Thanks for your thought provoking reply (as usual ;-). Because of the many interesting points you raised, I'll make a separate response to each one that piqued my interest.

> The hunting and gathering society was not pervaded by idea of prevarication

I may have misunderstood your intent but -- taking prevarication to mean evasion of the truth; deceit, evasiveness -- it is widely accepted that prevarication was indeed common and widespread in hunter-gatherer communities ... and among many other Ape species too!

Stronger, lying and bluffing is rife throughout the animal kingdom (not just in Apes), deception conferring strong evolutionary advantages. See for example:

• Those Lying Apes (Psychology Today)
• Why some monkeys are better liars (newscientist)
• Do Animals Lie? (University of Rochester)
• The Evolution of Lying (ABC)

I'd also like to highlight, by quoting Sapiens, that the time scales involved indicate that the ancient hunter-gatherer era is the dominant influence on our genes today:

For nearly the entire history of our species, Sapiens lived as foragers. The past 200 years, during which ever increasing numbers of Sapiens have obtained their daily bread as urban labourers and office workers, and the preceding 10,000 years, during which most Sapiens lived as farmers and herders, are the blink of an eye compared to the tens of thousands of years during which our ancestors hunted and gathered ...

The flourishing field of evolutionary psychology argues that many of our present-day social and psychological characteristics were shaped during this long pre-agricultural era. Even today, scholars in this field claim, our brains and minds are adapted to a life of hunting and gathering.

Why, for example, do people gorge on high-calorie food that is doing little good to their bodies? Today's affluent societies are in the throes of a plague of obesity ... If a Stone Age woman came across a tree groaning with figs, the most sensible thing to do was to eat as many of them as she could on the spot, before the local baboon band picked the tree bare.

hello again eyepopslikeamosquito,

> taking prevarication to mean..

Ouch.. I have this habit to choose words from my mother tongue hoping they have the same meaning (and the same semantic) in English due to their common latin roots!

This time, as many other ones, I was was unlucky: it seems that English maintained a meaning closer to the Latin one, infact prevarication has quiet the same meaning of prevaricatio but in my language it took a more common meaning of violent arrogance or simply the act to overwhelm, overcome, overpower someone else.

L*

There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.

I may have misunderstood your intent but -- taking prevarication to mean evasion of the truth; deceit, evasiveness -- it is widely accepted that prevarication was indeed common and widespread in hunter-gatherer communities ... and among many other Ape species too!

This may well be the case, but isn't very helpful. References to the animal kingdom must not lead to indulgence. As long as I define myself as human, there is a strong distinction between animals and humans - not wrt to the physical apparatus, where this distinction is pointless (which is why the term zoonosis is ridiculous), and not by the psychical pontential - but by the basic needs and aims of what can be coined human.

Somebody said (was it Steiner?): "humans have instincts, while animals are instincts". Which of course is an over-generalization, since animals do love and have emotions, and the same or even more potential than humans, and many species are e.g. able to transcend themselves and help even members of other species out of critical situations (think dolphins). And then, much of human intelligence is instinct driven, is tied to instincts and nothing but a refinement of them.

So, among the most basic needs of a human (his animal needs aren't looked at here, among which are many human liberties) are: transcendence and introspection, pursuit of knowledge and happiness (which is distinct from animal pleasure, but a delight of inner peace and achievement). This leads to the necessity of containment of men's animal condition and its instinct-driven forces (which btw is the meaning of Genesis 1, 28 "fill the earth and subdue it": it is men's own earthly condition which shall be subdued and filled with humanness). This never ever can be achieved by war against the animal condition, nor by negation or torturing it, only with love.

Having said this and coming back to prevarication: the human needs are present and don't die, and if they are overcome by the animal condition and subdued (by self or society), they don't go away but are perverted, and lead to abuse of both the animal and human condition of the human being. And this is the kind of prevarication Discipulus talkes about, at least I perceive it that way. It leads to atomic bombs and gain of function virus research.

I can smell abuse of power miles against the wind, and in hindsight I guess that this is one strong reason for me not to pursuit any kind of career whatsoever. And in the same notion, "Codes Of Conduct" are a bill of shame any community expedites to itself, not only to those who are blamed for making such proceedings necessary, but also for those who believe in fixing anything with that codes.

Prevarication is related to privatization (in fact "privare" in latin means "to rob"), and capitalism is built upon privatization and abuse of power, and it is nothing but the expression of lack of "subdueing the earth" wrt some aspects in the above sense.

There are and have been other ways. E.g., even in the US, and more so in Canada, there are small towns whose inhabitants leave their ignition keys stuck to the cars: to make sure anybody in need of a car gets one. There are as much or more unlocked doors in Canada (in percent of households) as those with rifles in the US. Go figure.

perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'

Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals . . . except the weasels. — H. Simpson

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

Well said. Points made apply to many more areas of life and work. I totally agree. And at least once in my life I did apply the "I am Human, I refuse to downgrade", so, I am proud I try to be Human.

But the total sum of the trajectory of average human is "the belly", food, substinence, economy. And that amounts to a force so strong that takes away even the strongest humanists or it breaks them. Are there any humanists among the daily commuters of the metro in New York (judging only by films, never been there)?

Economy is Capitalism today. But there are different stages to Capitalism although it has always been brutal to a varying number people although, sometimes, it balanced out with its positive effects, like driving economy and technology to a max. Today it is brutal to a maximum number of people.

OT: Are there alternatives? Yes, I claim that technology as it is today can drive and sustain an alternative economy, although I respect the point of view of those saying "it has been tried before", my point is that technology is an important, qualitative factor in this new endeavour. And so, I am all for the abolishment of Capitalist Economy, confident that the alternative will succeed.

Back to the point of "Codes of Conduct", they are embelishments to the brutality we feel all around us. And often distract from the real issues. Like for example, human labour exploitation, different opportunites depending on income and class, 2nd/3rd-world exploitation (vaccines and India is a case in point), unemployment (for those who feel the need to Create). It reminds me of the anti-bullying campaigns in schools which totally ignore that the majority of those kids are already hit by inequalities and later will be bullied within and by the Economy they are destined to serve.

The above issues have become central in my life when it fell in my hands a marxist pamphlet in a boring train ride. That's why I keep mentioning them here, mostly as "FYI" and definetely not as "Proselytism", in PM with every opportunity (and elsewhere), but I do sense that I am overstepping the mark, PM being a Perl-forum. Well, I can not stop and I think PM is not just a Perl-forum and Perl is not just a computer language.

bw, bliako

> I'd date these ancient genetic impulses away from the hunter-gatherers era to a more recent period where the violence made it possible to put hands on a big source of food produced by a new agriculture

I don't think evolution works that fast. Given the time-scales involved (as noted in my earlier response) most experts believe there's a greater genetic influence from the (vastly longer) Prehistory period than the Neolithic revolution (aka Agricultural Revolution), which occurred only 12,000 years ago.

> The hunter is not a warrior: they have a profound respect for the animal they kill and for other beings and among them for humans

While that's often the case, it's a bit too romantic for my tastes. Quoting Sapiens again:

It would be a mistake, however, to idealise the lives of these ancients. Though they lived better lives than most people in agricultural and industrial societies, their world could still be harsh and unforgiving ... modern foragers occasionally abandon and even kill old or disabled people who cannot keep up with the band ... when an old Ache woman became a burden to the rest of the band, one of the younger men would sneak behind her and kill her with an axe-blow to the head.

It would be a mistake, however, to idealise the lives of these ancients.

I have enjoyed and benefited by the film "Quest for Fire" by Jean-Jacques Annaud, based on the book The_Quest_for_Fire.

Infact I have started a little research (probably on the same time of you) to find some theoretical approach to autogestion but unfortunately it seems I was not able to find something.

Ernest Mandel has written about this topic. I do (or did, now where did I put it?) own a book titled "Autogestión Obrera" by E.Mandel, a remnant of my time in Chile, most likely a translation of Arbeiterkontrolle, Arbeiterräte, Arbeiterselbstverwaltung. Eine Anthologie, Frankfurt am Main 1971 which I don't own. Maybe there's an italian translation available.

Autogestión, sí, but key is: accumulate to give away regarding power and money - in fact everything. This leads to the principle of subsidiarity and a different approach to money: it is not something to gain and hoard to achieve individual wealth, but a means to help others and foster things worth it - much like venture capitalism, but without the selfishness, concurrency and value-gaining inherent in capitalism.

Capitalism stands on three legs:

• property
• alienation
• concurrency

Take away one of these legs, and capitalism topples. To make our time a better place to live (sic!) we need to weaken all three legs with their dialectic counterparts , much in the sense of how programmers virtues map to social virtues, understand each principle and put them in their right place. For now, I guess that most programmers are busy on the alienation leg.

(Man, I wish I'd been on this thread when it was young and busy!)

Could you say more about the legs of capitalism? I have a sketchy grasp of what "alienation" means in the critique of capitalism, and not a clue about "concurrency."

Which means maybe I better not be too confident that I understand you about "property," TBH.

So, by "property" I take you to mean the complex of ideas (and practices, and the embedding of ideas and practices in culture and law -- but, anyway) that (in their purest form) revolve around assigning people sole and arbitrary control of a thing, as follows:

• One can have a right to such control, meaning that we're all supposed to uphold it.
• Just about anything can be the object of such a right, and most things are.
• That right exists as long as the object does.
• It sticks to the person who had it last, unless that person voluntarily sticks it to someone else.
• The idea of control extends as far as destroying the object, and to any other use or non-use of the object that the person chooses, regardless of anyone's benefit, harm, needs, or interests, except where the person who has the right agrees to enforceable limits on it, or the other interest is also a property right and the use violates it.
• The idea of sole control condemns any interaction with the object not agreed to by the person, without regard to its effect on the object or lack thereof, the person's own disuse of the object, or, again, anyone's benefit, harm, need, or interest other than those also represented by property rights.
That's what we're talking about with "property," right?

Alienation, I understand in terms of an effect of capitalism, but not so much in terms of a maintaining cause of it. And possibly more of this is spillover from my musing about motivation in learning, than actual memory of my occasional glances at Marx. But I gather the gist is that when we all say you must labor for money to live, we trivialize the awareness and will that you dedicate to your labor as a human being; when you receive money for your labor, we take it that your labor is summarized by that money and your connection to the result of your work is severed.

And for that matter, those who ought to lead but must manage for their living, whose job is to operate and maintain the illusion that money is the measure of all things, are walked gently into psychosis wearing a blindfold that reads, "It's just business, ma'am. Just, just business." And those who receive money they did not labor for, their awareness and will are not much encouraged to engage with life in ways that make them blossom, and so the system (and all our acceptance of it) trivializes them too.

And moreover, despite all the wit and sweat that Madison Avenue uses to enchant the image of mundane goods not yet acquired, actually getting a thing by purchase, for money that supposedly equally represents one buyer's survival and another buyer's whim, one worker's puppetability and another worker's soul vocation, the same money that is supposed to sever that thing from its maker -- in short, participating in that system often terribly disenchants getting things that should have been quite special.

And by Madison Avenue's sweat and wit, I mean four parts vodka, one part "put it next to some tits," and an olive.

Well, since my accurate confession of ignorance is now smothered by hundreds of words of what I think I know, maybe I'd better repeat the part where I ask you to teach me -- what you in fact meant by each of the three legs, and also, what their counterparts would be.

Sorry for the long delay, I hope you are still around.

Could you say more about the legs of capitalism? I have a sketchy grasp of what "alienation" means in the critique of capitalism, and not a clue about "concurrency."

Will try to do so, but don't know how long this post is going to be. In what concerns "concurrency", it is the wrong term - a wrong translation of the german word "Konkurrenz", which in fact means "competition".

(...) maybe I'd better repeat the part where I ask you to teach me -- what you in fact meant by each of the three legs, and also, what their counterparts would be.

Can't teach you, but just reveal my own cluelessness by explaining what I mean, trying to do my best :-)

A bit of history for context. Let's go back to the era of the decline of mercantilism.

The black utopia of total competition

There can be no doubt that the totalitarian market, as we know it as the condition and functional sphere of capitalism, has the totalitarian state of the absolutist regimes and its bureaucratic apparatuses as its father. Thus, private capitalist entrepreneurship, which emerged through world trade and domestic system/putting-out-system, was also a changeling of this socio-historical constellation. However, it was inevitable that the new social figure of the private "factory owner" would gain an increasing momentum of its own in the context of growing markets. To the same extent that the logic of money-making initiated by absolutism began to take over social reproduction and became the medium of social relations, a structure of specific "interests" of the various functionaries was inevitably formed on this new ground of society.

The great merchant lords of the Renaissance had already developed a considerable self-confidence vis-à-vis the early modern royal houses. The great putting-out-system drivers and manufacturing capitalists soon took advantage of this. In a society that was becoming increasingly dynamic, particular self-interests gained momentum. The emerging market economy entrepreneurship secured a strong position in society, but at the same time was no longer bound by the traditional structure of the authoritarian hierarchy. This new breed of "unattached masters" did not look back on great and ancient family traditions, but had often risen from the yeast of the "people" themselves.

The unmistakable disgustingness of these figures, exhibited for example in the gallery of Honore de Balzac's "Comedie humaine" (1799-1850), fuelled conservative, backward-looking resentment clinging to the old authority for a long time. Since then, the ideologies of "equality of opportunity" and reactionary (originally aristocratic) elitism, state conservatism and economic freedom have competed with each other in the metier of socio-economic cut-throatism to see which doctrine produces the worse characters and the worse consequences; this noble contest is probably undecided. In any case, the mercurial mobility of money also began to make the social structure mobile. The milieu of social decline, exhaustion and impoverishment for the many was at the same time the milieu of advancement for the few: for the lucky, clever, elbow-checking, enrichment-hungry and "successful achievers".

These creatures of the market, who thought of themselves as subjects of the "new mobility" and indeed were, felt increasingly constricted and harassed by the state bureaucratic regimentation of the absolutist apparatuses. Thus they had to produce their own ideology of rule, which not only legitimised their specific interests, but was also able to formulate an explanation of the world and a comprehensive image of man, which has since become hegemonic for the entire Western thought of modernity up to the present day and is currently more dominant than ever before. This makes it all the more interesting to uncover the historical roots of this free-market ideology of so-called liberalism.

The name alone is not only misleading, but a downright perfidious distortion. For the activity and mentality that until then had been considered one of the lowest and most despicable among all peoples and times, namely the transformation of money into more money as an end in itself, the dependent wage labour included in it and thus the unspeakable self-abasement of having to sell oneself, was reinterpreted as the epitome of human freedom. This sullying of the concept of freedom, which culminates in the praise of self-prostitution, has the most astonishing career in the history of human thought.

-- Robert Kurz, "Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus", chapter 5

Much can, must be and has been said about that career starting from its roots in mercantilism - necessary to finance the wars of its time - and its origin in Thomas Hobbes, Bernard Mandeville, Marquis de Sade et.al. right up until now as a out-of-control military-industrial complex gleefully overlooks wars between brothers in Ukraine and Palestine; its successful efforts of declaring its atrocities and economic shenanigans as "nature based" (Darwin, Kant etc) and reification of all human values through monetization as well as all science through asshole philosophies, but let's focus on competition.

There's beautiful competition, say in sports or arts striving for the highest achievements and the loudest praise, and there's ugly competition when it comes to fighting over scarce resources, most bitter over life maintaining ones. The opposite of competition is caring cooperation, which is possible even between starving individuals.

This sort of competition is induced by property and its brother, coercion force, be it by law or violence. Because, yes,

That's what we're talking about with "property," right?

that's (not quite all) what we are talking about, but for property to even exist we have to look at how property is obtained in the first place. It can be established by division or relation. By division, when it comes to natural resources i.e.land, as setting up a claim and privatization of commons (lat. privare = to rob), and through relation by establishing those commons and sharing. By division - when dealing with man made stuff - through stealing or extortion, by relation through giving away freely. Money can be used both ways, but in capitalism money almost always is a racket, and that's particularly true for fiat money which owes its existence to debts. So the opposite of property is shared commons.

What's left is alienation, which means loosing connection, i.e. with the fruit of labor by producing for abstract markets, or with society by flight or migration. The opposite is at hand when the fruits of labor become integral parts of the own life, the community or the society as a whole, or when integrating into the target society at migration. Thus, the opposite of alienation is internalization.

It is the fetishistic aspect of money which drives the capitalist madness, much like the golden cow at the foot of Mount Sinai. We all desperately need money to survive - but as Fletch says: The cake is a lie. Most people don't know what money really is and what it is meant to be in spiritual terms, but think they need it. No they don't. Which brings us back to self reliance, autogestion, subsidiarity.

perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'