Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Exercise / Bodybuilding => Topic started by: JeuneKoq on July 09, 2014, 08:22:45 pm
-
Hi everyone!
I started this topic because I believe physical fighting to be a good way to exercise, keep fit and release certain tensions, in the body and the mind. I am looking for a martial art or combat sport that feels both natural and is realistically applicable in a fist-to-fist situation. I am not really interested in a defense sport that would enable me to take the gun away from an armed man or anything of the like, even though I would not for the matter reject anyone's suggestion of a combat sport that would implement this kind of ability. What I'm after is a MA or combat sport that puts into use natural, functional movements, and in various forms (hands, legs, elbows, standing up, on the ground,...). It could also be a combination of two combat sports: for example wrestling and karate (note: I clearly know very little about combat sports, and have taken part in very few martial art lessons when younger, meaning one year of judo, another of "king-boxing", and some karate and taekwondo here and there)
An example of a combat sport that I don't find natural at all: boxing.
Use of fists only, bad technique (Fist strikes should be used against the softer part of the opponent's body, or else the fighter might end up with broken knuckles or generally just any type of hand trauma. Open hand strikes should be used against harder part of the body such as the head, in my opinion. Might be wrong though; please do correct if it's the case), virtually inapplicable in real-life fights.
This topic is open to any suggestions, or remarks.
-
The best fighting sport is supposed to be Jiu-Jitsu, in that it is an all-rounder as a sport, not focusing too much on the legs or other specific parts of the body.
-
Where do you live? What you'll train in will be largely defined by what's available.
I'd first search for a good ninjutsu teacher. They're few and far between though; most who teach under the ninjutsu banner are either frauds or just plain incompetent. If you can't find a good ninjutsu teacher, my next choice would be Krav Maga.
Both of these systems are broad in their scope, and both include hand-to-hand training, grappling, ground fighting, and weapons work.
-
Thank you Tyler and Eric for your suggestions!
I have to look more into this, but as a first impression (meaning: after watching two-three videos for each martial arts) both ninjutsu and jiu-jitsu appear to me as more "artistic" combat sports, with aesthetically pleasing -and certainly efficient, to some degree-, complex fighting techniques. But can it really be applied in a real life fist-fight against any opponents, be it a martial artist, or just a chaotic run-at-you throw-some-kicks-and-punches thug? If you have any experience with these martial arts, maybe you could clarify this.
Krav-maga already looks more like what I'm looking for, judging by the little I know about it. Then again it seems a bit too defense-oriented, with no real offensive components to it. Am I right?
Also aside of that I would like to know if there is any combat sport out there that is less directed for personal protection and real life, serious fighting, and instead is more fun, unwinding oriented. I had wrestling in mind, but if you know of another combat sport, or a better one that falls into that category, I'd love to know. I was thinking about this when I saw my dog "play" with her mates, and remembering how I used to play-fight as a kid.
Btw I live in Belgium :P But who knows, the ninjas are everywhere....
-
Judo is the sport to play for fun.
The reason I cited Jiu-Jitsu is not due to my own abilities as my martial-arts expertise is at best average. However, I saw several Jiu-Jitsu practitioners who were not necessarily physically strong or quick or whatever who could easily put otherwise stronger opponents into unbreakable arm-locks and the like which could easily end up in broken bones if the Jiu-Jitsu guy wanted that.
-
It seems as though you want a single system that's everything. No such fighting system exists. As I mentioned above, most ninjutsu teachers are either frauds or are incompetent. If you're watching YouTube videos from one of these people, you aren't seeing what the system really looks like. It can be beautiful and artistic, but is still quite useful in most any fighting situation.
Krav Maga is not primarily a defensive system, it is very well balanced between its defensive and offensive elements, perhaps even more heavily weighted towards the offensive side of things. Krav Maga is the fighting system taught to military personnel in Israel. There are increasingly teachers who offer it elsewhere throughout the world, each putting their unique slant on it, and unfortunately some are watering it down so as not to frighten away potential paying students.
-
I have attended his teachings
http://jimdees.com/ (http://jimdees.com/)
Mostly internal martial arts at first, then over the years you can be deadly. Jim is an active duty police officer and he practices this martial art hands on to the bad guys every single duty day.
I suck at this stuff, but my friend is really into it.
Jim starts the day with: Qigong: Eight Piece Brocades Chi Kung - an internal martial art that exercises the internal organs.
This exercise was done by Li Ching Yuen, that 256 year old guy who died in 1933.
-
I hear capoeira is a lot of fun.
-
I'm surprised Sully hasn't chimed in yet. You might want to watch the real thing,, as in MMA. those guy travel all around the world learning various disciplines. One thing that's interesting to me, is you never see any one eastern martial art ever getting somebody to the top of MMA.
-
Van, some martial arts are too deadly for spectator sport.
That is a concept Jim tells the younger guys in his police force... do not mimick tv or movie sports, hands on martial arts should be deadly and quickly disable the bad guys.
-
MMA can definitely be good exercise and can be useful in self defense situations, but it trains people to abide by lots of rules that are enforced in the cage that wouldn't be enforced in a street fight. If you can find a good MMA training facility it's worth stopping by, but realize they focus on competition.
-
Van, some martial arts are too deadly for spectator sport.
That is a concept Jim tells the younger guys in his police force... do not mimick tv or movie sports, hands on martial arts should be deadly and quickly disable the bad guys.
Lelt's look at the rules then. No kicking in the groin,, no martial arts training for that. No eye gouging,, no martial arts training for that. No kicking the head when a man is down on the ground,, no martial arts training for that. Yes, they wear light weight gloves, so it is harder to grab a rib or pull the heart out of someones chest....
But let's look at what they are allowed to to. Kick to the temple with any part of the body. Choke the throat and or any part of the body. Ram the nose into the brain. Crumple knew joints either by bending with arms or any assorted kicks. The list goes on. I'll say it again, place any one disciplined eastern martial arts 'expert' in the ring with a winning MMA fighter, and all my money will go on....
-
Personally I'm not looking for a martial art that is meant for killing or (permanently) handicapping my opponent. I can see how these kind of combat sports could've emerged over time, given the fact that there is no true predator left to man, other than man himself.
Observing nature one will find that animals rarely attempt to kill members of the same specie, especially if the animal happens to be a clan member, for obvious survival reasons. The time a wolf does fight a wolf, or a deer fights another deer (ex: during mating season, or when members of rival clans meet), the disputant's aim during the clash will be to inflict enough pain to it's adversary as to force it to abandon the fight. Blood, broken ribs, sure, but if the animal gets a broken leg or something worse from it's opponent, the animal is likely to die. This does happen, but it would usually not be intentional from the opponent's part.
If you applied this to an overly caricatural paleo man's situation, Harry would be fighting Sam because Sam also has eyes for the beautiful Lucy. Feeling too hurt after a good deal of kicks and punches from Harry's part, Sam would then abandon the fight and decide that Lucy isn't worth all the beating up. Sam would leave the battle scene and be off to the flower fields, letting his bruises heal while soaking up the hot afternoon sun rays. Sam is a stubborn one, and would soon seek out another gorgeous paleo woman, ready to take another beating from a competing admirer...
I'll have to look deeper into all the martial arts that where suggested here, but it looks like MMA is quite close to what I would like to practice. Even though I picture MMA as being the kind of place where overly aggressive kids go to throw their punches, without there being a more lifestyle or individual betterment philosophy to it, if you get what mean; As opposed to martial arts in general.
However seeing that Sully practiced or still practices MMA, I wouldn't be surprised to have my presumptions shown wrong.
-
that was a good intuitive take,, but consider this. Early man, many men, do kill, especially for other tribe's women. Killing has always existed. Just because there's a pretense of spirituality behind some form of martial arts most likely has little to do with true spirituality ( please don't ask me to define what that is,, as everyone has to find there own answer). But I can tell you it probably has little to do with what you see in the movies or even documentaries. Most all practices, if leaning towards some conscious evolvement, will eventually lead one to learning to be with what is, completely. I have not trained at any MMA gyms, but I bet it's more than you project. And the more would be the dedication to exceed. Those guys work really hard and give of themselves tremendously. And the ones that succeed, yes they have genetics, but moreover intelligence. Look at some Utube training films of any of the brazilians or the canadian George St. Clair. Highly trained and disciplined
-
Ive trained in mixed martial arts and basic combative training, with a good friend of mine.
http://www.truthincombat.com/philosophy.html (http://www.truthincombat.com/philosophy.html)
I am currently working an a martial arts fighting routine for my next pole performance, which is a creative way to stay fit, to say the least.
-
I've been searching again for a proper CS or MA, one that is meant to let off steam, keep fit and learn some basic fighting skills. Not long ago my mind was set on the idea that I first needed to sort out my back problems, and let heal a keloid scar on my chest, before engaging in such physical contact-oriented activity.
If I remember correctly, getting too much impact on a keloid scar could only cause the affected area to bulb up some more with collagen. I noticed the scar has reduced size since avoiding over-eating, and especially eating too much cooked meat (I am still in a transitional phase, since I'm only starting to get comfortable eating raw foods around my colleagues, and still eat regular dinner with my family when they do cook dinner. There are other criterions/obstacles in my life that makes it difficult for me to nourish myself the way I would like to , but I won't discuss it here )
So re the keloid scar wrestling was definitely a no-no for me, as getting bumped on the chest by the opponent's shoulder seems unavoidable. There's a photo of a keloid scar at the end of this page, for those who don't know how it looks like.
I was first reluctant at getting involved in these kind of combat sport for the reason I cited, but at the same time I was (and still am) feeling the urge to let off some aggressively inside me through fighting. In fact I feel I have a lot of aggressive energy to release and express, and keeping it to myself has made me act in an unhealthy "compensating" way. It has made me want to crack my back, and over-eat cooked food as a way to release tensions, relax. Which is not helping the problem, and probably making things worse.
Also I'm currently having some issues with my right foot, so I haven't been able to let some steam off by running, as I would usually have done. Also running helped with anxiety, so that's another thing I have to take care of.
This is the reason why I have come back to the idea that practicing a CS or MA would be good for me, amongst other things.
I would like to start with a more fist and kicks combat sport, without any or too much grappling, but I'm looking for one that includes a variety of attacks with a variety of body parts: punches, palm strikes, knee strike, elbows, heel kick,...
I consider a CS or MA to be quality if it involves palm strikes, as it is a more natural and a more injury avoiding kind of attack when hitting the head, as compared to a fist punch. If done incorrectly, and even when done the best way possible, a fist punch thrown into a hard surface of the body such as the head frequently leads to unnecessary hand injury. My goal being to preserve a healthy, functioning hand as long as possible, I would rather be given the option to opt for a palm strike when sparing with a partner.
here's a little info on palm strikes: http://www.scifighting.com/2013/03/14/945/benefits-of-the-palm-strike/ (http://www.scifighting.com/2013/03/14/945/benefits-of-the-palm-strike/)
Also I have my doubt on shinbone kicking being a very efficient, and non-self damaging attack. When learning kick-boxing, I have always felt uncomfortable shinbone-kicking, as it would hurt more than it would inflict pain to the opponent. Also seeing how thai boxers must render their shinbone nervous system insensitive by working their legs with a rolling pin, and hardening the bone by healing micro-fractures caused by hitting hard objects, shinbones doesn't seems like a very intuitive part of the body to hit a person with.
I mean Paleo men, as an example, who fought frequently for fun or dominance wouldn't have spent their time hardening their shinbone for the next fight. They probably used parts of the body that were already fit for fighting, such as heel kicks and fists, and grapple for the most part.
Also, if it is true that shinbones are not designed to be used this way, I wonder if using them in this odd manner could lead to some kind of leg damage/deterioration. As a running enthusiast I would rather avoid such negative outcome, if it was known to end this way.
So do you guys know of any CS or MA that matches my expectations?
And what do you think of shinbone kicking?
-
Also I found that Combat sports usually teach you how to take blows by tucking in (photo below), while martial arts that I know of will instead focus on deviating the hits, and perhaps use the opponent's forward motion against him, or seize the opportunity to grab its arm or leg.
Which strategy is the best/safest/most realistically put into use?
-
Good lord man you are overthinking things. Go to whatever your local club is and learn the basics. Its not like you spend two weeks on learning to punch and then go into flying elbow strikes so just get started. In the kind of real but not real fighting you are talking about you really only use basic punching and kicking, and take some kind of ground fighting which is a lot of fun if you are secure enough in your sexuality to get gripsed up nice and close with other muscled sweaty men.
In regards to deflecting or bracing for a hit, it really depends, it is all situational and happens very fast, generally you will just take a hit while you try to dodge, you only learn how to not get hit in the head, by getting hit in the head so stop trying to make sure you learn the "perfect" martial art and just get out there and start training at the best club you can find.
-
You're actually right, Neone. This has been an issue for me countless times. Just as an example it's almost impossible for me to go clothe-shopping on my own because I want to find the "perfect" sweater or whatever, so I need someone else to tell me "It suits you, just fucking buy it!".
Also I see that I've asked pretty much the same thing in the beginning of this thread, and that I've already been given some answers. MMA seems closest to what I want to practice, so removing the grappling part (for now) I guess I'll have to look at Kick-boxing or Thai-boxing. Plus I don't know if MMA clubs accepts beginners who have never seriously trained in any other MA before.
As for shinbone-kicking, I'm still interested in any opinion on the matter, regarding it's value as an attack.
-
As regards shin bone kicking,, did you see (Utube) spider Silva break both lower bones accidentally kicking another's shin bone (shin bone on shin bone)? go watch it if you haven't already. In the Ufc, they rarely kick the shin bone, but instead, aim for the back of the calf, inside and outside of thigh, or higher..
-
As regards shin bone kicking,, did you see (Utube) spider Silva break both lower bones accidentally kicking another's shin bone (shin bone on shin bone)? go watch it if you haven't already. In the Ufc, they rarely kick the shin bone, but instead, aim for the back of the calf, inside and outside of thigh, or higher..
UUuugh no I hadn't!! But I just did! :(
(not for the faint of hearts) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRBvZMxYNJY#ws (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRBvZMxYNJY#ws)
See this is one of the reasons why I don't think shinbone kicking is such a great (as in necessary, safely usable) attack to learn. I mean sure it can inflict quite some damage if you aim well, but in a (real) fight things usually happen very fast, plus the opponents are under a lot of pressure, sometimes tired. That's why accidents such as the one in the video can happen, even to professionals.
And to put it in a "Paleo time" perspective, a broken leg usually means death, as it would be too much effort and responsibility for the other clan members to carry him around and feed him while hoping for the leg to heal soon. So I don't think they would voluntarily take the risk of getting their shinbone broken by hitting an adversary's skull, elbow, hip, or shinbone.
Bone to bone contact is a bad idea most of the time.
-
And to put it in a "Paleo time" perspective, a broken leg usually means death, as it would be too much effort and responsibility for the other clan members to carry him around and feed him while hoping for the leg to heal soon. So I don't think they would voluntarily take the risk of getting their shinbone broken by hitting an adversary's skull, elbow, hip, or shinbone.
Another perspective from "Paleo time" is the idea that all fights are to the death. The thought of self-preservation pales in comparison to the thought of killing the opponent before he kills you, and you pull whatever punch, kick, twist, or bite is available in the heat of the moment. In other words, if you are going to win or die, you don't much care at the moment if winning is fatal to yourself. I know people who have survived a hand-to-hand fight to the death, and this is how they describe it.
Demonstration competitions look completely different, as the rules of engagement are an attempt to mitigate injury and avoid death.
-
First of all, not all fights are to the death.
There are play-fights, where the people involved push themselves around, tackle, grapple, throw a few hits sometimes, but are having fun and don't have particularly negative feelings against their opponents.
Then there are more regular fights, where the two opponents feel angry at each other and want to inflict pain to one another, but don't necessarily want to kill the other person. they will hit, kick, and grapple more aggressively, but will stop when tired or when they feel they've harmed the other enough. fights used to be like that when I was a kid, the loser would usually be the one crying. These kind of fights would most likely happen in Paleo times when a clan member would like to establish it's social ranking superiority over another member, or claim exclusive relationship with a female , if speech wasn't enough.
And finally, and surely not the most common type: fights to the death. As you can imagine there is extra aggressively involved, but what preoccupies us here is the way the opponents would engage, and act in such fight.
Naturally they would most likely charge against their adversary, and when standing they would use the top of their body the most to attack their opponent. Punches, palm strikes, grabs, elbow strikes. Perhaps a few knee-kicks. They would probably end up grappling quite quickly, and carry on on the ground with hand strikes. The only time when they would use their feet and legs to hit would be if they found enough distance between them and their opponent to do so, such as being on the ground while the other is still standing, or backing up when both are on their feet. And even in that case they would most likely use only heel kicks and its variants.
Just to illustrate the fact that shinbone kicking doesn't come spontaneously at all, even in situations where every kind of hit and attack is welcome. It just doesn't feel right to use it this way, at least not to me. I only started even considering shinbone kicking when I trained kick-boxing for a year, and still we only hit soft, easy targets (ex: partner's protected hand).
A good experiment to show this is going outside and trying to hit at tree. It's better if the tree has a smooth bark.
-Try hitting it moderately hard with your heel: almost no hesitation
-Try hitting it m-hard with a palm strike: same
-Now get ready to hit it as hard with your fist: hesitating? That's normal, your brain doesn't want you to harm yourself, it has evaluated that the loss will be greater than the benefit. The bark is not soft enough.
-Get ready to hit it as hard with a shinbone kick: you hesitated, didn't you? (unless you're intensely trained to do so, which is not the case of Paleo man. And I'm quite sure even a professional would still hesitate) Same as with the fist, the risk of getting harmed more than harming is too great.
On a side note: it's also easier to aim and hit the right place with fists than with a shinbone kick.
-
In May a totally wild cat was attracted to my place by the smell of fish. He finally became a good friend of mine, the most intelligent, friendly and gentle cat I’ve ever had. He never bites or claw, unlike cats fed cooked food have a propensity to do sometimes. He sleeps just in front of my door and I can’t go out without caressing him… He never wants me to stop it, looking at me straight in the eyes and asking for more!
This tends to substantiate the observations in GCB’s experiments that the consumption of cooked food, dairy and cereal grains (especially wheat), increases aggressiveness in animals, humans included.
There are plenty of indications from various researches that deadly conflicts between our ancestors during the Paleolithic were extremely rare. This is a tremendously important point for understanding what’s happening now on our planet.
I highly recommend the reading of that outstanding book which corroborates GCB’s theory. http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html (http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html)
I downloaded it on my hard disk when our member Aura (what happened to her?) had found it online. I can send it by MP on request because it seems no longer freely available online.
`
This has already been discussed in that thread:
… "Sex at Dawn"
by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jethá, MD, freely downloadable here http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6191785/ (http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6191785/)
It’s a great read that every paleo dieter should read, one of the 2 or 3 best books I ever read and even perhaps the best of them all.
-
First off, what do you consider as "natural" ?
Natural brawling involving two animals/human are raw, technique-less and often just the sheer difference between
A. Size
B. Experience
C. athletic ability (strength, speed, cardio health etc..)
By saying natural you are basically discounting what human have learnt throughout the thousands years of violence and the knowledge that have accumulated, and natural would mean "brawling" in a sense.
Now, let's say you are open to learning, then there's a wide range of options.
My recommendation is the following: decide if you enjoy fighting on your feet, or on the floor.
Which one is more applicable? Both. that's the whole point of mixed martial art and the like..Ignoring one and you'll be demolished by the other. Likewise if you are interested in actually getting stronger, you won't just train upper body, but lower body as well.
So, how does MMA become natural? or be more naturalistic in terms of body involvement?
Simple: You learn.
Many movements in martial arts are just not very natural. For example: a simple blocking of a punch coming in from the left with a left shoulder raise (imagine tucking your head in) isn't very natural, at least not something you come out of the womb and knows how to do. Your natural reaction in this case is usually fully duck down or jump away, or try to put your hands up to block the punch.
However, the learning of this simple technique allows the fighter to take a hit that has little to no impact on his body due to absorption of the impact from shoulder, then he has his hands free so now he can attack his components. See how valuable boxing can become for hand-to-hand combat in this scenario ?
To say that one form of martial arts is not natural and does not make sense, is simply judging it from its specialized department. boxing being hand to hand exchanges on purely upper body level as example.
To jump out of this, learn Mixed Martial Arts. Start from the following: Muay Thai/Boxing/Wrestling/Brazilian Jiu-Jitzu
In terms of naturalistic movement, a lot of bullshit is floating around the globe..certain martial arts are simply not combat heavy enough to be contested, and can't even make it into real-world application. Take up one type of standing style first, or 1 type of ground style first, then go from there.
Once you've mastered one type of fighting style, you'd need a little basic from the others. For example, I used to be really involved in standing combat. All I needed was to learn how to defend against take-downs then im pretty much set in most situations. If you learn from the grounding style, all you need to learn is basic punching/blocking/kicking, then you're set as well.
In the end, fighting is size, athletic ability and experience. Natural or not..Doesn't really account for much.
If a "natural" style kind of guy got in the cage with a brazilian jiu-jitsu guy without knowing basic ground fighting style, he's done for. Same thing goes for the brazilian jiu-jitsu guy knowing nothing about stand-ups. I've seen both and you don't want to be in that situation.
if you're doing it for recreational reason, just go with a stand-up kind first.
-
Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?
-
Why would they be fighting? What would they be fighting for? ;)
-
Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?
i don't know. It is kind of silly to want to imitate the cavemen while you're staring at a computer screen. (Don't mean to sound arrogant, just my humble opinion.)
-
Why would they be fighting? What would they be fighting for? ;)
I can't remember, maybe you think that until 'they' started cooking, that they didn't war amongst other tribes, as has been shown all through history ( except as you may point out, not before cooking appeared) And if so,, do you have anything to support this belief?
-
The remarkable book « Sex at dawn » linked several times in this forum by GS, Aura and I — and again in my post on page 1 of this thread. A quick Google search resulted in a lot of references, amongst them these:
New Study of Prehistoric Skeletons Undermines Claim That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots - By John Horgan | July 24, 2013
« When did war begin? Does war have deep roots, or is it a modern invention? A new analysis of ancient human remains by anthropologists Jonathan Haas and Matthew Piscitelli of Chicago’s Field Museum provides strong evidence for the latter view. [*See also next post, "Survey of Earliest Human Settlements Undermines Claims That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots."]
Image caption :
13,000 year old skeletons in mass grave near Nile are oldest evidence of group violence.
(…) which describes a study of modern-day foragers (also called hunter gatherers), whose behavior is assumed to be similar to that of our Stone Age ancestors. The study found that modern foragers have engaged in little or no warfare, defined as a lethal attack by two or more people in one group against another group. This finding contradicts the claim that war emerged hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.
Please read all there: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/24/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/24/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/)
You can also read for example « Prehistory of War and Peace in Europe and the Near East » available here: http://www.academia.edu/3816993/The_Prehistory_of_War_and_Peace_in_Europe_and_the_Near_East (http://www.academia.edu/3816993/The_Prehistory_of_War_and_Peace_in_Europe_and_the_Near_East)
-
Sorry I don't find much interest in contrasting speculations, one could debate for eons. My sense tells me, that like animals, man can be guided by his wants. The American Indians were know to have wanted other tribe's women, and so killed to take them. This has been repeated so many times through out history, I think it's hard to refute. Not to be confused with massing huge armies to conquer entire nations. Animals will often fight, if not to death due to injuries, for the right to be Lead Alpha. I have no memory for myself that having gone to raw paleo that my tendencies to be aggressive has waned. To me it's speculation at best.
-
The Amerindians are not a fine example of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers! History is one thing (beginning with the civilization, in other words at the Neolithic) and prehistory is another thing.
You asked me if I had some references, I take the time to search some academic ones on line for you and you immediately reply that you don't find interest in what you call "speculations"!
-
I did look at them. I simply get tired of speculations. and why aren't the American Indians a fine example? And what about animals that kill for right of food or mating? And why should we think early man was any different, especially since man has demonstrated far more severe atrocities than any animal could conceive of?
-
The world is awfully large, and conditions varied from place to place, so I'm not sure how to determine that one group of humans is a "fine" example, while another group is not a "fine" example. I'm thinking, for example, of conditions of food shortage, which might naturally happen. In that case, I would imagine an increase of aggression between groups of humans that might naturally lead to fatal aggression by whichever group was lucky enough to inflict enough fatality first. Other groups of humans might have dispensed with aggression and preferred rather to compete with spears and slingshots. Much like human nature today - when there is enough to go around, we all live in peace; in times of shortage, we vie with each other for whatever we deem to be in short supply.
-
As far as I can see, human behaviors in Neolithic and recent civilized populations are hardly fine examples of human behavior in pre-fire Paleolithic foragers’ populations…
The answers to Van’s questions are in the books I gave the links to.
This has already been discussed before, as usual… Another reference (BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
By James W. Prescott
From "The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists", November 1975, pp. 10-20)
is quoted in this old post of mine:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010)
-
In the past, I have heard all sorts of claims that palaeo peoples were "true communists" or that women were the dominant sex in palaeo societies etc.. Truth is, no one really knows but one can guess. Now, I for example know that humans are genetically closest to the common chimpanzee which is a pretty warmongering animal that likes killing monkeys for food and even other chimps re territory/mates etc. Now bonobo chimps are very peaceful by contrast but not as closely related to us hominids.
Using other primitive tribes as examples of ideals is not just another lame example of the fraudulent Noble Savage theory(previously somewhat debunked by me in the past) but, as regards war, the climate and other factors were implicated in the behaviour of certain tribes. For example, I read that the Inuit were very peaceful. However, this was due to the harsh, cold climate, more than anything else - they needed each other for survival.
-
Now, I for example know that humans are genetically closest to the common chimpanzee which is a pretty warmongering animal that likes killing monkeys for food and even other chimps re territory/mates etc. Now bonobo chimps are very peaceful by contrast but not as closely related to us hominids.
The opposite info are well documented from several sources, notably "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jethá, MD
http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html (http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html)
and seem more likely to me, not only because bonobos' sexual behavior is much more similar to ours. Could you give some references to your info?
-
following again the post you sited here,, I'm noticing how you state that it's GCB theory. I think that about sums it up for me. Those who follow his theories appear to follow all of them.
-
The opposite info are well documented from several sources, notably "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jethá, MD
http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html (http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html)
and seem more likely to me, not only because bonobos' sexual behavior is much more similar to ours. Could you give some references to your info?
It is known that whereas DNA sequences in humans diverged from those in bonobos and chimpanzees five to seven million years ago, DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago
taken from:-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html)
-
following again the post you sited here,, I'm noticing how you state that it's GCB theory. I think that about sums it up for me.
So, you admit that you don’t establish your views on a balanced factual and objective analysis of the competitive theories, but subjectively on their source, your perception of the personality of their author and your preconceived ideas!
Moreover, you immediately dismissed as “speculations” the well documented academic texts (which plainly support GCB’s theory) which I searched for you in response to your request. I was naive enough to think that you asked me in good faith, but it wasn’t the case. >D
Those who follow his theories appear to follow all of them.
That couldn't be more wrong! ;D Most of the people practicing a raw paleo instinctive nutrition as outlined by GCB are vehemently opposed to his “metasexuality” theory!
taken from:-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html)
Thanks Tyler, I read the article you linked. It’s highly technical and most of the subtleties are over my head, but the conclusion (repeated 3 times) is clearly inconclusive :D and does not support neither your views nor mine! Excerpts:
We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other.
It is known that whereas DNA sequences in humans diverged from those in bonobos and chimpanzees five to seven million years ago, DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago. Bonobos are thus closely related to chimpanzees. Moreover, comparison of a small number of autosomal DNA sequences has shown that bonobo DNA sequences often fall within the variation of chimpanzees5.
No parsimonious reconstruction of the social structure and behavioural patterns of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos is therefore possible. That ancestor may in fact have possessed a mosaic of features, including those now seen in bonobo, chimpanzee and human.
We conclude that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other.
The bonobo genome shows that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other. This can be used to illuminate the population history and selective events that affected the ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees. In addition, about 25% of human genes contain parts that are more closely related to one of the two apes than the other. Such regions can now be identified and will hopefully contribute to the unravelling of the genetic background of phenotypic similarities among humans, bonobos and chimpanzees.
-
The point is, though, that the other study made it clear that humans diverged from the ancestor of chimps and bonobos millions of years BEFORE the Bonobos later split off from the common chimpanzees. So, as a logical deduction, the bonobos have less much DNA in common with humans than common chimpanzees have with us.
I never believed in the Man is inherently peaceful nonsense, anyway. I see Man as always having wiped out entire species from the very beginning. I doubt that the introduction of fire, let alone Neolithic culture, would have changed humans from peaceful beings to warlike ones. After all, even modern HGs are prone to warfare. It is only exceptions like the Inuit who never did, but that was only due to the constraints of a savage climate.
-
The point is, though, that the other study
Which other study? I did read the one you linked and now you speak about another one?
made it clear that humans diverged from the ancestor of chimps and bonobos millions of years BEFORE the Bonobos later split off from the common chimpanzees.
That is said in the one you linked. Ok, let’s admit it anyway. Then this conclusion of the authors (“We conclude that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other”) doesn’t seem to fit with your phrase below:
So, as a logical deduction, the bonobos have less much DNA in common with humans than common chimpanzees have with us.
I suppose you meant “much less”, didn’t you?
They say: “This showed that 1.6% of the human genome is more closely related to the bonobo genome than to the chimpanzee genome, and that 1.7% of the human genome is more closely related to the chimpanzee than to the bonobo genome”. I don’t feel that a difference between 1,6% and 1,7% could be considered as “much”. I would rather call it insignificant.
I never believed in the Man is inherently peaceful nonsense, anyway.
So, you’ve always had an immutable belief (a negative one) that never changed and won’t ever change, whatever evidence is brought up to you, isn’t it? You and Van didn’t even bother to read the references I provided above.
Personally, I never had any inflexible opinion and I’ve avoided all beliefs since I was 16. I’m just curious and highly disappointed by both of your reactions.
I see Man as always having wiped out entire species from the very beginning. I doubt that the introduction of fire, let alone Neolithic culture, would have changed humans from peaceful beings to warlike ones.
We are not talking about interspecies violence but about intra-species relations. Anyway, hominids didn’t wipe out entire species before using the fire and maybe not even before the Neolithic as it is not sure at all that the megafauna extinction was due to human hunting and overkill.
After all, even modern HGs are prone to warfare. It is only exceptions like the Inuit who never did, but that was only due to the constraints of a savage climate.
What could be the influence of climate on aggressiveness?
According to what I read not all modern HGs are prone to warfare, although the few remaining are subject to territorial and environmental pressure from the civilization around them. Eveheart made a valid point in telling that “much like human nature today - when there is enough to go around, we all live in peace; in times of shortage, we vie with each other for whatever we deem to be in short supply.” In this regard, it’s is widely reckoned today that the Neolithic revolution caused overpopulation, concentrations of humans in groups larger than about 150, shortages, famines and wars.
It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? ???
-
Iguana, there is no proven body of science that is wholly accepted regarding this topic. To state or infer that there is and that anyone else's ideas are not valid seems narrow minded. I have sited the example of the American Indians, I could throw in the Polynesians, and with not too much trouble a dozen others globally,, along with animals routinely killing each other. To say that these peoples only engaged in killing each others tribes because of eating cooked foods, or farming what ever crops they had hundreds of years ago seems to be only theory and one that makes little sense, unless one is looking to support one's theory as I believe GCB is doing. And of course he's entitled to believe what he wants and you are too. But please don't suggest that by siting a couple of theories that are supportive of your view point that that alone is proof of truth. I said earlier, I am not interested to debate using theories, for that can go on a life time. One group says this, another group says that. I'm always curious why some spend so much time engaging in debate, trying to convince the other seems to be at the route of it, for some reason. I said earlier that in my own lived experience, that moving from cooked to raw paleo, I didn't notice any less aggressiveness. Of course I've never warred with anyone, so don't have that level of experience. And one other direct experience is from having now for over nine years lived off of fat as my primary fuel as opposed to sugar, that my peace of mind and level of acceptance or calmness, or tolerance has vastly improved. That I do know for myself.
-
I am not interested to debate using theories, for that can go on a life time. One group says this, another group says that. I'm always curious why some spend so much time engaging in debate, trying to convince the other seems to be at the route of it, for some reason
Why are you debating, then? You are nevertheless using a theory (and an outdated one) without being conscious of it!
I’ve never pretended to hold the ultimate truth and I do not try to convince anyone, what are you insinuating? I’m not even definitively convinced myself of anything on this matter, but I find interesting the likelihood that humans are not inherently aggressive, but on the contrary that extreme violence and wars seem due to the Neolithic societies structures. It’s neither me nor GCB who say that, but contemporary anthropologists. Moreover, what are you doing of the experiments showing clearly that wheat (especially) drastically increases stress and aggressiveness in mice and other animals?
As far as I can tell, the American Indians and Polynesians practiced some form of agriculture (and cooked some of their food), which obviously influenced the structure of their society.
There are wild animals fighting to the point of killing their pair(s), but it’s rather an exception than a rule.
You didn’t reply to my question “Can’t you see that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals?”
-
thought that was for Tyler. My grandmother was the kindest woman to have walked the face of the earth. She ate wheat and cooked food her entire life. Yes, one example. But one example to point to the fact that people can be simply abundant with love, and the next can be full of hate and anger to the point of killing another. I'll end it here by saying it makes little sense to me to blame it on cooked food and farming. If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so.
-
My grandfather too and he was a baker! ;D White flour from sifted wheat doesn't have the same properties as whole grain and humans' behavior is much more controlled by their mind than that of mice! There are other factors at work too and fortunately not all individuals get sick (mentally and physically) from eating bread! Most people get habituated, of course. I never had any inclination to kill anyone either, even when I ate a lot of whole grain bread… ;D
Don’t you realize that when you are a farmer, you work to get a harvest and so you won’t like if somebody else steals your crop? Private property, dogmatic religions, states with borders, laws, stocks of grain, governments and armies were born with agriculture and tend cause conflicts. So obvious!
And, oh, I forgot to say… one’s behavior depend to a large extent of what was experienced during childhood, early childhood especially. ;)
-
"If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so." Lol. No, unfortunately not. I recently read a story about a paleo chef who murdered his wife. It is delusional to think that diet will solve all your problems.
-
"If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so."
Since paleo corresponds a lot to our bodies' needs, and the effect of this diet is much better to the body compared to less healthy ones, then it will make all body's processes more efficient.
But there are emotional and mental bodies as well.
The path is both ways. Just as a better diet can lead to a more efficient and happier body and thus better mind and emotional state, so can emotional and mental bodies lead to a better and happier body. The same applies to negativity. Body can be under a very good diet, but if emotional and mental bodies are not of equivalent state then they will affect actions you take and the physical body negatively as well.
It's not just about healing the physical body. Every aspect of ourselves, that we can perceive of and get to, should be dealt with. Otherwise it'll be a never-ending up and down ride - pointlessly in a loop - body goes up, mind takes down, mind goes up, body takes down, body goes up, etc. (or something like this, and other possibilities). If not aware of this (and other possibilities that affect mind and thought and the resulting actions) then won't even understand what's going on, never mind being aware of ones "faults" in the first place.
But paleo makes it much easier to address mental and emotional side, as there's less to deal with regarding physical body. Can allow more focus and energy to healing the mind and whatever else, but first requires awareness that this is actually real and of high (utmost) significance...
-
~~
Sorry about this, I really ought to read everything I cite but I live in a time-poor environment these days! I realise that the conclusion does not make any sense at all, though. I mean, if humans split off from the ancestors of chimps and bonobos and then the bonobos split off from the chimps, then, logically via deduction, bonobos must have far more in common with common chimps than humans and humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees. I mean it is simple maths. No matter.
Personally, I never had any inflexible opinion and I’ve avoided all beliefs since I was 16. I’m just curious and highly disappointed by both of your reactions.
My experiences of humans being an aggressive, violent species go a very LONG way back to the age of 4, which is why I stated that my views had not changed to any extent on this issue. Perhaps, before my mind was fully formed by age 4 , I was under the immature impression that humans were all nice etc. at the time. Even then, I doubt it, as I vaguely recall incidents where I cried after being slapped for a misdeameanour by my mother, for example. So, if humans are such a lovey-dovey so-called "gentle" species, if only as regards their own species, how come I was in 2 schools which had endemic bullying to a horrific extent? Why is it that so many bullied victims at school commit suicide? If intraspecies love is so widespread, why is there frequent bullying at the workplace? Blaming this on a change in diet from raw to cooked or on switching to a grains-filled diet, just does not make sense. When I switched from cooked to raw, my hormonal levels went down and I became calmer as I'd had acute anxiety among a 100 other conditions up till then, however, I was still perfectly capable of feeling homicidal thoughts towards one group of odious relatives who have been constantly trying to rob me of my property rights over the last 12 years. Indeed, now that my hormones are in balance, I would confidently state that feelings of vengeance on my part are more clear-cut and overt than in pre-raw diet times.
We are not talking about interspecies violence but about intra-species relations. Anyway, hominids didn’t wipe out entire species before using the fire and maybe not even before the Neolithic as it is not sure at all that the megafauna extinction was due to human hunting and overkill. What could be the influence of climate on aggressiveness?
It is actually more accepted now that humans, not climate, killed the megafauna in the Palaeolithic era. As regards climate, it can affect aggressiveness. In the case of the Inuit, they had scarce resources so had to cooperate with each other in order to survive - any warfare in the Arctic would have led even the winners to die out fast.
It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? ???
Put simply, no. I have seen how male lions, for example, routinely kill the infants of a captured pride in order to get the female lions to ovulate and create their own offspring. I have seen male bears do the same. Plenty of intra-species violence exists in Nature if one looks for it a tiny bit. Competition among males for females during mating season can be pretty fierce, and even rather deadly, for example.
-
It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? ???
I'll go one step further and propose that even species like bonobos would probably become aggressive, given the right stressors. In human communities, the stressors can occur (literally) on one street but not the next, in one socioeconomic group but not another, in one person and not another.
But if we are looking at how aggressive a species is, aggression by both genders should be taken into account. For example, the violent bullying that TD reports from his school days was unheard of at my school because girl aggression is most-often expressed by social exclusion (Spoken as a taunt: "You can't play with us!"), not physical violence. (N.b. I said "most-often" so don't accuse me of denying the existence of girl fights.)
Perhaps we should specify that martial arts is performed non-aggressively in large part; it is the stylized, socially acceptable form of physical aggression, practiced and performed with rules that aim to avoid or reduce grave injuries and fatalities. Presented that way, the most subdued milquetoast can become an accomplished "fighter" while maintaining a bit of a distance from violence.
-
I propose a cage deathmatch between me and tyler. Survival of the fittest, right? Might makes right!
-
Sorry, to be totally honest I have been drinking. Forgive me... :)
-
Eveheart is being a bit under-emphasised as to the effect of girl on girl bullying. Sure, there is less physical violence for girl on girl violence per se, but it is still very harmful as it constitutes mainly subtle psychological harm re isolation/exclusion etc.
-
Eveheart is being a bit under-emphasised as to the effect of girl on girl bullying. Sure, there is less physical violence for girl on girl violence per se, but it is still very harmful as it constitutes mainly subtle psychological harm re isolation/exclusion etc.
I made no claim that girl bullying has no effect! Bullying, physical or not, has victims. I merely said that aggression by females may look different - it may be physically non-violent - but it is bullying!
However, I do maintain that martial art is a form of fighting that does not involved aggression, so I don't think that social aggression must be present for this form of physical culture to exist.
Says Wikipedia, Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practices, which are practiced for a variety of reasons: self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, entertainment, as well as mental, physical, and spiritual development.
Although the term martial art has become associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, it was originally referred to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. The term is derived from Latin, and means "arts of Mars", the Roman god of war. Some authors have argued that fighting arts or fighting systems would be more appropriate on the basis that many martial arts were never "martial" in the sense of being used or created by professional warriors.
And I do maintain that physical aggression is not the only form of social aggression, and heightened aggression may be present where not a drop of blood is shed, therefore measuring HG aggression in terms of war has no place in a discussion of martial arts. Physical, mental and emotional aggression should be used as the measure of aggression. Viewed by themselves, combat practices do not indicate that aggression is present.
-
Sorry about this, I really ought to read everything I cite but I live in a time-poor environment these days! I realise that the conclusion does not make any sense at all, though. I mean, if humans split off from the ancestors of chimps and bonobos and then the bonobos split off from the chimps, then, logically via deduction, bonobos must have far more in common with common chimps than humans and humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees. I mean it is simple maths. No matter.
Yeah, but you are so sure to be right that you cite any study without even reading it, assuming that it can’t possibly tell anything opposite to what you believe! :D
Next, I can’t follow your above reasoning: according to this paper there was a common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and humans. The humans branch would have split off first and the chimps and bonobos branches would have split off latter. How can you deduce from it that “humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees.”? Sorry, “simple maths” would mean it’s rather 50% - 50%!
The study you referred to says :
« No parsimonious reconstruction of the social structure and behavioural patterns of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos is therefore possible. That ancestor may in fact have possessed a mosaic of features, including those now seen in bonobo, chimpanzee and human. »
Genetic analysis apart, bonobos are obviously more human-like than chimps in almost every aspect. http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores (http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores)
Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
A very important fact he underlines :
Chimps 40%
Bonobos 90%
Humans 100%
Can you guess what this percentiles are?
My experiences of humans being an aggressive, violent species go a very LONG way back to the age of 4, which is why I stated that my views had not changed to any extent on this issue. Perhaps, before my mind was fully formed by age 4 , I was under the immature impression that humans were all nice etc. at the time. Even then, I doubt it, as I vaguely recall incidents where I cried after being slapped for a misdeameanour by my mother, for example. So, if humans are such a lovey-dovey so-called "gentle" species, if only as regards their own species, how come I was in 2 schools which had endemic bullying to a horrific extent? Why is it that so many bullied victims at school commit suicide? If intraspecies love is so widespread, why is there frequent bullying at the workplace? Blaming this on a change in diet from raw to cooked or on switching to a grains-filled diet, just does not make sense. When I switched from cooked to raw, my hormonal levels went down and I became calmer as I'd had acute anxiety among a 100 other conditions up till then, however, I was still perfectly capable of feeling homicidal thoughts towards one group of odious relatives who have been constantly trying to rob me of my property rights over the last 12 years. Indeed, now that my hormones are in balance, I would confidently state that feelings of vengeance on my part are more clear-cut and overt than in pre-raw diet times.
You misunderstand me. As I see it, the food factor is not directly the main culprit: it is so mostly indirectly by having led to the Neolithic-agrarian societal structures and organization, which are heavily conflicting with the human nature.
Don’t you realize that everything you cite here is happening in our current society organization, which has its roots in the Neolithic society structures, that all this is precisely due to the Neolithic / agrarian / modern insanity, misery, ubiquitous sexual frustrations and neurosis into which agriculture has driven us? Nothing of that sort would have happened in a HGs tribe of less than 150 individuals where private property was something never heard of.
It is actually more accepted now that humans, not climate, killed the megafauna in the Palaeolithic era. As regards climate, it can affect aggressiveness. In the case of the Inuit, they had scarce resources so had to cooperate with each other in order to survive - any warfare in the Arctic would have led even the winners to die out fast.
Perhaps. The megafauna disappeared about 60,000 years ago if I remember correctly. Fire was mastered then.
Put simply, no. I have seen how male lions, for example, routinely kill the infants of a captured pride in order to get the female lions to ovulate and create their own offspring. I have seen male bears do the same. Plenty of intra-species violence exists in Nature if one looks for it a tiny bit. Competition among males for females during mating season can be pretty fierce, and even rather deadly, for example.
Yes, some animals kill newborns.
http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html (http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html)
Why Some Animals Eat Their Offspring
http://bigcatrescue.org/why-big-cats-kill-their-cubs/ (http://bigcatrescue.org/why-big-cats-kill-their-cubs/)
Why Big Cats Kill Their Cubs
This doesn’t mean that intra-species killings (of newborns excepted) are the norm rather than exceptions. You and Van have a strong propensity to be blind for facts contradicting your preconceived ideas, accepting only to see the ones that comfort you in your beliefs. In this case, it really looks like you didn’t even read the short texts I took the time to search and cite or quote for you.
I also find it amazing that both of you, being strong proponents of a raw paleo diet, fail to see its far-reaching implications on how we understand the global human and ecological situation. For example, we no longer have to be ashamed to be a human being. ;)
-
you have developed such a skill at being so passive in your condescending assertions. So let's go back in time. Let's say you and your tribe have been tracking a great wooly mammoth, or a herd, and your attempts have been in vain so far. Your tribe is hungry, very hungry, and you follow that herd along it's migration path and end up in unknown hunting grounds. And there you meet another hunting party, one which you've never met before and they are hungry... You can see from this simple beginning that hunting grounds alone can be reason for fighting each other, especially when to the point of starving. Or simply establishing hunting grounds, say near a watering hole where animals must come to drink. During times of draught, guess who else will show at 'Your' watering hole?
I didn't think that I'd get back into this one, but to imagine that pre cooking and farming, that life was a garden of eden because we could simply feed ourselves instinctively and everything would be dandy seems just a little too handy.
I wasn't around then, but go back some hundreds of years, I don't think it seems unlikely that one would find very peaceful agricultural communities living harmoniously. And yet history tells us that thousands of these communities were pillaged and raped by those who wanted to conquer and acquire. But that pillaging has little to do with how peaceful that community was. My point; people can live together in community, eating cooked food, growing crops, and not be corrupted by at least those two aspects. So, yes; throw in an industrialized overpopulated society where real-estate is sky high, food is tainted, people are overworked and primarily working for someone else, and for Inger's sake, throw in wi-fi, and yes you've got a mess. But to blame it on cooked food and the fact they are eating farmed vegetables and grain and raising animals, seems like you want to believe a fairy tale called 'Instincto', by GCB.
-
On your request, I provided several references to support what I wrote (and there are plenty others available). You have not thanked me, you don't even bother to read them, you call them "speculations" and you go on with your own speculations which you don't support by a single reference!
-
One thing I've noticed almost all (if not in fact all) "scientific"-minded people do is provide the opinions of other people without really giving any original to their own. This is why providing "links" and such is simply keeping yourself in darkness and not really developing your own personage and individuality. If you base yourself and your worldview on the views of others, then... do I really have to explain this?
If you really knew what you were talking about, or anyone knew what they were talking about, then you, or anyone, would never have a reason to provide any data or opinions external to themselves.
If you find something new, something that makes sense to you and you perceive objectively (very many people have issues with objective thinking...) that it is beyond your previous understandings, then incorporate it into your being. And next time the topic comes up you will have no reason to find some external "supportive links", because you know it is a true part of yourself, until something better comes up and then you improve/upgrade yourself.
This "who's got the biggest supportive 'evidence'?" pissing-contest is a vivid sign of blindness and unawareness.
Providing any links is futile and pointless. Say your own mind, only your own, and original to yourself, from within yourself. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing. And if you don't find it from within yourself... then you have things to learn, and true learning not merely parroting others.
There are scenarios where providing external links and such is important and necessary, but not in this context.
-
Yeah, according to you, you can stay at home, be an expert on everything, knowing everything by your own powerful mind without having ever been out on the field to check the facts, in this case excavate and examine skeletons and other remains or go and stay for months in remote jungles to observe apes, if I understand you well. You don’t need to rely on the expertise of people involved in research, anthropologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, experts on animal behavior, etc… No, no, you are so much more clever and knowledgeable than all these bunch of idiots scientists and specialists spending their lives on the field to observe and study. LOL.
I finally think JK decision to stop posting is wise, after all. I should rather do the same and proceed with my work instead of wasting energy here in stupid endless-loop discussions with thankless guys who know it all better. >:
-
Good point on that last post, Iguana. Of course it's thoughtless to take anything scientist/specialist publish for granted, as there is always a possibly of false interpretation of a phenomenon, and some studies are funded by groups that only wish for their own version of the truth to be heard... But outside of that some, if not most scientist are truly passionate and thoughtful about the subject they study, especially in fields where later money gain is hardly expected from their discoveries (anthropology, zoology, paleoanthropology, as opposed to pharmacology, genetic engineering, etc...).
It's like saying all politicians are inherently bad/corrupt, which is of course false. I've shared classes with political science students when studying anthropology, and the people I met are actually idealists, and want to serve society in a positive way.
After I had this issue posting the answer I wrote to BadBoy's comment two days ago, I decided it would be a good opportunity to get some work done and have a break from the computer. I will answer BadBoy's comment, and maybe address some arguments I find especially mistaken, without going to much into speculative debate (Hey, I'm guilty of sometimes speculating too!).
For now I will just say that it is as appropriate to compare humans with chimps or bonobos, as it is to compare pandas with grizzlys. Actually, grizzlys and pandas are probably genetically closer than we are with our great ape cousins.
And come to think of it, just notice how bonobos and chimps are so "socially" different while being so genetically close, and evolving in such as similar environment: that is, the African tropical forest...
Therefor it makes even less sense to try and match one of those specie's social behavior with our own.
-
Next, I can’t follow your above reasoning: according to this paper there was a common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and humans. The humans branch would have split off first and the chimps and bonobos branches would have split off latter. How can you deduce from it that “humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees.”? Sorry, “simple maths” would mean it’s rather 50% - 50%!
Ok, here goes:- First there is a common ancestor of all primates. Then 2 branches fork off, one of which is the ancestor of common chimpanzees and bonobos, and the other branch leads to humans. Then there is a further branch when the bonobos split off from the common chimpanzees, supposedly because they were genetically isolated from other chimps because of the Congo river. So, from humans to bonobos requires 2 evolutionary branches, but from humans to common chimpanzees requires only one branch.Ergo, humans ought to be genetically closer to common chimpanzees. The further genetic isolation of the Bonobos also confirms my point.
Don’t you realize that everything you cite here is happening in our current society organization, which has its roots in the Neolithic society structures, that all this is precisely due to the Neolithic / agrarian / modern insanity, misery, ubiquitous sexual frustrations and neurosis into which agriculture has driven us? Nothing of that sort would have happened in a HGs tribe of less than 150 individuals where private property was something never heard of.
Bullying occurs even among wild animals. Wild animals also often mark their own territories and will fight and even kill any of their own species who intrude into that territory, much like humans do. That is common behaviour. Then there is fighting between males for mates which can get very bloody in many cases. Wild animals will also fight members of their own species in order to gain higher social status etc.
Also a relevant quotation:- However, other sources claim that most Paleolithic Groups may have in fact been larger, more complex, more sedentary, and more warlike than most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies due to Paleolithic hunter-gatherers occupying more fertile and resource abundant areas than most modern hunter-gatherers who have been pushed into more marginal habitats by agricultural societies.
taken from:-
http://www.reference.com/browse/paleolithic+period (http://www.reference.com/browse/paleolithic+period)
The gist of the above suggests that humans become far more warlike when possessing abundant resources and large numbers but, usually, become a lot more peaceful when population densities and resources are very low. So, the Noble Savage myth is not relevant to this issue.
Hmm, I find I agree with Iguana, Van , and nummi about some of the stuff they have said. I mean, I do not agree that palaeo humans were peaceful as the evidence seems against this notion and logic dictates that humans are going to fight over resources in any era, but I do find that modern living since the Neolithic era has been particularly destructive to our human nature, so that we are warped examples of our palaeo forebears.At the same time, I do not think that current "free love" sexual mores have anything to do with what was sexual morality in palaeo times. Different eras and different locations will inevitably have different sexual customs.
As regards links, nummi, true, we are not scientists so cannot fully verify each link, and, ahem, some of us may be somewhat "distracted" at times when reading them, so providing links can be very dodgy, however, it is better to provide some possibly faulty evidence from other sources than to simply state one's own viewpoint/guess without any real evidence to back it up.
-
Ok, here goes:- First there is a common ancestor of all primates. Then 2 branches fork off, one of which is the ancestor of common chimpanzees and bonobos, and the other branch leads to humans. Then there is a further branch when the bonobos split off from the common chimpanzees, supposedly because they were genetically isolated from other chimps because of the Congo river. So, from humans to bonobos requires 2 evolutionary branches, but from humans to common chimpanzees requires only one branch.Ergo, humans ought to be genetically closer to common chimpanzees. The further genetic isolation of the Bonobos also confirms my point.
Ok,
1)Refer yourself to the last paragraph I wrote before you posted this.
2)Your logic is flawed*. When the branch splitted to give on one side the chimps and on the other the bonobos, they actually came from a common ancestor that is different from both species.
Take a green bean, symbolizing human's and great ape's common ancestor. This bean splits into two different beans: one yellow (great apes/ ancestral chimps), one blue (humans). Later, this yellow bean splits into two different beans: one red ("modern" chimps), one purple(bonobos). As you can see, neither the red bean nor the purple is closest to the blue bean (humans). *
Anyway, as I've pointed out, this has no true value in determining human's innate/natural social behavior.
note: I mean no disrespect when using examples as simplistic as this one. I just find it illustrates my argument in a more straightforward way.
*correction: Actually I can see how different species could have genetically diverged from a common ancestor at different degrees, perhaps as a result of genetic isolation as you stated, or because of a particular environmental pressure applied on one specie or the other. Therefor chimps could be in theory genetically closer to the common ancestor they share with bonobos, thus relatively closer genetically to humans. Still this is theoretical, and my main point remains valid.
-
Yeah, according to you, you can stay at home, be an expert on everything, knowing everything by your own powerful mind without having ever been out on the field to check the facts, in this case excavate and examine skeletons and other remains or go and stay for months in remote jungles to observe apes, if I understand you well. You don’t need to rely on the expertise of people involved in research, anthropologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, experts on animal behavior, etc… No, no, you are so much more clever and knowledgeable than all these bunch of idiots scientists and specialists spending their lives on the field to observe and study. LOL.
I finally think JK decision to stop posting is wise, after all. I should rather do the same and proceed with my work instead of wasting energy here in stupid endless-loop discussions with thankless guys who know it all better. >:
With this you demonstrated your incapability to comprehend what I said and meant. Exactly doing the opposite of what I tried to explain not to do and why not to do it. Thus proving everything I said, though you can't understand any of this for obvious reasons.
Very evident there's no point explaining anything to you, since you're a "passive fanatic".
The only one keeping such "discussions" going in loop is you. Please try to see this!
-
And try to also see why you went so angry.
And I'll even give an explanation to this.
You went angry because I touched an issue in your mind, a contradiction in yourself and brought it out in a way you couldn't ignore it. And so you either have to address it, accept it, and then begin correcting it. Or. Considering you are a fanatic, then the default action is defense and attack in return, thus avoiding the issue present in yourself.
Now ask yourself who is a fanatic. And you'll find out why you attacked in response.
-
Tyler, look at some of the African ways of farming before the English took over. The partitioned land between families that worked for centuries. They had common grazing sectors and the peoples of the village knew what the limits were for each member as to how much he could plant, graze and extend his herd size. There are just so many examples throughout history where agriculture communities existed peacefully to ignore. But as mentioned, there have Always been marauding tribes who want to take what is not theirs. And as I said before, this is not to be confused with those who want to live in peace,, eating their farmed crops and raised herds of animals. If anything it's overpopulation that significantly contributes to abuse. Imagine today if everyone had to go out and forage and kill animals to eat and stay alive (and there were no raised herds of animals). We'd be fighting over wild game and berries in no time, or starve.
-
2)Your logic is flawed*. When the branch splitted to give on one side the chimps and on the other the bonobos, they actually came from a common ancestor that is different from both species.
Take a green bean, symbolizing human's and great ape's common ancestor. This bean splits into two different beans: one yellow (great apes/ ancestral chimps), one blue (humans). Later, this yellow bean splits into two different beans: one red ("modern" chimps), one purple(bonobos). As you can see, neither the red bean nor the purple is closest to the blue bean (humans). *
I disagree with your logic.
On the "day" of the "split" and for some time afterwards, both branches are still "yellow/yellow" for quite some time to come. The split signifies and end to interbreeding of each subsequent branch. Subsequent genetic changes are minute, and take time to become established.
-
I disagree with your logic.
On the "day" of the "split" and for some time afterwards, both branches are still "yellow/yellow" for quite some time to come. The split signifies and end to interbreeding of each subsequent branch. Subsequent genetic changes are minute, and take time to become established.
I agree with you, however regarding animal classification I'm pretty sure the "split" is generally settled when the two diverging species are no longer capable of interbreeding, which of course happens much later after the two species originally started diverging from their common ancestor.
And this doesn't change the fact that both bonobo and chimp are almost equally different from man genetically speaking, am I not right?
-
I agree with you, however regarding animal classification I'm pretty sure the "split" is generally settled when the two diverging species are no longer capable of interbreeding, which of course happens much later after the two species originally started diverging from their common ancestor.
And this doesn't change the fact that both bonobo and chimp are almost equally different from man genetically speaking, am I not right?
What geneticists call diverging refers to minute changes in the chromosome pattern at a regular rate over time. That's why we read about genetic similarities in the high-90 percents, even among different species. Animal classification does concern itself with the possibility of interbreeding, but interjecting that detail into this discussion of fighting styles is going a little more off-topic than my sensibilities will allow.
-
i don't know. It is kind of silly to want to imitate the cavemen while you're staring at a computer screen. (Don't mean to sound arrogant, just my humble opinion.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkRGH4sJDE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkRGH4sJDE)
-
What geneticists call diverging refers to minute changes in the chromosome pattern at a regular rate over time. That's why we read about genetic similarities in the high-90 percents, even among different species. Animal classification does concern itself with the possibility of interbreeding, but interjecting that detail into this discussion of fighting styles is going a little more off-topic than my sensibilities will allow.
Ok, I just wanted to address this particular claim that modern chimps where (much) closer to us than bonobos, and the fact that it didn't matter anyways, regarding human's own natural social behavior. Off topic of course, but the roots of this deviated discussion where on the subject of fighting and aggressiveness amongst men.
-
Where is the evidence humans evolved from apes? We share something like 60% of our dna with cucumbers, but that doesn't mean we evolved from them does it?
-
Well, I think the genetic isolation factor is somewhat indicative of further more divergent evolution, but I see your point.
-
BadBoy, to me a "natural" or "smart" movement/technique is one that is functional, efficient, thoughtful, one that can be performed all throughout a lifetime.
An example of a natural and smart practice: barefoot running.
Unlike jogging the conventional way -that is: hopping at a slow pace, and smashing your foot on the ground heel first, thanks to over-cushioned running shoes-, barefoot running is a practice that anyone can apply all throughout a lifetime, while avoiding being subject to the inevitable leg and back problems most conventional runners do suffer or will later suffer from. Of course barefoot running is intuitive if practiced at a young age, and it is advised to transition slowly from conventional running and get taught the right running approach by a barefoot coach before truly going for it.
Of course a living creature's skill set is not only made up of abilities as intuitive as running. The young tiger must learn from his mother how to hunt for food. The question is: would humans really be taught ways to better fight their kind, instead of skills truly essential to their survival? Perhaps both, and I have a feeling there is also an intuitive part to those teachings. A tiger separated from his mother will still figure out ways to hunt for food in the same way all tigers hunt, but being taught by another makes the integrating process of the skill happen faster and sooner.
Now here is my idea a movement/ability that is NOT smart or natural.
To me, shinbone-kicking fits in the same box as being capable of performing a back-flip: both are counter-intuitive, not essential to the individual's well-being, are potentially dangerous to perform, and cannot be performed throughout a lifetime (this is especially true with back-flipping).
-
In the course of human evolution both Diversion and Miscegenation have influenced human nature. Throughout history the roving hoards of conquerors have interbred with the peaceful valley dwellers, giving rise to a hybridized humanity..
Though with the recent development of the world civilization nanny state the propensity for the individual carrying out un sanctioned acts of physical violence, has been strictly curtailed.
There are people whom without the social protection, I would have physically attacked in retribution for intolerable transgressions. This one individual I know has learned that he can be an antagonistic prick to anyone, says dilatory lies about me, he abuses animals for fun, and Yet because I value my freedom, one is forced to suppress ones own natural inclinations to beat him senseless.
It seems that even when violence is justified, in the age of an over proliferation of idiots with lethal weapons, for the safety of everyone, we must defer from jungle justice to a higher authority.
In today's society those who still have a healthy inclination towards venting aggression would do well to train in the martial arts. Its a healthy way to develop your capacity to defend and destroy while at the same time learning restraint. There is value in knowing you can handle any threat, and stand up to anyone anytime without fear. Simply having confidence in yourself is often enough to deter others from attempting to take advantage of you( either physically or emotionally)
-
Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?
When the person's aim was only to assert its social superiority through physical demonstration, for example, without necessarily wanting the rival's death (in a situation where losing a fight was a better outcome than losing a clan member), then it most likely came down to a barehanded fight, that either ended with one of the fighters backing out, or when both decided enough harm was caused.
Of course, if the Paleo man's aim was to kill its rival, it would've been much smarter to use a spear to stab him, or a rock to smash its skull.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkRGH4sJDE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkRGH4sJDE)
Lol ;D
Well, you know Brad, I just wanna have good fighting SKILLS... Girls only want boyfriends who have great SKILLS!
-
Touche. :)
-
you have developed such a skill at being so passive in your condescending assertions.
(…)
I didn't think that I'd get back into this one, but to imagine that pre cooking and farming, that life was a garden of eden because we could simply feed ourselves instinctively and everything would be dandy seems just a little too handy.
Who ever pretended such a thing?
But to blame it on cooked food and the fact they are eating farmed vegetables and grain and raising animals, seems like you want to believe a fairy tale called 'Instincto', by GCB.
Didn’t you launch a condescending fight by asserting that you’ve found better than the “fairy tale called 'Instincto', by GCB”? Sorry Van, but a single person pretending to have found alone a way of superseding a pioneering theory (which by the way you appear not to know properly) developed during decades by a group of numerous dedicated and knowledgeable persons with meticulous research and long experiments on themselves, hundreds of volunteers and animals seems a little pretentious to me.
GCB may be wrong on some points and everything is of course open to questioning and criticism, but still he’s the first to have outlined and defined the raw paleo diet paradigm: therefore he deserves consideration, respect and thankfulness from any raw paleo dieter. 8)
you're a "passive fanatic".
Thanks, I’d rather be a fanatic than a moron, eheh!
The only one keeping such "discussions" going in loop is you. Please try to see this!
Oh, yeah: I’ve been talking alone… :)
Where is the evidence humans evolved from apes? We share something like 60% of our dna with cucumbers, but that doesn't mean we evolved from them does it?
No, we evolved from pumpkins, haha! ;D
I’m fighting with you, guys, but I wouldn’t go as far as killing any of you! I guess some sporadic fight between pairs is normal, but killings are rather rare. ;) By fighting to death, you take the risk of being killed yourself. -\
-
Ok, I'll strike the 'passive comment then, for you've seemed to have moved on from there.
-
Being a fanatic includes being a moron... But then who is a fanatic, who is a moron, and why? (The way I look at fanatic and moron and such words is much broader and wider than those you find from dictionaries. I go for actual causes and reasons, not synonyms and synonymic phrases nor synonymic explanations.)
"Talking alone"... You do realize you brought up the loop thing in the first place? After ignoring with anger very relevant points. It's one what fanatics do - they go in loops, without seeing they are the "perpetrators" - and this is also one example of "moronic" behavior. For example take any religious fanatic, or a vegan, or some strong capitalist... you express the same general underlying qualities, the same general way of conduct. As if you are 100% right in everything you say, despite contradictions - this is further proved by the anger you demonstrated, and the severe opposition, by calling names without any real explanation - trying to debase your falsely perceived opponent into inferiority, thus trying to make yourself seem superior, only to end up revealing your own issues very clearly. The only real opposition is in yourself, with yourself, as I'm merely describing and bringing out relevant points.
If you were aware enough, you would never get angry in the first place. Because there would no longer be a reason inherent in yourself. The anger anyone expresses originates from within themselves, for whatever makes them angry brings out the contradictions and issues inherent in themselves. But then what are the causes and reasons of those? What I wrote represents something negative and painful present in yourself, for you went angry over it. Just like someone who, while doing something, "being in their element", suddenly, as if out of nowhere, gets a painful cut or prick, or hits the head hard against something, thus interrupting them and their process, tends to get angry.
Have fun with your personal darkness. If you can find it...
-
Bullshit!
-
. One more disrespectful, low-quality, and off-topic post, and I'm locking the thread.
-
No kicking the head when a man is down on the ground