• BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Check out The Dawn of Everything, puts to rest a lot of the myths about prehistoric societies that we tell ourselves. Early societies were consciously experimenting with different social arrangements and they were far more peaceful and egalitarian than we usually give them credit for. Their ideas on property were vastly different than ours as well. There wasn’t really an “our hunting grounds” to speak of. If you’re interested I’ll leave this video by Andrewism about human history. It’s well sourced and pretty informative

      • Lesrid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Turns out to have warring tribes you need to be organized enough to carry out a war.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jericho had walls when most of the rest of humanity was nomadic hunter-gatherers.

        City walls generally weren’t built because people feel safe and secure already.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it sort of depends on what time period we’re talking about. Jericho and other walled cities came about after a certain point. By then, there certainly were societies that lived off raiding the less nomadic agrarian societies, not very peaceful or egalitarian.

      • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only real solution is intentional population control. But I don’t have high hopes we ever get there though.

        Everyone could have way more resources than we’d ever want to even use. But instead, we seem focused on maxing out the world population leaving the least amount possible for each person.

        • ChewTiger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is the improper distribution of resources, not overpopulation. If we truly tried we could sustainably support our current population and work on healing the world.

          Talking about intentional population control is a fat too slippery slope.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you suggesting that there’s no limit to how many people the resources we have available to us can support?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”

              However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What standard of living do you consider “all things being equal”?

                  I don’t consider “standards of living” - period.

                  I consider this.

                  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Malthus and Erlich, right wingers?

            I don’t see many right wing people on this list. Thoughts?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”

              It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.