From: Cliff Stabbert (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 19:10:19 MDT
Sunday, September 15, 2002, 8:38:42 PM, mike99 wrote:
m> Samantha Atkins wrote:
m> . . . .
>> There are certainly many societies in
>> near-paradisical conditions that don't seem to be driven so
>> deeply by evolution in such directions. I don't think it is
>> hardwired that everything should have a price put on it and be
>> owned by someone, especially not in the realm of information and
m> Could you name some of these near-paradisiacal societies? I must
m> have missed them.
I could be wrong and I've only read some superficial texts on this,
but my understanding is that classic Balinese culture would qualify
(not sure about the near-paradisical part, but the non-scarcity-based
part). Possibly also Eskimo society, and that of a few of the Native
Some claim that in broad strokes the distinction between "matriarchal"
and "patriarchal" societies is what's relevant; some that there's a
strong geographical component; some that the transition from
hunter-gatherers to agricultural societies is most strongly implicated
in moving towards hierarchical structures. I've recently been reading
bits of James DeMeo's studies/theories on these issues and found them
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT