Basman

Page count: 464 (about 400 excluding notes, etc.) A biological/evolutionary perspective on what humans are as a species. The book makes a relatively brief overview of humans history, covering pre-history, the agricultural revolution, religion and the science, while drawing several general conclusions about human nature based on these four major human revolutions in history, as per outlined in the book. The core concept of shared fictions/imagination and the power of imagination are enlightening and give context to human behavior and the main takeaway from this book if nothing else. It makes several conclusions for how humans, and by extensions society, function at its core, such as the notion that humans are a species that function of shared fictions (intangible constructs that are only real because the populace treats it like real, for example money, the state, religion, etc.), which is one of the major core concepts of the book and if nothing else the main take away in my opinion. It contextualizes human conduct in a materialistic way that that you can appreciate in your own daily life, down to the micro, all the way to the macro. It is however anthropologically shallow, opting rather for a broad overview. You have to be careful with how you apply the ideas of this book to the real world. The concepts of this book can be overly simplistic when you take into account why for example patriarchy has been the norm for human civilizations or why exactly only homo sapiens are the only surviving species of human. More academic texts can give you a more nuanced and rigorous take on specific questions relating to human history and nature, but it is in the broadness where this book shines. It is a challenge to present the entirety of human history within 400 pages. This book is pop-history/science/anthropology, if nothing else by virtue that no academic would make a book like this in the first place. It is something which a lot of people like to criticize it for. Sapiens seems to be popular to hate for supposed many inaccuracies, though I still find this book to be broadly insightful, even if the finer details might be glossed over to a certain extent or it makes specific errors. It contextualizes human activity in real time, which is rare and valuable. I think people are to a certain degree being contrarian, as Harari was heavily praised during his 15 minutes of fame. I find the criticism of Sapiens overblown ultimately. It is not meant to be academic. There are "so many errors", but they never make any specific examples, at least which substantially undermine the conclusions. For example, the conclusion that currency is a solution to the exchange of value which enables commerce isn't undermined if he was wrong about how the Aztecs counted goods using rope. Or if he was wrong about the exact nature of Mesopotamian written language. Nevertheless, this book has been fundamental in my understanding of how humans work and what exactly they are. It is something we tend to take wholly for granted. We tend to not see ourselves as a particular species for one who are the way they are for relative and particular reasons. 8/10

Animals can offer a lot of value besides as food. Like for example sheep/goats are often used to keep grass area clear, like for example for a solar panel farm or for historical monuments that are located on grasslands. I think European farmers dealing with the now resurging wolf population should experiment with guardian dogs for livestock for example. Not to mention the immense value that pollinators provide. We should think more creatively how we can harness animals for distinct purposes. They present solutions that works without the need for expensive machinery that drains resources or technological development. Just needs creativity and understanding of how these creatures work. We already have a past of employing animals to great effect.

What's the ratio like? You go full burger?

Is that because they are eating more meat specifically or because they have more food security as their standards of living raises? Eating more meat is positively correlated to being more well off like how wine is correlated with being rich. Rich people are generally more healthy which can make whine look healthy even though it actually isn't all that healthy. I see a lot of statistical correlations being thrown around, both for and against veganism, which doesn't conclusively prove anything just yet.

The rich yearn for the colosseum.

The only beer I ever liked was Christmas beer and ginger beer, and the latter is actually soda. Most alcohol tastes like shit. Its also expensive. I might drink one or two units at a party, but I rarely buy any. Usually, someone hands me something.

Norwegians hate standing out. Despite being ideologically liberal, they are highly conformist and tend to see things that are different as strange and weird to a minute degree. There is a picture of school kids being asked if school should introduce uniforms, which they all say is a bad idea while all dressing and looking the same. When I went to high-school, all the boys would wear blue puffer jackets and girls black parkas, which had a carabiner attached to the rim of the hood. It's all brand specific even. Norwegians ideologically believe in the freedom of the individual, but they still have that village mentality culturally, where conformity is key. They aren't overtly polite either. It's not that strange considering Norway has been isolated for most of its history (which arguably it still is, especi ally outside of the capital). Liberalism in Norway is in large part about the right to privacy. Norwegians aren't expressive as a result, which can even be seen in their food, which is bland and safe. The Norwegian version of taco, which arguably is their actual national dish, second to frozen pizza, is a buffet of common vegetables like salad and cucumber, cheese and plenty of meat. It's filling and inoffensive, while at the same time you can pick and choose ingedients like a buffet. Taco is like Norway, in that you have the freedom to be yourself but inside of a bubble of safe conformity. Norwegian culture actually promotes a kind of safe masculinity, which is soft spoken, unopiniated and logical. A trait typical of certain Norwegian girls is that they are bit masculine actually, speaking little, with a low and slow tone. Kind of dead-pan. It's very characteristic of that culture. It's like a dozen years of schooling and the general culture has optimized out the irrationality of feminity.

I'm not Butters, but I've lived in the Netherlands for quiet a few years, comparing my experience to having lived in Scandinavia most of my life. Best: Food is cheaper and more diverse. Road infrastructure is some of the best in world. Smooth, quiet and minimal road work. Compared to Belgium, it's like night and day. You can literally feel the moment you cross the border. Even the airstrips are bad in Belgium. The Netherlands being small and flat makes it easy to get anywhere as well. The netherlands, especially Amsterdam, is really centrally placed. You can easily travel to anywhere from here. Cheap and fast packaging too. Worst: Mandatory health insurance. This would be an upgrade for most people, but I'm used to healthcare being entirely free, so it is a downgrade for me. You often have to fight your GP for treatment. They love sending people home if they aren't 100% certain of treatment. It nearly cost me my life once and permanently scarred me. Those fucking fat bikes are everywhere. It's like hoverboards back in the day, but more hood ratty. People are manspreading on their bike like they are a riding tricycle. Pathetic.

Do you like 'em crazy?

Link to article without the pay wall: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/lifestylegeneral/i-regret-belittling-men-at-63-i-ve-ended-up-alone/ss-AA1O4jxM?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=68ed463a583f4732b17b3430b3a7d69e&ei=21#image=7

Feminism is a relatively broad notion of female sovereignty that is still evolving with differing points of view on things. There are plenty of feminists who have healthy relationships. This women subscribed to a particular antagonistic ideology. Of course you are going to be lonely if you are being mean to the people you want affection from your entire life. That's what bigotry does. 2nd wave feminism illustrates that living in reaction against something is in of itself a kind of conformity. The things you reject still determine your beliefs and actions. A lot of women would probably be happy being housewives if they didn't feel like it was somehow shameful for example.

The issue is that people are deluding themselves into thinking that humans categorically aren't omnivores. You can do whatever in your personal life, but don't start making up shit. You don't need sharp teeth to eat meat. People eat meat their entire lives just fine. Carnivores rarely chew their food as they swallow their food whole mostly. Sharp teeth isn't for chewing but for gripping flesh. Humans don't need sharp teeth because we hunt with our hands and we cook (and we also need to chew thoroughly). This is what I mean by cope. It's so reaching.

Leo is very brief here on the forums actually. It is fair to expect users here to understand the basics when conveying an idea.

Long and waffly text tend to reflect a lack of mental clarity and reactivity in the writer in my experience. If you find yourself writing a lot to convey a point then theirs a chance you could probably cut out most of it. You really only need a couple of sentences to convey a good point in most cases. Brevity is more witty, elegant and respectful of people's time.

Survival isn't about being optimal, but good enough (in the broad sense). Just look at the flawed mess that is human birth. There's no pressure to be perfect. Just to survive. Survival =/= optimal or happiness. A bear belongs to an entirely different genome. Bear guts reflect bear evolution. Humans also cook, so we don't need an industrial garbage processor of a stomach to survive. Our closest living relatives aren't necessarily good comparisons either because they are species specialized for a particular habitat, as opposed to a generalist species, like us humans. Notice that there is only one generalist species of ape that exists today, us humans. Other human species have long been out competed/absorbed into our genome, such as the neanderthals. It would be more pertinent to compare to our sibling species than our distant cousins, which incidentally all ate meat. A likely conclusion is that food scarcity necessitates meat to survive and incentivizes migration among different populations due to our relative size and nutritional needs (especially relative to how resource intensive our brain is). It wouldn't be possible for us to survive historically without meat.