I'm really enjoying pic related so far. The main thing it's sold me on is the idea that wage-slavery isn't inevitable, and that we're just fed the notion that it's inevitable to keep us plodding along. I like that it offers alternative structures rather than just vague optimism. I really want to read bookchin's social ecology after this to get a better grasp on different methods of permaculture.
The tl;dr of the main points it drives home are
>Discussions between Europeans and Native Americans sparked the 17th century enlightenment and the notion of freedom
>Many 'tribal' societies had knowledge of farming, but simply refused to farm since it would've created unnecessary work for no gain
>"Hunter/gatherer" societies are not less evolved - social evolution is a spook
>Societies don't need farming to have large populations
Yeah but the state is a protection racket and it will use all its power to shut down hunter gatherer societies like the whites did to native americans
>Many 'tribal' societies had knowledge of farming, but simply refused to farm since it would've created unnecessary work for no gain
It would have created a surplus of food which would allow for larger populations leading to them being able to subjecate other tribes.
>Societies don't need farming to have large populations
They do though. Foraging and hunting is dependent on how much is naturally available and how fast is replenishes. This puts a pretty severe cap on how much people you can have. Farming always allows for more people in society. This is just a blatant lie.
Seems to me this guy is just making shit up to re-interet the idea of the noble savage into one of a intellectual savage in harmony with nature
>They do though.
That's the blatant lie. Admittedly yes, they still need food, and one could argue that any method that leads towards the production of food is "farming". What I mean is that food grows naturally in great abundance, and that there are archaeological records of hunter-gatherer societies much bigger than was originally thought possible, some on par with agricultural societies. Our methods of farming are actually extremely poor as far as output goes, and that having a more biodiverse (i.e. something more akin to a forest) ecosystem actually improves yield, it just requires a little more work to set up, and a little more work come harvest. In the long run however, these methods of farming are far less work and give far greater average output.
>Seems to me this guy is just making up shit
My brother, you're the one making up shit. He sources everything with evidence from archaeological findings as well as records from colonial settlers. There's also references from scientific studies that showed that we could have 'domesticated' wheat in 30 years if we wanted to. Early humans didn't want to do that, which is why it took so many thousands of years - the shift was not delayed because of technological hindrance, rather people just didn't really want to spend so much time doing menial labor.
why do this complicated thing you're alluding to when you could just have slaves?
>What I mean is that food grows naturally in great abundance, and that there are archaeological records of hunter-gatherer societies much bigger than was originally thought possible, some on par with agricultural societie
Food doesn't naturally grow in abundance though. It grows but there is a pretty set limited amount of it. You can't hunt or gather more than is replenished but you can just cut down part of the forest and make more farms. Since farms also grow food on a far smaller amount of land per crop good for harvesting yield per crop may be lower but overall yield is far higher plus it allowes for selection. Saying in the long run it gives far greater average output is just completely wrong. Just think of what would happen if suddenly all the farms still running on pretty basic methods in Africa or Asia would go back to hunting and gathering. They'd die by the thousands. Besides that some societies being lucky enough to have enough food in the area to grow big is nice and all but in the end their size is limited to how much food is in the area while farming allows you to just make more farms and increase that total carrying capacity.
>There's also references from scientific studies that showed that we could have 'domesticated' wheat in 30 years if we wanted to
Just because we can doesn't mean they can. We have modern knowledge and know exactly what traits to select for and what to do. A group of people that have never having planted anything in their lives will, believe it or not, not know anything about selection and farming creating an initial barrier to start even though in the long term it is benificial. Saying early humans ''didn't want to do that'' because work le bad is completely moronic. Any society that wants to grow further will in the end have to start farming or simply be overtaken by people who do even if they could initially come far with just hunting and gathering.
It's clear that you are actually making up points on the spot to push your own moronic agenda that you've been force-fed since you were 3. Earlier societies were well aware of cultivation techniques to improve wheat, but they ultimately didn't bother because the nutritional benefit vs additional effort wasn't worth it. Yes, 30 years is if you know what you're doing, but even if you don't, 100-200 years would've given ample time for trial and error to get us to where we are, and that's assuming that the farmers were actually trying to improve the "yield" per time. I say yield in quotes, because even though modern wheat generates more mass, recent studies have shown that it has less nutritional benefits per unit mass.
Our current methods of farming are poorly optimized, the fact that you think monoculture is le ebin good shows that you know nothing about ecology and the interactions of flora and fauna. You're spouting off the same propaganda lazy farmers have been for the past 100 years
Do you really genuinely believe that farmers are doing this inefficient method which actually has a really low just because they've been doing it for a while?
Because I'm sorry but you are fricking moronic and you clearly just say le monoculture bad without knowing anything about it's strengts and weaknesses. You are literally saying with this that modern scientists, Economists and farmers are all wrong and some fricking hunter gatherers actually had better methods. Absolute idiot.
>You are literally saying with this that modern scientists, Economists and farmers are all wrong and some fricking hunter gatherers actually had better methods
Yes
In Australia, scientists are now working with the abos to maintain bushland and bring back hunter gatherer techniques. Scientists and farmers are often opposed - one group is working in the interest of the planet, the other in the interest of their wallets. The farmers who are implementing permaculture techniques are seeing better returns during drought season and overall more stability. Your appeal to modernity is funny.
we can enslave you to set it up for us
Like I said. You know abbawdely nothing about farming, economics or science in general and this book is just once again some anthropologist making wild claims to fit his own political agenda
Abos literally drink gasoline. They are not human.
you r/badeconomics types need to get off this board
>Points out he doesn't understand the basic concept of people trying to optimize profit and how he is advocating for methods that don't make sense financially and besides that are just impossible to use large scale.
>Uhm le reddit.
Get fricked
you think we can feed 7 billion in human biomass through hunting and gathering? That sounds awesome. We should make you king of earth
>le noble savage
>we're just fed the notion
>just fed
It's violently imposed upon us. If anything the book is incredibly disheartening because it shows who "won" history cause none of those social organizations are still around.
It is true that our current masters have us believe that there is no other viable arrangement for societies, and that the current arrangement came about in organic, natural ways, even though the opposite is true in both cases.
But books like these, books which rage against status quo don't help anyone. They help you assuage your unhappiness and give you a hobby involving endless discussion of moot philosophical points.
Don't get carried away.
Why dont i get off IQfy and go hunt/gather myself a snack
>Indians actually invented the enlightenment and created the concept of freedom
Lol. Lmao even.
>and all of a sudden, after a hundred years of monarchy, people decided they didn't want to have kings and queens, for no reason
It's called the American and French Revolutions.
Yeah, and it was inspired by a new line of thinking which can e traced back to contact with a Native American intellectual
>David Graeber was born in....to a family of....
>wage-slavery isn't inevitable
>we're just fed the notion that it's inevitable to keep us plodding along
amerilards need a book to tell them that.
just open your own business dum dum. exploit surplus value from others
>A New History
This
>yeah the French and American revolutionaries explicitly modeled themselves on ancient Greece and Rome but actually they were just copying le noble savages because ummm...they just WERE, okay!
Just when I was looking for a light book to listen to on my walks. Thanks op, will listen to the audible version(pirated from youtube, of course).
Here
If the anons are right this won't be a good book to listen to. You guys have any other recommendation that is good?
between Europeans and Native Americans sparked the 17th century enlightenment and the notion of freedom
sounds like a bunch of revisionist bullshit if I'm being honest
Yes, this was bullshit and it was the first point of the book that was harshly criticized. There's a review somewhere by a specialist on Rousseau on the subject.
Rousseau and the idea of the noble savage definitely had an influence. Saying that was due to any dialogue with natives is a bit of a stretch.
between Europeans and Native Americans sparked the 17th century enlightenment and the notion of freedom
Dropped
>Discussions between Europeans and Native Americans sparked the 17th century enlightenment and the notion of freedom
lol
>Discussions between Europeans and Native Americans sparked the 17th century enlightenment and the notion of freedom
Oh I guess people didn't know what freedom is before John Locke told them.
The concept of freedom has evolved and I can point to 3 general stages trough time.
The first started with the greeks and means the ability to act outside of the influence of your natural predispositions, to not be an animalistic being.
The second is the modern liberal notion of the obligation of the state to not interfere in the private lives of the individual
The third is the post-modern notion that freedom is the possibility and capacity to do what ever the frick you want, and that the world should bend itself to make your whims possible.
>What does this have to do with the OP book?
I don't know, I haven't read it.
shitty grift book
Dude was literally an out and proud anarchist. Got fired from Yale for it as well.
He's an out and proud anarchism who thinks there needs to be a state that pays people UBI(which also means it needs tax system).
He did not get fired from Yale in the traditional sense. He got denied tenure by Yale not renewing his contract. That’s just academia.
Graeber prefaces every single one of his postulations with "there is no real evidence, but IMAGINE".
The book is an ideological axe grind, and it is so disappointing to see people's ideologies masquerading as evidence, in the absence of actual evidence.
Wow, a symmetrical excavation of a city? That must mean everyone was equal, and there was no religious or social hierarchy.
Frick off.
This book pisses rationalists like gwern and ssc off so it must be good
I just wanted to stop by and say that this is an example of a good thread.
OP included an appropriate picture relevant to the subject he wants to discuss, summarize some the book’s main points, provides a writing prompt to stimulate discussion and most of all, enthusiasm. Discussing books should be a FUN and fruitful experience that anons want to participate in.
The only things I would act would be including the title, author and date of publication clearly to make it more formal.
To everyone’s that lamenta the state of IQfy: don’t be afraid of creating and participating in threads like these, by the looks of it it already has 40 replies and decent discussion. Don’t be discouraged by the though that effortposting will only get you 4 replies before 404ing, there is a very real demand for threads like these.
Any “history”-anthropology book like this, GGS, etc. is bound to be shit
And it is unfortunately. Nice thought experiment, until you realize it's all a waste of time.
pic related much better