“… which is the purpose of a Gish gallop…”
Then you would agree that it is an effective Gish Gallop?
My Gish Gallop is the finest Gourmet Gish Gallop that money can buy. It is the Gishiest Gallop you will find anywhere. My Gish Gallop has its own intrinsic value; it requires no extraneous “purpose.”
“… where is your evidence that we were all equally miserable…”
I would find having barely enough to stay alive to be a form of misery. I understand that it might be presumptuous of me to assume the same of prehistoric people, since I didn’t actually ask any prehistoric people if they were in fact miserable; neither did the author of the article that you cited. He made an assumption that they were not.
The basic idea is that “equality” can exist when everyone is equally miserable as well as when everyone is comfortable. Inequality under circumstances where everyone is comfortable, but some are more comfortable than others can be more desirable than circumstances under which everyone is equally uncomfortable. The mere fact of inequality does not necessarily render a particular social order undesirable. Besides, how would it be decided whose version of “equality” prevails? Carried to its logical extreme, everyone is equal when they are dead.
I described my views on equality in previous comments. Here are some examples:
{Note: in the line quoted above it appears that the author of the quote intended to type “are” rather than “age.” It was probably a typographical error.}
“Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. “
Quality of life is an individual subjective judgement. There are both advantages and disadvantages to any way of life. Individuals must weigh the advantages against the disadvantages and determine for themselves whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. There are probably some who would prefer a neopaleoistic life and others who are satisfied with their current circumstances.
I can see that you have arrived at the view that there was a “golden age of the past” and that you hope to revive the “good old days.”
Obviously, you and many others would prefer to live a prehistoric life. I wish you the best of luck, but I will not be joining you.
You could go live among the Kalahari Bushmen. I understand they have built no walls around their borders and welcome unlimited immigration. There you will spend the remainder of your 26 years lounging in your hammock feasting on the endless variety of wild delecasies provided to you by your servant leaders, while being worshiped as a goddess by men with erect penises and toxin free masculinity.
Unfortunately, you will have to relinquish your participation in medium since there will be no means of powering your computer, and I, for one, will miss your participation, but it will be a small price to pay for such a tremendous gain. Furthermore, you will not be permitted to introduce any form of written language since doing so would risk contaminating paradise with patriarchy.
The Alphabet Vs The Goddess | by Leonard Shlain
Leonard Shlain
Leonard Shlainwww.alphabetvsgoddess.com
Sorry, but I will not be joining you in your return to “the good old days.”
I choose instead to spend the rest of my 80 years in endless toil, hoping upon hope to climb one step higher along the dominance hierarchy in a vain effort to reach the apex where I might finally enjoy the benefits produced by my underlings as I exploit the masses below me.
Here is an alternative view of prehistoric life reported by dissenting scientists who, steeped in patriarchal constructs and struggling to reach the apex of the scientific dominance hierarchy with no regard for learning the truth, have taken credit for this research that was actually performed by women.
“… It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal…”
I can remember years when I slept a good deal to escape periods of misery. Sleep is also a way to avoid boredom. Convicts spend a good deal of time in their cells sleeping.
“…Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. …”
That statement reflects what I have said all along: There is no competition for resources when there are no resources to compete for.
This statement…
…is contradicted by this one (highlighted)….
…Professor Diamond needs to make up his mind.
“… it’s unclear whether we can solve it.”
It could seem that way. Human populations adapt to changing circumstances, as they did when global warming required them to find new sources of food which led to the adaptation that we know as agriculture. But populations can’t adapt to change until the change has occurred, so they are always one step behind and catching up. Since change is constant, adaptation is constant. As soon as one problem is solved the next one arises. Life is a gopher whack.
