joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 Here's your claim: On 10/14/2020 at 8:30 AM, molbol2000 said: I think the difference between a woman and a man is destroyed in about 1000 years. For example, in order to engage in agriculture, military qualities are not needed, this is reflected in evolution. Large-scale military activity came about because of agriculture, not in spite of it. Hunter-gatherer societies are involved in periodic squabbles, rather than military power build-up. In hunter-gatherer societies, the same bow and arrow, slingshot, etc. that are used for hunting are put to alternative use in those squabbles. Agricultural societies, on the contrary, nurture specialists: artisans, peasants, blacksmiths and potters, textile workers and administrators. Your premises are plain wrong. The famous fyrd that Harold Godwinson mobilised against Hardrada and William the Conqueror were peasants.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, joigus said: Large-scale military activity came about because of agriculture, not in spite of it. Hunter-gatherer societies are involved in periodic squabbles, rather than military power build-up. In hunter-gatherer societies, the same bow and arrow, slingshot, etc. that are used for hunting are put to alternative use in those squabbles. Agricultural societies, on the contrary, nurture specialists: artisans, peasants, blacksmiths and potters, textile workers and administrators. Your premises are plain wrong. The famous fyrd that Harold Godwinson mobilised against Hardrada and William the Conqueror were peasants. I have simplified somewhat, by the military culture I mean the professional armies, which in ancient times were mainly Eastern and Scythian cavalry and charioteers. This type of agrarian army, when they simply assembled a line of colonus or slaves and drove them in line, does not require masculine qualities. By the way, bows were mainly used by the Aryans and Persians, farmers (Macedonians, Rome etc) almost never used them.
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: which in ancient times were mainly Eastern and Scythian cavalry and charioteers. No. It is a universal phenomenon: Hittites, Egyptians, the Mitanni, the Hycsos... Quite simply: agriculture implies warfare on a grand scale. Study some ancient history. 4 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: By the way, bows were mainly used by the Aryans and Persians, farmers (Macedonians, Rome etc) almost never used them. Bows and arrows I mentioned in connection with hunter-gatherer societies. They sometimes are present in agricultural military societies, sometimes not. Moot point. The Luwians, the Spartans,... it goes on and on. The Spartans are an interesting case: They managed to enslave a whole population to do the agricultural job, while they indulged in their militaristic activity. Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) Btw high technologies also always arise in the professional military cultures. That's ferrum, smelting steel, chariots, bows, flamethrowers (Median fire), and even the latest great discoveries such as the computer, nuclear decay and space originated in melitarized Germany 11 minutes ago, joigus said: No. It is a universal phenomenon: Hittites, Egyptians, the Mitanni, the Hycsos... Mittani and hicsos were schifians there is no doubt. There are all properties. Egiptians before Hycsos didn't have it Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: Egiptians before Hycsos din't have it That's very well known. The Tuthmose pharaohs brought it to Egypt. The Romans also copied Carthaginian ships. So what? What's the point? The point is military build up (resting on both professionals and part-time soldiers) seems to be a requirement of agricultural societies. Agriculture brings large-scale war and preparation for war for obvious reasons. Although this is lateral to your reasoning, it's one of your premises. That's why I'm dwelling on it.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, joigus said: Bows and arrows I mentioned in connection with hunter-gatherer societies. I don't think that it's true. As far as I know, rock carvings of ancient archers are found in Andronovo. That's was the Scythians. There is a version that they were originally used for the production of fire Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 Just now, molbol2000 said: I don't think that it's true. As far as I know, rock carvings of ancient archers are found in Andronovo. Of course they're found in Andronovo. They're found in the Sahara too. And they made their way to America through the Bering Strait. It's one of the oldest techniques that comes from hunting and has been used on and off in warfare. You don't think it's true that I mentioned bows and arrows in connection with hunter-gatherer societies? I did. I know what I've mentioned, and in connection to what.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, joigus said: Agriculture brings large-scale war and preparation for war for obvious reasons. We talks in context of man's warior's properties. Agricultures mainly used mass infantry, this type of the military relied on the quantity and not the quality of the soldiers Edited October 17, 2020 by molbol2000
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) By the way, all the Bactria-Margiana area is full with evidence that these societies were agricultural, and also were very military-minded. They had to move because their rivers changed their courses. And conquered new land, south-east of Andronovo. According to Viktor Sarianidi. Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, joigus said: Of course they're found in Andronovo. They're found in the Sahara too. And they made their way to America through the Bering Strait. It's one of the oldest techniques that comes from hunting and has been used on and off in warfare. In any case, we can say for sure that they found mass use only in the Scythian-Aryan armies, Rome did not use them until its end 3 minutes ago, joigus said: By the way, all the Bactria-Margiana area is full with evidence that these societies were agricultural, and also were very military-minded. They had to move because their rivers changed their courses. And conquered new land, south-east of Andronovo. These cultures are basically horse-steppe. The fact that agriculture was used there does not mean that they were agrarian. Agrarian cultures imply massive involvement of slaves in agriculture
dimreepr Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, joigus said: The point is military build up (resting on both professionals and part-time soldiers) seems to be a requirement of agricultural societies. Agriculture brings large-scale war and preparation for war for obvious reasons. Isn't it a requirement for any society? The only difference is the size of the territory and the importance of keeping it. I agree that agriculture scales it up, but that's only because agricultural scales up societies...
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) Well, nomads are a bit of an exception. They are more pastoralists than agriculturalists. But they depend on agricultural societies to obtain the grain. Or move for pastures new, which leads to waging war again, when there are pastoralist agricultural societies claiming the land. Whether these and other similar societies used the bow and arrow is secondary. Agriculture brings conflict on account of claiming the land for yourself, and thereby war, which was the point. 23 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I agree that agriculture scales it up, but that's only because agricultural scales up societies... Yes. Agriculture is known to result in larger families. That's part of the equation. So we don't have 10,000 years of less war. It's just the opposite. Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus 1
dimreepr Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, joigus said: Yes. Agriculture is known to result in larger families. That's part of the equation. I'm going to have to read this thread more carefully.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, joigus said: Well, nomads are a bit of an exception. They are more pastoralists than agriculturalists. But they depend on agricultural societies to obtain the grain. Or move for pastures new, which leads to waging war again, when there are pastoralist societies claiming the land. Whether these and other similar societies used the bow and arrow is secondary. Agriculture brings conflict on account of claiming the land for yourself, and thereby war, which was the point. By the way, this is a very interesting question, and a very important one. Wars in the past era went just for the land, moreover, the most fertile steppe land with good conditions for irrigation(river valleys, such as the Vedic Seven Rivers) was the nomad's lands
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 It's a snowball phenomenon. And well known. And all evidence contrary to OP's premise. This is a very interesting conversation, but it's spilling over into wider aspects of anthropology.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 by the way, on the topic, there is an opinion that in ancient (pre-Indo-European) Europe there was matriarchy 1
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: by the way, on the topic, there is an opinion that in ancient (pre-Indo-European) Europe there was matriarchy Probably. And probably comes from a very ancient obsession with fertility. Hunter-gatherer societies were thin on the ground. And they needed manpower as any other. In northern Spain there is a Solutrean cave in which lots of vulvas are depicted. And fertility statuettes all across Europe. I don't think the motivation for that was ancient pornography. Edited October 17, 2020 by joigus 1
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 4 hours ago, joigus said: Many genetic conditions can affect your muscle composition. Okay, that's what I said, that speed and strength are genetically determined. What's next?
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 28 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: Okay, that's what I said, that speed and strength are genetically determined. What's next? You've read a tad too much into what I've said. Some conditions are necessary. Other conditions are sufficient. Still other are necessary and sufficient (those are the terms in which you seem to be thinking.) A further category is when conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient: They are statistically correlating conditions. You say genetics determines what you are. I say genetics is affects what you are. See the difference?
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 Just now, joigus said: You've read a tad too much into what I've said. Some conditions are necessary. Other conditions are sufficient. Still other are necessary and sufficient (those are the terms in which you seem to be thinking.) A further category is when conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient: They are statistically correlating conditions. You say genetics determines what you are. I say genetics is affects what you are. See the difference? A person with few glycolytic fibers will never be a good sprinter or weightlifter. Is it named " genetics is affects what you are"? 8 minutes ago, joigus said: You say genetics determines what you are. BTW I did not say it, but some propertyes determinated by genetics. There are many things that not determinated and can be achieved in different ways
VenusPrincess Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 1:27 AM, jfoldbar said: so what if we lived in a world where that was reversed. if the men were "seen but not heard" and woman where in charge and calling all the shots, what would be different. How could this happen though? Women evolved under the constraint of having to successfully gestate children. It doesn't matter how smart you are, and it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you are a woman and you do not successfully gestate children you cannot pass on your genes. Combine that with men's ability to produce many offspring and you have two distinct selection processes for men and women; one which filters out women who have traits that jeopardize their likelihood of successfully gestating children and another that favors high variance strategies that allow men to impregnate many women. Keep in mind that the development of certain brain structures could be expensive calorically. It doesn't make sense for a woman to develop a brain that consumes 1500 calories a day since that would just drain her fat storage without much benefit, but it might make sense for a man who is a traveling merchant to do so since his work requires intense cognitive function (arithmetical ability, social and verbal wit, high working memory). 1
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 12 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: A person with few glycolytic fibers will never be a good sprinter or weightlifter. Is it named " genetics is affects what you are"? Exactly. A person with few glicolytic fibers, a person whose body cannot synthesize myoglobin properly, etc. But also a person who doesn't exercise properly. Quote What determines the proportion of fast- and slow-twitch fibers in your skeletal muscles? The most important factor is genetic heritage, so there is some truth to the statement that champions are born, not made. To a certain extent, you can alter the properties of your muscle fibers through training. But a person born with a high proportion of fast-twitch fibers will never become a champion marathon runner, and one born with a high proportion of slow-twitch fibers will never become a champion sprinter. Life, The Science of Biology (Seventh edition), chapter 47, p. 912. -Purves, Sadava, Orians, Heller The women that you're showing in the video --I haven't watched it either-- both are genetically conditioned to be that way, and have exercised to be that way. So it's a combination of both factors. Having a certain genetic make-up favours you being more muscular, but it doesn't determine it.
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, joigus said: The women that you're showing in the video --I haven't watched it either-- both are genetically conditioned to be that way, and have exercised to be that way. So it's a combination of both factors. Having a certain genetic make-up favours you being more muscular, but it doesn't determine it. I do not understand what we are talking about. There are naturally athletes who do not exercise at all, but look athletic, and have strength, there are those who exercise but have no result, or it is insignificant
joigus Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, molbol2000 said: I do not understand what we are talking about. There are naturally athletes who do not exercise at all, but look athletic, and have strength, there are those who exercise but have no result, or it is insignificant This is known to be false. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/64249main_ffs_factsheets_hbp_atrophy.pdf https://aging.ufl.edu/files/2011/01/deconditioning_campbell.pdf
molbol2000 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, joigus said: This is known to be false. here we are not talking about elementary physical activity it even happens that a person builds up strength, but his muscles do not grow
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now