Page 1 of 2
#1
Do you think the first humans were as hateful and war-mongering as we are today, or was there a time when humans were sensible enough to realize that we're all in this together?


inb4 they were sensible enough to use the search bar
#2
of course they were(though not hateful per se, but definitely aggressive), the first humans had to compete for food, and dominance, the same as we do now

it's nature

of course I'd disagree that humans are a predominantly hateful species anyway, i think your opinion of human nature has been conditioned by negative media and politics, they have used fear to make the condition so bad it's become bad to say hello to a stranger (or to interact whatsoever for the most part). The human species is for the most part happy and well meaning.
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#3
Quote by guitarnoobie
Do you think the first humans were as hateful and war-mongering as we are today, or was there a time when humans were sensible enough to realize that we're all in this together?


inb4 they were sensible enough to use the search bar


How would a less intelligent, less complex and less evolved species even think "that we're all in this together?".

Of course they were 'hateful' and 'war-mongering'. It was survival of the fittest.
#4
The first humans didn't exist in any numbers larger than small groups or tribes, so they couldn't have been war mongering. But they certainly fought other groups. Mostly they just hunted mastodon.


I doubt you'll believe this, but the current human population, as a whole, is much more peaceful than in past eras.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."-Duke
#6
Quote by guitarnoobie
When I say hateful and war-mongering I mean against each other, kind of like how we are now.



And how is that?


Have you ever heard of Thomas Hobbes' theories on "The State of Nature"? Basically prior to civilization, human existance was endlessly violent and cruel because we didn't have any social contracts obligating us to behave, our only requirement was to take care of ourselves.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."-Duke
#7
The only reason humans are depicted as "hateful" and "warmongering" is because the people that fit that description are highlighted more than the majority that don't fit that description.
Quote by GodofGuitar1991
you are a real guitarist when you are not ashamed about masturbating to musicians friend magazine.
#10
Quote by guitarnoobie
I believe society's constraints are what hold us back, actually.



How do you figure that?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."-Duke
#11
Quote by guitarnoobie
I believe society's constraints are what hold us back, actually.


from what? anarchy?

from shit hitting the proverbial fan?
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#12
^ Hai.

The answer depends on whether the threadstarter believes in evolution or creationism.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#13
Quote by darkstar2466
^ Hai.

The answer depends on whether the threadstarter believes in evolution or creationism.

^ Hey


please let it be the first one....
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#14
As I understand it, early humans rarely fought with other groups. Often groups assimilated rather than fought. This was because there was no real competition for resources, one group's existence did not materially effect the other's and it was in each other's interest to pool resources. Warfare and fighting was a by-product of resources growing increasingly scarce.
Quote by soulflyV
How would a less intelligent, less complex and less evolved species even think "that we're all in this together?".

It's a common misconception that early humans were less 'intelligent' and less complex than modern humans. There is essentially no physical difference. I have heard early humans (we're talking ~50,000BCE) described as having the hardware (i.e. the intellectual capacity) but not the software (i.e. technology) of modern humans.
Quote by soulflyV
Of course they were 'hateful' and 'war-mongering'. It was survival of the fittest.
It was the survival of the fittest against nature generally, not each other.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Sep 22, 2008,
#15
Quote by Carswell98
of course they were(though not hateful per se, but definitely aggressive)
that's not how you use per se

and i think early humans would've been about as hateful and war-mongering as a troop of chimps or a.. pack of wolves.... that is, not nearly to the degree we are today, with our "civilization" (read: countries, borders, alliances, wars, all that)
#16
i'm told the first humans were much more laid-back than we are.
they spent their time naming animals, talking to snakes, eating apples, and shagging.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#17
Quote by Kiwi Ace

It was the survival of the fittest against nature generally, not each other.


Of course, there were never any conflicts over territory, or for the local resources back then.

Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#18
Quote by civildp1
How do you figure that?


We go to school, get a job, retire and die. We are forced to sign this social contract as soon as we leave the womb. We are not given an alternative. We told to live this way by rich white men who keep a section of the population poor and stupid to use them as cannon fodder. We send these poor and ignorant young men to foreign lands to kill little brown people.

I don't know if you are familiar with Bill Hicks or not but he believed we could get rid of all our enemies by taking the trillions of dollars we spend on weapons and defense each year and spend it on feeding, clothing, sheltering and educating the poor of the world. Which it would do many times over not one human excluded.

EDIT: I believe in evolution by the way.
#19
Quote by guitarnoobie
We go to school, get a job, retire and die. We are forced to sign this social contract as soon as we leave the womb. We are not given an alternative. We told to live this way by rich white men who keep a section of the population poor and stupid to use them as cannon fodder. We send these poor and ignorant young men to foreign lands to kill little brown people.

I don't know if you are familiar with Bill Hicks or not but he believed we could get rid of all our enemies by taking the trillions of dollars we spend on weapons and defense each year and spend it on feeding, clothing, sheltering and educating the poor of the world. Which it would do many times over not one human excluded.

EDIT: I believe in evolution by the way.


Bullshit, people choose how they want to live. Want money? Get a job. Don't care for money? Don't get a job. It's be great if everyone could get through life doing whatever the hell they wanted, but that's not how a society functions.

And you realise that a lot of the recent "terrorism" attacks and conflict aren't primarily based on a lack of food and clothing, but on a hatred of the western way of life through a twisted religious indoctrination?
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#20
I'm pretty sure if Ug saw Ork going after a mammoth that he'd just killed, poor old Ug would not think "ah, we're all in this together."

On the contrary, Ug would be ranting incomprehensibly and swinging his club at Ork, in a hateful and war-mongering fashion.
#21
Quote by metacarpi
Bullshit, people choose how they want to live. Want money? Get a job. Don't care for money? Don't get a job. It's be great if everyone could get through life doing whatever the hell they wanted, but that's not how a society functions.

And you realise that a lot of the recent "terrorism" attacks and conflict aren't primarily based on a lack of food and clothing, but on a hatred of the western way of life through a twisted religious indoctrination?


Food and water are essential. Yet they are dangled above our heads, forcing us to give in to society's box of limitations. I understand that much of terrorism stems from Religious indoctrination. But a well-educated man with a roof over his head and a shirt on his back would not fall for such indoctrinations.
#22
Quote by metacarpi
Of course, there were never any conflicts over territory, or for the local resources back then.

were there?

and if so, were they on the scale of any of the major fuck-abouts from this past century?
#23
Quote by blackflag49
were there?

and if so, were they on the scale of any of the major fuck-abouts from this past century?


If you compare like for like then yes, they will have been. Back then, destroying a little village would have been akin to wiping out a city these days.

Quote by guitarnoobie
Food and water are essential. Yet they are dangled above our heads, forcing us to give in to society's box of limitations. I understand that much of terrorism stems from Religious indoctrination. But a well-educated man with a roof over his head and a shirt on his back would not fall for such indoctrinations.


Not true, as it stems from playing their religious beliefs, and that has little basis on an individuals "intelligence"
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#24
Quote by civildp1
And how is that?


Have you ever heard of Thomas Hobbes' theories on "The State of Nature"? Basically prior to civilization, human existance was endlessly violent and cruel because we didn't have any social contracts obligating us to behave, our only requirement was to take care of ourselves.



Have you ever heard the phrase "Hobbes was an idiot"? The man seriously must have been brutally beaten as a child or something, 'cause the dude wasn't right in the head, he was convinced that the state of nature was some constant bloodbath, and anthropologists have already pretty much completely proven him wrong. Plus I'm not so sure you really know what you're talking about, because if you're going to bring the "State of Nature" philosophy in without even mentioning John Locke, you're either extremely biased or ignorant to the other half of the argument.

Anyway, I'd say that there have been times throughout human history where there was peace, social inequality didn't even start becoming an issue until man became agricultural, and the lack of overall population and inter-tribal communication probably made violence a lot less likely.
When you were born, you cried, and the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a manner that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.
Kabir
#25
Quote by metacarpi
If you compare like for like then yes, they will have been. Back then, destroying a little village would have been akin to wiping out a city these days.
the correct answer was "no"

no quarrels over hunting grounds or watering holes can compare to the sheer carnage of the 20th century
or what's already happening in the 21st. the idea that civilization has made us more peaceful holds as much water as sieve
Quote by metacarpi
Not true, as it stems from playing their religious beliefs, and that has little basis on an individuals "intelligence"
also wrong...

think i'm seeing a pattern here
#26
Laws of nature. The primary instinct is to survive. When thats taken care of, it just generally becomes a competition to see who has the biggest dick.
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#28
Quote by metacarpi
Of course, there were never any conflicts over territory, or for the local resources back then.


Considering people were largely nomadic I doubt there were many conflicts over territory or local resources.
Quote by metacarpi
If you compare like for like then yes, they will have been. Back then, destroying a little village would have been akin to wiping out a city these days.

Villages and permanent settlement are very modern in the context of human history.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Sep 22, 2008,
#29
Wow, how stupid are you?

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#30
Quote by Xiaoxi
Wow, how stupid are you?


Thank you for your valuable contribution.

I think humans were less violent and hateful. It seems to me as time as progressed, humans have grown more deceitful and manipulative, especially the ones in power who start the wars.

A long time ago, humans weren't really aware of the world beyond the shores of wherever they lived, so they would have been more concerned with survival, not struggling for power over the rest of the world.
#31
Quote by Abunai X
Thank you for your valuable contribution.

It's hard to contribute to a moot, yet wrong claim.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#32
Quote by Xiaoxi
Wow, how stupid are you?


I'm just looking for answers. If you can't have a conversation without flinging unjustified insults, then please leave.
#34
Have we forgotten that even though we're "human", we're still animals?
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#35
Quote by BigFatSandwich
Have we forgotten that even though we're "human", we're still animals?


Our territorial protection aspect comes directly from that.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#36
Quote by dann_blood
Laws of nature. The primary instinct is to survive. When thats taken care of, it just generally becomes a competition to see who has the biggest dick.

quite true.
I feel that the system currently is what keeps the majority of people peaceful, because instead of trying to survive by any means necessary (death and such) we have a way of life that holds the idea of security.
People haven't really changed with violence, most just don't need to carry it out.
Catch the Dragon
Quote by hriday_hazarika
This thread is as terrible as music, which sucks balls.
#37
Quote by Minkaro
I'm pretty sure if Ug saw Ork going after a mammoth that he'd just killed, poor old Ug would not think "ah, we're all in this together."

On the contrary, Ug would be ranting incomprehensibly and swinging his club at Ork, in a hateful and war-mongering fashion.


*rants incomprehensibly*



*swingsclub*

#38
Quote by blackflag49
the correct answer was "no"

no quarrels over hunting grounds or watering holes can compare to the sheer carnage of the 20th century
or what's already happening in the 21st. the idea that civilization has made us more peaceful holds as much water as sieve
also wrong...

think i'm seeing a pattern here


lol i like the way you've countered those arguments with a well thought out response, instead of just denying what he said and conjuring up some vague statement which didn't contribute to your argument at all.

no, really.
#40
Quote by Erotomaniac
lol i like the way you've countered those arguments with a well thought out response, instead of just denying what he said and conjuring up some vague statement which didn't contribute to your argument at all.

no, really.
fank you, s'always nice to hear from fans
Page 1 of 2