A similar case is mentioned in The Dawn of Everything (which I highly recommend) where historically humans weren't as cutthroat or opportunist as we like to believe. If there was someone who...
A similar case is mentioned in The Dawn of Everything (which I highly recommend) where historically humans weren't as cutthroat or opportunist as we like to believe. If there was someone who couldn't "pull their weight" in the community, they weren't left to rot, they were looked after by said community. People with disabilities or developmental issues were still given the same tokens of care and affection in life and death as other members of the community, food, clothing, leisure items, jewelry. Value of a person wasn't based on utility to the group.
I've definitely seen a screenshotted conversation discussing how "civilization" actually starts when humans took care of their disabled. Finding skeletons with broken legs that had healed for...
I've definitely seen a screenshotted conversation discussing how "civilization" actually starts when humans took care of their disabled. Finding skeletons with broken legs that had healed for example, given burial rites.
I'll have to see if I can find the full thing and not just a twitter screenshot.
ETA: it's a Margaret Mead quote but it looks to be at best unconfirmed. Alas. But frankly I do like the concept.
So I knew this about those animals, and think it's neat. In fact the article I linked addressed that exact point, so I assume you didn't click it? But the wording of your comment makes it feel...
So I knew this about those animals, and think it's neat. In fact the article I linked addressed that exact point, so I assume you didn't click it?
But the wording of your comment makes it feel somewhat combative to me and I don't know what you're intending tone wise because of it. Do you disagree?
Honestly, I don't remember seeing the link, but reading that page now is quite unpleasant as it continually jumps around and doesn't stay still. It's rather maddening, actually, how much embedded...
I assume you didn't click it?
Honestly, I don't remember seeing the link, but reading that page now is quite unpleasant as it continually jumps around and doesn't stay still. It's rather maddening, actually, how much embedded video/advertisement/bells&whistles crap on some of these web pages gets in the way of properly taking in the content, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, I meant no aggressiveness in my comment, only to point out the logical extent of the assertion made; I have no agreement or disagreement about whether that is a sign of civilization or not, I am not an anthropologist.
As well, I did not percieve the viewpoint you mentioned as necessarily being your own or one that you accepted, only that it was one you had come across and thought interesting. Hence why I said "by that reasoning" rather than "by your reasoning".
I have an ad block on so I didn't notice any of that. Apologies for the bad formatting. It remains a sentiment that makes me happy regardless of its anthropological accuracy. (And I really think...
I have an ad block on so I didn't notice any of that. Apologies for the bad formatting.
It remains a sentiment that makes me happy regardless of its anthropological accuracy. (And I really think "civilization" as a concept has far more problems with its definition than this)
I agree that they seem pretty hostile but they're making a real point. Taking care of the disabled is not what makes a civilization a civilization, and could not have been the special human...
I agree that they seem pretty hostile but they're making a real point. Taking care of the disabled is not what makes a civilization a civilization, and could not have been the special human development that allowed us to form civilizations, since it is actually not behavior that characterizes humans or civilization in particular. It is, as those animal examples and OP's very post shows, behavior of a broader class of social animals, only one of which developed civilization (and did so long afterward). It's a comforting humanist idea that this type of empathy is what sets us apart, but it's not. You can't give humans credit for something we had nothing to do with. As always it depends on definitions, I suppose, but as they point out, this is only a defining characteristic of civilization if we define civilization to refer to the social behavior of a lot of creatures that categorically don't have civilization as we understand it.
I'm not sure whether they are making that point hence me asking them. And it's the same point the article I linked was addressing once I confirmed the quote is likely apocryphal and at least...
I agree that they seem pretty hostile but they're making a real point.
I'm not sure whether they are making that point hence me asking them. And it's the same point the article I linked was addressing once I confirmed the quote is likely apocryphal and at least lacking attribution. They may in fact believe that those animals are also engaging in civilization. I can only know from their answer.
Taking care of the disabled is not what makes a civilization a civilization, and could not have been the special human development that allowed us to form civilizations, since it is actually not behavior that characterizes humans or civilization in particular. It is, as the evidence shows, behavior of a broader class of social animals, only one of which developed civilization (and did so long afterward). It's a comforting humanist idea that this type of empathy is what sets us apart, but it's not. You can't give humans credit for something we had nothing to do with. As always it depends on definitions, I suppose, but as they point out, this is only a defining characteristic of civilization if we define civilization to include the social behavior of a lot of social animals that categorically don't have civilization as we understand it.
This is a lot of words for something I feel like doesn't actually respond to my question - which you likely cannot answer as you're not the previous poster - regarding me trying to figure out if they intended their post to read sarcastic/aggressively when I was fully aware of their point as I'd linked an article making the exact same points. I'm hopeful it wasn't intended sarcastically, so I could engage with them directly.
I corrected the record so I wasn't misquoting Margaret Mead, and linked an article that discussed the concept in more depth. I understand the topic fine. I still like the sentiment, even if I wouldn't put it on a wall with a plaque saying "absolute truth of anthropology" under it. I'm trying to figure out how I may have conveyed a lack of understanding or a desire for re-explanation on the overarching topic rather than on the previous poster's comment.
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't re-explaining the topic, just the relationship between the previous poster's comment and your argument, since you expressed confusion about that. As a rule, when someone...
I'm trying to figure out how I may have conveyed a lack of understanding or a desire for re-explanation on the overarching topic rather than on the previous poster's comment.
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't re-explaining the topic, just the relationship between the previous poster's comment and your argument, since you expressed confusion about that. As a rule, when someone does a "by your logic" thing to you they're disagreeing. That's a common form of counterargument.
No I get that they seemed to be disagreeing but I had already literally linked the same point. Hence me being confused with what precisely they were disagreeing with. My best assumption is that...
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't re-explaining the topic, just the relationship between the previous poster's comment and your argument, since you expressed confusion about that. As a rule, when someone does a "by your logic" thing to you they're disagreeing. That's a common form of counterargument.
No I get that they seemed to be disagreeing but I had already literally linked the same point. Hence me being confused with what precisely they were disagreeing with. My best assumption is that they didn't intend the hostility but didn't read my full comment/the linked article.
If I'd not added the edit (within about 2 minutes of my OP) I'd have known exactly what they meant, though hoped that they were maybe not intending the aggression. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Idk.
In short I'm not sure why they were making the point at me, when I'd already made it. Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently with the link.
I recall an anecdote from (I'm almost certain it's this book I'm thinking of) A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, about paleolithic human remains being found with growths on their...
I recall an anecdote from (I'm almost certain it's this book I'm thinking of) A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, about paleolithic human remains being found with growths on their bones suggesting they were in an advanced stage of hypervitaminosis A and had been cared for long after they would have lost the ability to walk.
A similar case is mentioned in The Dawn of Everything (which I highly recommend) where historically humans weren't as cutthroat or opportunist as we like to believe. If there was someone who couldn't "pull their weight" in the community, they weren't left to rot, they were looked after by said community. People with disabilities or developmental issues were still given the same tokens of care and affection in life and death as other members of the community, food, clothing, leisure items, jewelry. Value of a person wasn't based on utility to the group.
I've definitely seen a screenshotted conversation discussing how "civilization" actually starts when humans took care of their disabled. Finding skeletons with broken legs that had healed for example, given burial rites.
I'll have to see if I can find the full thing and not just a twitter screenshot.
ETA: it's a Margaret Mead quote but it looks to be at best unconfirmed. Alas. But frankly I do like the concept.
https://www.sapiens.org/culture/margaret-mead-femur/
So, by that reasoning, chimps, elephants, and whales have started civilizations
So I knew this about those animals, and think it's neat. In fact the article I linked addressed that exact point, so I assume you didn't click it?
But the wording of your comment makes it feel somewhat combative to me and I don't know what you're intending tone wise because of it. Do you disagree?
Honestly, I don't remember seeing the link, but reading that page now is quite unpleasant as it continually jumps around and doesn't stay still. It's rather maddening, actually, how much embedded video/advertisement/bells&whistles crap on some of these web pages gets in the way of properly taking in the content, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, I meant no aggressiveness in my comment, only to point out the logical extent of the assertion made; I have no agreement or disagreement about whether that is a sign of civilization or not, I am not an anthropologist.
As well, I did not percieve the viewpoint you mentioned as necessarily being your own or one that you accepted, only that it was one you had come across and thought interesting. Hence why I said "by that reasoning" rather than "by your reasoning".
I have an ad block on so I didn't notice any of that. Apologies for the bad formatting.
It remains a sentiment that makes me happy regardless of its anthropological accuracy. (And I really think "civilization" as a concept has far more problems with its definition than this)
Thanks for the clarity!
I agree that they seem pretty hostile but they're making a real point. Taking care of the disabled is not what makes a civilization a civilization, and could not have been the special human development that allowed us to form civilizations, since it is actually not behavior that characterizes humans or civilization in particular. It is, as those animal examples and OP's very post shows, behavior of a broader class of social animals, only one of which developed civilization (and did so long afterward). It's a comforting humanist idea that this type of empathy is what sets us apart, but it's not. You can't give humans credit for something we had nothing to do with. As always it depends on definitions, I suppose, but as they point out, this is only a defining characteristic of civilization if we define civilization to refer to the social behavior of a lot of creatures that categorically don't have civilization as we understand it.
I'm not sure whether they are making that point hence me asking them. And it's the same point the article I linked was addressing once I confirmed the quote is likely apocryphal and at least lacking attribution. They may in fact believe that those animals are also engaging in civilization. I can only know from their answer.
This is a lot of words for something I feel like doesn't actually respond to my question - which you likely cannot answer as you're not the previous poster - regarding me trying to figure out if they intended their post to read sarcastic/aggressively when I was fully aware of their point as I'd linked an article making the exact same points. I'm hopeful it wasn't intended sarcastically, so I could engage with them directly.
I corrected the record so I wasn't misquoting Margaret Mead, and linked an article that discussed the concept in more depth. I understand the topic fine. I still like the sentiment, even if I wouldn't put it on a wall with a plaque saying "absolute truth of anthropology" under it. I'm trying to figure out how I may have conveyed a lack of understanding or a desire for re-explanation on the overarching topic rather than on the previous poster's comment.
Oh, no, sorry, I wasn't re-explaining the topic, just the relationship between the previous poster's comment and your argument, since you expressed confusion about that. As a rule, when someone does a "by your logic" thing to you they're disagreeing. That's a common form of counterargument.
No I get that they seemed to be disagreeing but I had already literally linked the same point. Hence me being confused with what precisely they were disagreeing with. My best assumption is that they didn't intend the hostility but didn't read my full comment/the linked article.
If I'd not added the edit (within about 2 minutes of my OP) I'd have known exactly what they meant, though hoped that they were maybe not intending the aggression. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Idk.
In short I'm not sure why they were making the point at me, when I'd already made it. Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently with the link.
I recall an anecdote from (I'm almost certain it's this book I'm thinking of) A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, about paleolithic human remains being found with growths on their bones suggesting they were in an advanced stage of hypervitaminosis A and had been cared for long after they would have lost the ability to walk.