|
|
#11
10-16-2006, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
Cliff's notes at bottom. In The Ancestor’s Tale, Richard Dawkins discusses a 40,000 year old cultural revolution that he calls the “Great Leap Forward,” after the fashion of Jared Diamond: [ QUOTE ] Archaeology suggests that something very special began to happen to our species around 40,000 years ago. Anatomically, our ancestors who lived before this watershed date were the same as those who came later. Humans sampled earlier than the watershed would be no more different from us than they were from their own contemporaries in other parts of the world, or indeed than we are from our contemporaries. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't expect Dawkins to be that politically correct. According to data not much publicized there are race differences in cranial capacity. Which race's brain size was he comparing to the 40000 year old samples when finding no difference? Also how does he know that there weren't any major mutations around that time that couldn't be seen anatomically but increased intelligence? Until those questions are answered I will have to go with the simplest explanation: If they seemed to be smarter then they were indeed. It is like the extension of nature vs nurture debate by the way and as we know most expert believe that their ratio is about 70:30.(at least that is what I think,heh) 
|
|
#12
10-16-2006, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
But even if it's correct, it's a huge step to to say 'the logical conclusion of this is an advocacy of AC'. The only logical conclusion is that whatever political system results should incorporate some recognition of property rights, which more or less all of them do. [/ QUOTE ] Well: no. Statism is fundamentally against/disrespects property rights. This includes minarchism. That's what makes a voluntary society (anarchocapitalism/market anarchy/no state) so special.
|
|
#13
10-16-2006, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
But even if it's correct, it's a huge step to to say 'the logical conclusion of this is an advocacy of AC'. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, definately. I just said that's where I think this argument is headed.
|
|
#14
10-16-2006, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
You need to get this article to outlets besides this forum.
|
|
#15
10-16-2006, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
You need to get this article to outlets besides this forum. [/ QUOTE ] See boro, I'm not the only one [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#16
10-16-2006, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But even if it's correct, it's a huge step to to say 'the logical conclusion of this is an advocacy of AC'. The only logical conclusion is that whatever political system results should incorporate some recognition of property rights, which more or less all of them do. [/ QUOTE ] Well: no. Statism is fundamentally against/disrespects property rights. This includes minarchism. That's what makes a voluntary society (anarchocapitalism/market anarchy/no state) so special. [/ QUOTE ] I'll keep this brief because it's getting off-topic and that's not fair on the OP. But statism, from socialism to minarchism, all require some degree of respect for property rights and put some value on those rights - it's identified as a necessary incentive almost accross the board. The disagreement is only as to how much importance we assign property rights and whether it's a more fundamental maxim than other ones that (possibly) compete - almost everyone agrees they have some amount of importance and should not be curtailed completely.
|
|
#17
10-16-2006, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
You need to get this article to outlets besides this forum. [/ QUOTE ] I've already delivered a copy of the third draft to a friend for possible collaboration on a publication. He's an economist; I need an evolutionary scientist.
|
|
#18
10-16-2006, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Cliff's notes at bottom. In The Ancestor’s Tale, Richard Dawkins discusses a 40,000 year old cultural revolution that he calls the “Great Leap Forward,” after the fashion of Jared Diamond: [ QUOTE ] Archaeology suggests that something very special began to happen to our species around 40,000 years ago. Anatomically, our ancestors who lived before this watershed date were the same as those who came later. Humans sampled earlier than the watershed would be no more different from us than they were from their own contemporaries in other parts of the world, or indeed than we are from our contemporaries. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I didn't expect Dawkins to be that politically correct. According to data not much publicized there are race differences in cranial capacity. Which race's brain size was he comparing to the 40000 year old samples when finding no difference? [/ QUOTE ] The point is that the human fossils of 40,000 BC fall within the range of modern variation. [ QUOTE ] Also how does he know that there weren't any major mutations around that time that couldn't be seen anatomically but increased intelligence? [/ QUOTE ] He doesn't. He didn't claim there weren't any such. He specificlally restricted his statments to anatomy. [ QUOTE ] Until those questions are answered I will have to go with the simplest explanation: If they seemed to be smarter then they were indeed. [/ QUOTE ] Except that isn't the simplest explanation. My explanation is the simpest, and by far. My theory essentially states that: A) We were demonstrably in the wolf-like state of disrepect of property claims in the absence of active defense in the distant past. B) We are not in this state now. C) Once this trait arises is it heavily selected for. D) The consequences of this are a phase change in human culture from stagnation to flourishment. E) This is exactly what is observed in the Great Leap Forward. This makes my theory clearly the simplest. Simply being "more intelligent" does not help. All of my arguments about the disincentives to produce complex capital and leisure goods, i.e. culture, are correct regardless of the intelligence of the actors (so long as they are rational). [ QUOTE ] It is like the extension of nature vs nurture debate by the way and as we know most expert believe that their ratio is about 70:30.(at least that is what I think,heh) [/ QUOTE ] Mmmm. Ok. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#19
10-17-2006, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
Great post and theory. I'd say the next step would be to make it testable by being falsifiable.
If you're intending to use it as a premise for AC, the only connection that comes immediately to mind is: While 'mine' is a thing, and 'yours' is a thing, 'ours' (us) is a non-thing. (I exist. You exist. Us [the foundation of all orgainization and goverment] is an abstraction.)
|
|
#20
10-17-2006, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Property: The Great Leap Forward (Very TL;DR)
When I first saw that Borodog had authored a post with "Property" and "The Great Leap Forward" in the subject...
...I thought I was going to read some good capitalist truth about how farm collectivization led to the worst famine in recorded human history! Haha. Took me a few lines into that quote to realize that wasn't quite what you were talking about. But I thoroughly enjoyed the post nonetheless. Get this published somewhere.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
