His first step was to ditch the word civilisation, a term he argues is really propaganda by rulers. “When you look at the near east, China, Mesoamerica or the Andes, where the first kingdoms and empires arose, you don’t see civilised conduct, you see war, patriarchy and human sacrifice,” he says. This was a form of evolutionary backsliding from the egalitarian and mobile hunter-gatherer societies which shared tools and culture widely and survived for hundreds of thousands of years. “Instead, we started to resemble the hierarchies of chimpanzees and the harems of gorillas.”

Instead Kemp uses the term Goliaths to describe kingdoms and empires, meaning a society built on domination, such as the Roman empire: state over citizen, rich over poor, master over slave and men over women. He says that, like the biblical warrior slain by David’s slingshot, Goliaths began in the bronze age, were steeped in violence and often surprisingly fragile.

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 year ago

And just to add to this:

This all is without climate change. Ass climate change to the mix, which is as it currently stands, pretty much unstoppable, things will go to shit a whole lot faster.

As soon as crops start failing and we run out of fresh water, expect fascist types to spring up like weed

I for one believe that humanity is fucked and won't make it past the next 59 years. Is that sad and sober? It sure fucking Is, but I don't see a way around it. We should be all listening to scientists and working our asses off together to stop climate change but here we are with trump and co listening to conspiracy theories to rile up his base to push for WWIII instead.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    7 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, the problem is we've been kept powerless over big issues. When we found out about oil companies poisoning the earth, we SHOULD have had the power to put the whole company on trial. Instead they said our elected officials were the only option, and they did nothing. That's an excellent point. We're told we're powerless, and kept that way... So they can be richer.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    I’m pessimistic about the future,” he says. “But I’m optimistic about people.” Luke Kemp’s new book covers the rise and collapse of more than 400 societies over 5,000 years and took seven years to write. The lessons he has drawn are often striking: people are fundamentally egalitarian but are led to collapses by enriched, status-obsessed elites, while past collapses often improved the lives of ordinary citizens.

    Today’s global civilisation, however, is deeply interconnected and unequal and could lead to the worst societal collapse yet, he says. The threat is from leaders who are “walking versions of the dark triad” – narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism – in a world menaced by the climate crisis, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence and killer robots.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This has always been the answer, and will always continue to be. You have to engrave this in the kind of every generation to avoid it. There lies the problem.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Interesting article. The author of the book is Luke Kemp but he sure looks like a Chad to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 7 comments in c/australia@aussie.zone view that post
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We’re not going to make, are we? ‘People’, I mean.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I agree. Unfortunately the people who benefit from the current power structure have the most power in order to maintain it. I don’t see these people accepting juries or caps on their assets.

    There are also often violent repercussions to protesting, and coups tend to just destabilise a region and set up the next dictatorship.

    Humans just can’t seem to stop being dicks

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Humans just can’t seem to stop being dicks

    It's interesting, because the work itself seems to have the exact opposite thesis: Humans on average aren't dicks, but inequality and the interests of a few elites with essentially personality disorders the way he frames it, amplify our worst tendencies. For many thousands of years of pre-history, archaeological evidence and anthropological observations clearly show humanity in much more egalitarian societies. The example he uses is of the Khoisan people:

    All Goliaths, however, contain the seeds of their own demise, he says: “They are cursed and this is because of inequality.” Inequality does not arise because all people are greedy. They are not, he says. The Khoisan peoples in southern Africa, for example, shared and preserved common lands for thousands of years despite the temptation to grab more.

    Instead, it is the few people high in the dark triad who fall into races for resources, arms and status, he says. “Then as elites extract more wealth from the people and the land, they make societies more fragile, leading to infighting, corruption, immiseration of the masses, less healthy people, overexpansion, environmental degradation and poor decision making by a small oligarchy. The hollowed-out shell of a society is eventually cracked asunder by shocks such as disease, war or climate change.”

    In general, it's not a very controversial take, that the current (i.e. of the past ~5k years) inequality did not arise as a natural state but became only possible through surplus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 5 comments in c/history@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago*

    Throughout history society has collapsed over and over again either by mismanagement or by overthrow of the ruling class. It's a natural cycle that we seem to be moving away from- Revolt has been mischaracterized and criminalized in an attempt to maintain the status quo. But things weren't always like this. edit: I'm not advocating for anything, just stating some observations

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Years ago - I believe in one of Dostoyevsky's novels, but I haven't been able to run it down - I read a wonderful allegory on this topic.

    The basic gist of it, told nowhere near as well as it was originally:

    Once upon a time, there was a peaceful village of farmers. They went through their days, tending their fields and caring for their livestock and each other and simply living.

    Every few years though, a group of bandits would ride down out of the nearby hills and attack tge village and take all they could carry of the farmers' crops and livestock.

    Then one year, an entirely different group of bandits rode down from a different part of the hills, and they attacked the village and took everything.

    So when, a few months later, the customary bandits rode down to attack, they found the village already devastated and everything they would've stolen already gone.

    The bandits knew they couldn't allow that - they depended on their theft of the villagers' goods for their own livelihood. So they went back to their camp and, over a hard winter, thought about what to do.

    The next spring - long before the harvest, so long before their customary attack on the villagers, they rode down and they approached the village elders with a proposal.

    Instead of attacking the villagers and taking everything, they would settle for just taking half of everything, and in exchange they would protect the villagers from being attacked by those other bandits and having everything taken.

    And the villagers, with no other hope - being allowed to keep hslf of the fruits of their labors was at least better than losing everything - grudgingly agreed.

    And thus was government born.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Changing the title of the article isn't helpful

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    IMO the title I used better reflected the author's primary message ... in his own words. It was TheGuardian which mis-directed it. Lemmy chose to run that blurb, I have no control over that (and when it does so, it's often discouraging).

    'Self-termination' was a stupid choice. I didn't get a chance to see that or modify it when I clicked on 'Preview'. Lemmy would be better if it would offer that choice and allow the poster to reject it. It's rather authoritarian that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • 5 comments in c/news@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There is a thing we could do to tackle the existence of billionaires in a world stricken by poverty...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I understand the nub of your gist, but historically, the net result of this is a new generation of oligarchs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    people are fundamentally egalitarian but are led to collapses by enriched, status-obsessed elites, while past collapses often improved the lives of ordinary citizens.

    After a time new "elites" will worm their way into power, sure, but in the meantime things are often better, and things may even end up less bad at the next 'peak' of elitist control than the last time. Since it's currently getting worse by the day, it doesn't seem as though the normal calculus of "don't risk collapse to fix imperfection" really applies; we seem to be heading for collapse (whether economic, democratic, or otherwise) anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • 4 comments in c/collapse@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Anyone interested in the historical context here should read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. He explained this in 1992.

    This was a really good read, thank you for posting it. I too find it hard to hold out hope, but i'll be fucked if I go out quietly. Valid messages all around

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Interesting how long an article you can write without mentioning overshoot even once.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not like it was never alluded to:

    "Then as elites extract more wealth from the people and the land, they make societies more fragile, leading to infighting, corruption, immiseration of the masses, less healthy people, overexpansion, environmental degradation and poor decision making by a small oligarchy. The hollowed-out shell of a society is eventually cracked asunder by shocks such as disease, war or climate change."

    (bold added to highlight indirect mention of overshoot by other names)

    The reason that overshoot isn't really a focus in this article is because the author has recognized (correctly, IMO) that overshoot is just a symptom of a much deeper problem - large-scale domination by narcissistic/psychopathic individuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    that overshoot is just a symptom of a much deeper problem - large-scale domination by narcissistic/psychopathic individuals.

    definitely possible to get overshoot without psychopathic individuals

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/collapse@sopuli.xyz view that post
    2 comments in c/earthlingliberationnotes@lemmy.world view that post
    2 comments in c/collapse@lemmy.zip view that post
    1 comment in c/collapse@slrpnk.net view that post