The origin of sedentary lifestyle

[Eongar]

I'm currently reading the book "Servants of War: Private Military Corporations and the Profit of Conflict" by Rolf Uesseler (which I recommend, because objectively explains the operation of private military companies) and I read a chapter devoted to the possible origin of the mercenaries. The author speaks of the first mercenaries probably arose out of the "need" to defend arable lands, ie, following the emergence of agriculture and sedentary.

This made me think about the wars themselves. It appears that the first wars arose from sedentary / agriculture. The findings that have so far proved the existence of battles which date from the Mesolithic and not before, that is, when nomadism began to disappear to make way for sedentary lifestyle.

Is it probable that agriculture, apart from what is harmful to health, will also enhance the appearance of genetic disorders and characteropathies?

Is it possible that even the sedentary were instigated (at least in part) by psychopathic individuals in order to better control and manipulate the population and to control land use and enjoy, for example?

In sum: Is it possible that a sedentary lifestyle is the result of psychopathy and characteropathies?

Osit

 

[Buddy]

In sum: Is it possible that a sedentary lifestyle is the result of psychopathy and characteropathies?

Osit

Well, the way I see it, one way that psychopathy and characteropathies could be understood to express themselves is through past and present corporate sponsored social engineering projects pushed through schools, TV, movies and other forms of social media. One way to view the payoff could be as the social neutering of the young males and females.

Young, athletic, testosterone-driven males with ambition, attention on society, being educated with a deep understanding of our current problems and with desire to make their mark on society are diverted toward endeavors involving narrow context self-gratification loops. This behavior can express specifically as a sedentary lifestyle in their local environmental context or a sedentary lifestyle relative to the evolutionary trends of society as a whole. Either way, victims are accomplishing few if any long-term values for others.

Essentially the same with females, I'd say. Except I'd replace 'testosterone-driven' with assertive and gumption-filled. For both males and females though, the point here is to notice where people are focusing all their attention. For the most part, its certainly at places other than identifying, exposing and b*tch-slapping certain pathologies back to the primordial soup.

 

[durabone]

Reminds me of Cain and Abel. Grower and herder. Cain might have drawn a line around his crops and said, "Mine." Images of him sitting around in a chair, waiting for his crops to ripen - that's new to me, and sort of "idle hands = devil's work-ish". Cool!

 

[Foxx]

Well, the way I see it, one way that psychopathy and characteropathies could be understood to express themselves is through past and present corporate sponsored social engineering projects pushed through schools, TV, movies and other forms of social media. One way to view the payoff could be as the social neutering of the young males and females.

Young, athletic, testosterone-driven males with ambition, attention on society, being educated with a deep understanding of our current problems and with desire to make their mark on society are diverted toward endeavors involving narrow context self-gratification loops. This behavior can express specifically as a sedentary lifestyle in their local environmental context or a sedentary lifestyle relative to the evolutionary trends of society as a whole. Either way, victims are accomplishing few if any long-term values for others.

Essentially the same with females, I'd say. Except I'd replace 'testosterone-driven' with assertive and gumption-filled. For both males and females though, the point here is to notice where people are focusing all their attention. For the most part, its certainly at places other than identifying, exposing and b*tch-slapping certain pathologies back to the primordial soup.

I could be off here, but to me this post both barely relates to what Alvaro is saying and is barely intelligible.

My personal take, Alvaro, is that the very idea of divvying up land and deciding who "owns" it is pathological. There is an element of an investment of time and energy on the part of an individual maintaining and improving land that, in the world as it currently is, I think makes sense to think of as ownership or perhaps stewardship. But at the time of transition from hunter gatherers to agriculture the idea that somebody "owned" land was probably viewed as literally insane--by what right but their own self-serving declaration do they own that land? The only thing that could uphold that "right" at that time was their own willingness to use violence against anyone who trespassed on "their" land and ate "their" food. I think war could only exist with the idea of land ownership and with increasing population densities--otherwise groups or individuals could just go somewhere else if they couldn't get along, or for one group or person to escape the pathologicals. But of course the psychopaths and pathologicals have been around for a very long time in every group, which complicates things.

But that's more of an interpretation from a main-stream historical perspective--if there are more past civilizations and other elements of secret history (as there likely are), then it's probably more complicated than my thoughts above.

FWIW.

 

[Buddy]

I could be off here, but to me this post both barely relates to what Alvaro is saying and is barely intelligible.

That surprises me.

Both our posts arise from what appears to be the same understanding of a deeper context related to similar cognitive-behavioral components of two types of mindset: one of abundance (of opportunity) and one of scarcity (paucity of opportunity). The manifestations of those mindsets are real and their patterns are visible regardless of period of history.

Considering the question was very broad and consisted of many gaps in the chain, you answered the best you could. You admit a possibility of various interpretations and say of yours: "But that's more of an interpretation from a main-stream historical perspective."

Of mine you say "barely intelligible"? Mine was more of a perspective based on a contemporary understanding of observed consequences from social engineering. I thought it was the best way to answer the question that I quoted and I obviously thought it was intelligible. 'Scuze me!

 

[durabone]

Is it probable that agriculture, apart from what is harmful to health, will also enhance the appearance of genetic disorders and characteropathies?

That is an interesting connection, you've got me thinking now (look out!)

other: Who did you plant those seeds for, Cain? You or us?
Cain: "My crops! All that work, I deserve something for it. All those pesky shepherds coming through here taking what is not theirs!"
other: "Why don't you trade them crops for sour meat?"
Cain: "First I have to cut off their ability to snack for free!"
other: "Build a fence, post guards at night!"

and so it goes.

Buddy I liked your bit about diverting the best and brightest into games. Let them eat games! The origin of the sedentary lifestyle came before the games perhaps. Anyone up for some "Mercenary Olympics?"

 

[webglider]

quote from Foxx:

My personal take, Alvaro, is that the very idea of divvying up land and deciding who "owns" it is pathological.

I wonder about that. I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that groups were territorial and did not want members of other groups encroaching on their hunting and foraging grounds. Dogs are territorial as are many other animals. Tightly knit groups of nomads would probably return to the same areas several times a year as the seasons changed and may not be happy to see other groups there as well.

I think the deciding factor would be the amount of food that was available. If not so much, I would imagine conflict. If a populations get too large because of a surfeit of food in good times, when bad times come there might be conflict over land rights.

The key perhaps is the ratio between populations and their food supplies. Maybe during some years there is enough for everyone, and during others there isn't enough. Maybe the idea of having a predictable food supply would be enough of a reason to encourage people to stake out a place for their group, settle there, and defend it from outsiders. Once there is food securit and a dedicated place to live\y, people are freed to pursue other interests such as farming and/or herding, to develop writing, art and music.

quote by Alvaro:

Is it probable that agriculture, apart from what is harmful to health, will also enhance the appearance of genetic disorders and characteropathies?

Is it possible that even the sedentary were instigated (at least in part) by psychopathic individuals in order to better control and manipulate the population and to control land use and enjoy, for example?

Well maybe. I would imagine nomads, whose whole lives were mostly dedicated to finding food, would just not tolerate pathological individuals and get rid of them. I think security brings with it a whole slue of problems because people put their guards down and deny what they see. As we can see from our own societies, most people don't want to see the truth because life seems to go on as usual - until it doesn't.

Just a thought.

 

[whitecoast]

I'm currently reading the book "Servants of War: Private Military Corporations and the Profit of Conflict" by Rolf Uesseler (which I recommend, because objectively explains the operation of private military companies) and I read a chapter devoted to the possible origin of the mercenaries. The author speaks of the first mercenaries probably arose out of the "need" to defend arable lands, ie, following the emergence of agriculture and sedentary.

This made me think about the wars themselves. It appears that the first wars arose from sedentary / agriculture. The findings that have so far proved the existence of battles which date from the Mesolithic and not before, that is, when nomadism began to disappear to make way for sedentary lifestyle.

Is it probable that agriculture, apart from what is harmful to health, will also enhance the appearance of genetic disorders and characteropathies?

Is it possible that even the sedentary were instigated (at least in part) by psychopathic individuals in order to better control and manipulate the population and to control land use and enjoy, for example?

In sum: Is it possible that a sedentary lifestyle is the result of psychopathy and characteropathies?

Osit

I read a really excellent book and essay a few weeks ago: "Coming Home to the Pleistocene" by Paul Shepherd and "Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence" (I'm currently writing a post for a separate thread on the latter). Maybe I can share what I've learned in parts of them.

What I gathered from Paul Shepherd's work is that warfare and conquest began largely with the arrival of animal husbandry and domestication. This was a fundamentally different way of life from that of the early agriculturalists. Animal husbandry required less manual labour than the continuous planting and reaping of fields. And unlike agriculture--which need only take up as much space as your local field--animal grazing required a semi-nomadic lifestyle that would allow the herds to continuously graze new grasslands after depleting older areas. They essentially had to follow the rainfall, which is the reason why many believe these cultures became more obsessed with an authoritarian Sky-God instead of an agricultural Earth-Mother. This is also why those shepherd cultures became obsessed with appeasement of divine will through sacrifice and such. Since sheep numbers were the direct correlate of one's wealth, gradually those cultures that learned to steal cows became stronger. It is this initial increase in stealing and inter-personal violence that instigated the creation of the "warrior culture," which glorified strong leaders, valour in battle, and other pathological social qualities. Shepherd points to the Navajo as a culture that had relatively little interpersonal violence until animal husbandry came onto the scene. Perhaps the psychopathy gene was there all along, but only became encouraged to develop once

The agriculturalists, obviously, were prime prey for these shepherd cultures. Since agriculturalists live sedentiary lifestyles based upon toil and accumulation, it became a natural next step for the sheperd kings to move in and take over. Essentially, these people (psychopaths and their authoritarian followers) started to look at other people the same way they did their flock of sheep. Evil Magician, anyone?

In the "Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence" essay, the author talked about the difference between "Simple Hunter-Gatherers" and "Complex Hunter Gatherers".

Anthropologists who have studied such societies have classified them into two general categories. The societies discussed in this article fall into the category that is referred to as immediate-return hunter-gatherers, simple hunter-gatherers, or egalitarian hunter-gatherers. These societies have low population densities; live in small, mobile bands, that move regularly from place to place within large but relatively circumscribed areas; do not condone violence; are egalitarian in social organization; make decisions by consensus; own
little property and readily share what they do own; and have little occupational specialization except those based on gender.

The other category of hunter-gatherer societies, which is smaller in number and is typified by the Kwakiutl of the American Northwest Coast and the Ainu of Japan, is referred to as collector societies, delayed-return hunter-gatherers, complex hunter-gatherers, or non-egalitarian hunter-gatherers. In a chapter distinguishing the two categories, Robert Kelly characterizes the collector societies as having “high population densities, sedentism or substantially restricted residential mobility, occupational specialization, perimeter defense and resource ownership, focal exploitation of a particular resource (commonly fish), large residential group size, inherited status, ritual feasting complexes, standardized
valuables, prestige goods or currencies, and food storage.” He adds that they “also tend to have high rates of violence and condone violence as legitimate.”

So, simple hunter gatherers typically had far lower ponerization. They also had lower populations and greater abundance of resources. Maybe that also encourages psychopathy because larger populations means more room for psychopaths to migrate between different social groups, to have consistent supply of unsuspecting victims?

 

[durabone]

Is it possible that even the sedentary were instigated (at least in part) by psychopathic individuals in order to better control and manipulate the population and to control land use and enjoy, for example?

My very limited experience suggests yes. Just because someone sits down and pauses, does not mean that they will grab the bull by the horns and start driving their world consciously! My guess: social/biological growth works so consistently across the laws of nature, that the same pathology described here - winning shelter and then manipulating it as an addiction - is possible across thousands of worlds.

A prayer: “Have we all been prey to the same SOBs? Please yes!”

I would imagine nomads, whose whole lives were mostly dedicated to finding food, would just not tolerate pathological individuals and get rid of them.

I like the sentiment webglider, I really do. Can a nomad spend the night or do walls, parapets, and other dissuasions set him on the road again late at night? I’m going with this: The merchants were scary.

 

[ytain]

From reading about psychopathy in books, I notice the following tendency of theirs, that they despise hard work so they have to force others to do the physical/menial work for them, akin to master-slave dynamic. Could that explain the beginning of sedentary lifestyle and as well warfare?

In a small hunter-gatherer tribe (mobile and nomadic) the hard work is equally spread among individuals based on their individual abilities. Any weakling will be left out, even as well the psychopathic ones cause they represent a burden on the tribe's wellbeing.

Ytain

 

[Foxx]

I thought it was the best way to answer the question that I quoted and I obviously thought it was intelligible. 'Scuze me!

To me, it looks like you took the question out of context and then answered it in a way that was intelligible to you, but not really for everyone else. And, of course, obviously you thought it was intelligible--who would post something that they thought didn't make sense? But that doesn't automatically make it make sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my current understanding that you have a history of making posts that most people except yourself don't understand (internally considering), then receiving a shock and posting in a way that many/most people can understand (externally considering) for a while, then slowly slipping back into the original posting style that primarily only you can understand, not taking into account the many members of the forum who aren't native english speakers and/or who aren't used to reading highly technical or highly dense information.

Here's the breakdown of my thinking regarding your post:

Well, the way I see it, one way that psychopathy and characteropathies could be understood to express themselves is through past and present corporate sponsored social engineering projects pushed through schools, TV, movies and other forms of social media.

So you've already lost me here--he was talking about the shift of humanity towards agriculture. So none of this technology was around at that time and there was no corporate sponsorship of social engineering.

One way to view the payoff could be as the social neutering of the young males and females.

What does this mean?

Young, athletic, testosterone-driven males with ambition, attention on society, being educated with a deep understanding of our current problems and with desire to make their mark on society are diverted toward endeavors involving narrow context self-gratification loops.

I understand that most people who want to do good (instead of evil) in life are diverted by 4D STS and lack of knowledge into self-gratification and entropy, but I don't really see how the first part of this relates to the second (what does athleticism and testosterone have to do with that? I think most men who are athletic and described as 'testosterone-drive' would be quite uninterested in making a good mark on the world, but more "leaving their mark on the world", which was self-gratification to begin with). Basically, after reading this sentence over multiple times, I don't understand what you're trying to convey, let alone how it relates to what Alvaro posted.

This behavior can express specifically as a sedentary lifestyle in their local environmental context or a sedentary lifestyle relative to the evolutionary trends of society as a whole.

This I can understand, but from what you've written so far I don't understand your thinking regarding how this relates to Alvaro's question. To me, this looks like an extremely over-complicated way of saying '"humans have been diverted into increasingly STS thinking for a very long time"--which, in the context of this forum, is quite obvious, and so not really adding anything new or insightful.

Either way, victims are accomplishing few if any long-term values for others.

What victims? What do you mean by "values for others"? I'm guessing that you mean something that is serving others--if so, why did you say it this way?

Essentially the same with females, I'd say. Except I'd replace 'testosterone-driven' with assertive and gumption-filled.

This I at least don't need to read multiple times, but I still don't understand what you're saying because it relates back to the previous part that I didn't understand.

For both males and females though, the point here is to notice where people are focusing all their attention.

How does this relate to either what you've been talking about or what Alvaro asked?

For the most part, its certainly at places other than identifying, exposing and b*tch-slapping certain pathologies back to the primordial soup.

This also took me multiple reads to understand--the use of the word identifying (since it's often used here esoterically, making the meaning quite different) got me stuck, but now I see it clearer. But again, how does this relate back to what Alvaro posted?

I only have my perspective to go on here, but I'm both a native english speaker and have a college education, so I don't have some of the barriers that other members of this forum have--so if I have to read your post multiple times and still don't fully understand it, then to me something is way off and the posting is really all for you (again) and not externally considerate. I don't think it's unreasonable to call it barely intelligible if I'm asking myself "what is he talking about?" the entire time I read a post for the first or second time, in this context.

The entire post seems overly-complicated, favoring dense and complex language over simple and easy to understand language, with unclear or linguistically-far references, not clearly and/or directly related to Alvaro's post, and not written in a way that's trying to make sure that it's understandable to everyone (or at least as many people as can be reasonably expected).

Do you ever read over your posts before posting them and ask yourself "how might this sound to someone who's only had a high school or equivalent education who's not a native english speaker?"?

 

[Buddy]

Is it probable that agriculture, apart from what is harmful to health, will also enhance the appearance of genetic disorders and characteropathies?

That is an interesting connection, you've got me thinking now (look out!)

other: Who did you plant those seeds for, Cain? You or us?
Cain: "My crops! All that work, I deserve something for it. All those pesky shepherds coming through here taking what is not theirs!"
other: "Why don't you trade them crops for sour meat?"
Cain: "First I have to cut off their ability to snack for free!"
other: "Build a fence, post guards at night!"

and so it goes.

Yep. From a hunter's perspective, when food is plentiful and the mindset is one of abundance, behaviors originating from mine vs yours, me Not you, and so on, do appear quite idiotic.

quote from Foxx:

My personal take, Alvaro, is that the very idea of divvying up land and deciding who "owns" it is pathological.

I wonder about that. I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that groups were territorial and did not want members of other groups encroaching on their hunting and foraging grounds.

I think both of you are correct. From within what semioticians call the paternal order of culture, Foxx makes a good point. Individuals (exactly who were the first?) claiming natural resources like land as their own and imposing "divvying" and the passing of ownership to sons as a societal pattern, does appear pathological.

I see no reason for practicing territoriality outside of a scarcity mindset. Inside that mindset is where it would be useful, OSIT. In general, though, representing Native Americans as example of hunters and tribal cultures, I know of no Native Americans to this day who believe anyone really owns the land--a precondition for behaving territorially. Rather they tend to view people who act this way as manifesting symptoms of what the Cree call Wetiko or wetiko psychosis.

If I'm not mistaken, Jung had a parallel to this called "shadow projection" which refers to a process in which we split-off from and project out our own darkness onto others.

 

[anart]

I thought it was the best way to answer the question that I quoted and I obviously thought it was intelligible. 'Scuze me!

To me, it looks like you took the question out of context and then answered it in a way that was intelligible to you, but not really for everyone else. And, of course, obviously you thought it was intelligible--who would post something that they thought didn't make sense? But that doesn't automatically make it make sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my current understanding that you have a history of making posts that most people except yourself don't understand (internally considering), then receiving a shock and posting in a way that many/most people can understand (externally considering) for a while, then slowly slipping back into the original posting style that primarily only you can understand, not taking into account the many members of the forum who aren't native english speakers and/or who aren't used to reading highly technical or highly dense information.

Here's the breakdown of my thinking regarding your post:

Well, the way I see it, one way that psychopathy and characteropathies could be understood to express themselves is through past and present corporate sponsored social engineering projects pushed through schools, TV, movies and other forms of social media.

So you've already lost me here--he was talking about the shift of humanity towards agriculture. So none of this technology was around at that time and there was no corporate sponsorship of social engineering.

One way to view the payoff could be as the social neutering of the young males and females.

What does this mean?

Young, athletic, testosterone-driven males with ambition, attention on society, being educated with a deep understanding of our current problems and with desire to make their mark on society are diverted toward endeavors involving narrow context self-gratification loops.

I understand that most people who want to do good (instead of evil) in life are diverted by 4D STS and lack of knowledge into self-gratification and entropy, but I don't really see how the first part of this relates to the second (what does athleticism and testosterone have to do with that? I think most men who are athletic and described as 'testosterone-drive' would be quite uninterested in making a good mark on the world, but more "leaving their mark on the world", which was self-gratification to begin with). Basically, after reading this sentence over multiple times, I don't understand what you're trying to convey, let alone how it relates to what Alvaro posted.

This behavior can express specifically as a sedentary lifestyle in their local environmental context or a sedentary lifestyle relative to the evolutionary trends of society as a whole.

This I can understand, but from what you've written so far I don't understand your thinking regarding how this relates to Alvaro's question. To me, this looks like an extremely over-complicated way of saying '"humans have been diverted into increasingly STS thinking for a very long time"--which, in the context of this forum, is quite obvious, and so not really adding anything new or insightful.

Either way, victims are accomplishing few if any long-term values for others.

What victims? What do you mean by "values for others"? I'm guessing that you mean something that is serving others--if so, why did you say it this way?

Essentially the same with females, I'd say. Except I'd replace 'testosterone-driven' with assertive and gumption-filled.

This I at least don't need to read multiple times, but I still don't understand what you're saying because it relates back to the previous part that I didn't understand.

For both males and females though, the point here is to notice where people are focusing all their attention.

How does this relate to either what you've been talking about or what Alvaro asked?

For the most part, its certainly at places other than identifying, exposing and b*tch-slapping certain pathologies back to the primordial soup.

This also took me multiple reads to understand--the use of the word identifying (since it's often used here esoterically, making the meaning quite different) got me stuck, but now I see it clearer. But again, how does this relate back to what Alvaro posted?

I only have my perspective to go on here, but I'm both a native english speaker and have a college education, so I don't have some of the barriers that other members of this forum have--so if I have to read your post multiple times and still don't fully understand it, then to me something is way off and the posting is really all for you (again) and not externally considerate. I don't think it's unreasonable to call it barely intelligible if I'm asking myself "what is he talking about?" the entire time I read a post for the first or second time, in this context.

The entire post seems overly-complicated, favoring dense and complex language over simple and easy to understand language, with unclear or linguistically-far references, not clearly and/or directly related to Alvaro's post, and not written in a way that's trying to make sure that it's understandable to everyone (or at least as many people as can be reasonably expected).

Do you ever read over your posts before posting them and ask yourself "how might this sound to someone who's only had a high school or equivalent education who's not a native english speaker?"?

I don't want to divert yet another thread trying to address Buddy's external consideration issues in relation to writing his posts - so I'll make this very brief. The above was a clear response to Buddy's refusal to acknowledge that he's writing for himself again. Buddy, do you get it after reading the above? Can you - consistently - write for others and not yourself? I suppose a better question is "will you" because I know you can. I think it comes down to remembering yourself.

 

[Buddy]

I suppose a better question is "will you" because I know you can. I think it comes down to remembering yourself.

I will because you were kind enough to ask and to remind me to remember. My fault entirely.

Y'know how you say we suffer until we decide we will suffer no more? Well, the last two weeks have been rather hectic as my wife and I exercised our right to walk away from a hostile and unhealthy environment that was worsening every day. Basically, we packed up and moved over 100 miles away. So, yes, I may have forgotten a tidbit of something here or there.

----------------------

And, of course, obviously you thought it was intelligible--who would post something that they thought didn't make sense? But that doesn't automatically make it make sense.

No, but I figured it would clue you that I was aware that you knew that would hit me as a trollish remark. And as a beginning of your own post which I, and probably others, regarded as insightful and intelligent, I simply thought my post was undeserving of a summary dismissal by less discerning readers. I wanted to continue participating on this thread.

To me, it looks like you took the question out of context...

Well yes, but there's a larger context of the question that I think is still to be developed. To me, there is a big picture here worth the effort where all A's observations and questions could eventually be answered and some interesting dots connected. Hard to do that all in one post though.

Well, the way I see it, one way that psychopathy and characteropathies could be understood to express themselves is through past and present corporate sponsored social engineering projects pushed through schools, TV, movies and other forms of social media.

So you've already lost me here--he was talking about the shift of humanity towards agriculture. So none of this technology was around at that time and there was no corporate sponsorship of social engineering.

That paragraph was just a setting for what follows it.

One way to view the payoff could be as the social neutering of the young males and females.

What does this mean?

Just a part of the context of my response. It was intended to pre-answer a question like: "well, what would be the payoff or purpose of that?"

Young, athletic, testosterone-driven males with ambition, attention on society, being educated with a deep understanding of our current problems and with desire to make their mark on society are diverted toward endeavors involving narrow context self-gratification loops.

I understand that most people who want to do good (instead of evil) in life are diverted by 4D STS and lack of knowledge into self-gratification and entropy, but I don't really see how the first part of this relates to the second (what does athleticism and testosterone have to do with that? I think most men who are athletic and described as 'testosterone-drive' would be quite uninterested in making a good mark on the world, but more "leaving their mark on the world", which was self-gratification to begin with). Basically, after reading this sentence over multiple times, I don't understand what you're trying to convey, let alone how it relates to what Alvaro posted.

My apologies. It seems you don't have a pre-existing stereotype of my meaning with which to pattern match your more abstract understanding. I thought the above was a concrete image from contemporary society that would represent a most likely case scenario for those starting out in life. That is, before they're coerced into helplessness and have to cope with the pain from being thwarted and re-vectored toward mind-numbing behaviors that benefit the status-quo. Behaviors with which they eventually become comfortable. Sedentary flows from that.

As it stands, I figured it could also serve as an analogy for the dynamics involved in other contexts within the larger issue.

It may not have a direct connection yet with what Alvaro said, but I was being patient and hoping for continued dialog which could connect more dots.

This behavior can express specifically as a sedentary lifestyle in their local environmental context or a sedentary lifestyle relative to the evolutionary trends of society as a whole.

This I can understand, but from what you've written so far I don't understand your thinking regarding how this relates to Alvaro's question.

See above.

To me, this looks like an extremely over-complicated way of saying '"humans have been diverted into increasingly STS thinking for a very long time"--which, in the context of this forum, is quite obvious, and so not really adding anything new or insightful.

My description was evidently more clear to my own perception. I wouldn't have translated to what you said anyway because I tend to only use STS and STO concepts when speaking in the broadest possible contexts. And why not, since from that wider view most all and everything in our 3D corner of our universe is STS anyway which would make that use rather redundant, OSIT.

"Sedentary" doesn't just have a definition, it also has various implementations. The more examples Álvaro or any of us can see, the deeper the achievable understanding. At least to me, anyway.

Any more questions, please feel free to ask.

 

[Mountain Crown]

I don’t think that sedentary life, though increased by agrarian society, necessarily was caused by it. Not every member of a hunter /gatherer society hunted or foraged, there were those who made the clothes, tended the fire, and made the tools/weapons.

Sedentary can also mean living in one place, and I think it is sound to see a link with agriculture, but this could have more than one cause. Shortage of animals and the reliance on seacoasts for food, e.g., could necessitate settling in strategic areas and may even have been the precurse to growing food more and more.

After a certain amount of population growth, increased demands for more varied trades would result. The localization of food and the need to protect it from rival tribes would definitely attract the pathological types to control it all.

Is it possible that even the sedentary were instigated (at least in part) by psychopathic individuals

I’m thinking that this may be a little simplistic since we know psychopaths aren’t creative and are less intelligent than normal people. They do however, recognize an opportunity for control when it emerges.