Riane Eisler, in her books "The Chalice and the Blade" and "Sacred
Pleasure", which report and interpret up-to-date interpretations of
palaolithic archeology, shows that violence and domination are far from
being natural human traits.
On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original
foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural
surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of
fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This
contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural
surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war.
These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine
power to take it.
There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a
gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes
of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated
with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and
ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while
taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent
of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian
invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of
conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an
historical blip of a mere 5,000 years.
At 03:44 AM 08/08/98 +0200, Tor Forde wrote:
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> It does make a big difference. But an observer from outer space would
>> classify humans as the Third Chimpanzee (see Diamond's book of the same
>> name). The most important difference between us and chimps is our innate
>> technology: big brains, thumbs, and voice.
>>
>> The ONLY scientific explanation for human behavior comes from the
>> evolutionary psychologists. Evolutionary psychologists are
>> reverse-engineers -- they observe behavior and then try to understand how
>> that behavior led to survival.
>>
>> If we reject their findings because we believe that humans transcend
nature,
>> then we are left with "unexplainable behavior". If we continue to deny our
>> animal nature -- if we embrace superstition and ignorance -- then we
condemn
>> our grandchildren to certain death.
>>
>
>
>I have read the book "The third chimpanzee" by Diamond. It was a nice
>book. What he writes is that some 7 or 8 million years ago the big rift
>valley in Africa began to evolve, and at that time, and because of that,
>our forefathers and the forefathers of the chimpanzees split.
>
>But humans are a new, may be not more than 100.000 years old, less than
>200.000 years. Our forefathers and foremothers living 100.000 years ago
>were very few, maybe only a few families. They were living a simple and
>difficult life at that time. But 50.000 years ago things had changed
>very much. Humans had a rich culture. They had become very clever
>hunters able to catch all kinds of game. They could make ropes and
>nets.
>They developed art as the cave paintings tell us. And from skeletons
>and bones from humans living at that time it is possible to see that
>they were never starving or suffering from malnutrition or sickness.
>But about 10.000 years ago a catastrophe happened: agriculture was
>developed. And from then on began humans to suffer from malnutrition,
>starvation and suppression.
>
>What happened between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago that made the lives
>of humans so much richer? Diamond thinks the in those years language was
>developed, and language made it possible to accumulate skills and
>knowledge in a large scale, and to cooperate.
>
>Diamond says that there once was a garden of Eden, but he does not say
>that we are born sinners in any way, unlike what Jay Hanson says.
>
>On another list I read that in Nature 11 june 1998 page 573-577 there
>is an article by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund that shows that deception
>strategies are doomed to failure for small and middle sized groups.
>
>And this should actually be obvious: you cannot fool people you are
>together with all the time, and you do not want to do it either.
>
>I think that book by Diamond was rather promising: Most of the time
>until the last 10.000 years humans were living a good life, and
>The only persons I have met who believe in an "original sin", that we
>are born sinners are old-fashioned christians, and Jay Hanson.
>In Norway that "inherited sin" is a joke.
>
>The notion about the orginal sin has been used to explain why people
>should be ruled by others, and why there should be no freedom.
>I don't like it, and it is very different from Diamond's book, which is
>an optimistic book.
>
>
>
>
>--
>All the best
>Tor Førde
>
