[The Sabbaticus]

This one was much more engaging and stimulating than the other lectures in the series (this is no debate).

It touches upon the following topics (amongst other things):

- moral psychology of cultural tribes
- pre-frontal cortex: likelihood of committing violence
- amygdala: morality centre of the brain
- Are sociopaths with neuro-biological subtypes still responsible for their actions?
- neuro-biological limitations, social biological limitation of free will
- social risk factors and biological risk factors
- omega-3 oil effects on prisoners with respect to incidences of violence
- success of civil resistance campaigns in comparison to terrorist campaigns (the latter only has a 3% efficacy rate)
- elasticity of groups

[youtube]vxMP4IAkgpU[/youtube]

The second part is a Q&A session. A number of amusing questions are answered.

[Solastalgia]

Sorry but Steven Pinker has already been taken to task on his ridiculous revamped Hobbesian myth of the "brutal savages" a few too many times. Modern anthropology looks down at these pop science writers like Pinker peddling their lies that appeal to mainstream america. "The Better Angels of Our Nature" was one of the worst books written in the past decade. I mean really. Pinker ignores all of the industrialized war, death, and destruction of the 20th century (world wars, etc), and then cherry picks and propagandizes particular instances in medieval and hunter-gatherer society to make the case that industrial man is peace and butterflies. Take for example his idea that Otzi (the iceman) was killed by warring tribes. He only plays to that one particular theory while completely ignoring (and not even as much as mentioning!) every other entirely credible theory as to Otzi's death. This is not scholarly work. This is a pop-sci man dead set on an idea (Hobbesian myth) and willing to go to any length to prove himself right.

[ThirdTerm]

[youtube]ebRpquKFSEw[/youtube]

In the twentieth century, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fewer than one person in a hundred died violently, while there was a 10% chance of dying violently in tribal societies. In more civilised societies, powerful central governments monopolised violence, which was why internal violence was stamped out. Pinkler also pointed out that a culture of honour in the American South has made Southerners more prone to use violence to settle personal scores. The lack of central authority encouraged revenge killings in the South, which was the case with other less developed societies. For example, the samurai had the right to kill anyone of a lower class on the spot if he felt that he was offended.

The U.S. is simply much more violent than other developed countries. And the region that brings up the national average is the South:


It’s not exclusively Southern states with high assault-death rates; a third chart by Healy shows that some Western and Midwestern states have higher rates than some Southern states. But by region, the difference is dramatic.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magaz ... n-Culture/

[The Sabbaticus]

Sorry but Steven Pinker has already been taken to task on his ridiculous revamped Hobbesian myth of the "brutal savages" a few too many times.

The video was to provoke debate, I do not claim to support or denounce any of these participants, but I do appreciate your contribution. Also I would like to point out that it's not only Steven Pinker, but also other participants, which provided their own contributions on the topic.

<vid>

In the twentieth century, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fewer than one person in a hundred died violently, while there was a 10% chance of dying violently in tribal societies. In more civilised societies, powerful central governments monopolised violence, which was why internal violence was stamped out. Pinkler also pointed out that a culture of honour in the American South has made Southerners more prone to use violence to settle personal scores. The lack of central authority encouraged revenge killings in the South, which was the case with other less developed societies. For example, the samurai had the right to kill anyone of a lower class on the spot if he felt that he was offended.

I'll be watching the video sometime this week.

[quetzalcoatl]

Sorry but Steven Pinker has already been taken to task on his ridiculous revamped Hobbesian myth of the "brutal savages" a few too many times. Modern anthropology looks down at these pop science writers like Pinker peddling their lies that appeal to mainstream america. "The Better Angels of Our Nature" was one of the worst books written in the past decade. I mean really. Pinker ignores all of the industrialized war, death, and destruction of the 20th century (world wars, etc), and then cherry picks and propagandizes particular instances in medieval and hunter-gatherer society to make the case that industrial man is peace and butterflies. Take for example his idea that Otzi (the iceman) was killed by warring tribes. He only plays to that one particular theory while completely ignoring (and not even as much as mentioning!) every other entirely credible theory as to Otzi's death. This is not scholarly work. This is a pop-sci man dead set on an idea (Hobbesian myth) and willing to go to any length to prove himself right.

Regardless of the merits of Pinker's arguments, you (just like Pinker) have an established set of biases that you are quick to defend. Pinker may indeed be ridiculous, but rewilding is totalitarian on a breathtakingly Pol Pot scale. The origin of violence is not so important as its expression, and its expression is largely influenced by cultural matrix. The existing culture is what should be addressed, not a return to state of development that cannot sustain existing population.

[Solastalgia]

Regardless of the merits of Pinker's arguments, you (just like Pinker) have an established set of biases that you are quick to defend. Pinker may indeed be ridiculous, but rewilding is totalitarian on a breathtakingly Pol Pot scale. The origin of violence is not so important as its expression, and its expression is largely influenced by cultural matrix. The existing culture is what should be addressed, not a return to state of development that cannot sustain existing population.

Rewilding does NOT advocate deindustrialization a la Pol Pot. First off, rewilding is merely a personal practical philosophy of replicating the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It has nothing to do with bringing the entire world back to a hunter-gatherer state. The first use of the term "rewilding" by conservation biologists has more to do to with changing land/society than the way that primitivists use it for personal reasons. Also, almost all anarcho-primitivists realize that there is no need to take down industrial civilization, as civilization is doing it to itself. The cliche comparison to Pol Pot doesn't mean anything as the philosophical outlook is entirely different, starting with the fact that Pol Pot was about bringing it back to agrarian society (among MANY other crack pot ideas/philosophy), while AP is against agriculture. Also, there are many people who have an agrarian based philosophy believing this to be a better state than industrial living. Especially with all the archaeological evidence of rise in all sorts of disease with industrialism. But that doesn't mean they're mini Pol Pots ready to kill anybody...

[annatar1914]

Rewilding does NOT advocate deindustrialization a la Pol Pot. First off, rewilding is merely a personal practical philosophy of replicating the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It has nothing to do with bringing the entire world back to a hunter-gatherer state. The first use of the term "rewilding" by conservation biologists has more to do to with changing land/society than the way that primitivists use it for personal reasons. Also, almost all anarcho-primitivists realize that there is no need to take down industrial civilization, as civilization is doing it to itself. The cliche comparison to Pol Pot doesn't mean anything as the philosophical outlook is entirely different, starting with the fact that Pol Pot was about bringing it back to agrarian society (among MANY other crack pot ideas/philosophy), while AP is against agriculture. Also, there are many people who have an agrarian based philosophy believing this to be a better state than industrial living. Especially with all the archaeological evidence of rise in all sorts of disease with industrialism. But that doesn't mean they're mini Pol Pots ready to kill anybody...

I totally agree Solastalgia, and hasten to add to this a most terrible irony; that those who attack Primitivism with the foolish specter of Pol Pot, are by their lifestyles totally unprepared for the massive die-off which is going to happen by the unsustainability of modern life, and the attendant breakdown of the Sysytem that holds it together.