Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Rival, Mate or Resource?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Sun 28 Jan 2007, 17:47:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut to maybe over-simplify, a friend will help you move, an ally will help you move for a favor in return, an adversary will protest your presence in the neighborhood, and an enemy will burn down your new house.


I thought of this... but then isn't a friend just a really high-quality Ally?

From a certain perspective. From the same perspective, an adversary is a high-quality enemy. Which leads back to Us and Them.

To complicate matters, from another perspective even "Them" is relative to what else is going on in the environment. You may have an enemy, but when you both face another, larger external threat, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I'd say "ally", but you get the point.

People walk about their daily lives generally irritated at another group of people, certain professions, certain races, certain religions. But for a few weeks after 9/11 in the US, in the face of the new terrorist threat, most people dropped their agitations and were more understanding, thoughtful, and courteous of each other. Didn't last long, though.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby smiley » Sun 28 Jan 2007, 18:19:02

I'd say there are two categories

me / others

1 / 6,572,766,910 (-1) *

*01/28/07 at 21:35 GMT (EST+5)

I honestly wouldn't know how to categories the lot.

Family members might be resources, but then again they can be rivals, and they certainly make fierce enemies. One thing is sure, they will never enter the mating category.

Mating partners can be friends, but not necessarily. Hate and love are very close. Ever had a fierce argument evolve in wild and copious sex?

In some form everyone is a resource, but some are more useful than others.

And since we live on a planet with limited potential everyone is a rival, through you only consider those that threaten your bid to success.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Sun 28 Jan 2007, 19:56:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '*')Never in history has there ever been 'enough for everyone'. This is because every species has the capability to breed like there is no tomorrow and multiply astronomically.

I think you're incorrect. Humans have the gift of foresight (though most don't seem to use it these days). I wasn't there but from what I've heard/read many tribal people were able to voluntarily keep their numbers in check for dozens, if not hundreds of generations.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I')f for some reason there was ever a surplus, population power would soon see to it that that surplus was quickly exploitated and the normal state of struggle and competition reinstated.

Humans can control their "population power" voluntarily, as I stated. While "struggle and competition" may have been the norm for some tribes during some periods I don't think it was the norm for most tribes during most periods (especially pre-agriculture).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', ' ')Humans and proto-humans migrated out further and further from Africa time and again. They would have had no need to do this if there was plenty of room for them in Africa.

People do lots of things they don't "have to" do. Wanting/needing more space (or shifting climate/resources) was most likely the major factor but they were most likely others as well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'I') can also therefore tell you that fluctuating tribal alliances and warfare would have been the norm for humankind for all it's prehistory. * Apart of course if you were one of the lucky ones of the first several generations that discovered a whole new continent (like when humans first walked over to America). Imagine the bonanza! Room for everyone and their offspring! But then it only took around 1000 years (according to Jared Diamond) for that huge continent to be completely populated by humans.

I'm no historian but I don't think once humans reached full saturation of the Americas that they were lots of peaks and crashes in population. They probably quickly realized that having two children per couple is less stressful than having a major war with neighbors every generation or two.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 28 Jan 2007, 23:15:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')I'm no historian but I don't think once humans reached full saturation of the Americas that they were lots of peaks and crashes in population. They probably quickly realized that having two children per couple is less stressful than having a major war with neighbors every generation or two.


Not a lot of peaks and crashes, you have that part right, but they certainly had a lot more than 2 children each! Half of them died before the age of 5 years. Of the remainder one probably died of accident or conflict before reaching marriage age and reproducing. If you have six kids this works out to 2 adult survivors. Also keep in mind that human fertillity is such that 5%-15% of all genetic pairings will lead to only miscarriages or stillbirths, especially in tribal groups where unintentional inbreeding reinforces leathal recessive genes.

They didn't need massive scale wars for population controll, nature, red of tooth and claw and all her billion diseases was more than sufficient with the small scale fight keeping things in harmonic ballance.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 00:03:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'N')ot a lot of peaks and crashes, you have that part right, but they certainly had a lot more than 2 children each! Half of them died before the age of 5 years.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

If it's true why the hell would anyone angelize them as any kind of ideal society? My mom had a miscarriage and two babies that died in infancy (I was lucky #4) and I think it really screwed her up. Any society where 50% of all born die in infancy sounds pretty depressing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'O')f the remainder one probably died of accident or conflict before reaching marriage age and reproducing. If you have six kids this works out to 2 adult survivors.

Now it sounds like you're just making figures up. How about some sources?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A')lso keep in mind that human fertillity is such that 5%-15% of all genetic pairings will lead to only miscarriages or stillbirths, especially in tribal groups where unintentional inbreeding reinforces leathal recessive genes.

Hmm.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey didn't need massive scale wars for population controll, nature, red of tooth and claw and all her billion diseases was more than sufficient with the small scale fight keeping things in harmonic ballance.

So, are you gonna have kids?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 08:46:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'N')ot a lot of peaks and crashes, you have that part right, but they certainly had a lot more than 2 children each! Half of them died before the age of 5 years.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

If it's true why the hell would anyone angelize them as any kind of ideal society? My mom had a miscarriage and two babies that died in infancy (I was lucky #4) and I think it really screwed her up. Any society where 50% of all born die in infancy sounds pretty depressing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'O')f the remainder one probably died of accident or conflict before reaching marriage age and reproducing. If you have six kids this works out to 2 adult survivors.

Now it sounds like you're just making figures up. How about some sources?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A')lso keep in mind that human fertillity is such that 5%-15% of all genetic pairings will lead to only miscarriages or stillbirths, especially in tribal groups where unintentional inbreeding reinforces leathal recessive genes.

Hmm.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey didn't need massive scale wars for population controll, nature, red of tooth and claw and all her billion diseases was more than sufficient with the small scale fight keeping things in harmonic ballance.

So, are you gonna have kids?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')re-20th century mortality patterns varied, but the main feature of all of them was that infant mortality was high. Typically over 15% of children would die in their first year, and between 30% and 50% would die before age 10. These high infant mortality rates had a dramatic effect on life expectancy at birth, dragging it down well below present levels.

But for those who survived the perils of childhood, life expectancy was not so bad. Admittedly, mortality between age 20 and 60 due to epidemic disease (smallpox, cholera, etc) and chronic infections (syphilis, TB), was higher than we would like, but from 20 up to about age 55 the risk of death in any given year would only be between 0.5% and 2% - worth saying your prayers to avoid, but not worth losing sleep over. There was a reasonable prospect of reaching old age.
from Gene Expression

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')unter-gatherer women experience a very different lifetime hormonal profile with many pregnancies and long periods of lactation and anovulation that appears to affect rates of reproductive cancers (Eaton et al 1988, 1994). and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')auses of death were tabulated by reported symptoms rather than cultural interpretations of cause (e.g., we ignored witchcraft, etc., and focused on manifest symptoms). These were aggregated into categories and then assigned to one of four major classes: disease; degenerative/congenital problem; accident; and violence. Disease included infectious disease (respiratory infection, skin infection, microbial-caused blindness, tetanus, measles, systemic infection, diarrhea and vomiting, gastrointestinal infections, malaria, fever and headache, general lethargy, and miscellaneous “illness”), organic and pathological conditions (heart problems, liver problems, body swellings, cancer, hemorrhoids, “swallowed tongue”), nutritional deficiencies (skinny, “ate dirt”) and mental illness. Degenerative/congenital problems included biologically based causes not due to pathogen exposure and deaths related to childbirth or old age. This category consisted of newborn birth due to trauma, prematurity and early failure to thrive, death in childbirth, death due to mother’s inability to produce milk, and death from old age. Deaths from old age are ultimately caused by some undetected pathology (cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc.), but we have no further information about these deaths. Accidents included outcomes associated with environmental hazards (drowning, falling, burns, animal caused trauma, insect-caused trauma, choking, lost) and human
caused accidental deaths (self-stabbing, hunting accident, suffocated, poisoned, killed when playing or sleeping, accidents while intoxicated). Violent deaths consisted of intentional Hiwi-caused mortality (suicide, infanticide, child homicide, adult homicide, warfare) and “criollo”-caused deaths (murders and massacres). and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Infancy
We recorded the cause for 92 deaths of infants (birth to age 1). The most frequent category of infant death was that comprised of “congenital problems” which accounts for just over 30% of all infant deaths and took place at a rate of about 82 deaths per 1000 births (both sexes and time periods). “Congenital” deaths usually happened in the first few days of life and include being born small and weak, deaths due to birth trauma, and deaths because the infant’s mother had no milk. The next most frequent causes of death to infants were infanticide/homicide, and disease, each of which accounted for almost 30% of all deaths and took place at a rate of 79 deaths per 1000 infant years at risk. Sex differences were notable, with the infanticide rate four times higher for female infants than for male infants (123 vs. 27 per 1000 respectively, p= 0.003). Most of the disease deaths in infancy were due to infectious pathogens, with 55% of all the disease deaths caused by gastrointestinal problems. Respiratory ailments were the next most common among disease deaths to infants. Finally, accidents accounted for about 11% of all deaths to infants. Thus, the total percentage of deaths from trauma (violence and accidents) was 40%.

Childhood
We recorded 66 deaths to children from the ages of 1 to 9 years old. Disease accounts for about 2/3 of the deaths and took place at a rate of 19 deaths per 1000 child years at risk. Accidents and homicide accounted for about 14% of child deaths each, and combined to give a death rate from trauma of about 8 deaths per 1000 child years at risk. There were no significant differences between time periods or by sex in the deaths of children.

Early adulthood
We recorded the causes for 88 deaths between the ages of 10 and 39. Warfare and homicide accounted for 44% of the deaths to this age category, with about 42% of these caused by intra-tribal disputes and 58% due to attacks by “criollos.” Surprisingly women were just as likely to be killed as men, and deaths from violence were almost as frequent in the post-contact as the pre-contact period (about 8 per 1000 risk years in the pre-contact period and 6 per 1000 risk years in the post-contact period). Interestingly we also recorded 2 pre-contact and 1 post-contact death due to suicide (all males). 35% of all early adult deaths were from disease, with infectious pathogens causing the vast majority of these deaths, and other organic and pathological conditions accounting for less than 5% of this category. Again, gastrointestinal pathogens and parasites were the most common cause of disease-related deaths with respiratory ailments somewhat less common. But the disease-related death rate of young adults was much lower in the post-contact period than during the pre-contact period (2 vs. 10 per 1000 years at risk respectively, p=0.001) Finally, accidents accounted for about 11% of all deaths to young adults with no obvious differences due to sex or period. Adding accidents and violence we found that trauma accounted for more than half of all early adult deaths and took place at a rate of about 9 deaths per 1000 years of risk. and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he most notable contrast among hunter-gatherer life tables is overall similarity of child mortality in all groups and the subsequent high mortality of the Hiwi and Agta in adulthood compared to the Ache, !Kung, and Hadza (figure 3).all from a very detailed study STUDY

If that isn't enough to support my argument then nothing will likely convince you.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Ayame » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 16:42:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')I think you're incorrect. Humans have the gift of foresight (though most don't seem to use it these days). I wasn't there but from what I've heard/read many tribal people were able to voluntarily keep their numbers in check for dozens, if not hundreds of generations.


Humans may have the gift of foresight but they don't use it very often! :lol: Anyway any tribe that voluntarily reduced it's numbers to 'avoid resource conflict' would soon have been outcompeted and assimilated by a neighbouring tribe that didn't bother reducing it's numbers. I have read that H&G females did practice infantcide when for instance they gave birth while they already had a child to look after and couldn't look after both (H&G women had to lug the child around and one was enough - two would have broken her back). But in many a book I've read about H&G it's documented that H&G women were more or less either pregnant or lactating incessantly, menstruation was an extremely rare phenomenon. Raiding, disease and accidents would have kept population down too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Humans can control their "population power" voluntarily, as I stated. While "struggle and competition" may have been the norm for some tribes during some periods I don't think it was the norm for most tribes during most periods (especially pre-agriculture).


See above for why any tribe practicing population control would have sealed it's own demise. Most of the tribes 'discovered' in the 18th and 19th centuries were in states of fluctuating raiding and alliances including yanomamo, aboriginies, all indonesians tribes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')People do lots of things they don't "have to" do. Wanting/needing more space (or shifting climate/resources) was most likely the major factor but they were most likely others as well.


Yeah right, leave everything and all their relatives to walk across a strait into the unknown? Or leave to go and live in siberia because it's fun to live in the cold and makes a bit of a change? People only migrate from security and what they know into the unknown because things are getting bad at home and they are willing to face to unknown in the hope of finding something better.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I'm no historian but I don't think once humans reached full saturation of the Americas that they were lots of peaks and crashes in population. They probably quickly realized that having two children per couple is less stressful than having a major war with neighbors every generation or two.


No peaks and crashes only happen with agriculture. It would have gradually built up into inter-tribal raiding/revenge murders with male mortality building until it reached the H&G norm of 30% of adult males. Any tribe that then adopted the two child policy would have in a few generations been assimilated by a neighbouring tribe that had as many children as they could pop out and didn't mind a bit of fighting.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby MacG » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 17:55:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'W')hat happened to prey?

Rivals, mates, allies, prey.

Prey: anything you can kill and use for nourishment.


Prey=Resource


Naahh!

"Resource" is someone who you can barter useful stuff and services with and enter into mutual defense agreements with. "Prey" is like mushrooms you pick or animals you catch in a trap and then consume.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby MacG » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 18:08:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'S')ee above for why any tribe practicing population control would have sealed it's own demise. Most of the tribes 'discovered' in the 18th and 19th centuries were in states of fluctuating raiding and alliances including yanomamo, aboriginies, all indonesians tribes.


Eh, those patterns were hacked some 6-8000 years ago when Ag was invented. Look up Swiss or Japanese history for some high-level hacks. The Tokugawa Shogunate should inspire. And read up on "memetics". Some residues "discovered" in the 1700's dont prove very much about the state of the world today. Just distractions.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Specop_007 » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 18:14:27

Let me know when its ok to shoot those in the rival category. At that point, I'll have a whole lot less resources and a whole lot more holes to dig.

:-D
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Aaron » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 20:01:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'S')ee above for why any tribe practicing population control would have sealed it's own demise. Most of the tribes 'discovered' in the 18th and 19th centuries were in states of fluctuating raiding and alliances including yanomamo, aboriginies, all indonesians tribes.


Eh, those patterns were hacked some 6-8000 years ago when Ag was invented. Look up Swiss or Japanese history for some high-level hacks. The Tokugawa Shogunate should inspire. And read up on "memetics". Some residues "discovered" in the 1700's dont prove very much about the state of the world today. Just distractions.


That''s what got me on this topic actually.

I have a friend who is into neurolinguistic programing & I have read some stuff on the topic.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 20:49:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'N')ot a lot of peaks and crashes, you have that part right, but they certainly had a lot more than 2 children each! Half of them died before the age of 5 years.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

If it's true why the hell would anyone angelize them as any kind of ideal society? My mom had a miscarriage and two babies that died in infancy (I was lucky #4) and I think it really screwed her up. Any society where 50% of all born die in infancy sounds pretty depressing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'O')f the remainder one probably died of accident or conflict before reaching marriage age and reproducing. If you have six kids this works out to 2 adult survivors.

Now it sounds like you're just making figures up. How about some sources?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'A')lso keep in mind that human fertillity is such that 5%-15% of all genetic pairings will lead to only miscarriages or stillbirths, especially in tribal groups where unintentional inbreeding reinforces leathal recessive genes.

Hmm.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey didn't need massive scale wars for population controll, nature, red of tooth and claw and all her billion diseases was more than sufficient with the small scale fight keeping things in harmonic ballance.

So, are you gonna have kids?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')re-20th century mortality patterns varied, but the main feature of all of them was that infant mortality was high. Typically over 15% of children would die in their first year, and between 30% and 50% would die before age 10. These high infant mortality rates had a dramatic effect on life expectancy at birth, dragging it down well below present levels.

But for those who survived the perils of childhood, life expectancy was not so bad. Admittedly, mortality between age 20 and 60 due to epidemic disease (smallpox, cholera, etc) and chronic infections (syphilis, TB), was higher than we would like, but from 20 up to about age 55 the risk of death in any given year would only be between 0.5% and 2% - worth saying your prayers to avoid, but not worth losing sleep over. There was a reasonable prospect of reaching old age.
from Gene Expression

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')unter-gatherer women experience a very different lifetime hormonal profile with many pregnancies and long periods of lactation and anovulation that appears to affect rates of reproductive cancers (Eaton et al 1988, 1994). and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')auses of death were tabulated by reported symptoms rather than cultural interpretations of cause (e.g., we ignored witchcraft, etc., and focused on manifest symptoms). These were aggregated into categories and then assigned to one of four major classes: disease; degenerative/congenital problem; accident; and violence. Disease included infectious disease (respiratory infection, skin infection, microbial-caused blindness, tetanus, measles, systemic infection, diarrhea and vomiting, gastrointestinal infections, malaria, fever and headache, general lethargy, and miscellaneous “illness”), organic and pathological conditions (heart problems, liver problems, body swellings, cancer, hemorrhoids, “swallowed tongue”), nutritional deficiencies (skinny, “ate dirt”) and mental illness. Degenerative/congenital problems included biologically based causes not due to pathogen exposure and deaths related to childbirth or old age. This category consisted of newborn birth due to trauma, prematurity and early failure to thrive, death in childbirth, death due to mother’s inability to produce milk, and death from old age. Deaths from old age are ultimately caused by some undetected pathology (cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc.), but we have no further information about these deaths. Accidents included outcomes associated with environmental hazards (drowning, falling, burns, animal caused trauma, insect-caused trauma, choking, lost) and human
caused accidental deaths (self-stabbing, hunting accident, suffocated, poisoned, killed when playing or sleeping, accidents while intoxicated). Violent deaths consisted of intentional Hiwi-caused mortality (suicide, infanticide, child homicide, adult homicide, warfare) and “criollo”-caused deaths (murders and massacres). and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Infancy
We recorded the cause for 92 deaths of infants (birth to age 1). The most frequent category of infant death was that comprised of “congenital problems” which accounts for just over 30% of all infant deaths and took place at a rate of about 82 deaths per 1000 births (both sexes and time periods). “Congenital” deaths usually happened in the first few days of life and include being born small and weak, deaths due to birth trauma, and deaths because the infant’s mother had no milk. The next most frequent causes of death to infants were infanticide/homicide, and disease, each of which accounted for almost 30% of all deaths and took place at a rate of 79 deaths per 1000 infant years at risk. Sex differences were notable, with the infanticide rate four times higher for female infants than for male infants (123 vs. 27 per 1000 respectively, p= 0.003). Most of the disease deaths in infancy were due to infectious pathogens, with 55% of all the disease deaths caused by gastrointestinal problems. Respiratory ailments were the next most common among disease deaths to infants. Finally, accidents accounted for about 11% of all deaths to infants. Thus, the total percentage of deaths from trauma (violence and accidents) was 40%.

Childhood
We recorded 66 deaths to children from the ages of 1 to 9 years old. Disease accounts for about 2/3 of the deaths and took place at a rate of 19 deaths per 1000 child years at risk. Accidents and homicide accounted for about 14% of child deaths each, and combined to give a death rate from trauma of about 8 deaths per 1000 child years at risk. There were no significant differences between time periods or by sex in the deaths of children.

Early adulthood
We recorded the causes for 88 deaths between the ages of 10 and 39. Warfare and homicide accounted for 44% of the deaths to this age category, with about 42% of these caused by intra-tribal disputes and 58% due to attacks by “criollos.” Surprisingly women were just as likely to be killed as men, and deaths from violence were almost as frequent in the post-contact as the pre-contact period (about 8 per 1000 risk years in the pre-contact period and 6 per 1000 risk years in the post-contact period). Interestingly we also recorded 2 pre-contact and 1 post-contact death due to suicide (all males). 35% of all early adult deaths were from disease, with infectious pathogens causing the vast majority of these deaths, and other organic and pathological conditions accounting for less than 5% of this category. Again, gastrointestinal pathogens and parasites were the most common cause of disease-related deaths with respiratory ailments somewhat less common. But the disease-related death rate of young adults was much lower in the post-contact period than during the pre-contact period (2 vs. 10 per 1000 years at risk respectively, p=0.001) Finally, accidents accounted for about 11% of all deaths to young adults with no obvious differences due to sex or period. Adding accidents and violence we found that trauma accounted for more than half of all early adult deaths and took place at a rate of about 9 deaths per 1000 years of risk. and $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he most notable contrast among hunter-gatherer life tables is overall similarity of child mortality in all groups and the subsequent high mortality of the Hiwi and Agta in adulthood compared to the Ache, !Kung, and Hadza (figure 3).all from a very detailed study STUDY

If that isn't enough to support my argument then nothing will likely convince you.
Interesting Tanda. I suppose ideally we can take some of our knowledge of modern medicine and sociology into the future to aviod the necessity of so much violence and disease.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 21:00:07

I'd be curious to see statistics about the Bushmen of the Kalahari (if anyone has any).

Also, it's worthy to note that probably over 90% of hunter-gatherer people were wiped out by agriculturalists without a trace so we can't judge them all by the few remaining now. There could have been ones who managed to maintain equilibrium without infanticide and warfare.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 23:20:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'I')'d be curious to see statistics about the Bushmen of the Kalahari (if anyone has any).

Also, it's worthy to note that probably over 90% of hunter-gatherer people were wiped out by agriculturalists without a trace so we can't judge them all by the few remaining now. There could have been ones who managed to maintain equilibrium without infanticide and warfare.


The !Kung (aka the !Kung San) mentioned in the last quote I made of the paper on HG are the Bushman of the Kalahari dessert region. You might find some of the stats you are looking for by reading through the whole article I linked too. Here is the link again STUDY if you are interested, it is only 30 pages long but has a lot of detailed data in that space.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Ayame » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 04:40:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Also, it's worthy to note that probably over 90% of hunter-gatherer people were wiped out by agriculturalists without a trace so we can't judge them all by the few remaining now. There could have been ones who managed to maintain equilibrium without infanticide and warfare.


Most of the recent ones to be wiped out were documented by the people who had 'discovered them' and something is better than nothing to go by on. But there maybe hope. Evolution is sped up on islands that are cut off from everywhere else. A group of maoris made it to a small island. At first they fought and there was voilence and raiding between groups but the island was so small that if this continued they would go extinct. So out of need they developed new social rules based on diplomacy instead of voilence and kept their population growth under control by cutting off a percentage of baby males dicks at birth. The story does not end well though because an Australian ship alerted the maoris on the mainland about this peaceful place with lots of eels to eat and the maories came over in their war boats and killed anyone who wouldn't become their slaves.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 05:17:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he !Kung (aka the !Kung San) mentioned in the last quote I made of the paper on HG are the Bushman of the Kalahari dessert region. You might find some of the stats you are looking for by reading through the whole article I linked too. Here is the link again STUDY if you are interested, it is only 30 pages long but has a lot of detailed data in that space.

You're right, I did not realize the !Kung = the Bushman. It's interesting to note that the Hiwi's were about 3,000 times as likely to suffer being murdered.

Besides high infant mortality I don't see much too terrible about the !Kung's life. 72-76% of them who make it to ten survive long enough to become grandparents. I'm not so sure things will be so rosy for post-peak Westerns even. And the accidental death rate is the same as modern man (mostly due to cars it was stated. makes sense).

Also worth remembering that there's more to life than birth and death rates. A short but exciting life punctuated with love, friendships, meaningful work and a spiritual (if you like) connection with all of the natural world beats a long (lets say 78 years) but tedious life working in an office with kids who grow up in another city and barely talk to you, with fifty years of work, followed by one of boring, idle retirement and four in various stages of dementia in a nursing home with others, abandoned, compartmentalized and dying prolonged and undignified deaths.

We're lucky. We can extract the best of ancient ways of living with the best of today. If we make it thru the "special period" that is.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 05:23:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'M')ost of the recent ones to be wiped out were documented by the people who had 'discovered them' and something is better than nothing to go by on. But there maybe hope. Evolution is sped up on islands that are cut off from everywhere else. A group of maoris made it to a small island. At first they fought and there was voilence and raiding between groups but the island was so small that if this continued they would go extinct. So out of need they developed new social rules based on diplomacy instead of voilence and kept their population growth under control by cutting off a percentage of baby males dicks at birth. The story does not end well though because an Australian ship alerted the maoris on the mainland about this peaceful place with lots of eels to eat and the maories came over in their war boats and killed anyone who wouldn't become their slaves.

The Maoris are (like the Hiwi's) another quite violent example.

That said, I'm glad my pops wasn't a Maori with a short straw. :?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 08:16:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Also, it's worthy to note that probably over 90% of hunter-gatherer people were wiped out by agriculturalists without a trace so we can't judge them all by the few remaining now. There could have been ones who managed to maintain equilibrium without infanticide and warfare.


Most of the recent ones to be wiped out were documented by the people who had 'discovered them' and something is better than nothing to go by on. But there maybe hope. Evolution is sped up on islands that are cut off from everywhere else. A group of maoris made it to a small island. At first they fought and there was voilence and raiding between groups but the island was so small that if this continued they would go extinct. So out of need they developed new social rules based on diplomacy instead of voilence and kept their population growth under control by cutting off a percentage of baby males dicks at birth. The story does not end well though because an Australian ship alerted the maoris on the mainland about this peaceful place with lots of eels to eat and the maories came over in their war boats and killed anyone who wouldn't become their slaves.


What was the name of the Island?
What year did this happen in?
Controlling male fertility does nothing for population pressure, one male can impregnate two or more females per day.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Ayame » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 15:46:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')What was the name of the Island?
What year did this happen in?
Controlling male fertility does nothing for population pressure, one male can impregnate two or more females per day.


wiki
another article
Lol, your right Tanada about the male thing, maybe it didn't help to keep the population down, maybe it just made a portion of the males more pacifist :-) Mind you apparently there were only 2000 of them so maybe it did make an impact.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')The Maoris are (like the Hiwi's) another quite violent example.


Well why don't you give us some good examples of all these pacifist insightful tribes that were the 'norm' throughout pre-history? Even the american indians had tribal factional fighting afterall if they didn't they wouldn't have needed 'peace pipes' to smoke together when they were reconciling! I think you have been slightly brainwashed into the primitive as lost paradise and noblemen thing.
Ayame
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu 29 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Rival, Mate or Resource?

Unread postby Narz » Tue 30 Jan 2007, 17:50:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', 'W')ell why don't you give us some good examples of all these pacifist insightful tribes that were the 'norm' throughout pre-history? Even the american indians had tribal factional fighting afterall if they didn't they wouldn't have needed 'peace pipes' to smoke together when they were reconciling! I think you have been slightly brainwashed into the primitive as lost paradise and noblemen thing.

I never said there were "pacifist" primitive tribes out there.

I just think it's kind of depressing to think that humankind in general is too stupid and undisciplined to control it's numbers without lots of disease and warfare. :(

"Gotta find a way, to find a way, when i'm there"
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests