Is it a meme that hunter-gatherers were more healthier, happier,

>>1718031
Brain volume is 10% less, they make the brain 10% shorter and not cube root of 90% as big
Shiggidy

>>1718031

Yeah dying of food posioning at age 6 was really fun.

>>1718031
A modern noble savage crock of bull. Just some retard looking at his own life and thinking it would be simpler to live nearly naked out in the wilderness having to catch your food and live in mud huts.

I find it hard to believe.

>>1718031
Mesolithic hunters were murdering shitheads in many places. That said it does indeed seem they were on average taller than early farmers.

>>1718031
Do we really know the skin color of neanderthals?

>>1718031
In some parts of Europe hunting and gathering continued until 4500 years ago. Mostly because these areas were rather rich in food and poor for agriculture.

>>1718109
That's not a neanderthal and they were most certainly white due to very often wearing clothing because it's a fucking ice age.

>>1718117
So?

>>1718117
I thought it continued in Scandinavia more or less among the Sami for up until very recently.

>>1718130
>who was Eskimos

>>1718138
And Neanderthals didn't have that lifestyle, dumdum.

Actually if agriculture and civilization was so bad why did people settle down?

Checkmate primitivist revisionist memers

>>1718031
Yes, it's a meme. Pretty much all animal societies have some sort of hierarchies and modern humans intuitively form then when they're building groups. Even within family there is hierarchy and certain laws upheld by the group. We're biologically inclined to look at what our peers are doing and we try to make them look favourably at us. A "free" society is a myth, since there are always implicit and explicit rules and guidelines that are forced upon us.

Anarchism in general is a meme. Even anarchic groups which are supposedly free from hierarchy will have certain people emerge as leaders that can force their will upon others. Maybe not through force of law but by being more respected by others and having them side with them in majority decisions.

>>1718150
Because it produced more people and states full of legions of stupid agriculturalist drones with sharp metal tipped sticks could kick hunter gatherers off their land.

Turns out connectivity is better than individual intelligence.

>>1718149
What? You said Neanderthals were light because they endured cold (ice age) and/or they were heavily clothed most of the time. Both hold exceedingly true for modern Inuit, Yupik, Aleut, etc, yet they are all fairly swarthy peoples.

>>1718163
Eskimos live a significant part of their time on ice. Ice reflects UV rays. Neanderthals were ambush predators. They largely lived in forests where they could hide along game trails. They only moved away from that lifestyle as the climate began to shift, pushing them to adapt to living without forests or coastal life.

>>1718167
I agree, but these aren't the same points broached earlier by the poster, whom you do not appear to be.

Anyway, it is worth mentioning that Neanderthal man did not subsist solely or even mostly on game, but consumed a good portion of native plants as well, as evidenced by fossil dentition.

Also Cro-Magnon refers to a large span of people during a general time frame of human cultural evolution, and they likely spanned all skin tones and complexions, although very light ones might have been a rarity, as especially light skin is a pretty recent development from my understanding, especially with people who spent a great deal of time outside.

>>1718178
I'm sorry for not laying it out for you, my dude. But when you came up with the Eskimos thing you should have given a second thought to the argument and realized what I just argued yourself. The clothing thing was at the end of the day the main reason they were likely white.

Also I've never seen someone with dark skin and red hair.

>>1718133
They weren't eager to start farming full time.

>>1718031
Brain size does not fucking matter.

the biggest brains in Europe are owned by Slavs and they're fucking stupid while Dolicocephalic Nordics have the most successful countries in the world.

>>1718150
>Actually if agriculture and civilization was so bad why did people settle down?

Most of them didn't. But those who did could sustain a higher birthrate because they didn't need to travel. Compound for 100 generations and 99.99% of the population is now descended from agriculturalists.

>>1718031
>more healthier, happier, stronger, smarter,

Probably, yeah, but only compared to pre-modern farmers.

>and lived in an equal society free of laws, hate, and hierarchy?

Definitely not. H-G societies were extremely violent.

>>1718184
I'm not sure why you bring up hair color; perhaps it's because Neanderthals are oft invoked in discussions of red hair? Anyway, I agree with your observation, but one should realize that genes for red hair are quite rare and that red hair frequently occurs alongside several other related traits; it stands to reason that one of those traits is a pale complexion.

Neanderthals were probably mostly a tan race of people, as they are most often depicted in reconstructions, especially in sculpture. Any people which spends all its time outside is bound to be one, some more than others, and again, at this time, I believe a particularly light tone was very rare among humans.

>>1718195
sperm whales are geniuses

>>1718195
Most people with a Nordid phenotype are brachycephalic, no? Also
>phrenology
all my keks

>>1718206
The hell? Are you implying pale skin cannot be tanned? No one said they were incapable of producing melanin. I'm telling you they were likely as pale as "white" humans.

>>1718223
No?

No.

>prenology

That's in OP's pic.

>>1718224
>I'm telling you they were likely as pale as "white" humans

Based on what?

>>1718234
Their lifestyle and the fact that red hair is likely indicative of not producing much melanin.

>>1718249
>Their lifestyle

What?

>and the fact that red hair is likely indicative of not producing much melanin.

Based on what?

>>1718264
Dude, why are you so sure they had dark skin?

>>1718287
I'm not him btw, I'm the guy who started the discourse with you, he's someone else but I agree with him, anyway I'm leaving the thread for now peace

>>1718287

I'm not. I have no idea what their skin looked like. But you seem pretty sure so I wanted to know why.

>>1718298
>>1718296
I've only ever said it was likely. The fact that you have been so adamant in arguing with me about the point implies you have evidence to the contrary.

>>1718303

I just want to know why you think it's likely.

File: 1223.png (41KB, 409x406px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 409x406px

Books such as 1491 by Charles Mann, among others, mention how natives looked healthier and more muscular (same was said about aboriginals).
But since many indians practiced agriculture (just different) it has more to do with the type of diet.

Bread or to be more precise, starch, is the reason.

Indigenious people still living the way they do are often also healthier. I got this from a book by a doctor, who says starch is unhealthy and increases aging.

I am not talking of the paleodiet which is pretty much a naturalistic fallacy. Paleodiet excludes foods that are good (mainly legumes) and focuses too much on meat. A heavy plant diet is the way to go according to the aging scientist.

Meat contains some good stuff but could be eaten much less as it is now. Red meat isn't as good as white.
_______________________________________

As for morality. Hunter-gatherers were violent (but this also depends on which tribe). Many did not reach adulthood, child morality was high, but those who survived could become very old.

I personally happen to think that a hybrid lifestyle is the best: taking the beneficial from both worlds.

File: frodo.png (325KB, 560x559px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 560x559px

>>1718150
>why did people who didn't hold territory end up without territory

>>1718398
How would a hybrid lifestyle look?

Also
>starch is bad
>meat is okay
Lol, not really though

And the OP doesn't refer to Neolithic hunter-gatherers specifically; just Cro-Magnon, which were remarkably peaceful people according to the dominant theories today. Even later humans weren't as violent as, say, the Ancient Greeks, with regard to regularity and severity of conflict.

>>1718334
As I have said multiple times. Their habitat, their lifestyle, and to a lesser extant their hair color. There is a reason darker skinned humans usually have black hair whereas fair skinned humans have a relatively wide range of hair colors.

If you want elaboration on some of those points then just read the thread.

>>1718091
Infant mortality was much more dangerous in early agricultural societies, just think about all that stagnant water sources, shitting were they drink and eat too, less healthy mothers also kill infants with lack of nutrients

Being a early agriculturalist must have been generally horrifying, not being able to properly digest the food you eat and almost no strength to wake up in the morning

>>1718438
Later they more than often also practiced sheep and cattle farming so a mix of both agricullture and cattle raising often resulted in a healthier life style

>>1718150
not enough resources in the wild to sustain the population, it was either starve to death or settle down

also look up Holocene extinction, the only reason humans in the wild become so numerous was because of the megafauna

>>1718398
This post is correct. From a pure health perspective, yeah they were healthier, probably tougher, taller, better teeth, etc. That stuff goes to shit once agriculture comes in. Yeah they sometimes died at 30 but that wasn't because of their personal diet or health, it's because they got fucking rekt by a wolf or had their head caved in with a rock by Grog from the neighboring tribe.

>>1718031
>hunter-gatherers
>healthier
No. Some many bones found dying of tooth decay don't give hints of health.

>happier
Subjective. Quadruple amputees serving life in prison can find moments of happiness. But I don't think starving, fearing murder and killing lead to much personal peace and joy.

>stronger
Maybe. I was watching a documentary on modern-day tribes with minimal contacts with society and the Amazon and Guinea dudes were fucking shredded, six packs and all that. But they are living an insane lifestyle that requires that much activity. We leave sedentary lifestyles but we get all the nutrients we need and know more about fitness. If we weren't so lazy we'd all be stronger.

>smarter
Subjective again. I mean hunter-gatherers were the first to see through the bullshit of life via base instincts. probably took genius levels of self-awareness, introspection and observation for men who were just apes to try to organize against their base instincts, even if the results were primitive and brutal.

>lived in an equal society free of laws, hate, and hierarchy
That's just plain fucking stupid. In the lushes environments where food was endless, we find constant unnecessary tribal warfare.

>>1718475
I heard a lot of egyptians died of tooth decay because they ate such refined grains and hadn't invented the tooth brush.

>>1718475
>Subjective again. I mean hunter-gatherers were the first to see through the bullshit of life via base instincts. probably took genius levels of self-awareness, introspection and observation for men who were just apes to try to organize against their base instincts, even if the results were primitive and brutal.
*tips*

File: homo_sapiens_idaltu.gif (60KB, 520x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 520x250px

>>1718031
>cro-magnon
>picture is reconstruction of Herto man face
Fucking infographic.

>>1718475
Dude we aren't comparing the hunter-gatherers to modern civilized people, we are comparing them to agricultural societies that followed them immediately and pretty much until the end of the feudal age

Well, based on research of hunter-gatherer-like societies, or societies that have been up until very recently, they were violent and rapey as fuck compared to the modern, industrialised world.

True there has been studies that suggest that early agricultural societies took a dip in health and wellbeing, but we've well and truly gotten past that, and if I recall that was based in the fertile crescent during a time when there was very little diversity in food, and even in the classical period, fruit and seasonal foods were fairly commonly available.

Brain size does not correlate very well with intelligence. Who cares about weaker physiques, bitch we have hydraulics.

Also, I dare say anyone who wants to eat chicken and eggs, then hit the gym is going to be able to build a stronger physique than our ancestors, because they wouldn't have been able to get the sorts of energy required to maintain that level of bulk. We were gatherers first and foremost, hunting for meat is a fuckload harder than hunting for berries, berries don't run as fast.

>>1718483
>*tips*
Why?

>>1718535
You are talking about something with more apparent reverence than it deserves. You make it sound like early humans were saying "In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony instincts. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence".

Huntergathering fucking sucks, you spend all day just trying to stay alive.

>>1718031
No they were physically better than us in everyway infact according to science our level of intelligence is actually the same as them only they used their brains for analytical hunting strategies or planning for seasonal changes, our brains have shrunk over the last 10,000 years meaning agriculture may have made us stupid.

Despite this hunter gatherers were jerks they would rape women and the female hunter gatherers wouldnt even fight rape because they love rape because female hunter gatherers are women in their natural state just submissive fuck toys, there would be some dicks that kill people for no reason though.

Also in that picture thats Homo Sapiens Idaltu you stupid fuck.

>>1718109
Their skin color probably ranged from Nords to sandniggers in Iraq because the Neanderthals also lived in the middle east and Northern Africa, there could have been Neanderthal races for all we know.

>>1718031
>healthier
Probably.

>happier
We can't exactly ask them.

>stronger
Almost certainly

>smarter
IQ is pretty strongly correlated with literacy so probably not.
>muh brain volume
I guess elephants should be smarter than humans then.

>lived in an equal society free of laws, hate, and hierarchy
lolnope.

>>1718549
Oh okay I see. Probably wasn't a euphoric moment, probably a slow gradual change the individual didn't even understand. But the state of nature is fucked up and to try something else knowing nothing else is tip worthy.

>>1718560
San people in Namibia only work for about 4-6 hours when they hunt, they spend the rest either fucking or screwing around.

Hunting and gathering is instinctive to humans its why we get a thrill shooting deers or chasing people its that primal desire to dominate and bring an animal down to prepare for the tribe.

Farming happened because some humans eventually realized that mass producing food would help survival more but homo sapiens had already mastered hunting and gathering in their living areas since 16,000 years ago.

>>1718656
>San people in Namibia only work for about 4-6 hours when they hunt, they spend the rest either fucking or screwing around.

No shit, isn't namibia a desert?

>>1718483
>>1718549
Oh fuck off.

File: 1444011433374.jpg (37KB, 599x384px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 599x384px

>healthier
nobody claims this

>happier
an animistic society, free of existential dread, with a place for you in society, is a happy place to be.

>stronger
on average yeah

>smarter
uhhhhhh no.

>equal society
sometimes but not usually

>free of laws
no lol, but enforcement of law is more like how families take care of things. people are going to try to help you first, and will ostracize you if you do not change.

>free of hate
what? no, everybody hates things they don't like

>free of hierarchy
sometimes. that has more to do with size than anything. hierarchies form in larger societies with more material wealth moving around.

The only part that's true and the only part that's largely claimed by anthropologists is that animists are generally happier than people in agricultural societies, which is thoroughly backed up by observation.

>>1718031
Then why did evolution favor the latter?

File: image.jpg (268KB, 1075x1125px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1075x1125px

>>1718747
I don't necessarily agree with the whole thing but here is an explanation:

Lack of vitamins and minerals changes which genes are actually expressed in humans, and these are the ones most likely to get passed on to their offspring.

Genes can be basically turned on and off depending on environmental factors

>>1718729
>nobody claims this
Of course they do. The argument is that agriculture led to humans having a less varied diet and the concentration of people in cities led to the era of communicable disease that only sort of ended with the discovery of antibiotics.

>>1718770
Genes do this because every cell in your body holds your DNA, and the cells have to regulate your DNA so that each cell can do its individual job correctly so that a brain cell isn't trying to be a skin cell or something like that

Some modern scientists believe other environmental input to your brain can alter gene expression as well, and the expressed genes are more likely to get passed on for better survival/faster evolution purposes

>>1718117
2500 years ago Scandinavia was still hunter-gatherer.

>>1718801
No, it wasn't.

>>1718780
Nobody worth listening to claims this, then. People also claim the world is ran by lizard people, why not make a thread about that?

When comparing modern globalized capitalistic society to currently existing animistic hunter-gatherer societies, life expectancy, health and infant mortality all have better numbers outside of tribalism. The mistake people make is assuming that this makes it more miserable to be in an animistic society. Animistic societies by definition use their religion in place of science to understand reality. Bad health can be bad spirits, you "know" what happens to people when they die, dead infants will be reborn, etc. etc. The doubt cast by knowledge is the source of a lot of anxiety in global society.

>>1718831
I do want a hardcore /his/ thread about reptilians.

I agree with your view on animistic societies, and I specially agree if we separate technology and belief, you don't have to believe in science to use it.

A modern version of a small nomadic tribe could prove to be extremely succesful and desirable, if it wasn't for our society repulsion from the "savage ways".

We don't even tolerate gypsies.

>>1718831
They are valid arguments though.

Also your original post was stupid for being overly dismissive of smarter bit as well. Humans previously had larger cranial capacity. Now MAYBE humans evolved more efficient brains that could do more with less, but we don't know.

>>1718482
Same with some upper class of South America eating corn. Archeologists sort out class by tooth decay. Better preserved teeth = more basic diet = poorer person.

Mohammad (PBUH) according to Aisha, considered white bread a rare luxury. He would mostly eat milk or dates, but never both.

>>1718909
A small nomadic tribe nowadays in the first world, with the use of modern medicine and shit, would be fun I guess if you really want to do it. I'm sure they'll make a documentary or even a tv show about you so people will get all sentimental about simpler times even more while living highly stressful and unhealthy lives and retiring at 80, shortly before kicking the bucket.

Go for it, good luck finding people fucking willing to do it and getting kicked off people's property (unless you want to do it somewhere like Alaska, I know you won't do it in africa or some other anarchistic shithole)

>>1718031

>invent better weapons
>bodies get weaker

Hmm... really makes you think.

>>1718031
That's not a cro-mag, that's a fucking Homo sapiens idaltu. Can't trick me!

>>1718488
Yep. He was to humans as American lions (now extinct) are to African lions.

File: melanesian-blond-hair.jpg (2MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2816x2112px

>>1718427
>There is a reason darker skinned humans usually have black hair whereas fair skinned humans have a relatively wide range of hair colors.

Even though Cro Magnons are basically the earliest appearance of modern Homo Sapiens, weren't they on average somewhat taller and considerably more muscular then us?

>>1718770
get paid pupper

>>1719409
Not him, but he still said usually.

>>1718438
Early Agriculture: The worst bulk of selective breeding for the core plants is finished before Agriculture, so its fine.
The real advantage is that you don't go permanently hungry on Agriculture, while on Nomadic Hunter Gatherer you go permanently hungry between feasts.


>>1718135
Domestication of a kind of cattle != Hunter Gatherer.
Sami advanced to the Nomad stage.


>>1718401
Frodo, please. That wasn't the question.
The question was: If Agriculture was shitty, why would it lead to the dominant form of civilization?

The answer is that people look at Hunter Gatherer, and forget the really shitty parts.
I.E Migration. You harvest a area, and then move on. A few years down the line, you might want to visit said area again, and pray nobody arrived before you and did a harvest.
The HG might be taller, but thats only because their diet is more nutritious. Meanwhile: They are literally starving and always on the verge of malnutrition, and have very poor means of food preservation.

Image the horror of killing a Mastodon, and your tribe can't physically eat it all before it starts rotting.
Image the horror if its a collaborative hunt between a few tribes, and you still can't eat it all.
So you feasted, it has rotted, and now you are literally starving as you harvest the next bunch of half poison roots and plants.

>>1719409
Hair color has to do with very random keratin coloring mutations, thats why Melanesis can have blonde hair because they independently evolved a dominant blonde hair set of genes, Euros always had blonde hair you stupid fucks but its only the Nords that have blonde as their dominant genetic hair color. The dominant hair becomes more recessive the north you go in Europe with the Souths having black hair meaning they have the lowest incidence of blonde genes, the mids having brown hair and the north having blonde hair. The redheads however are the only hair color grouping that is not possible in every european group only the Scots and Potatos can have red hair and only them. If you got red hair you have an ancestor from one of these places.

>>1719451
A lot of Russian jews and very very rarely some Slavs have red hair as well. Also there are some redheaded Afghans. S

>>1718224
>>1718287
"White" doesn't mean anything.
It could be anything from pale as the Icelandic(literally blue), to Sami/Finland(very white) to the Slavic/Scandinavic colors(during summer might get minimal tan), to more central Europa(At best might be able to approuch Italian tan), to the Turk/Greece bronze skin.

By white do you mean:
-Blue pale
-Pale
-Pale White
-White
-Minimal Tan
-Some Tan
-Bronze
-Mud Bronze
-Mud
-Dark Mud
-Muh Negro
-Literally black

Because there is a lot of skin tones.

>>1718031
>Humans were dark
pff no humans were originally beige tan, blacks are the color of night because of all the UV radiation in the central African area they originally developed on, notice the San people have beige tan skin and live South in Africa yet arent as dark as the blacks. The sand people usually have orangish skin yet live in alot of heat and some like the Lebanese have pale skin.

>>1719468
Most people dont seem to notice that all Europeans have a very similar facial structure that indicates they can be grouped biologically.

File: udmurt_people_red.jpg (142KB, 643x483px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 643x483px

>>1719417
There's no usually. We're talking about specific mutations. If they're not seen in the rest of humanity it's because they didn't spread. Skin is one thing, but a tropical habit never stopped other primates from having whatever fur colors.

>>1719451
>Scots and Potatos can have red hair and only them.
And Udmurtians. And Tocharians. And Uyghurs. And some middle easterners.

>>1719487
>Udmurtians

Mongorians?

>>1718031

i dunno. i prefer the modern dentistry that my smaller brain and frailer physique has given me access to.

better than being a burly, healthy, smart hunter gatherer with a festering root abcess and no treatment except yanking it out with stone tools or having the tribal shaman try to shoo the pain away by tripping on a disgusting concoction of liberty caps and his own piss.

this evolutionary compromise seems acceptable to me.

>>1719487
Oh then all of the hair color are possible but red is so rare that it barely ever appears.

>>1719486
French and London? Yes
France versus English Countryside? No.
Central European Slavs(i.e Poland) versus Danes? Not similar.
Germans versus Scandinavs? Its barely been 1-2 centuries, and its still different. So no.
South Europa is very different, especially Spain versus Italy versus Greece.
Russians, Fins and Sami isn't good for argument, when they are Asians interbreed with various ethnicities for 800-1300 years and more.

Then again, your argument is most likely built on that Black is Negroids, instead of the 8-13 subgroups that they generally are unless mixed.
Arabs are even better, because they have a bunch of tribes that is still Nomadic, which show cases some of their extreme differences in facial structure and build.


I get that Race science was this really cool thing after Darwin, but I don't get why they decided to go for Australoid · Capoid · Caucasoid · Mongoloid · Negroid.
Even with gradients on the Slav side, thats still very wrong when you can without effort divide the Causasoids into at the least 20 groups.

>>1719518
Anon taxonomy is about finding like traits and euros have the same kind of face just slight modifications so they can all be grouped.

If we took the time to actually group black tribes on DNA and not language we would learn something.

>>1719486
Not really

>>1719409
I said usually and you posted the few thousand inhabitants of one fucking island who are the only exception?

It's a meme. People were more fit on average of course but that's about it

>>1719449
"Sami" (if you could use this name for people not speaking Uralic languages, whose adaptation happened relatively recently) were still true hunter-gatherers during the Iron Age and maybe even the first few centuries of 1st millenium AD.

File: amazons_horsegirl.jpg (365KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1280x720px

>>1719497
About as Mongolian as Finns and Russians are.

>>1719513
It's a matter of who gets to live, really. If some strange catastrophe happened and everyone but the people in the regions with fairer phenotypes died, then the porcentage would increase exponentially, and as they repopulated the planet more people would have this or that trait.

People forget evolution isn't a thing that happened ages ago then stopped. There's no end to it. Life is constantly changing according to its conditions and accidents. Talking of what's proper of this or that habitat is stupid because life spreads to wherever it can. Pale people living in the tropics nowadays due to history is no different from Eskimos living in the Arctic regions thanks animal furs--they'll keep having those traits unless a particular situation calls for them not to.

>>1719538
>one fucking island
All of Melanesia and Australia, and previously all of maritime Southeast Asia, isn't one island; unless you think a whole continet is one island, in which case the same applies to Eurasia. And that these people are nowadays marginal because they have been replaced by other groups does not invalidate the point.

>>1719478
That's false, the darkest people in Africa life close to the Sahara (Nilo-Saharans). Besides, the Pygmies life in Central Africa and are lighter than the Bantus who live there.

agriculture and civilization removed a filter. now idiots, the disabled, and other darwin award candidates can survive to reproduce.

>>1718031
>30,000 years ago

>early modern humans have brains bigger than modern humans

Holy shit, are they serious?
Are they really fucking serious?

>>1718031
Did they have bigger dicks?

>>1718520
I'd like to read more about this stuff, any recommendations?

>>1718150
Look up "path dependence".

People started to cultivate crops, which resulted in more food, which resulted in more people. People invented better ways to grow crops, i.e. irrigation, which in turn leads to more food. "Sweet" says everyone. But more people means that what was once a totally rad and cool way to get more food now is an absolute necessity if everyone isn't going to starve.

>>1718031
It's true. the native Americans were taller and stronger than the European settlers who arrived

>>1721710
>not understanding the concept of a scout

>>1719508
Most tooth problems came with agriculture though

It's sugar eating bacteria's acidic shit that gives you cavities

just look at the aboriginals before they gained a western diet, they had perfect teeth

>>1719451
>only the scots and potatos can have red hair and only them. If you got red hair you have an ancestor from one of these places

That's just bullshit.

File: a555aaec7a1d0dc293fc1b96569f8b0a.jpg (341KB, 708x864px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 708x864px

>>1721713
>just look at the aboriginals before they gained a western diet, they had perfect teeth

Because of fish eating.

Prior to western diet, both Japanese and Chinese ate similar foods except one difference. Japanese ate boneless fish and Chinese like to eat fish with bones.

Picking out the bones with their teeth made the Chinese grow neater teeth while Japan had fucked up teeth even to this day. And I believe Britain used to have the same kind of problem with their teeth.

Pic related, 19th Chinese fellow with perfect teeth.

>>1721725
*19th century Chinese fellow with perfect teeth.

File: dj8l8Wh.jpg (359KB, 1183x761px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1183x761px

>>1719508
>with a festering root abcess
some of these guys had perfect teeth, pic related

I agree with you though. We have much more to show for in terms of treatment of sicknes and physical disabilities.

>>1720494
Congolese blacks are some of the darkest creatures you will see on this planet, they literally become invisible at night time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-22/your-brain-is-smaller-than-a-caveman-s-dot-here-s-why
>>1721689
Probably since in the hot tropics your dick doesnt need to shrink to preserve body heat thats the reason Eurasians usually have smaller penises compared to africans. Though africans are only 1 inch longer than Europians on average. Though the first humans probably had 6 inchers as their average. 7 inch and above as average is ridiculous.

>>1721725
this guy looks cool af

>>1721710
>stronger

What did he mean by this? Obviously they weren't stronger in any meaningful sense.

>>1719294
At least H. sapiens idaltu is part of "anatomically modern humans"

>>1719410
No. Herto man/idaltu is older. Cro magnon was just one of earliest modern humans in Europe.

>>1721683
Indeed. trends in brain size reduction was started 20 kya, 10 kya before agriculture tho.

>>1721735
they were more muscular

of course they didn't have the technology the Europeans had though, so they weren't strong in that way

>>1718520
There is a nutritional model that indicates the importance of hunting in early human's caloric intake, as gathering was probably not as rewarding calorie wise. This is very much still a debate, though, and diet certainly varied a lot among hunter gatherer societies.

Anyone else notice that a lot of mythologies/religions have a time when the land provided for humans and everything was great but then they started having to work the land and life became hell?

Could that have something to do with it?

>>1718163
Those peoples also significantly supplement their diet with fish, which are rich in vitamin D, removing the selective pressure for light skin.

Neanderthals lived in much more terrestrial areas and predominantly ate land animals, so they didn't get that extra vitamin D.

>>1718031
>healthier
getting mauled by a bear is never healthy. furthermore, food gathering was uncertain, due to the ever changing climate and conditions. not to mention the shabby sleep locations.

>happier
that depends on the individual. people can be happy everywhere

>stronger
yes, and no. they had to be more fit in order to hunt. but i can assure you farming and defending your camp frlom hostile tribes is not an easy job either.

>smarter
not by a long shot. civilization only started growing in inteligence when people started seetling down. everything before is mostly pre and proto history

>equal society
no, women gathered, men hunted. furthermore we don't know, because it's pre-history, meaning we have no writen records.

>free of laws, hate and hierarchy
no idea, again, pre-history. but the evidence we have says otherwise. there were well defined hierarchy's. usually strongest or oldest led the group.

furthermore there were frequent war between tribes.

>>1721760
Thats just selection bias.
Norse one doesn't have that for instance.

Most of the ones that do, also have a time before shit was amazing, then the amazing time, and then the failure.

I'd fuck a cro-mag

>Cro-Magnon (earliest modern human)

>>1718151
> form then when they're building groups
So I guess every circle of friends has a structured hierarchy where Dave, Jim, and Bob are at the top because they said so and if you disagree they'll get Brad and Larry to beat you up? Tribal societies were built upon consensus, not coercion.

Also stop repeating this fucking meme. Leaders are not fucking rulers, rules are not laws, and people following someone out of respect is not the same as a ruler or group of rulers coercing people through violence to obey them.

>>1722890
>not by a long shot
I'm not arguing one way or another, but your argument is deeply flawed. It concerns the temporally relative achievements of humanity, which necessarily progress in a linear fashion, not the mental capacity of an average individual from any of those time periods being considered.

It's like saying falling rocks close to the ground are heavier than those above the ground because they're faster; civilization evolves exponentially and is "faster" at the end than at the beginning, but that isn't necessarily because its constituents are smarter.

Just looking at the fucking wikipedia article disproves most of what you guys are saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
Yes I know, >wikipedia, but at least it's heavily sourced. I seriously doubt most of you have invested any significant amount of research into this. As a counter to "HG life was heaven and absolutely perfect" thinking, here's a well researched letter by Ted Kaczynksi saying why primitivists are wrong but why HG life is still preferable. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Anyway, why do people think hunter-gatherers' were constantly ill and diseased and the slightest thing would kill you? They had a much better immune system than we do even now, certainly much better than the contemporary agriculturalists; disease was much harder to spread because thousands of people weren't constantly living in the same place for decades. They were also actually able to drink out of rivers and lakes without constantly shitting themselves, a feat that modern humans aren't capable of without special technology.

They were probably happier as their life stile was what was humans evolved to do for thousands of years.

>>1719518
>French and London? Yes
>France versus English Countryside? No
Wot

>>1719526
Taxonomy based on Phenotypic traits is hilariously irrelevant at this point.
Genotype evidence or no argument.

>>1724282
>drinking pond water
Enjoy your parasites.

this is relevent to the conversation i think: https://libcom.org/files/Murray_Bookchin_The_Ecology_of_Freedom_1982.pdf (especially from p. 62)

good read if you can be fucked.

>>1724305
Amen, can't believe no one mentioned this to the 18th-century taxonomists here. Morphological taxonomy isn't adequate, especially on such tiny scales as subspecies.

>>1724336
He never advocated drinking it you mong, he even says it would give you the runs without specialized processing.

>>1724302
I'm not sure that he's correct, but I think he reasons that Londoners descended mainly or largely from the Norman aristocracy and their kin, along with Anglo-Saxons and other prominent invaders, while countryside Englanders have less admixture with ruling classes and are mostly Celtic/Gaelic or something.

Again, I do think he is incorrect, but this is what I imagine he thinks.

>>1718031
I dunno about that. I do know that modern hunter-gatherer abos that were discovered and brought into civilization were/are extremely resentful to other abos that were discovered before them yet didn't bring them into civilized Australia. Like murder levels of resentful.

>>1724505
Source? Sounds interdasting

>>1724511
>When the family were driven from the doctor at Kintore 27km to the smaller community of Kwiwikurra, the nomads ritually beat members of their extended families with sticks for not bringing them in from the desert earlier.
>"The older ones were angry that their long-lost relatives – who they had not seen for nearly 20 years – had left them out in the desert eating lizards while they lived in what they saw as the lap of luxury," Mr Tull said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/lost-tribe-happy-in-modern-world/story-e6frf7l6-1111112932308

>>1724142
Nevertheless you get a hierarchy and a lack of total freedom.

>>1724305
Genotypes cause phenotypes and a consistent facial cranial structure is evidence of a biological grouping as even blacks have a specific shape kind of skull with slight modifications in each black as genetic diversity does.

>>1724592
>Genotypes cause phenotypes
Not always and not always directly

>>1724592
I have 0 SSA blood in me at all, but I plugged my facial measurements (perhaps imperfectly attained) into a website which uses forensic formulas to determine race, and it said there is a 100% chance I was Black. Supposed to be 95% accurate.

>>1718031
It appears that hinter gatherers in many areas had a more well roundEd diet which lead to greater physical development. Farmers had lots of food but no diversity. Look at poor countries today the people tend to be smaller since they lack basic nutrients.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

You can all go home now.

File: 13162039_656319664517867_1993627424_n.jpg (14KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 205x246px

Modern propaganda for niggers
Niggers are the modern hunter-gatherers
Think about it

>>1724142
>Tribal societies were built upon consensus, not coercion.
Thats because you where sorta free to walk away, so long you only took your own tools.
If you started taking all the groups arrows, all the bows, and all the grinding tools, you had a hunting party after you in a few hours, before some horrible tribal execution.

>>1724282
>Hunter gatherers ill
Hunter Gatheres would most likely die if properly ill.
Instead what you get, is things like being filled with parasites.
And said parasites would actually be somewhat healthy, even if it sucked to have them.

>>1724302
Once you go a little further out, you start finding somewhat isolated peasant communities, or at the least that was the case until the industrial revolution.
At which point a major point is their ancestry is rape babies, Irish, or pre Roman "natives".

But the point is: London & the coast trading cities has a completely different genetic tradition than what you find in the inland.
Which is also reflected in the facial structures, if you pay attention

>>1724592
>even blacks
Internally blacks are different.
Inb4 you think mudskinned African Americans is a real ethnicity, and not just a bunch of rape babies.

>>1724142
>So I guess every circle of friends has a structured hierarchy where Dave, Jim, and Bob are at the top because they said so and if you disagree they'll get Brad and Larry to beat you up?
No, but every circle of friends has people who are more popular than others and people are more inclined to side with the more popular people. And even if the others might not beat you up (and in a tribal society, clan or family they might as well use force upon people within their group - just look at Muslim societies and their honour killings of women who refuse to marry as their family wishes), you might lose favour with them, become even less popular etc. - and naturally you will not want that to happen. Peer pressure is a strong device. It doesn't take laws to make people get in line.

>Leaders are not fucking rulers, rules are not laws, and people following someone out of respect is not the same as a ruler or group of rulers coercing people through violence to obey them.
Wrong. Leaders are very much rulers and rules might as well become laws if you depend on the group for survival.

>>1725953
>Thats because you where sorta free to walk away, so long you only took your own tools.
It should also be considered that walking away wasn't really an option. People can't really survive well on their own. If you get sick or injured and incapable of hunting and gathering, you're pretty much dead meat. That's why the implicit and explicit rules of the group might as well be regarded laws, and your standing within the group vital for your survival.

>>1725988
You walking away, isn't a option.
You and 2-3 buds walking away is a option
Even if you will get fucked over because you can't hunt larger game, will lack a lot of knowledge, most likely "the leader" is hoarding his migration route.

You also need to pray you actually meet another group, or that the tribe is at 20-30 people, so you can actually take half of it, as your buds.

>>1726006
If you don't have those buds you're out of luck, not to mention that you don't know beforehand whether you can truly trust them or whether they'd in the end side with the group. It's a big uncertainty that everyone faces, and that's what keeps people in line.
In the end, you might not be forced to be within the group in the same sense as you're not forced to stay alive due to suicide being always an option, but the imperative of survival ties you down.

>>1721730
>Probably since in the hot tropics your dick doesnt need to shrink to preserve body heat thats the reason Eurasians usually have smaller penises compared to africans. Though africans are only 1 inch longer than Europians on average. Though the first humans probably had 6 inchers as their average. 7 inch and above as average is ridiculous.

Europe has regions with similar climate to Eurasia

>>1718656
source pls

>>1718808
yes it was.

>>1719449
>Domestication of a kind of cattle != Hunter Gatherer.
>Sami advanced to the Nomad stage.
reindeer herding became the thing in about 1700's. before that they were predominantly fishers and foragers.

>>1718031

Australian Aborigines had to carry a passport type thing when travelling into disputed or other territories within Australia so they wouldn't get ganked by the other mobs

They operated like normal states, when one would famine its area they'd have to invade another

Not very peaceful but pretty typical of all nations when facing starvation

>>1725969
I dont I have seen actual africans before and they look very strange facially and cranially in bother genders. The nigger american fools people into thinking the negros are just whitey face with black skin what a joke.

Living in a close knit group of friends in a land where you know every tree, creek and hill.

Going out daily to earn your food honestly.

This is how humans are supposed to live, not working 8 hours a day sitting on your ass in a electrically lit room wearing plastic shirts and pants.


Sure you had lots of diseases and pneumonia could kill you but I think overall they where much much happier than we are.

>>1721739
How? They had more "archaic" features than modern humans today, plus a more robust physique.

But then again, some modern humans also have some archaic features too, so maybe that's why?

>>1726601
No black person thinks this you fucking retard.

>>1726543
Fishing at higher than base level requires boats, maintenance of said boats, making the nets, claiming land for any drying/salting.

I don't really disagree with anything, but I want to state that there is a huge difference between being HunterGatherer and entry level farming, nomads, etc.
There is a point where you move around as primates, and there is a point where entry level farming or foraging is done in too a large scale to be compared to the hunter gatherer.
Bonus point: [spoiler]Little Ice Age[/spoiler]

>>1726935
>Fishing at higher than base level requires boats, maintenance of said boats, making the nets, claiming land for any drying/salting.
sami lived in small family groups. they didn't need to feed the whole village.

>>1718770
Get paid pupper!

>>1726536
Early iron age

>>1726954
You need to catch a lot of fish to feed 20 people for a few days.
Just like the amount of food that needs to be grown to feed people for a year, that takes a big patch of land.

Remember: If you make infrastructure, you want to be greedy about it.
Even if its just a fishing hut.

>>1718117
Isn't Mongolia and Siberia still largely nomadic?

>>1718135
Sami niggers came after the first "germanics" I believe.

>>1727213
Mongolia still has nomadic tribes, however long that last.
But so do Saudi Arabia, and a lot of African states.

But Nomadic isn't Hunter Gatherer, Nomadic is generally herding or herding with trading.

>>1718031
Hunter-gatherers had less stress hormones.

Brain size doesn't mean that they were smarter though there can be correlation.

Most of those stats don't really mean anything.

File: fZysRo4.jpg (66KB, 670x658px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 670x658px

>>1718031
Brain size =/= higher intelligence, if this were true whales would be like 10x smarter than us

Also brain size relative to body mass =/= higher intellect, some rats have a higher percentage than humans

>>1728244
How about when it comes to our own species?

>People who fed their children meat and fruits are more healthy than people who fed their children bread and cabbages
You don't say?
Its the year of our lord 2016 you can ensure your children have adecuate nutrition.
> and lived in an equal society free of laws, hate, and hierarchy?
Meme

>>1718031
>Brain size determine intelligence
>Whales are more advanced than us!
Our brain shrink but is way more complex because it has more folds and synaptic connections.

>>1718031
they worked less than peasant farmers (industrial workers also work less than peasant farmers) but naturally had no way of defending themselves when nature would go awry so they were nature's bitch.

agricultural characters could have food in abundance while hunter-gatherers had to go to a different area when food is unavailable if they couldn't find that area they were as good as dead.

Natural selection played a big role as the people had to be strong to survive there was no non-heavy labor related job that you could specialize in so things like "callings" didn't exist

different strokes

>>1718031
Seeing as how we have absolutely no way of knowing anything significant about their individual experience or society, its a meme like people saying African tribes live good, un-hierarchical lives.

>>1729036
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/how-not-why-the-human-brain-folds/

>Folded brains likely evolved to fit a large cortex into a small volume with the benefit of reducing neuronal wiring length and improving cognitive function.

Of course they did, they were black skinned.

>>1729281
Not all hunter gatherers were "black" (black people today didn't exist genetically back then) anon

>>1729244
>(industrial workers also work less than peasant farmers)
kek

It makes a sort of sense why we would be stupider today. Once humans began grouping themselves into city-states, the stronger city-states were the ones with people who didn't think for themselves and followed orders. Any loss of intelligence from a developmental standpoint could be made up for simply by having more humans cooperating towards the same ends.

Humanity did't need intelligent individuals, it needed humans that could work together.

>>1729269
That didnt answer his question

>>1729835
>Humanity did't need intelligent individuals, it needed humans that could work together.

I think that's a very good point to an extent then falls short.

If 2 tribes equal in all manners except intelligence need to fight over resources the smarter tribe will win, absent luck of the other tribe

>>1729870
The 2 tribes can be stupid as bricks, but one of them meet another a few years back, and traded something(i.e a feast) for better arrowheads/bowstrings/fat or better sharpening tools.

>>1729835
I am not sure you can argue for a selection mechanic that leads to loss of intelligence, when improved diet would mean better brainz.

>>1718184
You have never seen someone with dark skin and red hair?

There's loads out there, for example Wes Brown the ex Manchester United player

Black dude with natural red hair

>>1718303
>someone asks for evidence
>they must have contradictory evidence

you are probably religious or at least American

>>1729244
>(industrial workers also work less than peasant farmer

Lol, kys retard.

>>1725981
Peer pressure and people being more popular than others isn't coercion. Obviously you can't do whatever you want because you depend on them, but peer pressure is not anywhere close to violent coercion.
>just look at Muslim societies and their honour killings of women who refuse to marry as their family wishes
That's because they live in an innately violent society and violence is more acceptable. Tribal societies are very fragile, and the more fragile they are the more taboo in group violence becomes. That's why you had groups like the Moriori where violence was prohibited because of how dangerous it was.
>Wrong. Leaders are very much rulers and rules might as well become laws if you depend on the group for survival.
No, leaders are people who others choose to follow it is inherently non-authoritarian, while the opposite is true for rulers that people have no choice in. Laws are rules enforced with violence; rules can be enforced peacefully.
>>1725988
If only one person disagrees then they're going to realize it's not worth going their own way, but if a large group can splinter away if they need to then that makes consensus all the more popular. In general one person's interests was everyone's interests, so serious disagreements didn't really come up.

File: Saber_using_persusasion.jpg (261KB, 460x725px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 460x725px

>>1730269
Peer pressure and social ladders IS coercion.
Coercion is a normal part of everyday life.

Its just very inconvenient to Anarchists to label it for what it is, because its means they admit that even in leaderless societies there is hierarchies and ranks. And that humans naturally oppresses each other to cooperate.

>>1730189
Not that anon, but can't a brain improve in some way without improving in all ways?

E.g. empathic/social/linguistic w/e part of the brain grows and becomds efficient, due both to nutrition and the specific pressures of group settlement etc.

Meanwhile spatial/visual e/e bit of the brain "atrophies" in a sense.

>>1718406
>Lol, not really though
Lol, yes really though

>>1729870
No, because humans network. A group of idiots who cooperate well can come up with all the same ideas and more as a group of geniuses who don't share ideas or generally cooperate.

>improved diet would mean better brainz.
As it has been mentioned before in this thread, agriculture didn't lead to an improved diet. It lead to a much less diversified diet which may have led to shortages of some vitamins and nutrients. They had more Calories available and therefore a larger population, but no necessarily a better nutritioned population.

>>1730353
>Meanwhile spatial/visual e/e bit of the brain "atrophies" in a sense.
It hasn't even been enough time or generations since the Industrial revolution, for there to be evolutionary pressure to reduce the brains core spatial abilities.
On the top of that, the increased potency in medicine has removed a lot of the lesser trait selection that would normally result in a 70-80% mortality rate before the age of 20.

If you mean training? Thats a different thing, because modern hunters and trackers isn't worse than previous generations.

>>1730367
Meant to link to >>1730189 also.

No it's a load of shit

>>1718031
it's revisionism at it's finest

pre-historic man raped the women, killed each other over a fish, all their children died at birth, they suffered from prolonged famine because of environmental change

the law was writen by the strongest, and enforced however the strongest felt like on the spot

heirarchy could be anything, strongest, biggest tits, could fight the biggest wolf, could make the spookiest noises, who knows

they had gay sex, fornicated with animals, practiced ritual and/or functional cannibalism
the revolting and evil aspects of primitive people are glossed over

phisically we might be weaker now, maybe we arn't as healthy
but I'd rather be weak; yet have vaccines
I'd rather have trans fat in my arteries; and a low infant mortality

>>1730269
>Peer pressure and people being more popular than others isn't coercion. Obviously you can't do whatever you want because you depend on them, but peer pressure is not anywhere close to violent coercion.
If you do what people say because they force you violently or passively due to the threat of becoming shunned and losing social status makes no difference. In the end, outside forces make you do what others expect of you.

>That's because they live in an innately violent society and violence is more acceptable.
They are a tribal society. There are several clans and their standing within the social hierarchy depends on keeping their women in line. And they do that through violence. Just because you can find some weaker tribal societies that may prohibit violence doesn't mean that it's the norm. Certainly not for Europe or the Middle East.

>No, leaders are people who others choose to follow it is inherently non-authoritarian
What if you don't like the leader but everyone around you does? In the end, you're forced to follow if you don't want to lose your standing within the group. It is the basis of all authority. In fact leader might as well be synonymously used with authority, because having authority is what characterises a leader otherwise he couldn't lead people and make them do what he wants.

>>1718666
It is. You do much more you'll die from heat stroke

>>1730367
>agriculture didn't lead to an improved diet.
Yes and no.
Agriculture lead to enough of a improvement that people still only bordered malnutrition instead of having malnutrition.

If Agriculture was a nutritional failure, it would have ended within a few generations, simply because the malnutritioned doesn't breed well, and mothers give their children all their health problems.

>>1730544
Again, don't conflate mere Caloric intake with nutrition. Agriculture provided more Calories but not necessarily the proper amounts of all essential vitamins and nutrients.

>>1730563
You are dumb.

There is a reason why we aren't still hunter gathers

>>1718398
>Corn, peas, parsnips, potatoes, pumpkin, squash, zucchini and yams are all examples of starchy vegetables.
>corn
>potatoes
>pumpkin
>squash
>zuchini
>starchy
>all new world produce

go fuck yourself, you're telling me Europeans in 1492 were less fit because of parsnips, turnips and carrots? Yams were not even introduced yet

>>1730563
If you are a mother, you are below the amount of Vitamins and Nutrients.
If you are that mother, and you have a child, the child is born with malnutrition. If its something essential, like Iron B12 or complete malnutrition, child dies in womb.
If its something essential to growth, like C, child dies in early age.
Chances of birth complication increases as well, meaning lack of Iron and C could kill the mother.


So its possible that early Agriculture is worse than HunterGatherer, that still doesn't address the point: So long Agriculture is vitaminous enough, and mineralic enough, you can have a population.

Remember: Scurvy literally killed Sailors during a point. If everyone is dead to scurvy, you can't have a population.
The same is true of other malnutrition as well.

>>1718138
WE WUZ HUNTER GATHERERS N SHIET

>>1730569
Try to keep up. You are generalizing to a ridiculous degree.

File: 2245833[1].jpg (46KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 250x187px

Oh yes hunter-gatherers are so intelligent and large framed.

>>1730586
>So long Agriculture is vitaminous enough, and mineralic enough, you can have a population.
I'm confused. Why did you think I disagreed with that?

>>1718031
>smaller, weaker physique
speak for yourself

>>1718398
>child morality
Please think of the children
Or let the children think of the children

>>1718167
So this is retard and Lamarck general? That is not how evolution works.

>>1731398
The fuck was Lamarkian about that?

>>1732467
>neanderthal and they were most certainly white due to very often wearing clothing because it's a fucking ice age
>most certainly white due to very often wearing clothing
> white due to very often wearing clothing
>due to very often wearing clothing
No way I was going to search for the other retarded posts. By you logic a Finnish couple that tans a lot would have a darker child than them. How does clothing influenced their genotype?

>>1732524
Dude, they would become white at those latitudes because they covered their body for warmth and got less daylight hours, which would deprive them of vitamin D. It's evolution via natural selection, not Lamarkian. Come on, anon.

>>1732541
Nina Jablonsk is stupid. That is not evolution, that is lamarkism. Having a white skin or fur may present an advantage, individuals may be killed less because their predators don't like white or don't see it as well as other colors. That isn't the case with man. And as having clothing is advantageous what is the relation to skin color? None. (Aside from that stupid book).

Why cave fish have poor eyesight? Because they don't need it?It's out of fashion? No, because the fishes that had good enough eyesight left the caves leaving only poor eyesight traits in the cave population.And also the energy costs of having good eyes made fishes with poor eyes use less energy and that is a very decent thing to have in a energy poor area such as a cave, they outbred the fishes with better sights (or they simply died).

>>1732571
>evolution via natural selection is Lamarkian
Whatever you say, dude.

>>1730320
People deciding they don't like you if you don't behave a certain way isn't the same as them directly harming you unless you do what they want. People have a right to choose their friends, and I don't have a right to be universally accepted. It might be a compelling factor for me to behave a certain way but to define it as coercion is to make the word meaningless.
>>1730474
>If you do what people say because they force you violently or passively due to the threat of becoming shunned and losing social status makes no difference.
Maybe it doesn't make a physical difference but it makes a moral one. One is someone trying to control you through force, the other is the person deciding they don't want to be around you.
>They are a tribal society. There are several clans and their standing within the social hierarchy depends on keeping their women in line. And they do that through violence. Just because you can find some weaker tribal societies that may prohibit violence doesn't mean that it's the norm. Certainly not for Europe or the Middle East.
ME society is not tribal. A tribal society function well with systemically brutalizing and mistreating half of the tribe. Some tribes certainly have a misogynistic factor and women might not be equal, but none tolerate murdering your relatives.
>What if you don't like the leader but everyone around you does? In the end, you're forced to follow if you don't want to lose your standing within the group.
It's my problem if people are passively doing there own thing and it doesn't align with my preferences.

Continuation from last post.

>>1730474
>It is the basis of all authority. In fact leader might as well be synonymously used with authority, because having authority is what characterises a leader otherwise he couldn't lead people and make them do what he wants.
Authority is having the moral legitimacy to force people to do things; me wanting to get along with everyone else isn't them forcing me to do anything. A leader has no authority because he has no right to force people to do things against their will. They follow him out of respect, or reverence, or because they think he knows best or because everyone else is doing it and you want to be apart. Someone might disagree with him but they'll still do what he says because of those reasons, not because they fear they'll get beaten up if they don't.

>>1730715
It takes a lot of intelligence, knowledge, and physical fitness to survive in the bush.

>>1730715
I don't know if they are intelligent or not, but I sure admire the determination they have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

>>1718031
No, it's not a meme.

Hunter gatherers were happy, healthy people free from any hate and bigotry and recognized that all races and genders are equal.

Then men invented agriculture and brought misogyny, racism, classism, and all other forms of oppression onto the human race.

Society is created by men and is misogynist, racist, and classist by nature, so the only way to get rid of these things is to get rid of society.

Once we do everyone will be happy and no one will have to live in an awful, discriminatory, miserable society like we have today in the West.

t. gender studies pro.

>>1734098
How many primitivists feminists/SJWs do you know? Do you honestly think they want to get rid of agriculture and civilization?

>>1734104
I don't think he was being serious in his sarcasm considering the fact that SJWs hate the old ways of thinking and not even tree-huggers or hardcore greeners think like that because "muh animals".

>>1730466
>historical revisionism
>of PRE-history

Go back!

>brain size = intelligence
human brain size varies by a surprisingly wide margin, and tests have shown that no obvious correlation exists between brain size (in a complete brain of human structure) and intelligence.

i hate low-hanging garbage like this. People will eat shit like this up if it fits their narrative of "modern science is wrong", and "those damn intellectuals are trying to trick us"

>>1734093
It's interesting how humans are the only animals who have empathy and sympathy to the animals they hunt. I wonder if it's because of what the documentary described of trying to get into the mind of the animal and see what they would've done. Maybe it's also because humans are just generally empathic and that also just applies to animals in the way elephants see to apply empathy to humans.

>>1734040
>Maybe it doesn't make a physical difference but it makes a moral one. One is someone trying to control you through force, the other is the person deciding they don't want to be around you.
There is no real difference because in either case the societal structure makes you do what it wants through force. One force is more active than the other, but it's still a form of force. Only if law within the group itself establishes a legal system that protects your right to dissent and grants you whatever you need to survive unconditionally you can consider yourself free, but obviously no societal group would ever do that because the protection it offers always comes at a price, and tolerating dissenters would weaken its cohesion.

>ME society is not tribal.
The clan-based societies you can find in some parts, e.g. Eastern Anatolia have tribal roots. Germanic Europe wasn't significantly different. The tribe was usually composed of a variety of large families or clans.

>Some tribes certainly have a misogynistic factor and women might not be equal, but none tolerate murdering your relatives.
It depends on the severity of the transgression. Death sentences have always been a part of human history.

>It's my problem if people are passively doing there own thing and it doesn't align with my preferences.
The point is that you're forced to abide by the leaders will through systemic violence. Whether it's the direct threat of a firearm pointed at you or the indirect threat of losing social status and becoming an outcast is not so different. Groups always come with hierarchies and hierarchies result in systemic violence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all these hierarchies keep the group from falling apart and remaining functional, but one shouldn't fall for the meme that just because there is no explicit hierarchy or uniforms that there are no underlying forces at play that keep people in line.

>>1734058
>Authority is having the moral legitimacy to force people to do things; me wanting to get along with everyone else isn't them forcing me to do anything.
But it is, if you wanting to get along with everyone is not related to some spare time activity which you can drop out of at any given point but directly related to your survival. In that case there is an imperative to get along with everyone and to do what the leader says.

>A leader has no authority because he has no right to force people to do things against their will.
A leader might be given said authority by the group. How do you think did authority become established in the first place? First there was a leader, and the leader turned into authority.

>They follow him out of respect, or reverence, or because they think he knows best or because everyone else is doing it and you want to be apart. Someone might disagree with him but they'll still do what he says because of those reasons, not because they fear they'll get beaten up if they don't.
There's a thin line between following someone out of respect or reverence and beating someone up for that guy. What if he orders the others to beat up that one dissenter whom nobody likes because he's always questioning the leader's capabilities? People aren't naturally pacifist. Being a leader makes you authority, there's no separating one from the other.

>>1734040
>and I don't have a right to be universally accepted
What is missing the forest for the trees.
The situation, is in a community, there is a a priory because its a community.
That means even if everyone hates each other, they are still worth more to each other than outsiders.
But that also means as a priory, that that the people that really dislike the outsider/newcomer/youth will try to coerce their fellow man into joining the hatred.

You don't have a right to be accepted, but that doesn't mean outsiders won't try to use FORCE to make it impossible to be accepted by people that could accept you.
Unless you accept that Social Interaction is based on Coercion in all forms, you can't accept anything that is a society.

>Those 3 replies to quotes with fatalist anarchist bullshit and reality denial
Please kill yourself

>>1721725
Back in those days Chinaman where cool, and had a cool culture.
Then Mao forgot how to do revolution.
Eh

>>1735227
China is still the same, culture and wealth for 1% of the population and fuck the rest of them.

>>1718031
>happier

yeah, the fossils for that period definitely proved that happiness levels were off the charts

>>1734098
jesus, i can't tell if you're serious or not
you're trolling, right?

bigger brains =/= smarter people

>>1728244
Rats are pretty smart, though.

>>1736555
I agree, thats normal.
But still, it looks odd when they manage to genocide their elites, and then proceed to no culture for a while.
Before becoming shitty Asian Jews.

>>1737968
Rats are stupid smart, not smart smart.
They even lack the ability to guess if something is alive or dead

File: bantu soldier.jpg (72KB, 900x622px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 900x622px

>>1721730
Bantus are the darkest people on earth

They had way more free time to fuck, smoke, sing, dance, and tell stories than we do.

File: 1472674731169.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>1718398
> southern japanese farmers live the longest of any group in the world
>diet mostly consists of sweet potatoes, fish, and veggies.
>sweet potatoes
>lots and lots of sweet potatoes

burn your meme book of bullshit.

>>1741263
Rats are genuinely smart, there is a reason we use them as a model organism in Psychology/Psychiatry. The problem is that they still rely too much in ther physical senses and are prone to tribalism, more than us.

>>1741827
You are too naive if you think it was that easy.

>>1718925
>pbuh
>according to Aisha

Why are you trying this hard for replies?

When the hunter gatherer couldn't run any more, it was basically too old to live.
Also you have 10 kids, but 8 of them dies in childhood.

>>1741539
That's not a Bantu, he's South Sudanese. who are mostly Nilotic. I don't even think there are any Bantus in south Sudan

>>1718398
Muscular is a given.
Walking and dashing trains almost all your muscles. If you spend several hours a day running or walking, you will get "muscular".

Then again?
>Charles C. Mann (born 1955)
In America he would observe systematic malnourishment growing up.
He would observe people who would have a bad mouth hygiene, from a diet thats very unbalanced in terms of acid.
He would also ignore all the changes from the pre to post industrial method of food.

>>1730715
Those are the dumbest groups of humans on earth their IQs are 54 at adulthood they are actually stupider than blacks and Abos thats truely amazing.

>>1745202
>stupider

I really don't think that an entire race of people with an IQ lower than a gorilla who is inferior to us mentally exists. If they did they would have died out way before in the past.

>>1741539
>posts a Nilotic

Proving my point that they're the darkest humans ever I see?

>>1718031
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiQaabX3_o
educate yourself