Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   New evidence reveals that the 1% existed even back in the Stone Age. At least according to Thog Romney   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, Stone Age, Neolithic, human skeleton, Iron Age, social inequality, Bronze Age, inequality, prehistory  
•       •       •

2783 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 May 2012 at 11:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-29 11:20:57 AM  
Even in the Stone Age there were 'haves' and 'have nots'

The idea of heirarchy and wealth concentration is only a new idea in prehistory to the daily farking MFail
 
2012-05-29 11:29:39 AM  
Well, duh.
The guy who could hit the hardest with his pointed stick gets to be the leader.
Don't like it? A faceful of pointed stick says "Too bad."
 
2012-05-29 11:49:39 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Well, duh.
The guy who could hit the hardest with his pointed stick gets to be the leader.
Don't like it? A faceful of pointed stick says "Too bad."


Can we go back to those rules? I'd like to be able to determine my next date on whether or not I can knock them unconscious with a blunt object.
 
2012-05-29 12:01:19 PM  
Wealth disparity has always been, and will always be.
 
2012-05-29 12:05:17 PM  
People are hierarchical animals no different than dogs for the most part. There's always a leader of a pack, and the rest of the pack will give up their resources when the leader says so.
 
2012-05-29 12:06:06 PM  

Cythraul: Rev. Skarekroe: Well, duh.
The guy who could hit the hardest with his pointed stick gets to be the leader.
Don't like it? A faceful of pointed stick says "Too bad."

Can we go back to those rules? I'd like to be able to determine my next date on whether or not I can knock them unconscious with a blunt object.


Wait, we are not allowed to do that now? My bad.
 
2012-05-29 12:07:19 PM  
...so vote republican?
 
2012-05-29 12:07:24 PM  
Of course, there will always be a top 1%... even if you kill them all, a new group will take over.
 
2012-05-29 12:07:52 PM  
How is jobb fromed?
 
2012-05-29 12:09:41 PM  
In the stone age it was the strongest and toughest, those most willing to do violence on their challengers that would lead.

Today they have rigged the system to where I cannot go and kill the banker that gambled away my life savings. Maybe we should go back to stone age rules, just for a month. Get some justice in the world.
 
2012-05-29 12:12:28 PM  
WE GET IT. HE'S NEANDERTHAL.
 
2012-05-29 12:14:40 PM  
That's strange, I was told that equality between all people was the norm throughout history until some Evil White Men™ invented slavery and capitalism.
 
2012-05-29 12:15:42 PM  
"I know a lot about what it was like to live in the Stone Age because I have a few friends who smelted iron and over ran the villages of those savages.
 
2012-05-29 01:05:47 PM  
I was hoping this would become a Far Side thread, so I'll just leave this here.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-29 01:09:36 PM  
In those days cavemen lived in fear of the vulture pterodactyl (Bainus Capitactylus) that would swoop in to a weakened group, feast on their flesh, and swoop out again when danger presented itself. Ancient tribes would try to sate the beast and keep it away with burnt offerings of tax dollars, but it never really worked.
 
2012-05-29 01:33:23 PM  
It's always enthralling to me when I come into a fark thread and see intelligent discussion occurring.
 
2012-05-29 01:36:36 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: The guy who could hit the hardest with his pointed stick gets to be the leader.


There were other options back then, like hunting and gathering on your own. It often meant accepting a lower standard of living, but even as late as the 19th century people were willing to say "fark it" and vanish into the wilderness rather than take orders. Back in the days of Thog, desertion was always the ultimate, final check on power. If Thog ever got too greedy or violent, people could just walk away and start over, leaving Thog to starve on his hill.

In a resource-constrained era it's not so simple. Our agriculture is so efficient that if everyone reverted to hunting for food instead, for example, we could very well wipe out all megafauna within a few years. If we didn't have managed waste disposal, well. . . remember what the Superdome was like after Katrina after only a few days. There are some isolated communities that withdraw from society, but even this is only partial, even cosmetic. The Amish still sell goods to the public, for example, and that means competing in the 21st century economy. There were always haves and have-nots, but the tools by which the latter could be subjugated were never so complete. A big bank can enslave an entire country on the other side of the world if it wanted to.
 
2012-05-29 01:37:07 PM  

hackhix: It's always enthralling to me when I come into a fark thread and see intelligent discussion occurring.


That's because you think in terms of absolutes, like sense and nonsense. That's caveman thinking.
 
2012-05-29 01:39:55 PM  

dragonchild: Back in the days of Thog, desertion was always the ultimate, final check on power. If Thog ever got too greedy or violent, people could just walk away and start over, leaving Thog to starve on his hill.


Yep. Back then, if the alpha male (or the 1%er) was a dick, the rest of his tribe deserted him and he ended up dead pretty quickly.
 
2012-05-29 02:04:53 PM  

MrBallou: hackhix: It's always enthralling to me when I come into a fark thread and see intelligent discussion occurring.

That's because you think in terms of absolutes, like sense and nonsense. That's caveman thinking.


how did you know?
 
2012-05-29 02:10:49 PM  

manimal2878: In the stone age it was the strongest and toughest, those most willing to do violence on their challengers that would lead.

Today they have rigged the system to where I cannot go and kill the banker that gambled away my life savings. Maybe we should go back to stone age rules, just for a month. Get some justice in the world.


What has changed exactly? The only reason you dont use violence is the threat of violence against your person. Today we may believe that we are more civilized than our violent past, but indeed, the violence is still there, just masked by the veneer of civilization.
 
2012-05-29 02:24:44 PM  
Brontosauruses are people, my friend.
 
2012-05-29 02:25:43 PM  
The only reason why society exists is to protect wealth.

Cave man has money shiny rocks. Cave man needs someone to farm for him so no one take money shiny rocks. Cave man pay man to farm for him. Tada.


The bias of this article is that it intentionally implies that at some point there was "fairness" but there isn't anymore. If "inequality" started at a specific place and time, then "equality" must have existed before it. Survival of the fittest dictates that there is no such thing as equality. Fairness is when the strong survive and the weak die.

All you Bible thumping equality nuts need to give way to science.
 
2012-05-29 02:31:32 PM  

dragonchild: In a resource-constrained era it's not so simple. Our agriculture is so efficient that if everyone reverted to hunting for food instead, for example, we could very well wipe out all megafauna within a few years. If we didn't have managed waste disposal, well. . . remember what the Superdome was like after Katrina after only a few days. There are some isolated communities that withdraw from society, but even this is only partial, even cosmetic. The Amish still sell goods to the public, for example, and that means competing in the 21st century economy. There were always haves and have-nots, but the tools by which the latter could be subjugated were never so complete. A big bank can enslave an entire country on the other side of the world if it wanted to.


The average person today is less intelligent than the average person was back then. Even animals know to poop in the corner. People who were too stupid to leave New Orleans aren't that bright.


No one ever actually did the "if you don't like it, leave" thing. Look at feudal society.
 
2012-05-29 02:45:58 PM  

threadjackistan: manimal2878: In the stone age it was the strongest and toughest, those most willing to do violence on their challengers that would lead.

Today they have rigged the system to where I cannot go and kill the banker that gambled away my life savings. Maybe we should go back to stone age rules, just for a month. Get some justice in the world.

What has changed exactly? The only reason you dont use violence is the threat of violence against your person. Today we may believe that we are more civilized than our violent past, but indeed, the violence is still there, just masked by the veneer of civilization.


The difference is that before if a cave dude crushed somebody that was it, sure somebody else could challenge him if he really deserved it, but if the bad cave dude really deserved the crushing nobody cared. Now, even if somebody deserves a good stomping, the law will prevent it or punish you regardless of what the tribe thinks.
 
2012-05-29 02:47:22 PM  

Bullseyed: No one ever actually did the "if you don't like it, leave" thing.


True, which is why there are no Irish or Italians in America.

/sarcasm.
 
2012-05-29 02:54:32 PM  

manimal2878: Bullseyed: No one ever actually did the "if you don't like it, leave" thing.

True, which is why there are no Irish or Italians in America.

/sarcasm.


Was King Potato the 1% of Ireland?
 
2012-05-29 03:09:02 PM  

Bullseyed: The average person today is less intelligent than the average person was back then.


Yeah, I must say there is zero evidence whatsoever that we're more intelligent today than when we had no language, no money, no technology, no government, no electricity and no plumbing. I mean, cavemen were the shiat.
 
2012-05-29 03:12:50 PM  
greenobles.com
 
2012-05-29 03:14:08 PM  

dragonchild: cavemen were the shiat.


But they couldn't defeat astronauts.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-29 03:17:51 PM  
WHAR is unfrozen caveman lawyer? WHAR?
 
2012-05-29 03:44:01 PM  
This is a great (and relevant) read on the subject:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-29 03:55:52 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-29 04:12:34 PM  

dragonchild: In a resource-constrained era it's not so simple. Our agriculture is so efficient that if everyone reverted to hunting for food instead, for example, we could very well wipe out all megafauna within a few years.


Not really.

What would happen is that the people who suck at it, and most people would because they have little or no experience, would mostly die off, because they would try stupid shiat like chasing deer around a fallow NYC in a sports car, shooting at it full auto in a futile attempt to hit *SOMETHING*.
 
2012-05-29 04:17:26 PM  

dittybopper: dragonchild: In a resource-constrained era it's not so simple. Our agriculture is so efficient that if everyone reverted to hunting for food instead, for example, we could very well wipe out all megafauna within a few years.

Not really.

What would happen is that the people who suck at it, and most people would because they have little or no experience, would mostly die off, because they would try stupid shiat like chasing deer around a fallow NYC in a sports car, shooting at it full auto in a futile attempt to hit *SOMETHING*.


I'd also point out that even among hunters, most would be stuck after their ammunition ran out. Unless, of course, they had the skillz to do this sort of stuff:

img79.imageshack.us

i50.tinypic.com

i56.tinypic.com

/If you look closely enough, you'll see the arrows are named "Larry", "Curly", and "Moe".
//If you have to kill something, there is no reason you've got to be all depressing and serious about it.
 
2012-05-29 04:46:34 PM  

manimal2878: threadjackistan: manimal2878: In the stone age it was the strongest and toughest, those most willing to do violence on their challengers that would lead.

Today they have rigged the system to where I cannot go and kill the banker that gambled away my life savings. Maybe we should go back to stone age rules, just for a month. Get some justice in the world.

What has changed exactly? The only reason you dont use violence is the threat of violence against your person. Today we may believe that we are more civilized than our violent past, but indeed, the violence is still there, just masked by the veneer of civilization.

The difference is that before if a cave dude crushed somebody that was it, sure somebody else could challenge him if he really deserved it, but if the bad cave dude really deserved the crushing nobody cared. Now, even if somebody deserves a good stomping, the law will prevent it or punish you regardless of what the tribe thinks.


You can challenge the law if you want to. The simple fact of life remains that who ever is the biggest and strongest and has the greatest ability to sway others to their own opinions does whatever they want.

Laws aren't magical, no law has ever prevented any person from doing anything. No law has ever punished a single person for any act ever. It is the fear of punishment and the desire for reward that motivates most people. Just look at the popularity of religion. A law is merely a ruling block's way of telling others what they will hurt them for doing. The first laws were stuff like Thag and his buddies standing on top of a hill saving "Any person who lets my fire go out while we are out hunting will be killed by us. Because I don't have to start one up again when I get back. Seriously, that shiat is annoying. Obey me or die," even if everyone already knew that Thag killed the last guy who didnt throw a log on his fire when he was out hunting. Laws are just the ruling blocs way of reminding people what is expected of them.

It's not that you cant go after the banker because some law tells you not to and the rest of society will punish you even if they think you did the right thing. It's because the banker's friends will come after you if you do. They may hide behind the law, but law itself isnt what comes for you.
 
2012-05-29 05:00:37 PM  

dittybopper: What would happen is that the people who suck at it, and most people would because they have little or no experience, would mostly die off, because they would try stupid shiat like chasing deer around a fallow NYC in a sports car, shooting at it full auto in a futile attempt to hit *SOMETHING*.


I don't want to get on your bad side, but the way you plug your hobby knowledge is as annoying as Walter in The Big Lebowski constantly bringing up Vietnam. This is about benefits of modern society (over independent subsistence) vs. the bullshiat of inevitably dealing with Thog & Thog, L.L.C. Don't dry-hump the tangent.

Bullseyed: No one ever actually did the "if you don't like it, leave" thing. Look at feudal society.


People did, but as society matured their numbers dwindled and this happened quite early. It's more apt to say by the Middle Ages, the benefit of living within society was so great that not even feudalism could fark it up, as even then people had access to things like clothing and shelter and metal tools while hermits lived in Stone Age conditions. My point is that in the days of Thog, going from Stone Age to Stone Age wasn't much of a transition. It's one thing to say feudalism sucks, which it does, but it goes to show even living in the Dark Ages was a helluva upgrade from the Stone Age even with feudalism factored in.

That's why the 1% get away with so much. For all talk of revolution from neo-Confederates to the Occupy movement, on some intuitive level people get that drinking cheap beer while watching reality TV is a lot cushier than raw survival. It's been that way for a long time, but I will disagree that just because self-interest can drive a consolidation of power doesn't mean we shouldn't try like all get out to avoid that.
 
2012-05-29 05:40:09 PM  
Whaddya know, the Daily Fail is interpreting a small selection of archaeological finds in Central Europe in a way that makes them historically and socially meaningful for all of Europe. Never would have expected such shoddy journalism from them.

Of course, the Cucuteni-Trypillians beg to differ with their conclusions. Inequality comes with the division of labor and specialization, not with agriculture.
 
2012-05-29 05:50:10 PM  

Bullseyed: The only reason why society exists is to protect wealth.

Cave man has money shiny rocks. Cave man needs someone to farm for him so no one take money shiny rocks. Cave man pay man to farm for him. Tada.


The bias of this article is that it intentionally implies that at some point there was "fairness" but there isn't anymore. If "inequality" started at a specific place and time, then "equality" must have existed before it. Survival of the fittest dictates that there is no such thing as equality. Fairness is when the strong survive and the weak die.

All you Bible thumping equality nuts need to give way to science.


Yeah, no. Evolution uses GROUPS, not individuals. Dumbass. What you've just demonstrated is "social darwinism", a flatly rejected idea, which rejects the communal altruism that evolution has, in our species and others, actually supported and promoted.
 
2012-05-29 06:33:59 PM  

dittybopper: WE GET IT. HE'S NEANDERTHAL.


WE GET IT. HE'S A KENYAN NEANDERTHAL.
 
2012-05-29 09:03:39 PM  
I don't want to get on your bad side, but the way you plug your hobby knowledge is as annoying as Walter in The Big Lebowski constantly bringing up Vietnam. This is about benefits of modern society (over independent subsistence) vs. the bullshiat of inevitably dealing with Thog & Thog, L.L.C. Don't dry-hump the tangent.

Meh. I just think that if some very remote disaster should befall civilization, it wouldn't necessarily cause a major crash in megafauna populations. Most of the people are too remote from nature both physically and mentally for them to exploit those resources effectively. There would be a drop, but eventually equilibrium would be achieved. Certain popular prey species, like deer, reproduce in quite a prolific manner.

As for dry humping the tangent, you secant be serious. That's a cardinal sine on Fark.
 
2012-05-29 09:39:57 PM  
When we were hunter-gatherers, following the migrating herds, there wasn't much point or desire to accumulate wealth, since you had to be able to carry your possessions with you from camp to camp. Social stratification pretty much started when we settled down and built permanent settlements. That's not surprising at all.
 
2012-05-30 12:15:59 AM  

threadjackistan: It's because the banker's friends will come after you if you do. They may hide behind the law, but law itself isnt what comes for you.


Right, every street cop is the bankers friend.
 
2012-05-30 12:20:16 AM  

threadjackistan: manimal2878: threadjackistan: manimal2878: In the stone age it was the strongest and toughest, those most willing to do violence on their challengers that would lead.

Today they have rigged the system to where I cannot go and kill the banker that gambled away my life savings. Maybe we should go back to stone age rules, just for a month. Get some justice in the world.

What has changed exactly? The only reason you dont use violence is the threat of violence against your person. Today we may believe that we are more civilized than our violent past, but indeed, the violence is still there, just masked by the veneer of civilization.

The difference is that before if a cave dude crushed somebody that was it, sure somebody else could challenge him if he really deserved it, but if the bad cave dude really deserved the crushing nobody cared. Now, even if somebody deserves a good stomping, the law will prevent it or punish you regardless of what the tribe thinks.

You can challenge the law if you want to. The simple fact of life remains that who ever is the biggest and strongest and has the greatest ability to sway others to their own opinions does whatever they want.

Laws aren't magical, no law has ever prevented any person from doing anything. No law has ever punished a single person for any act ever. It is the fear of punishment and the desire for reward that motivates most people. Just look at the popularity of religion. A law is merely a ruling block's way of telling others what they will hurt them for doing. The first laws were stuff like Thag and his buddies standing on top of a hill saving "Any person who lets my fire go out while we are out hunting will be killed by us. Because I don't have to start one up again when I get back. Seriously, that shiat is annoying. Obey me or die," even if everyone already knew that Thag killed the last guy who didnt throw a log on his fire when he was out hunting. Laws are just the ruling blocs way of reminding people what is ex ...


The law is a tool of the ruling class to prevent their heads from being crushed. That was my point. Before laws, you just crushed heads and went on with your day.
 
2012-05-30 02:00:00 AM  

Leopold Stotch: When we were hunter-gatherers, following the migrating herds, there wasn't much point or desire to accumulate wealth, since you had to be able to carry your possessions with you from camp to camp. Social stratification pretty much started when we settled down and built permanent settlements. That's not surprising at all.


People don't need tons of possessions to display social stratfication. It's not the stuff, it's the fact that Thog can boss around Mog and f*ck Mog's woman with impunity. More stuff and more technically advanced goods just give us better ways to keep score.
 
2012-05-30 02:34:53 AM  
Evolution:
Stone age: Occupy Long Houses
Plastic age: Occupy Tall Houses
 
2012-05-30 02:36:27 AM  

dragonchild: Rev. Skarekroe: The guy who could hit the hardest with his pointed stick gets to be the leader.

There were other options back then, like hunting and gathering on your own. It often meant accepting a lower standard of living, but even as late as the 19th century people were willing to say "fark it" and vanish into the wilderness rather than take orders. Back in the days of Thog, desertion was always the ultimate, final check on power. If Thog ever got too greedy or violent, people could just walk away and start over, leaving Thog to starve on his hill.

In a resource-constrained era it's not so simple. Our agriculture is so efficient that if everyone reverted to hunting for food instead, for example, we could very well wipe out all megafauna within a few years. If we didn't have managed waste disposal, well. . . remember what the Superdome was like after Katrina after only a few days. There are some isolated communities that withdraw from society, but even this is only partial, even cosmetic. The Amish still sell goods to the public, for example, and that means competing in the 21st century economy. There were always haves and have-nots, but the tools by which the latter could be subjugated were never so complete. A big bank can enslave an entire country on the other side of the world if it wanted to.


This.

Also, there must, by definition, be a 1%, but the percent of resources tied up just for them has fluctuated over the years. We live in a rental society even one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Why people let that go as inevitable when the roots of our nation lie in walking away from unwanted lords, I'll never understand.
 
Skr
2012-05-30 05:00:04 AM  
Huh I never thought of the stone age having a royalty analogue. I suppose the best hunters and medicine women were like the kings and Queens of the Stone Age.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report