Hunter-Gatherer society, mushrooms, and private property

[Connor]

I regularly listen to the Joe Rogan podcast, and he often has guests on or talks about people who theorize that before agriculture began, humans lived in an -- or at least I feel it is portrayed that way -- orgiastic, psychedelic, utopian society whereby humans had so many sexual partners with members of their community that it was unclear who owned the child. The child, therefore, was raised by the community rather than by monogomous parents. Private property, thus, was held in lower regard and was likely not even a concept for these people. People such as Terence Mckenna and Christopher Ryan support these ideas.

Children would have ritualistic, coming of age ceremonies, whereby they were led through group psychedelic experiences, and this supposedly would supposedly have the effect of dismantling of arbitrary barriers in the human mind and would increase empathy: Johns Hopkins conducted a study whereby controlled psilocybin mushroom use resulted in positive long-term effects for the majority of participants.

The implementation of agriculture and private property, according to the theorists, caused humans to become disconnected from the natural world and caused humans to become fixated on material wealth solely, rather than on matters of the spirit (I suspect a healthy dose of Platonism shapes these beliefs).  I disagree, however, as I think Stefan's view that statism coupled with private property is what causes vast accumulations of wealth and materialism, I think this causes them to view capitalism as negative or evil.  Slavery as well as the subjugation of women and children along side a free market also doesn't help. 

Can anyone with better historical knowledge provide more information on these theories or help to put them in context?  I'm also wondering if the idea of raising children communally, as described above, could be beneficial for children.  Just as a parent is forced to act more rationally and respectfully towards their children in public situations, perhaps more open child-adult relationships among society would help to curb abuse and would allow for more intervention opportunities by rational and empathetic parents, as opposed to children essentially being prisoners to their biological parents.  I'm speaking with the assumption that this arrangement will be voluntary, not in the Marxian communal sense of state-run child rearing.

[DGB]

I think they need to provide some evidence of what they're saying.

[Jamie]

Sorry I got lazy with my links. I've been looking stuff up and reading for hours now.

There are some facts which could be used to suport most of the hypothosis. There seems to be evidence of widespread hallucinogen use in a prehistoric religiouse sense, and the size of male gonades shows a decent level of female promiscuity among humans.  If you hold to the idea that humans and chimps share common ancestery, than the idea that humans may have been even more promiscuious in their early development could definatly be considered. Even now, there are cultures that raise children comunaly instead of familialy, which looks more like neglect than love in practice (I don't have enough information at the moment to do an apropriate search for the information). Lastly, I have read and listend to many acounts of hallucinogenic drugs bringing on feelings of oneness and varying feelings and ideas which would run counter to the idea of ownership and property.

Given all that information, the theory may be correct, but the idea that this was somehow ideal for children sounds more like hippy propaganda than science. It would more likely be one more style of living hell than a tribal utopia.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/if-you-want-know-what-women-have-been-look-men-s-genital-0

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3136.html (the first site I found in a geneal serch. has lots of citations at the bottom)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3objRWDOE4                                                      

http://ancient-wisdom.co.uk/shamanism.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

 

 

[Carlos Morales]

 In addition to what Jamie stated, much of the information on this topic that they discuss on the Joe Rogan podcast - which I enjoy- comes from Terrence McKenna and his stoned ape theory. It's romantic, but the evidence for it is light and the evidence for his Novelty theory is non-existent. The feelings and ego-death from taking halucinogenic drugs have been positive in many peoples lives, but the theories that they arrive to in while in that state are hard to take seriously.

[Loonie]

I have found the ideas discussed in the recent anthropology book, Sex at Dawn to be quite well supported by empirical evidence.  In my personal life, I have known children raised in households that included additional adults who were intimates of the parents that the children could look to as family.  This made for a better environment for the children in having more adult role models to learn from and also demonstrated a peer-to-peer problem solving dynamic absent from most nuclear family structures.

[Jamie]

 

This made for a better environment for the children in having more adult role models to learn from and also demonstrated a peer-to-peer problem solving dynamic absent from most nuclear family structures.

 

I hadn't even considered the aditional exposure to adult problem solving and group decision making, Thank you for pointing this out! This does seem to make a healthy comunal living situation could be exceptionaly good for children. Unfortunatly, more primitive cultures often don't have a problem with disceplen which we would consider abuse in this day and age, so comunal child rearing probably wouldn't have stopped physical or verbal abuse from happening. This all depends though, as comunities that were more peaceful (i.e. had better parenting practices) would have most likely been killed and inslaved  by their war like neighbors.

[DoubtingThomas]

This is the kind of socialist drug-culture that makes Joe's show irritating to me. The biggest problem with these theories is that they're not "history," and will never be so. "History," begins with the written word. Everything before that is a part of "Pre-history," and in the realm of archeologists and anthropologists. Now, I do admit you can gain some worthwhile clues about the deeper human past through anthropology. That being said, it is a science chock full of more quackery and pesudo-sience than most religious organizations today.

I have little doubt that early humans may not have developed the concept of private property into anything like what we might recognize. I have very little doubt that early human societies were centered around ritualistic drug use, evidenced by their artifacts. The rest of it; however, would be incredibly tenuous inference from these sporradic points of empirical evidence. The point, quite clearly, isn't to understand ancience pre-historic culture, but rather to support the preconceptions of a drug addled liberal who wants to blame private property and agriculture for failures entirely brough on by the state he or she supports.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

People weren't in a psychedelic state, they were in a psychotic state. There were a lot of sexual partners but most of the sex wasn't consensual and suffice it to say, far too much of it was perpetrated against children. The notion of private property did exist but gift giving/sharing was (and still is among modern primitive cultures) commonplace, although not for the romantic reasons asserted. Primitives gift because they fear being punished by demons and gods, thus, the gifts they bestow on others are sacrificial. The "coming of age" parties are actually ceremonies wherein boys are brutally initiated into manhood and they include but are not limited to bloodletting from the genitals with the intent being to purge the young man of the "poison" he received from his mother's breast milk. And, the poison is often purged with the semen of adult men.

 

In short, there is nothing at all fun, utopian or romantic about primitive cultures. These fanciful stories are based on evidence but they're not based on science.

 

http://psychohistory.com/childhood/writech1.htm

[SaintElsewhere]

While those examples are powerful I don't believe they are universal among primitive people. There are only examples from one or two cultures, and one is Serbia immediately after a war. Don't get me wrong, I think the notion of the "noble savage" is ridiculous as well.

 

Psychedelics can be cool. A peer reviewed medical article was recently released demonstrating that psilocybin encourages neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons. There was some work done showing that LSD can help with creative problem-solving. It's your brain. Just try not to screw it up.

[TheRobin]

 

 

 A peer reviewed medical article was recently released demonstrating that psilocybin encourages neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons.

 

Could you give me the link to that study, if it was an online article, please? I'd be really curious to read that one

[Chisleu]

Finally someone else struggling with the effects of JR and TM.... Thank goodness.

"You should all smoke DMT and join my cult motherfucker."

That statement and the larger recording it is from plagued me for a while. 

 

I regularly listen to the Joe Rogan podcast, and he often has guests on or talks about people who theorize that before agriculture began, humans lived in an -- or at least I feel it is portrayed that way -- orgiastic, psychedelic, utopian society whereby humans had so many sexual partners with members of their community that it was unclear who owned the child. The child, therefore, was raised by the community rather than by monogomous parents. Private property, thus, was held in lower regard and was likely not even a concept for these people. People such as Terence Mckenna and Christopher Ryan support these ideas.

 

I love Joe Rogan. He has said some things I know to be false, and has advocated irresponsible use of certain chemicals by using scientifically unfounded claims, and passing off hypothesis as theory and worse still, some theory as fact. In spite of that, much of what he says is at the least interesting, and generally-speaking well researched. He is a friend of Alex Jones, however.

 

Children would have ritualistic, coming of age ceremonies, whereby they were led through group psychedelic experiences, and this supposedly would supposedly have the effect of dismantling of arbitrary barriers in the human mind and would increase empathy: Johns Hopkins conducted a study whereby controlled psilocybin mushroom use resulted in positive long-term effects for the majority of participants.

 

Yes. Other studies support this as well. Bill (douche) Marr called it an "asshole inhibitor". I fully agree. Ego is dangerous and the (very) occational bitchslap / ego death is not a bad idea for SOME people. There is CURRENTLY a study running to study it's use in hospice patients, which I think is a marvelous idea. Even if this is all there is, there is no reason to fear death. Even if the psychedelic experience is just a complex biochemical reaction, if it can help people to pass in peace and with hope for an "afterlife" of some sort, I think it's a great thing.

 

In studies, most people who take a dose of psilicibin in a good (controlled) environment report it as a positive experience with long lasting positive effects. Many have called it a religious experience, and some even said it was the most profound experience of their life.

Not scientifically investigating the substance because of rediculous laws is a tragedy.

 

The implementation of agriculture and private property, according to the theorists, caused humans to become disconnected from the natural world and caused humans to become fixated on material wealth solely, rather than on matters of the spirit (I suspect a healthy dose of Platonism shapes these beliefs).  I disagree, however, as I think Stefan's view that statism coupled with private property is what causes vast accumulations of wealth and materialism, I think this causes them to view capitalism as negative or evil.  Slavery as well as the subjugation of women and children along side a free market also doesn't help. 

 

I agree that technology has disconnected us from the natural world, but not with the assertion that private property rights is a problem. PPR evolves from self ownership in my opinion. It's a good.

 

Can anyone with better historical knowledge provide more information on these theories or help to put them in context?  I'm also wondering if the idea of raising children communally, as described above, could be beneficial for children.  Just as a parent is forced to act more rationally and respectfully towards their children in public situations, perhaps more open child-adult relationships among society would help to curb abuse and would allow for more intervention opportunities by rational and empathetic parents, as opposed to children essentially being prisoners to their biological parents.  I'm speaking with the assumption that this arrangement will be voluntary, not in the Marxian communal sense of state-run child rearing.

 

Unfortunately, I do not have anything to point you twards. I also don't agree in pure / social group child rearing. I think on the smallest of scales, most people use it. My lifestyle would be much different if I didn't have family support. I do agree that it could possibly provide benefits as stigmatism of child abuse spreads. Unfortunately, in bad environments it could be a terrible thing. Parental rights must trump the ideas of the herd. No one hits my child (to my knowledge.)

 

 

 In addition to what Jamie stated, much of the information on this topic that they discuss on the Joe Rogan podcast - which I enjoy- comes from Terrence McKenna and his stoned ape theory. It's romantic, but the evidence for it is light and the evidence for his Novelty theory is non-existent. The feelings and ego-death from taking halucinogenic drugs have been positive in many peoples lives, but the theories that they arrive to in while in that state are hard to take seriously.

 

Before Stoned Ape, there was mushroom spores as space traveling aliens. To say TM is a fringe anthropologist is putting it lightly. However it is an interesting if unprovable theory. What we do know is SOMETHING happened to make the human brain develop faster than is explainable by evolution as we know it. Yes, it is still possible that our brains doubled in size so quickly by some crazy mutation, and certainly humans with big brains are potentially much better at killing humans without such brainpower.

It is an absolutely interesting and at least, to the best of my knowledge, a workable theory.

 

This is the kind of socialist drug-culture that makes Joe's show irritating to me. The biggest problem with these theories is that they're not "history," and will never be so. "History," begins with the written word. Everything before that is a part of "Pre-history," and in the realm of archeologists and anthropologists. Now, I do admit you can gain some worthwhile clues about the deeper human past through anthropology. That being said, it is a science chock full of more quackery and pesudo-sience than most religious organizations today.

I have little doubt that early humans may not have developed the concept of private property into anything like what we might recognize. I have very little doubt that early human societies were centered around ritualistic drug use, evidenced by their artifacts. The rest of it; however, would be incredibly tenuous inference from these sporradic points of empirical evidence. The point, quite clearly, isn't to understand ancience pre-historic culture, but rather to support the preconceptions of a drug addled liberal who wants to blame private property and agriculture for failures entirely brough on by the state he or she supports.

 

I don't think anyone is pawning off prehistoric theory as "history". TM was an anthropologist (and certainly on the fringe.) I agree it is absolutely a "science" of the invention of ideas. We are learning (guessing) more and more as we dig and explore more. There is science behind it. We know from scientific study that the pre-human brain doubled in size in the (relatively) short period of 1 million years. This event is scientifically unprecedented. It hasn't happened to the best of our knowledge before, or since. I don't believe in the unexplainable, but it's unexplained. It's the basis of stoned ape theory, which seems to me to be an interesting and plausable theory. I believe the competing theory is the evolution of lay-man's calculous by some ancient prehuman figuring out how to throw things accurately. Just as fringe in my opinion. Look at the studies on mushroom use in present-day apes.

 

People weren't in a psychedelic state, they were in a psychotic state. There were a lot of sexual partners but most of the sex wasn't consensual and suffice it to say, far too much of it was perpetrated against children. The notion of private property did exist but gift giving/sharing was (and still is among modern primitive cultures) commonplace, although not for the romantic reasons asserted. Primitives gift because they fear being punished by demons and gods, thus, the gifts they bestow on others are sacrificial. The "coming of age" parties are actually ceremonies wherein boys are brutally initiated into manhood and they include but are not limited to bloodletting from the genitals with the intent being to purge the young man of the "poison" he received from his mother's breast milk. And, the poison is often purged with the semen of adult men.

In short, there is nothing at all fun, utopian or romantic about primitive cultures. These fanciful stories are based on evidence but they're not based on science.

http://psychohistory.com/childhood/writech1.htm

 

The theory and evidence suggests that psilicibin use reduces these tendencies. Communal existance still happens today in tiny tribes in South America, and Africa. On the smallest of scales (tiny tribes / families), it works. Certainly a psycho can upset the applecart, and I'm not advocating that lifestyle.

I doubt the Azteks were dosing halucinogens before ritualisticly sacrificing humans, but maybe so.

 

While those examples are powerful I don't believe they are universal among primitive people. There are only examples from one or two cultures, and one is Serbia immediately after a war. Don't get me wrong, I think the notion of the "noble savage" is ridiculous as well.

Psychedelics can be cool. A peer reviewed medical article was recently released demonstrating that psilocybin encourages neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons. There was some work done showing that LSD can help with creative problem-solving. It's your brain. Just try not to screw it up.

 

The idea of a "noble savage" is somewhat rediclous. However in modern apes, we have found that when they are given psychedelic doses of psilicibin, they group together, groom each other, and group hug. It's not evidence of anything, but it's interesting to me. prehistoric man was a human ape. Research the Stoned Ape theory. I found it to be quite interesting. 

I've not read that study. I'm very intersted to study that. Hopefully it was well done and not flake science.

 

 

 A peer reviewed medical article was recently released demonstrating that psilocybin encourages neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons.

 

Could you give me the link to that study, if it was an online article, please? I'd be really curious to read that one

 

I'm hunting it as well. If someone finds it please post it up.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I don't think anyone is pawning off prehistoric theory as "history". TM
was an anthropologist (and certainly on the fringe.) I agree it is
absolutely a "science" of the invention of ideas. We are learning
(guessing) more and more as we dig and explore more. There is science
behind it. We know from scientific study that the pre-human brain
doubled in size in the (relatively) short period of 1 million years.
This event is scientifically unprecedented. It hasn't happened to the
best of our knowledge before, or since. I don't believe in the
unexplainable, but it's unexplained. It's the basis of stoned ape
theory, which seems to me to be an interesting and plausable theory. I
believe the competing theory is the evolution of lay-man's calculous by
some ancient prehuman figuring out how to throw things accurately. Just
as fringe in my opinion. Look at the studies on mushroom use in
present-day apes.

 

 

 

I was almost certain the claim being made was exactly what you said it isn't. ie. That pre-historic theories are as good as history (something Joe is guilty of quite often in his drug talks), that by extension we missed a golden age of "chillin', takin' shrooms, and just relaxin' bro."

I'm sure there are a lot of interesting theories about the development of homo sapiens; however, not even stoned ape theory requires the socialist paradigm that was being introduced by Joe here. Frankly, I have no issue with him hyping drugs. His body, his audience's bodies, his and their choice. But, when he talks out of his ass about history, pre-history, economics, and sociology... I have to take umbrage.

[Chisleu]

 

I was almost certain the claim being made was exactly what you said it isn't. ie. That pre-historic theories are as good as history (something Joe is guilty of quite often in his drug talks), that by extension we missed a golden age of "chillin', takin' shrooms, and just relaxin' bro."

I'm sure there are a lot of interesting theories about the development of homo sapiens; however, not even stoned ape theory requires the socialist paradigm that was being introduced by Joe here. Frankly, I have no issue with him hyping drugs. His body, his audience's bodies, his and their choice. But, when he talks out of his ass about history, pre-history, economics, and sociology... I have to take umbrage.

 

He is certainly guilty of stating certain theories as fact (... especially concerning n-n-DMT.)

I have to take commedian /  face puncher rogan with appropriate scepticism. 

I do know that certain tribes had tribal child rearing, and that it can be beneficial. Certain tribes ate people and even "advanced" cultures were still executing children with the slightest birth defect...

 

Watch some nat geo. There are still tribes in Africa and at least 1 in South America that don't interact with the outside world and have a sort of communal spirit, although most have a leadership structure and are authoritarian in nature.

 

 

[SaintElsewhere]

 

 Here is a secondary source. USA today claims that the studys on positve mood change and depression have been peer-reviewed.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011-09-29/Magic-mushroom-drug-may-improve-personality-long-term-/50602264/1

 

It was hypothesized that the mood change was due to neurogenesis. This is the guy doing the study on that part of it and his claims seem to exceed the previous study.

 

 

Here's one of the studies on Neurogenesis and psychedelic drugs

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/2/401.full#SEC4

 

I've seen some footage of terminal patients taking psychedelics in controlled environments to combat depression and the fear of death as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chisleu]

 

  Here is a secondary source. USA today claims that the studys on positve mood change and depression have been peer-reviewed.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011-09-29/Magic-mushroom-drug-may-improve-personality-long-term-/50602264/1

 It was hypothesized that the mood change was due to neurogenesis.
This is the guy doing the study on that part of it and his claims seem
to exceed the previous study.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV3l1YIpdik

 Here's one of the studies on Neurogenesis and psychedelic drugs

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/2/401.full#SEC4

 I've seen some footage of terminal patients taking psychedelics in controlled environments to combat depression and the fear of death as well.

 

I will check those out now. Thank you so much. Ive been dealing with internet issues all afternoon (and really for 7 weeks) and I think they have finally fixed it!!

I'm very excited at the prospect of legitimate research on psychedelics. It's wrong that an entire class of drugs was banned outright (most as schedule I) even though legitimate studies were reporting huge benefits to many of them. Ibogain for alchohol dependance treatment, etc. Hopefully America will get it's head out of it's ass sooner than later. Sorry... don't mean to diverge too far from the topic at hand.

[TheRobin]

 

 Here's one of the studies on Neurogenesis and psychedelic drugs

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/2/401.full#SEC4

 

I'm not quite sure, what this study has to do with psychedelic drugs, maybe you posted the wrong link?
This study deals with psychotropic drugs (SSRI's, Lithium, and such) and opiates (cocaine, herione).

While I found this a very fascinating read (as it also has a lot of info on neureogenesis outside drug-use and seems to contradict some earlier notions of no neurgenesis happening in the adult brain at all) it has nothing to do with psychedelic drugs as far as I can see.

I really enjoyed the video you posted though (which seems to implicate an intersting correlation between Psylocibin and increased neurgenesis if done in the right concentration (and a decrease if done in the wrong conentration). Most fascinating part was, that it seems that the wrong amount seems to be in between the right amounts and not just a simple linear progression.

Thanks for the links though, I found them to be very interseting and fascinating

[DoubtingThomas]

 

He is certainly guilty of stating certain theories as fact (... especially concerning n-n-DMT.)

I have to take commedian /  face puncher rogan with appropriate scepticism. 

 

Making excuses for someone who expresses sincerity in their views is not skepticism. I know that Joe isn't a philosopher, but the least we can do is be honest about his predelections and call a spade a spade. If you still like to hear him talk, that's fine. Nobody is going to judge you here for enjoying a little light socialist banter.

 

I do know that certain tribes had tribal child rearing, and that it can be beneficial. Certain tribes ate people and even "advanced" cultures were still executing children with the slightest birth defect...

Watch some nat geo. There are still tribes in Africa and at least 1 in South America that don't interact with the outside world and have a sort of communal spirit, although most have a leadership structure and are authoritarian in nature.

 

Two very small parts of the puzzle that make up our ancient past. I'm sure a nat geo special would go out of it's way to elaborate on what they can glean from the limited information/artifacts at hand, but what we watch on the tele and what's our best scientific understanding of pre-historic culture are two diffirent things.

 

[Chisleu]

 

 

 Here's one of the studies on Neurogenesis and psychedelic drugs

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/2/401.full#SEC4

 

I'm not quite sure, what this study has to do with psychedelic drugs, maybe you posted the wrong link?
This study deals with psychotropic drugs (SSRI's, Lithium, and such) and opiates (cocaine, herione).

While I found this a very fascinating read (as it also has a lot of info on neureogenesis outside drug-use and seems to contradict some earlier notions of no neurgenesis happening in the adult brain at all) it has nothing to do with psychedelic drugs as far as I can see.

I really enjoyed the video you posted though (which seems to implicate an intersting correlation between Psylocibin and increased neurgenesis if done in the right concentration (and a decrease if done in the wrong conentration). Most fascinating part was, that it seems that the wrong amount seems to be in between the right amounts and not just a simple linear progression.

Thanks for the links though, I found them to be very interseting and fascinating

 

Psychedelics are psychotropics. Also I believe the majority of psychedelics are agonists for same receptors. (Psilocybin, 25I-NBOMe, n-n-DMT, etc)

n-n-DMT is one of the chemicals involved in dreaming. It's thought to be produced by your pineal gland and perhaps linked to the Near Death Experience / Death Experience (white light, tunnel, etc.) This is all hypothesis, but having done a fair bit of research on n-n-DMT I can tell you that without a doubt it is involved. It's certainly not the only chemical at work, but pure n-n-DMT gives an experience very close to the dreamstate.

This leads me to my next avenue of thought. Sleep deprivation. More specifically, REM deprivation.

http://sfprg.org/control_mastery/docs/Sampson1966.pdf

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071029-000003.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation

I hypothesize that sleep deprivation is DMT withdrawl. DMT is a natural and necesary neuroreceptor. If it is indeed linked with neurogenesis, and I'm not certain it is or even if it's an overall good thing (it could increase neurogenesis because the brain sees brain cells being destroyed (there are chemicals sent out called the "death signal" to let other stuff know it's time to die too! haha!!)) Can you tell I (love) certain (symbols. There is huge neurogenesis thought to be a result of ECT as well, which we know kills brain cells. There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that people should dose drugs to get smarter!

However we know for a fact that REM denial is dangerous. It changes behavior, and can lead to psychotic episodes!!! Otherwise sane people in REM denial studies have shown breaks with reality as a result of REM denial for only a few days. We don't know exactly what is going on (yet) but we do know that n-n-DMT plays a role. Good thing it's schedule I or people might smoke it on youtube (Adam vs The DMT) and have a few minutes of giggling and napping. OH THE WOES OF GIGGLING AND NAPPING!!! Surely it if was legal people would be smoking it driving Mac Trucks... but I digress.

The rats in the above study showed all sorts of behavioral changes including lazyness/lack of care, and poor instictual reactions. Humans showed various functions being reduced, confusion, and overeatting!! Sounds like REM denial drugs would be the perfect thing to give to humans to dumb them down and enslave them, but I'm no conspiricy theory buff.

 

 

He is certainly guilty of stating certain theories as fact (... especially concerning n-n-DMT.)

I have to take commedian /  face puncher rogan with appropriate scepticism. 

 

Making excuses for someone who expresses sincerity in their views is not skepticism. I know that Joe isn't a philosopher, but the least we can do is be honest about his predelections and call a spade a spade. If you still like to hear him talk, that's fine. Nobody is going to judge you here for enjoying a little light socialist banter.

 

I do know that certain tribes had tribal child rearing, and that it can be beneficial. Certain tribes ate people and even "advanced" cultures were still executing children with the slightest birth defect...

Watch some nat geo. There are still tribes in Africa and at least 1 in South America that don't interact with the outside world and have a sort of communal spirit, although most have a leadership structure and are authoritarian in nature.

 

Two very small parts of the puzzle that make up our ancient past. I'm sure a nat geo special would go out of it's way to elaborate on what they can glean from the limited information/artifacts at hand, but what we watch on the tele and what's our best scientific understanding of pre-historic culture are two diffirent things.

 

I'm confused. I have no predelection to socialism. I don't enjoy socialist banter. I did not hear the comments in question although I have heard him speak of it before, so unless we can get a direct quote, I don't know what to say about it.

"I'm sure a nat geo special would go out of it's way to elaborate on what they can glean from the limited information/artifacts at hand"

What are you talking about? I'm talking about tribes that exist today. Not fossil records and cave drawings. I'm talking about video I've seen that was presented as an accurate representation of modern day life for these indiginous tribes. Sure, perhaps it is doctored and massaged to present a message they desired, but so is "our best scientific understanding".

Myself, I try to take in as much information as possible, examine the posibilities (even somewhat remote ones,) and decide what I think probably happened given what I know at the time. It can change from time to time, and has done so, and will continue to do so.

However knowing that tribal child rearing IS the norm for some, and to a lesser extint, IS the norm for ME makes me very likely to believe that ancient tribes participated in the same practices. It makes sense for small groups of people to watch each other's backs (and kids.)

I'm not saying that children should be the property of society, and I (almost) KNOW FOR CERTAIN Joe Rogan wouldn't advocate that.

That being said, unless I get a quote, I guess I don't have anything more to say. Voluntarily working together and trusting and relying on people close to you is the opposite of socialism.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

"I'm sure a nat geo special would go out of it's way to elaborate on what they can glean from the limited information/artifacts at hand"

What are you talking about? I'm talking about tribes that exist today. Not fossil records and cave drawings. I'm talking about video I've seen that was presented as an accurate representation of modern day life for these indiginous tribes. Sure, perhaps it is doctored and massaged to present a message they desired, but so is "our best scientific understanding".

 

No, actually, we don't just watch a bunch of modern day tribes and claim to know about all of human pre-history. Tribal culture isn't uniform and none of today's tribal cultures are identical to prehistoric parallels. The contrast of modern tribal culture with archological data is what forms our best understanding of the past. That and hefty research and elaboration based on hundreds of random sites in a given region. There is no television network, not even national geographic, that would run the incredibly tedious and dry expositions one reads in a journal of anthropology.

 

 

 

However knowing that tribal child rearing IS the norm for some, and to a lesser extint, IS the norm for ME makes me very likely to believe that ancient tribes participated in the same practices. It makes sense for small groups of people to watch each other's backs (and kids.)

 

This is simply confirmation bias. You want to believe something about human prehistory, about our ultimate ancestory; however, what makes sense to us (as modern human beings) is not always what makes sense to the ancients. If you are serious about taking in the information, take it in. There are dozens of periodicals on anthropology (be prepared to filter everything through the lens of a liberal statist) full of data to help formulate a view of how tribal groups in diffirent areas treated their children. It varies from culture to culture. Some will validate your point of view, others won't.

 

I'm not saying that children should be the property of society, and I (almost) KNOW FOR CERTAIN Joe Rogan wouldn't advocate that.

That being said, unless I get a quote, I guess I don't have anything more to say. Voluntarily working together and trusting and relying on people close to you is the opposite of socialism.

 

My point was not to impicate you or Joe as socialits, but rather to disabuse you of the notion that he or national geographic has anything like a handle on how all or even most prehistoric human cultures were strucutred.

[Chisleu]

 

No, actually, we don't just watch a bunch of modern day tribes and claim to know about all of human pre-history. Tribal culture isn't uniform and none of today's tribal cultures are identical to prehistoric parallels. The contrast of modern tribal culture with archological data is what forms our best understanding of the past. That and hefty research and elaboration based on hundreds of random sites in a given region. There is no television network, not even national geographic, that would run the incredibly tedious and dry expositions one reads in a journal of anthropology.

 

I never said that we do! All I said is that it makes sense. What we "know" of prehistoric humanity would probably fit in a thin book. What we GUESS about prehistoric humanity fills shelves at local libraries around the world.

I never said, and I sincerely doubt Joe said that we "know" all the old tribes "did" this and that. If he did, it's just another reason to take what he says with a grain of salt. We know some ancient tribes had human sacrifice. It doesn't mean they all did. Nor does it imply that raping children was the most common passtime. It seems you are argueing against a claim that I don't make.

 

This is simply confirmation bias. You want to believe something about human prehistory, about our ultimate ancestory; however, what makes sense to us (as modern human beings) is not always what makes sense to the ancients. If you are serious about taking in the information, take it in. There are dozens of periodicals on anthropology (be prepared to filter everything through the lens of a liberal statist) full of data to help formulate a view of how tribal groups in diffirent areas treated their children. It varies from culture to culture. Some will validate your point of view, others won't.

 

No, it's absolutely not confirmation bias. I don't want to believe anything. I simply have ideas of what I think may have happened in some cases based on what I know about humanity to this point. I'm not looking for validation. I don't care what ancient tribes liked to mutalate their manchild's genitalia. I'm simply saying that society for lack of a better word has an interest in children being raised free of abuse. I'm not saying society gains some sort of right of force because of it's general desire not to see children raped, murdered and beaten. I'm just saying that in small and voluntary situations, children can benefit directly by more social childraising.

 

My point was not to impicate you or Joe as socialits, but rather to disabuse you of the notion that he or national geographic has anything like a handle on how all or even most prehistoric human cultures were strucutred.

 

Again, I was not talking about nat geo in relation to ancient society... it's my understanding that they exclusively cover what is happening around the world TODAY.

You are arguing against things I don't believe. Find someone who thinks nat geo knows fuck all about the lives of half apes and argue with him! hehe

<3 the discussion. Don't take me the wrong way.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I never said that we do! All I said is that it makes sense. What we "know" of prehistoric humanity would probably fit in a thin book. What we GUESS about prehistoric humanity fills shelves at local libraries around the world.

 

No, we don't guess. We elaborate on data from archology and extrapolate from anthropological studies (such as those you mentioned on modern tribes). It is a guess in the sense that we don't "know," with any huge amount of certainty, but not the same as calling heads or tails in the air.

 

 

I'm just saying that in small and voluntary situations, children can benefit directly by more social childraising.

 

Of course they are, but what does that have to do with nat geo and anthropology?

 

Again, I was not talking about nat geo in relation to ancient society... it's my understanding that they exclusively cover what is happening around the world TODAY.

You are arguing against things I don't believe. Find someone who thinks nat geo knows fuck all about the lives of half apes and argue with him! hehe

<3 the discussion. Don't take me the wrong way.

 

It seemed you were attempting to validate the information attributed to Joe in the OP (ie the socialist tribes are our ultimate history nonsense). Sorry if there was some misunderstanding.

[Chisleu]

 

No, we don't guess

 

Let's call a spade a spade...

 

 

Of course they are, but what does that have to do with nat geo and anthropology?

 

The sky is blue. That doesn't mean it was blue in 10k BC!!! It was probably red because it being blue now is irrelevent!

 

It seemed you were attempting to validate the information attributed to Joe in the OP (ie the socialist tribes are our ultimate history nonsense). Sorry if there was some misunderstanding.

 

I agree with a lot of what the OP said.

We have a lot of evidence to support the information in paragraph 1. If Stoned Ape was the case, it makes even more sense as mushrooms are a stimulent. Paragraph 2 has good information in it. It doesn't say EVERY society had rites of passage involving psychedelics, but we know many did/do. Paragraph 3 is undefendable. It may have some basis in reality, but it's not an argument I would support. 

 

"Can anyone with better historical knowledge provide more information on these theories or help to put them in context?"

This was the only question asked, and what I responded to.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Let's call a spade a spade...

 

I think in this situation the spade is a club. Card counting isn't the same as picking a card at random from a deck. Archeological and anthropological data aren't entirely worthless, they're just too often subject to the kind of elaboration that is unscientific.

 

 

The sky is blue. That doesn't mean it was blue in 10k BC!!! It was probably red because it being blue now is irrelevent!

 

If the color of the sky were demonstrably flexible to the extent that human culture is, you would have a point there.

 

I agree with a lot of what the OP said.

We have a lot of evidence to support the information in paragraph 1. If Stoned Ape was the case, it makes even more sense as mushrooms are a stimulent. Paragraph 2 has good information in it. It doesn't say EVERY society had rites of passage involving psychedelics, but we know many did/do. Paragraph 3 is undefendable. It may have some basis in reality, but it's not an argument I would support. 

 "Can anyone with better historical knowledge provide more information on these theories or help to put them in context?"

This was the only question asked, and what I responded to.

 

Present that evidence. I used to work in the fields of history and anthropology and I don't know anything about stoned ape theory. Secondly, I think we've established that a television definition of "what we know," about what "many," prehistoric societies did from nat geo is inconsistent with what a professional would elaborate on. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I know what you responded to. The point was to refute the idea that those mentions were anything like a strong empirical hypothesis.

[Chisleu]

 

I think in this situation the spade is a club. Card counting isn't the same as picking a card at random from a deck. Archeological and anthropological data aren't entirely worthless, they're just too often subject to the kind of elaboration that is unscientific.

 

Without getting further lost in metaphor, a guess, no matter how well educated, is just a guess. Some people like to call these guesses other words depending on the rigidity of the intellectual erection they have in the subject. They call them theories when they have little reason to doubt the evidence they have in favor or their guess.

It's still a guess. We have no way or proving it (yet) so it can not be a fact. We don't "know" much about the ancient civilizations and what we do learn (weekly it seems) often invalidates what we thought we "knew" a week before. Because of this vicious cycle of inaccuracy, how can we claim knowledge on the guesses?

 

If the color of the sky were demonstrably flexible to the extent that human culture is, you would have a point there.

 

You think it's not flexible? Been to china lately? The sea is always blue? Except when it's clear, or green, or, etc, etc...

 

Present that evidence. I used to work in the fields of history and anthropology and I don't know anything about stoned ape theory. Secondly, I think we've established that a television definition of "what we know," about what "many," prehistoric societies did from nat geo is inconsistent with what a professional would elaborate on. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I know what you responded to. The point was to refute the idea that those mentions were anything like a strong empirical hypothesis.

 

If I said I used to work in the field of automotive design and didn't know what a wankle was, one might take pause.

TM wasn't the only educated gentlemen who has written books on Stoned Ape, but I'll sum it up for you.

As Africa dried, ancient man came down from the now fruitless trees and had to hunt and gather for food. One stance is that the evolutionary leap where the human brain doubled in size in an unpresidentedly fast timeframe is that he started throwing spears. The idea being that the evolution of layman's calculus required to effectively do that caused the human brain to expand and develop so quickly. TM once noted that if this were the case, shouldn't Major League ball players be the pinical of human evolution? A joke, but none the less.

Stone Ape theory is that the rotting ground under the dieing canopy would have been ripe with Psylocibin-containing mushrooms, and that generations of humans consuming these gained brain size and brain power, perhaps as a result of the neurogenic effects that have been discussed here. There is a HUGE quantity of data on ancient use of psychedelics, from mushrooms, to high doses of oral marijuana, and more recently peyote, ayahuaska, and salvia divinorum. Interestingly, there was a pretty great book publish ~10 years ago on the links between mushroom fertility cults and ancient Judeism.

This is a greatly abreviated version of the "guess", but it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, especially when we study the effects of mushrooms on modern day apes. One could spend a dozen hours on youtube watching TM and other talks on the subject. TM had an amazing mind. His data-recall ability was incredibly honed. He could remember tons of stats from studies done decades before, the year, who worked on it, etc, etc, at any time.

I want to be clear about this point however. I do not advocate drug use. I merely advocate scientific study of all substances regardeless of DEA classification. We have ignored whole classes of substances because prudish christians felt the need to protect "society" from itself...

[Tyff]

There are many myths about humans living in hunter-gatherer societies that were "utopic." I'm reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" currently and he informs that 90 percent of hunter-gatherer societies are known to engage in warfare, and 64 percent wage war atleast once every two years. (The 90% could even be an underestimate because anthropologists often cannot study a tribe long enough to measure outbreaks that occur every decade or so).[1]

It *is* true that Paleolithic humans were physically healthier than
Neolithic humans, based on their larger pelvic inlet and taller stature.[2] But, I've never read evidence that Paleolithic humans lived in "orgiastic utopias" so that premise would have to be verified before Joe Rogan could move forward in his position.

Personally, I'm convinced that children thrive most when raised by non-violent, reasonable, logical parents and not a commune of several intersecting ideologies confusing their vulnerable developing brains.

[1] Ember, 1978. See also Ghiglieri, 1999; Keeley, 1996; Knauft, 1987; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996

[2] http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml