In truth, there is a reason societies inevitably progress along the same developmental lines over and over; and a reason that we call anomalous periods regressive. The reason is simple. People living under stress of survival and peril endeavor to remove those factors for themselves and their children. I seriously wonder about the sanity of neo-Luddites who wish to reintroduce their children to such perils. I'm not saying DS falls in that category, but come spend a weekend in lovely Marin, where at any of our $40 lunch coffee shops you can listen to a deadly serious conversation about why they have chosen to not immunize their children.

Yes we manipulate our environment. Yes we endeavor to exert control over our environment. Yes we inevitably screw things up in the process and then have to try to fix it. Why is it so bloody hard for some people to accept that is what we are, we humans. We aren't even unique. Given the right accidents of evolution the bees or ants would be doing the same, as they already to at their scale. In fact, they'd be more efficient than we are, I suspect, at dominating the planet's resources. What's wrong with just embracing our humanity and trying to make that work rather than pretending we'd all be better off if we were lice-eating, red-butted monkeys?

Randy, you're a venture capitalist! Don't tell me that you're a chickens--- about saber-toothed tigers. :)

I've always found it morbidly amusing when people invoke the golden days of ancient times, considering that we have very little record of those societies. But it's easy to paint some happy revisionist picture on a blank canvas. "See? The ancient Neolithic farmers were happier because they only ate organic food! They lived in harmony with their environment. Look what pesticides did to 19th century Britain... violence, social unrest, rebellion!"

Personally, I wish we could all live in an ancient utopia like the dinosaurs. They didn't need technology or possessions. They roamed peacefully in herds, at one with their environment, eating only organic plants. Well, except for the carnivores. But at least they were eating free range dinosaurs. Less disease that way. Plus they were leaner.

:o

JJ Rousseau RULZ!!!!!!

JJ Rousseau 4EVER!!!!!!

Randy,

With any luck, the neo-Luddites will take themselves out of the gene pool. I'm a bit more concerned about unwed welfare moms. They may be quite stupid individually, but as far as I'm concerned, they've hit upon an admirably cunning evolution strategy.*

* See also: White tail deer, Canadian Geese, Kudzu.

astrid: We need welfare moms in our society. Then we can tax the middle class and give the money to them, and in turn they can buy products from our companies. This arrangement benefits everyone.

Well, not everyone. But certainly everyone who counts. :o

"you are wrongly assuming that ‘the monarch’ suddenly appeared on the scene in societal evolution and that the monarch owned everything, both of which are not really true, especially when you look at the Magna Carta, the beheading of Charles I, the French Revolution and so on."

The Magna Carta was great, it started the early framework that lessened the monarch's absolute ownwership of all property and people. This lessening of control was what allowed the Industrial Revolution to take place where it did, when it did. After all, people who are allowed to keep some of the fruits of thier labor, without all of it going to the monarch, have more incentive to be inventive and more productive. A scary thought to those who espouse the "from each, to each" philosophy.

And can't you do better than Charles I or the French Revolution? Charles the first was knocked off by Oliver Cromwell, with Cromwell becoming an absolute dictator. The French Revolution brought Napoleon, who actually had emperor and king among his titles. These examples help prove my point that historically most human societies were ruled by monarchs.

"We need welfare moms in our society"

Yes, the slumlords need someone to "force" into the slumlord's dirt floor, vermin infested huts.

LOL. That's why the slumlords killed off the buffalo herds. No other option than renting now! Muahahahaha!

Well I don't know about other countries, but this one is starting to look like "House of Lancaster, House of York".

We have royal families that swap roles. Clinton, Bush, now maybe another Clinton. Are we grooming more of their kids for leadership? Maybe we need another Kennedy in the job again. Some choice there.....

In fact, talking about 'progressive' or 'regressive' societies or similar conceptions of 'forward evolution' and 'continuous improvement' in peoples is now very politically incorrect in social science and development circles. You can only say that soem societies have a more advanced technology than others. For instance, the Romans were arguably more barbaric and uncivilised than the HG Kung of Africa due to their aggressive colonising behaviours and harsh punishments. So you cannot create a 'hierarchical' taxonomiy of societies and proclaim that things are always just getting better and better, except in terms of material wealth or wellbeing. For instance, the US has more visible homelessness, more ghettos and more healthcare problems than Australia, and yet has a higher per capita GDP. Which is more 'progressed' in nature?

Brand Says:
Who promised us a 2-day working week?

I dunno, some journalists and futurists, maybe the odd hopeful politician...

Lean and rangy is a sign of health in a sedentary society. What about nutrition and periods of starvation in H-G societies? You ask what’s the difference between a spear-thrower and a squash player. Well, for starters, the squash player isn’t going to die if he can’t find a ball for two weeks.

Poeple die regularly in the US because they can't afford healthcare. Further, HG societies are inherently small and can live within the means of the environment they inhabit.

The simple life sounds great until your lifespan is 50 at the outside.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about people's lifespans. Some of the calculated averages include infant mortality rates, so this myth that people in medieval Europe had an average lifespan of 35 for instance is a nonsense -- if you survived childhood, it was quite likely that you would live to the ripe old age of 60 or 70 -- hence the Biblical mention of 'three score and ten' years for a lifespan. (Note that the Aramaic societies were also simple agrarian and partially nomadic societies when that was written.)

Anyway, if the H-G lifestyle is so great, why aren’t you living it, Sean? Give up the computer, car, healthcare and house. Then your carbon footprint would be zero. There’s still enough fish and game in the world that you could live like a hunter-gatherer.

Some people choose to. I'm not the least bit interested in living a HG lifestyle, unless society collapses in the next 50 years due to running out of resources, which is not a remote possibility. But, once again, I am not arguing that we should live a HG lifestyle. I have not argued that anywhere on this thread or any other thread, so it's a straw man argument again. My argument all along has been that there are praiseworthy aspects to these simple societies which we have lost. In fact, we have lost them so much that many of the posters here are demonstrating that they can't even grasp the concepts, such is the level of their own enculturation.

Social donations are also made in our society in the form of international aid, welfare benefits and programs, donations to charity and foundations, and so forth. However, some countries have instituted more reliable and guaranteed forms of redistribution than others, possibly having a lot to do with their own histories. The criticism is constantly that not enough international aid is given, or aid is only given to resource-rich countries in a quid pro quo, or that in fact countries are deliberately being entrapped in toxic loans which the instigators know can never be repaid.

J.K. Rowling was a welfare mum. She is now richer than the Queen of England. You may have even bought one of her books.

HeadSet Says:
“We need welfare moms in our society”
Yes, the slumlords need someone to “force” into the slumlord’s dirt floor, vermin infested huts.

Once again, my own inner city suburb here was a slum of timber cottages only 150 years ago, with massive overcrowding in each house, and floor levels set below street level so that they flooded regularly. Didn't stop the landlords coming around to collect the rent each week. Typhoid was endemic from inadequate sewerage. Huge piles of animal bones were burnt each morning to make charcoal to process sugar cane at the original CSR sugar refinery on the hill, and the smell drifted over the suburb.

I really recommend you follow the link above to the 'Worst Jobs in History' site and have a look at a few of them to see how some people lived. Look up Victorian chimney sweeps and mudlarks, for instance. This was a society that failed to redistribute effectively, hence the writings of Dickens, etc. Now you are complaining that 'welfare moms' are something akin to cockroaches. The mom that stays at home while hubby does all the money-making is fine on the other hand, as is Paris Hilton.

you survived childhood, it was quite likely that you would live to the ripe old age of 60 or 70

Do curiosities of averages also explain all the archaeological evidence?

C'mon DS. Cut the equivalency crap. Of course evolution and social "progress" are undirected by your definition. That's mere semantics. They are directed -- both of them -- by iterative survival dynamics. You can bitch and moan all you want about how those dynamics are interpreted, but they simply *are*. All the forces of postmodernism cannot change that anymore than you can halt the march of the arrow of time.

You could have made a perfectly good argument about how lifespans are markedly longer in our (post)modern society, but that the cumulative quality of life experience is worse or no greater. I would have still proven you were wrong about that, but at least it would have been an honest argument. But denying even such fundamentals as life expectancies of history and injecting some fairy-tale fictions instead only makes you and your allies in this argument sound just plain silly.

HeadSet Says:
“you are wrongly assuming that ‘the monarch’ suddenly appeared on the scene in societal evolution and that the monarch owned everything, both of which are not really true, especially when you look at the Magna Carta, the beheading of Charles I, the French Revolution and so on.”

The Magna Carta was great, it started the early framework that lessened the monarch’s absolute ownwership of all property and people. This lessening of control was what allowed the Industrial Revolution to take place where it did, when it did. After all, people who are allowed to keep some of the fruits of thier labor, without all of it going to the monarch, have more incentive to be inventive and more productive. A scary thought to those who espouse the “from each, to each” philosophy.

And can’t you do better than Charles I or the French Revolution? Charles the first was knocked off by Oliver Cromwell, with Cromwell becoming an absolute dictator. The French Revolution brought Napoleon, who actually had emperor and king among his titles. These examples help prove my point that historically most human societies were ruled by monarchs.

Your point was that the 'monarch owned everything, and all wealth was returned to the monarch'. What everyone else lived off then is a mystery. Your point was not that most human societies were ruled by monarchs, which is also numerically suspicious. (However, I will have to accept that you have added up the sum total of all known human societies in history and the number which were identifiable 'kingdoms', and concluded that at least 51% were monarchies. I look forward to seeing the analysis.)

So you have just changed your point dramatically, and I would suggest that most societies historically have not been monarchies on a count. The rest of the teleological tripe about how it all lead to capitalism and isn't it great is just so much nonsense, given the already advanced technology of Europe at the time it was all occurring. You could check your facts even with wikipedia on all this. Is this one of those occasions when one realises one is actually debating a 12 year old on the Internet? Perhaps you should study some social history when you're old enough to go to college...

Randy H Says:

Do curiosities of averages also explain all the archaeological evidence?

You should present it then.

They are directed — both of them — by iterative survival dynamics.

Well, it goes beyond mere survival. But look at some of the jobs on the website indicated and tell me whether you would prefer to have been a mudlark 150 years ago or lived in a HG society where you were an equal. Don't bother writing back until you've done that and ruminated on it.

Growing populations following the agricultural revolution lead to higher birthrates which lead to more social problems and crime due to lack of jobs and lack of a welfare system to cope with the population pressure. This lead to the creation of a stigmatised convict class, where convicts were first sent to the US, then to Australia, often for trivial crimes against property for survival. After each 'excising of the convict stain' to purify the society, more impoverished people turning to petty crimes against property miraculously appeared to fill the gap. It's only been the latter half of the 20th century that it's started to settle on a decently humane equilibrium -- and half the posters on this site then whinge about the evils of 'welfare'.

But denying even such fundamentals as life expectancies of history and injecting some fairy-tale fictions instead only makes you and your allies in this argument sound just plain silly.

Which fairytale fictions exactly? People seem to read every 3rd sentence I write and ignore every qualification I make, and further miss the base point utterly. What was the life expectancy of persons 150 years ago in Western society?