Reply #84: Tools do not indicate being out of equllibrium with the environment.

[joshcryer]

When you have small populations your ability to use tools to benefit your species does not automatically mean you will destroy your environment. 12k years ago humans populations were reaching "civilized" proportions. You seem to go from homo habilis to horse extinction which is thousands of years apart.

The Indians used to burn wildfires across hundreds of square miles in order to clear out land. They used to run herds, if they were lucky, off of cliffs to get a hold of the carcases. I'm not defending these behaviors.

However, I think there was a relative 'conspiracy' with regards to the power hierarchies that existed early on. It's not so much a 'conspiracy' so much common sense. The earliest known writing is about barter exchange and demands for repayment. The oldest historical societies had kings and warlords. This was not a "necessary prerequsite for argiculture," but rather an incidential occurance because agriculture lowered the labor requirements for existance while allowing some few to actually sit around doing nothing but dictating and deluding their populations into being subservient. There are plenty of examples of agrarian societies that did not have these power relationships.

To say that this is how things have to be is deulsional.