The delights and possibilities that have resulted have never been giddier. Hence FOMO and anxiety about losing it all becomes the pervasive mood. :razz:

Not overall, but there have been developments within it which certainly have been disastrous if you look at it from the perspective of cultures that global capitalism has wiped out and species that have been extinguished as a consequence of industrial over-development, and so on.

In Australia, there's a big debate going on about a proposed grant of a very large sum to one of the Universities by the 'Ramsay Centre for Western Civilization'. It's been knocked back by several Universities, because apparently there were too many strings attached for the academics' liking.

Now the issue has become a cause célèbre in the Culture Wars, with conservative politicians (including an ex conservative PM) lining up for it, and almost everyone else against. The sub-narrative seems to be that 'conservatism' equates with 'dead white patriarchy' - i.e. Western Culture - and 'everyone else' equates to 'global cultural diversity'.

Now, as it happens, about six months ago, I had a call from my Uni alumni association (and it is one of the Uni's that knocked this offer back). Lovely girl came out to see me - I guess they're hunting bequests, regrettably I have not much to offer. But over the very long chat, I waxed eloquent about my late-blooming love for classical Western philosophy, by which I generally mean Christian Platonism and its various offshoots. I talked about how hardly anyone even seems to know what it is, and that is hardly taught; 'Classics' and 'Humanities' being very much on the back foot in the modern, commercially astute Academy.

The issue I see is that the tradition of Western philosophy is a spiritual tradition, but that historical forces have combined to eclipse its spiritual aspects. Quite why this has happened, is a deep historical question, but my original thesis was that it is due to the way Christian orthodoxy formed in the early period of Western culture. The emphasis on 'correct belief' and the convulsions over heresy and dissent have had a huge and negative impact on Western culture. But regrettably, at the same time, many other elements of Western thought, such as large parts of Platonist and classical philosophy, were appropriated by the Church and 'locked in the vaults' where they could only be examined on pain of agreeing to the Church's terms. Later developments, especially Calvinism, further accentuated the gulf between being saved and damned, and the exclusivist claims of Christianity. It left the Western intelligentsia with nowhere to turn - but to science, and what could be definitely known and measured. To me, that is the major dynamic of modern culture.

Subsequently I have softened my views somewhat, because Christianity encompasses an enormous range of philosophies. And also the 'new atheist' phenomenon which came along in the early 2000's actually made me feel defensive towards Christianity - I thought their arguments and attitudes were so utterly bereft of philosophical and cultural insight, that it made me feel much closer to my hereditary culture. By that stage, I had already formed a relationship with Buddhism, and that is unlikely to change. But I am still deeply respectful of classical Western philosophical theology, of which the only surviving currents of thought are preserved in neo-Thomist and some Orthodox schools; and I do feel that very few understand what it is that used to be understood, and so what has been forgotten.

See Does reason know what it's missing?

//ps//Also wanted to add that the Western tradition is also more than just a spiritual tradition - its respect for reason, mathematics, and many fundamental concepts hammered out over generations were essential to science itself, and arguably why the scientific revolution occurred in Europe and not the East.//

I'm a bit bemused by this Ramsey business. I can't see what perceived imbalance they are trying to correct. It's a long time since I was at uni but, when I was there, nearly all of the subjects in the Arts faculty were focused on Western culture, whether literature (Shakespeare, Goethe, Moliere), Music (Beethoven, Monteverdi), Art or philosophy. Most history subjects were Western history and most languages offered were European. There was even a department devoted to Classics, as in study of Ancient Greek and Roman history, literature, philosophy and language. The older universities like Oxbridge even have Divinity departments.

Maybe it's changed since 1985, but it would have to be a complete about-face for Western culture to be under-represented in Uni subjects.

I do have more recent experience in High school curricula and my observation is that they are tremendously Western-focused. Despite gestures like Welcomes to Country and aboriginal murals on walls, the literature studied is almost exclusively Western, and a high percentage of it Shakespeare.

I'm not bemoaning that - other than the over-emphasis on Shakespeare at the expense of other great writers like George Eliot - but I really can't see where the deficiency of teaching Western culture is supposed to be.

me too, really. I haven’t followed the Ramsey debate all that closely, except for what’s been in the media. I think perhaps I might hunt around for some more in-depth coverage.

But one thing I will say, is that when I was at uni, late seventies-early eighties, the full force of PoMo deconstructivism hadn’t hit yet. Philosophy was divided up roughly into Oxbridge rationalism on one side, and New Left on the other. Certainly there was a Classics department - actually I was friendly with the extremely charming professor, Dexter Hoyos, way back then. But I had the feeling a lot of that emphasis on the classical curriculum has since become eclipsed. My elder son, a very successful student, would be barely acquainted with classical literature. [Heck, I’m barely acquainted with it, many of my relatives are much better-read than myself.]

It's always encouraging to find oneself in a minority of one. Here's how I rationalise my insanity.

I take 'Western civilisation' to encompass the colonisation of the rest of the world, the industrial revolution, and thereby current global politics. To start with the obvious - climate change, and the Holocene extinction. I won't even argue it.

Then there is the cultural devastation in Africa, the far East and Australia, and the Americas. Also obvious.

And then the culture itself, which glorifies greed and violence, and alienates its own people from nature and each other. The global village is a lonely place, and the population is miserable and insane, and increasingly, homeless.

Schmidt (ANU Chancellor) revealed on Tuesday that Ramsay representatives wanted to set up a management committee with equal numbers from the Ramsay Centre and the ANU, and to conduct “health checks” by sitting in on classes to assess the lecturers and material taught.

Cripes - can’t say I blame him.

(The other fly in the ointment was Tony Abbott’s OP in Quadrant bemoaning Green Left Political Correctness in the Aus uni sector; Abbott is a Director. That went down like a lead balloon in academia.)

When I did Buddhist Studies I learned the uni had rejected a large grant from a Thai Buddhist organisation on similar grounds.

Has Western civilization been a disaster as referenced against....the East, right? Or?

I'm going to just come out and vote for yes, I've had enough of this shillying about trying to be equivocal about it. What we commonly refer to as "Western Civilisation" is a good enough definition for me and it's presided over one of the largest mass extinctions the world has ever seen, may well make planet inhospitable to human life and in most 'Western' countries young men are more likely to kill themselves than they are to die from any other cause. Now unless those consequences are somehow inevitably linked to the advances we've made (medicine, technology etc) then I'd say we've done a pretty disastrous job of it.

Firstly, it must be said that the significant exceptions to the theory of “civilization gone wrong” would be the prolific discoveries of science, and the resultant advances in technology and the fabrication of tools and materials.

However... But... Nonetheless...

Do we live in 2018 AD (Absolute Domination)?

There is the strong unmistakable odor of disaster wherever Civilization has been implemented. Is there anywhere left on Earth untainted by this ominous cloud? Please tell me where so I can pack my bags and buy a plane ticket! Perhaps without too much facetious hyperbole we can call it “cEVILization” or “civilwarization”. :wink: I have only words left to play with.

Like many, I go over and over in my mind trying to imagine what has gone wrong with us, IF indeed something has gone amiss. Imagining the human timeline of evolution and growth and expansion. From small groups to tribes to villages to city-states to modern international cities. From tools made of bone and stone to tools made with quantum computing chips.

There is such a apparently seamless flow of growth that even if one is troubled by current Civilization, trying to pick out a decisive moment, or wrong choice, is like trying to tell where a river ends and where the ocean begins. Koyaanisqatsi is both a film and a concept. “Unbalanced life”, from the Hopi people’s language. Is this merely quaint? Is this just fear of progress? Fear of reaching our potential? Growing pains?

A way of living “out of balance” logically implies that there is a way to live “in balance”. The first difficulty lies in determining what that could be. Or perhaps even more basically, the first difficulty is seeing or believing that there IS such as thing as a balance point, a Golden Mean, a flow of energy between yin and yang. That may sound too New-agey or something, but it is a critical point in any discussion of Civilization. The opposite viewpoint is what could be termed “unlimited growth” or “more is always better”.

If one holds that any pausing to debate Civilization at all (or any thinking about possible improvements and alternatives) is wasting time and impeding progress, then the conversation ends there in a stalemate. If one says “damn the torpedoes (and naysayers), full speed ahead!”, further talking might be a waste of breath on all sides. If one says that not having the answers to the questions means that the questions are better not even spoken of... then that is quite an imposing impasse.

Thinking precedes, underlies, and re-inforces action, as a general rule. The flaw in the thinking (I propose) concerns domination. Humanity (arguably) being given dominion over the earth does not entail that absolute domination over every other species and every last resource is the logical end.

That bears repeating and emphasizing, I think.

Humanity being given dominion over the earth DOES NOT entail that absolute domination over every other species and every last resource is the logical end.

And yet...

Yet we live in the age of Absolute Domination. It may as well be what the “AD” stands for in the date 2018 AD. (Or if one prefers to use CE (in the Common Era), it could stand for Civilizational Empire). If Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” mutates into a manifesto to utterly and categorically conquer the earth, each other, and eventually the rest of the galaxy, our culture needs to be reprogrammed and rebooted. (The idea of culture as software program was expanded on in this post).

One cannot repair a jet’s engine in midair. But waiting for an accident until even considering a change in operating procedure is a dangerously poor strategy.

If indeed the West ever was to become civilised, it would necessarily be a disaster because the event would be too little and to late.

I see no evidence of civilization merely the semblance of organized chaos.

As Will Durant often writes....man is a trousered Ape.

M

Depends on what you mean by disaster... — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Anything in the answers already given you would count as a disaster and attribute to something you'd be willing to call "Western civilization"?

"Western Civilization" is a long project, stretching over 5000+ years. The "Western" part is what most of us here are heirs to, but there are also "Eastern Civilization", "African Civilization", "Amerindian Civilization", et al. The human civilizations are not all alike, not all operating on the same time-line, not equally technologically involved, and so on -- but all humans have been "civilized" for a long time--and it's always a mixed bag.

I like western civilization; it's home. Had I been born in China or India I'd like that civilization and it would be home.

Are Westerners any worse or any better than other civilizations? No. Humans all share the same drives, and if they get their hands on something really interesting and which gives them a lot of leverage, they tend to use it for all its worth.

Why did Europeans do so much colonizing? Because the benefits of colonialism were feasible and desirable. Did other people colonize other parts of the world, and exploit other people and resources? Of course. People have been moving from one place to another in search of resources and "good stuff" and this has generally involved taking over other people and their resources. This has been going on for... maybe 20,000 years.

The Roman peninsula (the site of the early Roman Empire, and then heart of the later empire) would not have been possible had not Rome gone out and gotten stuff from around "their sea" -- the sea between the lands. They sucked up goods from near Persia to Scotland, Egypt to Germany. Was it worth it?

Yes, it was probably worth it. There's usually a down-side to human enterprises, and no group of human beings are exempt. There's also usually upsides to human enterprises.

As Will Durant often writes....man is a trousered Ape. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, we share a lot of DNA with Pan troglodytes, our embarrassing close relatives. Trousered ape sums it up well. A combination of ape drive and human intellect is what makes us so splendid on the one hand (the paragon of animals) and Milton's very model of Lucifer, light bearer and heaven's own subversive--the devil--on the other hand.

Michail Bulgakov's satire of Bolsheviks, The Heart of a Dog, captures us well. A surgeon sews the glands (like testicles, of a human into a dog. The dog becomes quite human like, a uniformed Bolshevik bureaucrat, but has a lot of dog characteristics, like biting fleas in his armpits, sniffing around garbage cans, attacking cats, and thrusting his nose into crotches.

As Will Durant often writes....man is a trousered Ape. — Marcus de Brun

That, I believe, is actually an expression of C S Lewis, taken from his book, The Abolition of Man.

Subtitled "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools," it uses that as a starting point for a defense of objective value and natural law as well as a warning of the consequences of doing away with or "debunking" those things. It defends science as something worth pursuing but criticizes using it to debunk values, the value of science itself being among them, or defining it to exclude such values.

It's not all bad:

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/de/-high-level-conference-cultural-heritage-in-europe---linking-past-and-future---special-guests-jean-michel-jarre-composer-performer-and-record-producer-and-daniel-barenboim-pianist-and-conductor--_I157472_02-V_rv

I think a distinction can be made between modern post-industrial globalism and ‘Western Civliisation’. Arguably the latter has been as much a victim of the former as have other cultures. After all traditional Chinese culture was utterly trashed in the Cultural Revolution, but that was not ‘Western civlisation’ in action. Western culture contains something of indispensable value but it has to be differentiated from its demon spawn.

I think a distinction can be made between modern post-industrial globalism and ‘Western Civliisation’. — Wayfarer

Of course it can, and if you make such a distinction, that western civilisation is the good stuff, and the bad stuff is uncivilised, or un western, then the answer is easy and comfortable. I don't know what the Cultural Revolution has to do with it, except that it is another disaster, (arguably heavily influenced by western thought).

But a culture that has demon spawn has at least to admit to supping with the devil with a too short spoon.

That, I believe, is actually an expression of C S Lewis, taken from his book, The Abolition of Man. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the clarity.

It may well have originated from Lewis, but the most erudite gentleman of contemporary Philosophy (Durant) applies the term with far greater finesse and a much more subtle form of Genius.

M

...(and others)
:up:
A most interesting thread, in my opinion. Thanks for all of your insights, here and in other threads. Can Western Civilization continue as it is? Is it sustainable? Are there even any other options at this point? What is the way forward? Very tempting on this kind of topic for one (such as me, for instance :monkey: ) to exaggerate and over-dramatize. Absolute kinds of thinking are relatively dangerous, to put it mildly. I see little benefit in non-qualified use of such words as always, never, everyone, forever, no-one, etc, and attempt (sometimes successfully) to use them sparingly. By the way, I voted in the poll for WC as disaster. But probably would have voted “partial disaster, at least”, if that had been a choice... FWIW.

And the current political climate and discussion of this so-called Western Civilization is generally filled with drama, grandstanding, hyperbole, exaggerations, and absolutes. And that’s on a good day, excluding some of the nastier stuff. It is coming from all sides. Seemingly, people have to shout or make exorbitant claims to be heard or noticed. Maybe it is always been like this, or maybe it has been amplified of late. The presence and power of the internet seems to make everything amplified and accelerated.

Upon second thought, I am of at least two minds about using the term “Western Civilization”. Mostly because now China, Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. are so integral to the business, culture, news, and thinking of the Western countries. (That is probably the result of globalization, of which I am also of two minds about. But that is another can of fish bait.) But mostly, referring to Western Civilization is common and acceptable parlance, and that is fine. As a side point mentioned above, there is of course the Middle East, which still profoundly influences the Western world. And then there’s Africa and Greece, which might in some ways be referred to as the cradle of humanity and civilization.

Despite any polemic of mine to the contrary, I agree that there is much from WC that is commendable.
One would be somewhat foolish not to admit that, as well as biting the hand that feeds one (so to speak). Having an attitude of gratitude, as the proverb goes. And I do believe that, perhaps even more strongly when I fail to act upon it. Like one realizes that it is better not to speed on the highway after getting a ticket or having an accident.

So the science, industry, culture, democracy (such as it exists), invention, etc. are all to be applauded. Even while being critiqued and debated, hopefully in a fair and balanced manner. As @Bitter Crank noted above, civilization is a mixed bag of positives and negatives. Humans are not angels nor demons, despite all appearances to the contrary sometimes.

I feel that the general topic the recent thread found here about Self as illusion is quite central to this thread about the nature and fate of Western Civilization. I wish that I could neatly explain or prove this, but it is not so easy even if possible. One would have to demonstrate that our current civilization has inherent contradictions and problems. Not all would agree with that. Then one would have to successfully argue that Self is at least partially a construct or composite, having no definitive nature. This would be even trickier to demonstrate, especially to a skeptical audience. Then the two points would have to be shown to have some kind of cause and effect relationship.

I’ll just say that sometimes the sweetest and otherwise wholesome fruit can accidentally harbor deadly bacteria or virus. And sometimes that way forward involves going in reverse, and a tree grows up in proportion to its simultaneous growing downward. To quote a line spoken by Sean Connery as a wounded Holy Grail-seeking Dr. Jones in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “the penitent man will pass... the penitent man will pass”. Or as one high school teacher said, “Time will pass. Will you?”

Thanks for asking my opinion. Yes it has. And if the East had been the dominant colonizing force in the world, that too would have been a disaster. The entire human race is a disaster, but here's hope: "Where sin abounds, grace abounds more", that is to say the entire mess serves to illustrate the Glory and Majesty, and Holiness of Almighty God.

Since you asked for my opinion....

Has "Western civilization" been a disaster? — Srap Tasmaner

On the whole, yes. Western civilisation is an imperial and xenophobic movement, responsible for capitalism and continuous-growth economics, and the use of science in places where other tools would serve us better. It has lead us to use the world, when we should be sharing it, so now (for example) three out of every four species of flying insects that lived when I was born are extinct; gone forever. Non-Western learning of all sorts is actively ignored; the history of non-Western civilisations is denied or demeaned. Philosophy is treated very similarly.

Yes, an unmitigated disaster for all the living creatures who live here on Earth.

Maybe some of you can help me with this.

Here's an argument, statement really, I've always found specious:

• Guns don't kill people; people do.

I find it specious not because it's false; it's obviously true. But given human frailty, making force multipliers like guns readily available is a bad idea. What might have been a fistfight with some asshole becomes manslaughter.

Here's my problem. Western culture produces lots of force multipliers. Once you can build resilient ships, reliable clocks and other navigational aids, better still fund it all with a joint stock company and insure it through an underwriter, you can unleash your tendency to greed, cruelty, and arrogance upon populations an ocean away. (Fast forward to colonialism, genocide, climate change, etc, etc, et bloody cetera.)

Do we blame the force multipliers? In this case I'm hesitant to. Am I being inconsistent?

One obvious difference is that handguns, let's say, have few other uses, and those uses are derivative. It's a tool whose sole purpose is the perpetration of violence.

Does it matter whether the sole purpose of sturdy ships was the transport of stolen silver and stolen people? Or whether it was the primary or the original purpose? I'm honestly not sure.

Many years ago, I read a splendid little book I'll bet some of you know called Medieval Technology and Social Change . One of its most famous arguments is that the invention of the stirrup "gave rise to" feudalism. Not "caused" exactly. Enabled? Made inevitable? (I honestly don't remember!) Feudalism of course is spectacularly unjust. What would it mean to blame the inventors of the stirrup for centuries of sophisticated barbarism?

I think of the question I posed here in these terms, technology and responsibility. Within technology I'd include social structures and institutions, it should be clear. I agree with the claim that many civilizations, though not all, have done as much exploiting and subjugating as they could given their technology. "We" have had more and better of the latter, and managed still more of the former.

Thoughts?

I'd also like to hear arguments that my whole approach is wrong and the culprit is how we think, the Western worldview, an instrumental view of the world, that sort of thing. A "culprit" in guiding the behavior of Europeans into immorality. Perhaps also a culprit -- has anyone claimed this here? Rich is gone -- in deforming science. Perhaps "the West" takes a fundamentally mistaken approach to understanding, well, everything.

I'd also like to hear arguments that my whole approach is wrong and the culprit is how we think, the Western worldview, an instrumental view of the world, that sort of thing. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think your analysis is wrong. As I said at the outset, what I think is the problem is that Western culture has come adrift from its ethical moorings. I mean, given ethical moorings, then these 'force multipliers' can be - and have been! - developed for beneficent ends. After all the so-called 'Green Revolution' has prevented world-wide famine. Drug such as antibiotics, and modern medicine generally, have ameliorated enormous amounts of human suffering. Overall - and this may be counter-intuitive - life-expectancy and average wealth per capita has actually continued to improve, not decline (per this editorial.)

But there are obviously also vast inequalities, not to mention environmental and economic threats and potential cataclysms.

Take Steve Pinker's latest book. It is a paean to the benefits of 'enlightenment values', technological values and 'progress'. Bill Gates and Elon Musk both sung its praises. But many critics also note that Pinker seems almost entirely blind to the downsides of progress and science; he has become known as an 'apostle of scientism'. My view is that we have to recognise the benefits of liberal democracy and science - in that, I agree with Pinker - but *not* the worldview or attitude of scientific materialism in which it is embedded.

E. F. Schumacher, one of the heroes of counter-cultural economics, explained it in a radio lecture as follows:

He called his talk ‘The Insufficiency of Liberalism’ and it was an exposition of what he termed the ‘three stages of development’. The first great leap, he said, was made when man moved from stage one of primitive religiosity to stage two of scientific realism. This was the stage modern man tended to be at. Then, he said, some people become dissatisfied with scientific realism, perceiving its deficiencies, and realize that there is something beyond fact and science. Such people progress to a higher plane of development which he called stage three. The problem, he explained, was that stage one and stage three looked exactly the same to those in stage two. Consequently, those in stage three are seen as having had some sort of brainstorm, a relapse into childish nonsense. Only those in stage three, who have been through stage two, can understand the difference between stage one and stage three. 1

This was whole basis of the counter-culture although few understood it through that perspective. Two books that I was strongly influenced by back in the day, were Theodore Roszak's The Making of a Counterculture (which is where the term 'counterculture' was coined) and his follow-up Where the Wasteland Ends.

So - there needs to be a new Enlightenment, one that is not based on scientific rationalism, but understands and incorporates mokṣa, spiritual liberation. It is precisely that idea which was snuffed out in Western culture - or, more accurately, coralled and neutered by ecclesiastical dogmatism. Schumacher was able to reconcile his understanding with the Catholicism to which he became a late-life convert, but it's not necessarily what most understand as 'religious' in the accepted sense. It's something more radical than that. That's what I'm working on.

Oh, and Schumacher names the real apostles of scientific materialism in Western culture: Darwin, Marx and Freud.

Guns don't kill people; people do — Srap Tasmaner

This is not a truism, it's a dodge intended to derail any conversation about responsibility for manufacturing, promoting, selling, or using guns. Guns are in no sense agents. Left on their own, they never do anything except rust. The only relevant agents in any murder are people -- not guns, and not any other inanimate object.

As you quite usefully noted, rocks, big sticks, arrows, spears, knives, guns, bombs -- many things -- are "force multipliers" and the gun lobby is guilty of promiscuously manufacturing, promoting, selling, and (in some cases) using force multipliers. So is the military lobby. So are several other industries and lobbies.

I think that force multipliers undoubtedly play a massive part in the problem, but the palaeoanthropological data, whilst extremely sparse and open to massive degrees of interpretation, does seem to indicate that the 'problem' started during the technological revolution, rather than as a result of it. By that I mean that if we take some basic metrics of the problem - inequality, war-likeness, wealth acquisition without limit), these are all properties commonly assignable to very old cultures at the outset of more settled lifestyles, but crucially not to communities of exactly the same technological capacities, but who were not yet settled.

Exceptions to this rule, interestingly, are tribes like the Papua New Guineans, who are uniquely violent, possibly because the mountainous terrain offers little opportunities for widespread cooperation (there are more languages per square mile in Papua New Guinea than almost any where else in the world).

So it seems to me that it's less of a case of force multipliers acting on some intrinsic greed, selfishness and violence in a completely unavoidable fixed 'human nature', but of 'human nature' being a malleable and adaptable thing which responds with greed, selfishness and violence to some situations, but which responds with egalitarianism, tolerance and frugality in others.

The problem then is not just the force multipliers, but the environment in which our children are raised which promotes this version of 'human nature' and not any other, more desirable version.

The problem then is not just the force multipliers, but the environment in which our children are raised which promotes this version of 'human nature' and not any other, more desirable version. — Pseudonym

It's not clear to me whether this puts you in the "it's how we think" camp. Is there only the one way of raising children in the European tradition -- and it's the wrong one -- or is the problem that at least two ways are available, at least one of them is the wrong one, and children raised one of the wrong ways "automatically" have a disproportionate impact on their environments (human and otherwise) and giving them force multipliers only makes the problem worse?

It occurs to me that you (you, Pseudonym, not "one") might write a history of philosophy that looks exactly like this. Coincidence?

Is there only the one way of raising children in the European tradition -- and it's the wrong one -- or is the problem that at least two ways are available, at least one of them is the wrong one, and children raised one of the wrong ways "automatically" have a disproportionate impact on their environments (human and otherwise) and giving them force multipliers only makes the problem worse? — Srap Tasmaner

I think there are broad enough similarities within the obvious diversity. I actually meant to specifically reference the environment our children are raised in (in a passive sense), rather than any child rearing method (in the active sense) as such, but I think that both have a part to play so I'm quite happy to stand by either.

To the first, one thing which marks out hunter-gatherers from settled agriculturalist is the freedom the children have. The theory goes that with settled resource harvesting, it becomes beneficial to harvest excess, so there is an incentive to put as much labour as possible to that project, and children are labour. In a nomadic system, there's no advantage to gathering an excess, so only that which is currently needed is gathered. This leaves a labour excess (the San for example work a 14hr week to gather all they need). Thus children are free to play. This play, the theory goes, develops egalitarianism and a strong belief in autonomy. If you're interested the primary paper is Here.

So yes, I guess I'm strongly in the "it's the way we think" camp in that our rejection of egalitarianism is a major factor, but I don't think it is intrinsic, I think it is learnt during childhood.

Im not entirely sure what you mean by your last paragraph, but you mentioned me by name so my internal narcissist compels me to ask you to expand, if you would.

Will come back to the other stuff.

I was starting to see something like an aggressive/pacifist divide. Philosophically, on one side there would be the Imperialist Metaphysical System Builders, with their water-cooled rapid-fire logical systems and advanced institutional defense subsystems, and on the other hand there are the Quiestist Therapists, who just want everyone to enjoy playing however they enjoy playing or not play at all and enjoy doing something else instead.

Imperialist Metaphysical System Builders, with their water-cooled rapid-fire logical systems — Srap Tasmaner

:sweat: :up:
Wish I had come up with that one! A picturesque metaphor is worth a thousand words of explication, imo.