“The era of the hunter-gatherer was not the social and environmental Eden that some suggest.”

“Hunter-gatherers’ dependence on sharing each other’s hunting and gathering luck makes them remarkably egalitarian. [...]“

“Several archaeologists and anthropologists now argue that violence was much more pervasive in hunter-gatherer society than in more recent eras. From the
!Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high — usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.”

[...]

“To be abducted as a sexual prize was almost certainly a common female fate in hunter-gatherer society. Forget the Garden of Eden; think Mad Max.”

Thanks for your “perspectives” series. I have enjoyed them all and found them all to be thought-provoking.

If you murdered all the millionaires in Manhattan, you would increase its level of social equality. And thus, according to these “researchers,” its quality of public health.

I’m sure you have some moral scruple that prevents you from following this simple syllogism. I’m afraid that others in the past have been more rigorous in their logic.

Indeed I’m sure it is possible to identify many groups of people in New York whose removal would increase social equality, and hence public health.

It is not even necessary to kill them. In fact, it’s distinctly suboptimal. Much better to deport them with only a small travel allowance, perhaps much as Nasser deported the Jews and Europeans from Egypt. Then, you can sell their possessions and convey their proceeds to your political clients. Excuse me, I mean “the poor.” It’s

It really bemuses me how smart, well-intentioned people can be so insistent in condemning “racism” and “fascism,” both of which are absolute anathema to anyone with any real power in the real world today – while ignoring the one degree of separation between this sort of “research” and the 20th’s century’s most murderous political religion, which though diminished is very much alive and kicking. Doesn’t anyone read Eric Hoffer anymore?

We can hardly take seriously the psychiatrist who claims that every single serious act of violence without exception is an attempt to compensate for feelings of being disrespected or ridiculed, for instance. Or the fuzzy-headed claims that hunter-gatherer societies were a peaceful egalitarian paradise — judging by today’s surviving examples, they were not, with high rates of homicide and violent conflict with neighboring tribes, not to mention often brutally inegalitarian treatment of women.

Lack of status and feeling disrespected also applies to more than just financial matters. Suppose I feel that my ideas or suggestions aren’t taken seriously by my peers, or that attractive women won’t give me the time of day — is this a health crisis that requires government intervention? Those things might very well matter more to me than money. Should there be guaranteed egalitarian outcomes in everything?

Many less than exemplary members of society seem to have far too much self-esteem rather than too little, and their lives are not any healthier or longer for it. Rather than being victims of stress, they often cause it for others.

Up to a quarter of the human race lives on less than a dollar a day. Extending equality of opportunity across the planet, perhaps through innovative forms of microfinance (such as Kiva.org), is more important than fretting about some yob who feels oppressed because his neighbor has a gigantic plasma TV and he doesn’t.

Decisions that are taken on what we think is the proper thing to do or because we think that is expected of us may be an important cause of disorders in our personal functioning and well-being, as we do not base these decisions according to our own opinion (perception) and therefore ignore ourselves systematically.”
http://www.haptonomie.com/engels/page2.html

“Haptonomy is a part of the human sciences. It concerns the very base of human existence from which every being flourishes and develops in order to follow his personal way of life.”
http://www.haptonomie.org/va/generalPublic/haptonomy.html

“In an article in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRENATAL AND PERINATAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MEDICINE (1), Dr. Veldman writes, haptonomy research “demonstrates that faculties every human being should possess are nowadays more and more under-developed, they lie fallow, or are atrophied, if not totally absent. However, these faculties are of fundamental interest for contacts, interactions and human relationships.” He laments that in our world dominated by concerns of economic rationalism and the bottom line, we too often ignore this world of “communication with feeling”—the affective side of our nature. He writes, “There is no room for feelings, emotions: for affectivity. The dimension of feeling—and all that concerns the affective life—is considered as lacking in interest and therefore has no place in this world, as it is of no economic or political value. This dimension would only disturb, in a awkward way, the economic processes of development and production”.”
http://harpercollins.com.au/drstephenjuan/news_0204.htm