Hunter-gatherer societies cannot (or at least, certainly did not) have the surplus productivity or population interaction needed to develop any degree of science and technological advancement.

Having sight correction methods instead of letting people die to a random wolf attacks as youngsters and don’t understand.

It’s so only since the invention of agriculture 10k years or so ago that we’ve actually been the dominant species on this planet.

I think those who praise the hunter-gatherer lifestyle should spend a week on a crab boat in the Bering sea during winter.

It’s not a bad lifestyle if you’re perfectly formed and lucky, but it’s not one at all if you’re not.

I have to admit, it would seem the definition of masculinity is subjective, an opinion rather than clear cut. For example to my mind, a masculine man is a competent one, cool in stressful situations and a good dad, not some over-sized dude chasing a ball around a field.

I get what you are saying Sam about the competitive nature of many of people, but there are also many people who love to share and care about others, often those who have the least. That would point towards human choice as opposed to in-built competitive human nature that we are compelled to act on.

Also, back when humans were hunter-gatherers, we can safely assume resources were plentiful, we are still here and have exponentially multiplied. At that time competition would have been far less necessary. Having said that, I have no doubt the guys best able to protect his young from predators probably got more of the ladies. That would have required brains as much as brawn.

A culture of true sustainability, not based on fossil fuels, cannot support the 8 billion people currently living on this planet, the vast majority of whose food supply is generated and distributed using fossil fuels: no use of fossil fuels = mass starvation until the carrying capacity of the land is reached.

Sadly, the ‘greedy apes’ have overrun the planet like a plague and have destroyed most of the natural systems that provided food for the much lower population that existed 200 years ago. Therefore the carrying capacity of the land (and oceans) is much lower than it was 200 years ago…..arguably around 500 million, and 7.5 billion need to starve to death.

Additionally, the acidification of the oceans that has taken place is now disrupting the ability of organisms at the base of the food chain to form shells. And, as anyone who is awake knows, corals are disappearing at a record rate.

Add to that potent blend the fact that the Earth will continue to overheat even if we were to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow because of the amount of formerly sequestered carbon that is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 is way beyond that of 200 years ago (around 406 ppm versus 280 ppm). That means massive sea level rise (several metres) is locked in over coming decades.

And finally, ‘the powers that be’ the banks and corporations, and their local agents -central and local government- will not allow any movement towards true sustainability: their agenda is to keep the populace trapped in debt-slavery and fossil fuel use for as long as possible. And keep their Ponzi scheme going via covering of agricultural land with concrete and asphalt.

The window of opportunity for a smooth transition passed long ago (arguably in the 1970s), and we are now guaranteed mayhem as a consequence of the hubris, stupidity and mendacity of those who pretended to be leaders over the past 4 decades.

Permaculture and Powerdown, the only sane responses to our predicament, have been vigorously promoted for decades, and have been thoroughly rejected by the political establishment and most of the general populace. Now it’s just a matter of the mathematics, physics and chemistry following their inexorable paths, I’m afraid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

What about a culture of true, dedicated, committed sustainability, not based on fossil fuel and other energy waste and pollution?

Competitive behaviour is something that happens naturally the higher likelihood individuals who were exposed to a lot of testosterone in the womb (like straight/bisexual men or lesbian/bisexual women) so that is why things like sport are seen as s “masculine” thing. That competitive nature however can make individuals (regardless of sex) want to throw their weight around.

I think rather than act like this doesn’t exist people need to be more educated on biological instinctive nature and how that can have an influence on certain peoples bahviours. Science is important to learn about for these things, not everything in society is just some made up social construct for no reason, a lot of the time our social issues stem from our human biology which is why we have so many psychological, behavioural and social issues in the first place because our biology is clashing a lot of the time and society gets frustrated when they clash. Not everything stems from biology, not everything stems from psychology and no everything stems from social constructs. It’s a big massive mix of both and everyone should honestly know more about it rather than try to pin every issue on one factor alone.

I was with you right up to the “if they cut down a tree” thing.
Please!

Hunter-gatherers set fire to forest to drive the game towards them.

And if they managed to be less destructive – or the trees wouldn’t burn so easily, as in the Brazilian jungle, for instance, the trees might regenerate, but they wouldn’t have nurseries with trees ready to protect the environment.

Makes me think a bit of idealization going on.

Chris’ historical fantasy is also wide of the mark, in my view.

I suspect that men have pretty much always been political leaders back to the dawn of time. Largely for physical and mobility reasons.

Women, I concede, often had a prime roll to play in mysticism and the development of religious constructs. They also had a stake in the development of permanent settlements and agriculture – and civilization itself, of course. They were guardians of the future of the tribe, and rewarded the most successful of the men.

So the revolution should more be seem as the widespread subsumation of women’s roles to the needs of politics. Which gave the male political leaders a much fuller control than before.

Men’s sexual requirements tend to be focused. Women’s more diffuse and nuanced. If women only responded to the personal profiles typically pursued by men, the wrong would at least be indisputable before, during and after an incident.

But such is obviously not the case. And to the victor go the spoils – at least in locker-room mythology. The prize, symbol and goal of societal success.

Harvey Weinstein-type incidents are not an aberrant part of our modern life. They are a seemingly unavoidable part of society itself. Now and back to the dawn of “culture”.

We can try to mitigate some of its most noxious effects, but to eradicate it completely would be a big ask.

https://psalmistice.com/2017/07/07/cheating-females-the-production-of-inequalit

Forecast, credibly?
Give it a rest.
We will continue to do what we can, Jeremiah.

Forecast, credibly?
Give it a rest.
We will continue to do what we can, Jeremiah.