Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
10 / 34 posts
Posts: 72
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

We seem to be back at objective morality again, or are we all just agreeing that we're talking about what we individually see as good?

Posts: 75
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?
Good said: 

Evolution is not the best measurement of smartness. On average it is very likely we were happier as a species pre-agricultural revolution. Early agricultural people certainly were far unhappier than hunter-gatherers. Even tho after the agricultural revolution, we multiplied 10x or more times. And I do think being unhappy means you are not really that smart. Unhappy people who are being called smart, are not smart imo. If you are smart you should be able to at least be content.

why were hunter-gatherers happier than farmers?  

Posts: 2857
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?
janitor said: 
Good said: 

Evolution is not the best measurement of smartness. On average it is very likely we were happier as a species pre-agricultural revolution. Early agricultural people certainly were far unhappier than hunter-gatherers. Even tho after the agricultural revolution, we multiplied 10x or more times. And I do think being unhappy means you are not really that smart. Unhappy people who are being called smart, are not smart imo. If you are smart you should be able to at least be content.

why were hunter-gatherers happier than farmers?  

Farmers had a lot more anxieties:

  • They had to work every day to make sure they have food in the future, from morning to dawn
  • Even if they do their hard labor every day, a natural disaster they had no power over can literary kill them, when their crops fail
  • Their diet was mostly wheat and very unvaried
  • Their entire life is about making sure their plants are not sick and are well
  • They don't really move and explore, they are stuck in the same place
  • They have to defend themselves from raiders that can destroy their home and farm
  • If there is a sickness in the village, it usually spreads and kills a lot of ppl

 

While hunter-gatherers on the other hand:

  • They can hunt an animal and feed on it for weeks because they had a lot fewer mouths to feed
  • They can gather some fruits without really caring about the plant, whenever they came across it
  • They would eat a lot of different things, as they were nomadic and constantly moving
  • If they found a hostile group of humans, they can just run/leave, since they are not bound to a location
  • If someone is sick, they just leave him, the sickness does not spread, and only one dies
  • In general, they probably lived longer, because of a varied diet, less anxiety and less sickness. However, farmers reproduced more cuz they had more food.

 

Ofc the farmers didnt realize this is happening, so they didnt go back to being hunter-gatherers.

Cheery bye!
Posts: 32864
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

The farmer though can find a fair deal of consistency, especially if they work with livestock. The hunter-gatherers on the other hand are entirely dependent on their environment in the moment, meaning they have to worry about competition from other predators and potentially having to live a more nomadic lifestyle with less comforts. 

Then there's how much stress lowers lifespan, especially fight or flight stress. There's also quality of rest too, I feel like the farmer would be happier and healthier from a life with less threats. Even if they have a bad year they can squirrel away an emergency fund or have made preserves to cover for it for the following year with more ease than a hunter-gatherer's dependencies. 

With a foundation of self-generated wealth, they can through their community trade resources to cover for the areas they don't do themselves. While the hunter-gatherer can trade as well, the farmer is more likely to excel in this area through consistency and partnerships and build into something stronger from consolidating the gains into the growth of his/her farm, like a business.

With enough farmhands it could even run itself. Farming promotes cooperation and community while hunter-gatherers are more likely to be competing with their peers. Peace and consistency to me seems like the foundation to build happiness from, so I'd argue the farmer's better off archetypically. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 3/26/2023 10:25:09 PM
Posts: 2857
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

The farmer though can find a fair deal of consistency, especially if they work with livestock. The hunter-gatherers on the other hand are entirely dependent on their environment in the moment, meaning they have to worry about competition from other predators and potentially having to live a more nomadic lifestyle with less comforts. 

Then there's how much stress lowers lifespan, especially fight or flight stress. There's also quality of rest too, I feel like the farmer would be happier and healthier. 

Hunter-gatherers were a lot smaller in population, so they always had food, you would need a mass extinction event to affect their environment so much.

The truth is that evolution favors numbers, not happiness and farmers did get more food, but were probably far less happy. Eating the same food and rampant sickness that would spread across the stationary village and half a day laboring in the hot sun, was a hard life, and a lot of children died. However thanks to them, today were are perhaps happier, tho I can't say this is always true.

Farmers would have a more worried sleep IMO, worrying about the next day and shit.

 

The issue is that we evolved to live in small nomadic groups as hunter-gatherers, physically and mentally, and evolution is many times slower than human technological and cultural progress, so our physical and mental evolution does not match our current environment.


Farmers might of had a higher life span on average, tho it probably wasn't a lot longer.

 

 

I mainly got this info from the book Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind

Cheery bye!
Posts: 2857
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

After reading ur edit:

The farmer though can find a fair deal of consistency, especially if they work with livestock. The hunter-gatherers on the other hand are entirely dependent on their environment in the moment, meaning they have to worry about competition from other predators and potentially having to live a more nomadic lifestyle with less comforts. 

Then there's how much stress lowers lifespan, especially fight or flight stress. There's also quality of rest too, I feel like the farmer would be happier and healthier from a life with less threats. Even if they have a bad year they can squirrel away an emergency fund or have made preserves to cover for it for the following year with more ease than a hunter-gatherer's dependencies. 

With a foundation of self-generated wealth, they can through their community trade resources to cover for the areas they don't do themselves. While the hunter-gatherer can trade as well, the farmer is more likely to excel in this area through consistency and partnerships and build into something stronger from consolidating the gains into the growth of his/her farm, like a business.

With enough farmhands it could even run itself. Farming promotes cooperation and community while hunter-gatherers are more likely to be competing with their peers. Peace and consistency to me seems like the foundation to build happiness from, so I'd argue the farmer's better off archetypically. 

Now we are moving past the early agricultural revolution, which took many centuries. When nations are starting to form. But the early ones had worse lives in comparison to hunter-gatherers. And once nations formed, there were other problems, like class differences.

Cheery bye!
Posts: 32864
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

Monks were basically farmers, and they seem to have their shit together imo. Looks peaceful even compared to hunter life. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Posts: 5402
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?
Good said: 

I mainly got this info from the book Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind

 this book has been debunked. it's been known for 2 years, also it was written by an israeli who was connected to epstein. Connect the dots, moron. 

Posts: 2364
0 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

Maybe intelligence is more so linked with being somewhere in the middle?

🌺🐀 🌺
last edit on 3/28/2023 3:59:26 AM
Posts: 2857
1 votes RE: Does being smart correlate with being good?

Monks were basically farmers, and they seem to have their shit together imo. Looks peaceful even compared to hunter life. 

I am not an expert on Monks, but dont they live away from society (less illness), without women (no offsprings = less mouths to feed = less food necessary = less work), all this makes them a less interesting target to raiders too + they are usually secluded and hard to find.

And when did they surface? And the extra time they get from less work means more hobbies = happier life and possibly more varied diet since they can experiment with different plants and shit.

Cheery bye!
10 / 34 posts
This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.