Inequality

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11405
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Inequality

Post by Ellie » 16 Aug 2018, 20:50

*puts hands over ears* LA LA LA LA LA *leaves thread*
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 17 Aug 2018, 18:39

Aresen wrote:
16 Aug 2018, 17:15
JD wrote:
16 Aug 2018, 08:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 19:59
I'm saying hunter-gatherers were too foolish to invent modern medicine and birth control
Actually the birth control thing might not be totally correct. There is some evidence that h/g peoples had various ways - some conscious and intentional, some not - of controlling their population. Later age of menarche, earlier age of menopause, higher infant mortality, prolonged breastfeeding, sexual taboos, induced abortion, infanticide; all of these can have an impact on the reproductive rate.
Infanticide was the commonest form of 'birth control' until the advent of sterile surgery.
They were too foolish to kill more infant children!
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24407
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren » 17 Aug 2018, 23:41

Eric the .5b wrote:
17 Aug 2018, 18:39
Aresen wrote:
16 Aug 2018, 17:15
JD wrote:
16 Aug 2018, 08:01
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 19:59
I'm saying hunter-gatherers were too foolish to invent modern medicine and birth control
Actually the birth control thing might not be totally correct. There is some evidence that h/g peoples had various ways - some conscious and intentional, some not - of controlling their population. Later age of menarche, earlier age of menopause, higher infant mortality, prolonged breastfeeding, sexual taboos, induced abortion, infanticide; all of these can have an impact on the reproductive rate.
Infanticide was the commonest form of 'birth control' until the advent of sterile surgery.
They were too foolish to kill more infant children!
I consider the move from infanticide to prebirth abortion to be, on the whole, a mistake.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Inequality

Post by Dangerman » 19 Aug 2018, 11:00

@nicole,

Agile Cyborg, right?

that was a good bit while it lasted.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8976
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Inequality

Post by nicole » 19 Aug 2018, 11:06

Wait, what? I found him annoying and also he’s the Master Troll so.

I definitely consider the move to thinking infanticide is wrong was a mistake.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 6610
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Inequality

Post by Pham Nuwen » 19 Aug 2018, 12:03

nicole wrote:
19 Aug 2018, 11:06
Wait, what? I found him annoying and also he’s the Master Troll so.

I definitely consider the move to thinking infanticide is wrong was a mistake.
This message board just gets weirder and weirder.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6174
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Inequality

Post by Andrew » 19 Aug 2018, 16:54

Dangerman wrote:
19 Aug 2018, 11:00
@nicole,

Agile Cyborg, right?

that was a good bit while it lasted.
White Indian was the gamboler.

nicole wrote:
19 Aug 2018, 11:06
he’s the Master Troll
Huh. Today I learned...
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
Tuco
Posts: 137
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 21:00

Re: Inequality

Post by Tuco » 20 Aug 2018, 07:51

Pham Nuwen wrote:
19 Aug 2018, 12:03
nicole wrote:
19 Aug 2018, 11:06
Wait, what? I found him annoying and also he’s the Master Troll so.

I definitely consider the move to thinking infanticide is wrong was a mistake.
This message board just gets weirder and weirder.
It's why I love you fuckers.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22635
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Inequality

Post by Jennifer » 29 Aug 2018, 16:32

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 19:59
lunchstealer wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 19:49
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 19:25
JasonL wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 14:01
That story is entirely too pat for me to, well, digest. It reeks of contrarian bias in the face of the general take on food anthropology as I understand it - which is always and forever you are trying to solve for regular supplies of calories and each iteration of food in society would not happen if that were not the net effect because everyone starved all the time and a migration backwards would have been unimaginable for anyone who had 12 dead kids who starved.
As I mentioned, a large portion of hunter-gatherer societies engaged in some part-time agriculture, clearing set areas and throwing out seeds to check back on later. Rather than people had a dumb idea and thus abandoned their superior lifestyle, even after it turned out to suck, it seems more plausible that during the start of a die-off, when the food supply started to get tight due to insufficient game and foragable foodstuffs for the population, some people doubled down on the agriculture and managed to weather the crisis better. ("Ugh, dealing with these plants is a lot of work. I'd rather hunt deer." "Have you found any deer, lately?" "...Let's deal with the plants.") At that point, it wouldn't take long to have more people in that clan/tribe/etc. farming than could possibly be supported as hunter-gatherers, since they were starting at near the critical point.
So what you're saying is climate change is to blame and hunter gatherers needed a carbon cap-and-trade scheme but were too selfish?
No.

I'm saying hunter-gatherers were too foolish to invent modern medicine and birth control, so they got stuck having to deal with boom-and-bust cycles. Continuing their foolishness, some of them did not do the proper thing and contentedly starve to death, but they instead explored other options that kept them from having to fight hyenas for the meat on the bodies of their family members.
Coincidentally, only a couple days after this discussion I found and bought a thrift-store copy of Guns, Germs and Steel, and read it over a couple days last week. (I'd previously read summaries and excerpts, and saw the TV documentary on IIRC PBS, but had not read the book as a whole.) And, yeah -- the earliest agriculturalists did indeed paint themselves into a corner, and by the time they realized the downsides the increased population meant it was far too late to go back to the Before Ways of doing things (just as our modern world, with a population vastly greater than it was before the Industrial Revolution, cannot simply "give up" fossil fuels and go back to the Before Ways unless we want to see a HYOOOGE portion of the population die out).

According to GG&S, the main reason the early farmers were "stuck" after realizing primitive farm life sucks worse than nomadic life was due to population explosion caused by a much higher birthrate -- this is one of those "well duh" insights that I'm kind of embarrassed to have never thought of before -- basically, a nomadic woman had about one baby every four years, because if you live the nomad life you can't have Baby #2 until Baby #1 is big enough to walk by himself and not hold up the rest of the tribe. The nomadic birthrate was kept that low through (unconscious) use of breastfeeding preventing a woman from getting pregnant again ... and likely abortion and infanticide, too. (Not surgical abortion, but no doubt the nomads knew which plants were poisonous enough to kill someone -- and which were "only" poisonous enough to cause a pregnant woman to miscarry.) But once the first farmers settled down, and mothers no longer had to carry their babies with them all day every day, the per-woman birthrate nearly doubled, to roughly one baby every two years. So it didn't take long at ALL for those early farm communities to grow the population beyond what even a "plush" hunter-gatherer lifestyle could provide.

Also, the earliest bits of what would later become "agriculture" were almost certainly discovered by accident, likely by nomads who had a bit of "repetition" in their wanderings: like, every spring we're in this general area, every winter we move to that area -- and it wouldn't be difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to notice "Hey, in the 'latrine zone' of our springtime campsite -- the area where we all go to poop when we camp here -- wow, an awful lot of the plants we like to eat have started growing here!" (I am reminded of a fairly recent news story: some scientists went to visit a brand-new volcanic island, intending to study how natural forces bring plant and animal life to a sterile hunk of rock in the ocean. And they were absolutely astonished to discover a couple tomato plants growing on the island -- no way could wind patterns or birds or anything else have naturally brought tomato seeds to that island in such a short period of time -- but then they figured out what happened was, one of the scientists had a BLT or something for lunch, went to the bathroom on that island -- and pooped out some tomato seeds in their own little packet of fertilizer.)

So, between pooping out smaller seeds of things we ate, and accidentally dropping larger seeds of things we carried from their natural growing points to wherever the tribe camped that night, those first human plantings of what would later become agricultural crops were certainly done by accident and discovered only later.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b » 29 Aug 2018, 16:43

Yes, I've read that book, too. And some of the many criticisms of it by people in the fields it covers. More later.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11405
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Inequality

Post by Ellie » 20 Sep 2018, 12:11

Seen on a random Facebook post (which I wish I could unsee):
I think people seriously just don’t understand how big a billion is.

There is literally no reason a single human could ever possibly need a billion dollars, and there is no conceivable way for a single human to “earn” a billion dollars. You can ONLY get a billion dollars by accumulating money from thousands of other laborers beneath you, all of whom deserve to share that wealth.

It shouldn’t be legal to be able to decide your own salary with no limitations whatsoever. When you have the power to increase your own pay you should be REQUIRED to increase the pay of every single person you employ along with it, down to the last toilet scrubber. No exceptions.

There isn’t a single ethical billionaire that ever lived and there never will be.
It would take someone who made 240,000 a year (a darn good income considering I made the most I've made in my life last year at 30,000. That's eight of me.) 4,167 years to make a billion dollars. Billionaires SHOULD NOT EXIST! NO ONE CAN PHYSICALLY DO ENOUGH WORK TO EARN A BILLION!!
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24407
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren » 20 Sep 2018, 13:03

The inability to grasp the fundamental nature of "more" is the product of willful shallowness.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Inequality

Post by Dangerman » 20 Sep 2018, 13:11

Billionaires don't have a billion fucking dollars in a checking account. They own a bunch of shit that's valued by other people at whatever amount.

Revenue is not the same as asset value.

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10330
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Inequality

Post by JD » 20 Sep 2018, 13:25

Also, I don't think anybody with a net worth of a billion actually got that way because they decided to pay themselves a billion dollars.
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14499
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Inequality

Post by Aresen » 20 Sep 2018, 14:42

Ellie wrote:
20 Sep 2018, 12:11
It would take someone who made 240,000 a year (a darn good income considering I made the most I've made in my life last year at 30,000. That's eight of me.) 4,167 years to make a billion dollars. Billionaires SHOULD NOT EXIST! NO ONE CAN PHYSICALLY DO ENOUGH WORK TO EARN A BILLION!!
If I can't have it, no one else should.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3677
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Inequality

Post by Painboy » 20 Sep 2018, 14:58

Warren wrote:
20 Sep 2018, 13:03
The inability to grasp the fundamental nature of "more" is the product of willful shallowness.
What's worse is that the person who wrote that is probably quite proud of their little "insight."

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7161
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem » 20 Sep 2018, 16:32

Ellie wrote:
20 Sep 2018, 12:11
Seen on a random Facebook post (which I wish I could unsee):
I think people seriously just don’t understand how big a billion is.

There is literally no reason a single human could ever possibly need a billion dollars, and there is no conceivable way for a single human to “earn” a billion dollars. You can ONLY get a billion dollars by accumulating money from thousands of other laborers beneath you, all of whom deserve to share that wealth.

It shouldn’t be legal to be able to decide your own salary with no limitations whatsoever. When you have the power to increase your own pay you should be REQUIRED to increase the pay of every single person you employ along with it, down to the last toilet scrubber. No exceptions.

There isn’t a single ethical billionaire that ever lived and there never will be.
It would take someone who made 240,000 a year (a darn good income considering I made the most I've made in my life last year at 30,000. That's eight of me.) 4,167 years to make a billion dollars. Billionaires SHOULD NOT EXIST! NO ONE CAN PHYSICALLY DO ENOUGH WORK TO EARN A BILLION!!
That's the labor theory of value for you.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests