One important thing is missing: Agriculture created food surplus, but also creates a permanent need for land as a resource. This is one of the major factors of war and conquest. And if there's conflict, you can't just abandon the land and move somewhere else, like nomadic people do. You likely stay there and fight because you invested a lot of resources into the land.
Nice to hear you mention agri-culture. It is a culture. This is what we used to do in Africa and we still do in some rural areas. The main difference is that now we own pieces of land and hold colonial pieces of paper called 'title deeds' even on areas of land we do not use. A man would cultivate crops using his hands and very simple tools. He would grow his own food when he comes of age. As a rule of nature, the land any man can work is limited by human energy and the food an individual needs for sustenance or energy is also always so much. The land was not fenced out except to keep domestic and wild animals separated from growing crops. Marriage meant you have a bigger workforce through your spouse(s) and the children that came through associated interactions. Every other man within the society always respected where an individual had done their cultivation (Oboremo in Ekegusii), sometimes, people would team up together to do plow or plant for a brother then do 'merry-go-rounds' where they would plow for another brother until every family had enough growing. All land that had not been cultivated was available for the upcoming generations to use. Only the homesteads or villages could be fenced out against unwanted human intrusion. There was much love for brothers, sisters and their children and no competition for illusions like money, clothing, cars and the like. Beauty was not defined by looks.
You are singlehandedly making me really like this subject. I'm picking up Sociology books now when I honestly would have never delved into this discipline before.
Actually, the data I've seen says that hunter-gatherers rarely spend more than 4 hours a day seeking food. They have a more leisurely, enjoyable, and healthy lifestyle than most people in most agricultural societies historically. Agriculture can support larger population densities, but requires far more work and led to worse nutrition.
I'd much rather be a hunter-gatherer than a neolithic or even medieval farmer, but that does not mean is it better than what is available in a post-industrial society.
Primitivism is a real thing, but I can't imagine how anyone living during a technological revolution like our digital one can abandon the progressivist idea of society moving ever onwards and upwards.
Richard B. Lee's _The Dobe !Kung_, 0-03-063803-8. Lee estimated that on average, they worked about 20 hours a week hunting and gathering. (Page 51: "The overall average was 2.4 days of food-getting per person per week. Translated into hours, this worked out to 20 hours of work per week, about half of the 40-hour-workweek that is standard in industrial societies.") Obviously, this doesn't mean the !Kung are necessarily great models for how things ever were-- in particular, !Kung technology includes fire and poisons-- but it does show that the Malthusian concept of humanity as breeding until checked by war, famine, or disease is by no means the only possible relatively-low-tech human experience.
Please Crash course; do a playlist with Archaeology / anthropology. I'm currently studying archaeology at university, that genre applies so many different sciences like Sociology, geography, geology, psychology (in some instances), biology, chemistry, historical analysis, ethnology; basically almost anything that can be applied in order to help analyze history and date sites, artifacts or events properly. It would be very useful and interesting to see and hear it from your perspective, since I really fancy your videos in general.
Brandon B. Sociology is useful in all areas of life. I love it. I teach it, have been teaching it at a junior college since 2006. I fell in love with Sociology in 2002.
crashcourse is honestly such a gift. it sparked my interest in topics i thought id never be interested in, mainly sociology. thank you so much for what you're all doing; it's great & i love it.
I just caught up on sociology! Excellent series, maybe even my favourite Crash Course series to date! The presenter is great (sorry I dont even remember her name!) and the material is clear and concise without being patronising (at least from my perspective as someone who has never studied sociology before). Keep it up :D
Wow, I'm really astonished by this episode. What a great work on putting it all together guys, especially the connection with the classics. This was the best one yet. Thank you!
I am CLEPing out on my non-major/core requirements. I would rather do self-learning on my time and take a big final exam than to have to waste my time and money siting in the classroom.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ How do you have this conversation and not talk about the procurement of natural resources by means of conquest, imperialism, exploitation, colonialism and slave labor? The industrial revolution was a direct result of European murder of countless millions and the looting of THEIR land's resources on a global scale.
I create content that adds value to you, the young man / woman who wants to grow, change, expand their thinking, and so on. If you want to become a wiser individual, *stop by my channel.*:)
A lot of people in the comments argue from a black or white perspective (socialism / capitalism). If you can't see downsides or positives on either side, then I don't think you're not being honest. The most successful societies today have some kind of mix between the two (almost irregardless of how you choose to define "successful").
Weber was soo right. Technological progress serve to nothing without a universal wage or something wich take the surplus of production thanks to technologies to distribute it to workers.
A lot of the commenters seem to be against learning & instead want to start teaching you (without actually having done any research of their own of course).
Knight Chime: I agree. It makes me sad. So many arrogant people who are so ignorant they think when someone is teaching you a theory it's the same as being brainwashed to adopt/agree with that theory.
Loba Étoile I've learned about various economic theories but I don't discard them as unworthy of learning about when trying to diagnose causes of social inequality. I prefer sociology to economics but I try to see merit in all the perspectives I encounter.
If people want to know the historical materialist take on how we got here (to industrial society anyway) read The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels
1. 7.5 billion people on earth! 2. Society is a group of people participating similar acts. 3. Material Surplus is need to help make a population grow 4. Industrial revolution came with the Capitol Based Economy became into effect. 5. Industrial societies were the first to have public universal education
so crazy how the post industrial society mostly vsible in the north rather than the global south,, in the third world we are still relying heavily on agricultural and manufacturing sectors of the industry
While this series mentioning Marx sometimes may contribute to that, some people will inevitably just downvote every random video they come across. Or something like that. No need to get upset, people are dicks.
"... because having a surplus allows a society to grow..." - This struck a chord due to my playing Stellaris a lot recently. Have a surplus of food and you get faster population growth :) .
Yo is there any references or credible sources where you got that saying of “ family structure becomes less important as societies get bigger” I’m trying to cite this as a source but can’t find any relevant articles.
awesome episode! can someone help me find info/terms for basic economy. every search comes up with modern business junk. I want more of an evolution of economy like it was presented in this video.
starbooksfeaa.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/8/6/54869709/the_wordly_philosophers.pdf This will give you a general idea of the evolution of economics. This was the first book on economics I read as a teen. It was a text book my father was throwing away. I ended up majoring in econ in college.
The worldly philosophers is the work I was going to recommend as well. Great book. I read it in high school and have revisited a few times since. I relate to different chapters more or less as I get older. Think I may have to read it again after watching this crash course episode
If Crash course isn't aware of the low weekly working hours of hunters and gathers, and the pairing of inequality and poverty with progress and growth, I'd highly recommend looking into the works of Henry George and Sebastian Junger
Really disappointed that this episode failed to acknowledge the major critique of the "development" framing in that it gives a false view that it implies a hierarchy that justified things like colonial subjugation as a given. Reframing it as increasing social complexity rather than more developed societies is entirely accurate without having an explicit values judgement attached. Even more surprising that you recognized that this exact fallacious thinking was what led to the first iteration of Human Geography to be pulled for a rethink.
Did we ever get a definition of inequality? Not necessarily disputing what's said in the video, but I would like to be on the same page as the writers.
So the important question then, is whether or not it is possible to live in a postindustrial society and close the inequality gap while maintaining environmental health. If we manage that, we've cracked it. Right?
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand this correctly, _in the post-industrial society information is just as, if not even more, valuable than labor?_
Well the hunter gatherers were also able to make surplus but hat was totally coincidential so they were (are) incapable about handling it, because they did not know how to process and keep resources, so most of the time they were destroying it. At some point some of them start to keep those instead of destroying them, and saw their natural process of rotting, then try to prevent this process.
6:30 Actually the US is still a manufacturing giant, except most of the manufacturing is done by machines or done much more efficiently with machine aid. As this automation trend continues it is possible that industrial societies could dispensary and be replaced by a small portion of the work force which oversees the machines which manufacture.
samuel wrong. they need to focus on establishing 100%ownership of all economic assets by the State, followed by the systematic purge of anyone proposing any form of individual personhood, ie. the capacity to have rights.
11B X 1371 PHR-2/711 Even if you were correct, what is your point? The belief in individual autonomy is the common link between Daesh, the Confederates, Republicans and Democrats. Add the libertarians, western atheists.. and all the other human contemptibles.
Khat Dealer Good night, alt right. show me an opponent of democratic control of all economic assets, and I will show you an enemy of Democracy, an ideological undesirable, an enemy of the People.
as a christian, I think churches should be taxed if they provide less tangible value to society than the taxes they are saving. i think we can both agree that an organization that does social good should be able to apply for and receive non-profit status. a church that saves the state it's in a huge amount of money by keeping people out of prison, keeping kids in school, and teaches job skills to the homeless, obviously deserves to pay fewer taxes... SOME churches should have non-profit status, but they should be held to the same standards of other humanitarian organizations, not get it automatically. And to be clear, they should have to provide benefit to society that an atheist would find value in.
let's make this simple: once man started taking more than he needed, ie "accumulating surplus", greed and selfishness took over. "specialization" is just a fancy word for classism.... if you don't have a skill i need, you are useless and unworthy of basic necessities. are material toys and comforts worth the inequality and environmental damage they bring with them? in my opinion. they are not. 🌎😢
(Graffiti Tagging the comment section) If Everybody Looked The Same, We'd Get Tired of Looking at Each Other?... I agreed with everything in this video and had literally been thinking about this in terms of gender identity (with specialization). I had disagreements with the Gender Conflict video (just on a few things - like innate gender identity) but otherwise I am not adverse to social constructs etc (I certainly couldn't understand all the hate that video got). I even got into a long thread with someone and I provided evidence about equality among hunter gathering tribes before specialization start to increase with advancing technology. This was born out of a discussion on free speech (the video on youtube that sparked it concerned the dominance of the centre of politics and the neo-liberal establishment - it was flalse flagged and taken down). I have concerns with the left and the right and 'the centre'... where's the love? Anyway, I'm too alexithymic to really care but I thought why not just leave my dribble: - I think a really good discussion would be regarding the positives and negatives of specialisation in our modern technological society - I would include sociology and biology as technologies becuase they are tools for understanding and shaping our environment. I've thought about this in terms of the transgender issue before. I think it could be successfully argued that specialisation increases the risk of curruption (we're all sinners I guess). Also, I think it is helpful for someone studying sociology to have an awareness of biology... The same for anyone studying biology - they should have a social awareness. I have matured a lot - I would never have guessed why athiests would be ideologically anti-transgender when I started looking into this. Why sociologists and feminists and libertarians are anti-transgender too. I have actually developed more of a respect for just your bog standard transphobic person (compared to atheists) because at least their objections are genuine, if mis-guided by an obsession with sex. I'm not sure where Marxism stands on this to be honest. It seems clear to me though that at least Chomsky and his followers have a collateral advantage in supporting Transgender people as it is consistent with Chomsky's theories on innate grammar (and so gender identity by extension is also innate... rather than being exclusively a social construct...). Athiest anti-transgender comes from rationalism as far as I can make out - that it's irrational for someone to be alternative to a heterosexual "cisgendered" (identify with assigned sex at birth) male or female, presumeably because it makes no evolutionary sense (along those kinds of lines... basically LGBT is non-conformist etc... Sam Harris territory that anything different must be bad - otherwise why be different and 'inferior'?). Libertarians are "incompatibalists" regarding free will and determinism - which is just stupid. But free will is not necessarily the same as consciousness (for example Daniel Dennet - another one of the four horsemen - thinks consciousness is an illusion). Anyway, I'm sure you know all this. On Feminism and Transgender - it is really complex (almost paradoxical) but I have been able to resolve it... but in a really controversial way, but is representative of how we are as biological entities so it has the advantage of being natural: In my view, Gender being a social construct is not incompatible with Transgender people... My view involves understanding cis male and cis female brain anatomy and how they work differently in different contexts (Stress tolerance and aggressive behaviour - this is the controversial bit) and also the function of oxytocin (a social hormone - involved with social constructs) receptors in the brain and differences between cis males and cis females in this regard also (and relating to stress and aggression). Evidence for biological connections to behavioural differences tends to come form rat studies though (even in papers regarding human beings).. though autopsies on humans can reveal anatomical differences. There are also natural intances of brain damage caused by lesions in specific locations in human brains that reveal behavioural differences with regards to a person's gender perfomance (like aggressiveness or stress tolerance or mating behaviours etc). In transgender people the role of the brain in regards to these aspects is opposite to their sex assigned at birth - so the problem for feminism their is that a biological female (XX chromosomes) with a transgender brain will most likely have a better stress tolerance and be more aggressive than their cis female counterparts (this is still unproven theory btw)... and yet under feminism, this person with a female body (but male brain) should be allowed to dominate other women just like men can dominate women. If this all paints cis females as weak - males being more aggressive and having a better stress tolerance comes at the price of a being out-performed by females in a calm civilised setting when it comes to assimilating information [if that isn't feminsim though, then I don't know what is?]. I still have some issues with being transgender though. I mean, I have researched it - it is a real thing, as real as homosexuality and has just as significant effect on someone I think... so being in the wrong gender is kind of like sleeping with a person of the wrong sex. But I don't think it is quite the same as homosexuality in one respect - fair enough, we have sensory maps of our bodies in our brains that seem to relate to our gender identity so there is nothing we can do about that, and also there really do seem to be parts of the brain that relate socially to our gender identity as well (in relation to being called a man or a woman) and also there is a different feeling and behaviour evident to a persons gender identity as well (like what kinds of things matter to them and behaviours they prefer to exhibit and even the pitch of their voice)... But, I do feel we need to evolve beyond the gender and sex distinctions we have at the moment - to raise our level of consciousness... In some sense I think transgender people need to adopt their preferred gender identity in order to move on with their lives and not be caught up in the unfulfilled base desires of sex and gender... y'know basically, deal with their private issues much like a homosexual person needs to. ...But in another sense base desires are being constantly pushed down us by society with porn and advertising and gender role expectations that I don't think help us where we are at the moment and won't help us in moving forwards. I seriously question the purpose of gender and what is gender between strangers? I think gender was more important and more public when we lived in tribes in-which everyone knew each other, but now gender is much more private... I guess there is an issue there as to whether we should go back to living in tribes again as a way of fulfilling our human needs, or, adopt a more rational approach for living in large civilised societies? This goes back to my first comment in this thread about the positives and negatives of specialisation: - On the one hand you can't argue that being transgender is unnatural (having medical intervention to change a person's outwards appearance from female to male for example) because we are all unnatural in our modern technological society in the way we are living our lives (never mind that medical intervention is compassion anyway). But gender itself is specialising - evolutionary speaking, the more you specialise the greater the risk of going extinct - and I think we over specialise gender in our society with gender roles and appearance etc.. to our detriment.. (we should all be like John Carpenter's "The Thing" - I'm just kidding)... but then if everybody was the same that would be specialising as well.
3:42 "we also get real social inequality for the first time" ... hmm that really depends on what metric you measure inequality by. nomadic tribes are not all democratic - some have chiefs. so there is inequality of power even there. and when it comes to inequality of wealth you have to specify whether you mean inequality in an absolute sense ($), or a relative sense (%).
One note here: Lenski posits technology as the prime-mover for societal change. Bottle necks contradict this: many advances don't change the fundamental structures. You may choose an alternative theory: that inequalities themselves lead to technology change - the crises of capitalism, where variable costs can no longer maximize costs, will inevitably lead to competing business to invest in new fixed costs, R&D, as a means of staying ahead. Therefore, think of whether societies are born of technological change (those who emphasize modernity - and the cultural stasis of "modern socieities"), or the more historically specific measure of dialecticism born of worker-employer relations
Can we please just call them "digital" societies instead of "post-industrial"? I hate hate HATE the "post-" nomenclature. Sometimes it's a necessary evil, but not here.
True, we only use it because of our times. Humans 300 years from now are more likely to call this the 'digital' age. The type I, II and III civilisations are excellent extensions of this theory for societies in the far future, and only at the end of digital will we approach type I.
I think a new conflict theory is "technological conflict" in which technology and automation are taking people's jobs. I don't see that as particularly as bad but it's does require some changes to the socioeconomic structure so it can benefit everyone not just the owners
Another note: Marx didn't simply think that class struggle led to change. He also considered the contradictions in the relations between capitalists themselves (see my note on crises below). Both were of equal importance to Marx. Consider dialecticism as a motor of change. Also, note that Marx isn't set against the idea of Ideas - rather, he is a materialist, so ideas are accrued through material circumstance (see Grundesse)
Weren’t hunter gatherer diets more nutritious? And wasn’t the time they put toward it not much more than 4 hrs a day - 50% less than how much time we dedicate to our livelihood (without so much surplus). Didn’t they have more disposable time, especially for leisure? See Pontzer, H., Wood, B. M., & Raichlen, D. A. (2018). Hunter‐gatherers as models in public health. Obesity Reviews, 19, 24-35.
One important thing is missing:
Agriculture created food surplus, but also creates a permanent need for land as a resource. This is one of the major factors of war and conquest. And if there's conflict, you can't just abandon the land and move somewhere else, like nomadic people do. You likely stay there and fight because you invested a lot of resources into the land.
Nice to hear you mention agri-culture. It is a culture. This is what we used to do in Africa and we still do in some rural areas. The main difference is that now we own pieces of land and hold colonial pieces of paper called 'title deeds' even on areas of land we do not use.
A man would cultivate crops using his hands and very simple tools. He would grow his own food when he comes of age. As a rule of nature, the land any man can work is limited by human energy and the food an individual needs for sustenance or energy is also always so much. The land was not fenced out except to keep domestic and wild animals separated from growing crops. Marriage meant you have a bigger workforce through your spouse(s) and the children that came through associated interactions.
Every other man within the society always respected where an individual had done their cultivation (Oboremo in Ekegusii), sometimes, people would team up together to do plow or plant for a brother then do 'merry-go-rounds' where they would plow for another brother until every family had enough growing. All land that had not been cultivated was available for the upcoming generations to use. Only the homesteads or villages could be fenced out against unwanted human intrusion. There was much love for brothers, sisters and their children and no competition for illusions like money, clothing, cars and the like. Beauty was not defined by looks.
You are singlehandedly making me really like this subject. I'm picking up Sociology books now when I honestly would have never delved into this discipline before.
Actually, the data I've seen says that hunter-gatherers rarely spend more than 4 hours a day seeking food. They have a more leisurely, enjoyable, and healthy lifestyle than most people in most agricultural societies historically. Agriculture can support larger population densities, but requires far more work and led to worse nutrition.
If hunter-gatherer societies are so nice, I challenge you to live in one.
I'd much rather be a hunter-gatherer than a neolithic or even medieval farmer, but that does not mean is it better than what is available in a post-industrial society.
Primitivism is a real thing, but I can't imagine how anyone living during a technological revolution like our digital one can abandon the progressivist idea of society moving ever onwards and upwards.
I have heard the same thing about the transition from h&g to agriculture, but do you happen to have sources?
Richard B. Lee's _The Dobe !Kung_, 0-03-063803-8. Lee estimated that on average, they worked about 20 hours a week hunting and gathering. (Page 51: "The overall average was 2.4 days of food-getting per person per week. Translated into hours, this worked out to 20 hours of work per week, about half of the 40-hour-workweek that is standard in industrial societies.") Obviously, this doesn't mean the !Kung are necessarily great models for how things ever were-- in particular, !Kung technology includes fire and poisons-- but it does show that the Malthusian concept of humanity as breeding until checked by war, famine, or disease is by no means the only possible relatively-low-tech human experience.
Please Crash course; do a playlist with Archaeology / anthropology. I'm currently studying archaeology at university, that genre applies so many different sciences like Sociology, geography, geology, psychology (in some instances), biology, chemistry, historical analysis, ethnology; basically almost anything that can be applied in order to help analyze history and date sites, artifacts or events properly. It would be very useful and interesting to see and hear it from your perspective, since I really fancy your videos in general.
Covid got me thinking to much 😂
Brandon B. Sociology is useful in all areas of life. I love it. I teach it, have been teaching it at a junior college since 2006. I fell in love with Sociology in 2002.
crashcourse is honestly such a gift. it sparked my interest in topics i thought id never be interested in, mainly sociology. thank you so much for what you're all doing; it's great & i love it.
I just caught up on sociology! Excellent series, maybe even my favourite Crash Course series to date! The presenter is great (sorry I dont even remember her name!) and the material is clear and concise without being patronising (at least from my perspective as someone who has never studied sociology before). Keep it up :D
Wow, I'm really astonished by this episode. What a great work on putting it all together guys, especially the connection with the classics. This was the best one yet. Thank you!
Tons of references to Civilization games in my head.
look at these damn comments and just imagine what an actual sociology class at an actual college in 2017 would be like
Students hearing something they don't like, would probably be needing tissues and safe places as they are told "it'll be alright"
Nathan Platt Yeah, but we know right wing status quo warriors act that way when their ideas of social creationism are challenged.
I am CLEPing out on my non-major/core requirements. I would rather do self-learning on my time and take a big final exam than to have to waste my time and money siting in the classroom.
Yet another great episode! Thanks! :D
Vandrefalk 🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱🅱
🅱itch
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ How do you have this conversation and not talk about the procurement of natural resources by means of conquest, imperialism, exploitation, colonialism and slave labor? The industrial revolution was a direct result of European murder of countless millions and the looting of THEIR land's resources on a global scale.
11B X 1371 PHR-2/711 you 🅱est not 🅱e calling me a 🅱itch.
I create content that adds value to you, the young man / woman who wants to grow, change, expand their thinking, and so on. If you want to become a wiser individual, *stop by my channel.*:)
00:06:30 “conjure a car from the ether” I’m ded 😂
watch at .75x for better understanding
A lot of people in the comments argue from a black or white perspective (socialism / capitalism). If you can't see downsides or positives on either side, then I don't think you're not being honest. The most successful societies today have some kind of mix between the two (almost irregardless of how you choose to define "successful").
Weber was soo right. Technological progress serve to nothing without a universal wage or something wich take the surplus of production thanks to technologies to distribute it to workers.
How did we get from a million to 7.5 billion? Sex, lotta sex.
yes also lots of births and not many deaths
wait what??
Another amazing lecture; thank you so much for sharing it!
A lot of the commenters seem to be against learning & instead want to start teaching you (without actually having done any research of their own of course).
Typical status quo warriors.
Knight Chime: I agree. It makes me sad. So many arrogant people who are so ignorant they think when someone is teaching you a theory it's the same as being brainwashed to adopt/agree with that theory.
Knight Chime Yep. Graduates from Dunning-Krueger college
Loba Étoile I've learned about various economic theories but I don't discard them as unworthy of learning about when trying to diagnose causes of social inequality. I prefer sociology to economics but I try to see merit in all the perspectives I encounter.
do u feel superior yet
Well put
Im here for the cute animations :D
Same tbh. I look forward to crash course videos mainly for the visuals sometimes (especially in the mythology series).
omg so do i
Very interesting but it s difficult to follow you with your speed (I am french) ^^. Very great job.
Same here, i just set 0.75 and its perfect
Crash Course Is So helpful :)
If people want to know the historical materialist take on how we got here (to industrial society anyway) read The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels
Just a note, during industrialization it was the children that were entitled to 12 hour work days. Teens and adults had 16 hour workdays.
This is very interesting, but seriously, why so fast?
Q: How did we get here?
A: Skoodilypooping
how is 7:04 a valid comparison of technology vs inequality? I'm watching two arrows signify growth under ambiguous terminology.
1. 7.5 billion people on earth!
2. Society is a group of people participating similar acts.
3. Material Surplus is need to help make a population grow
4. Industrial revolution came with the Capitol Based Economy became into effect.
5. Industrial societies were the first to have public universal education
so crazy how the post industrial society mostly vsible in the north rather than the global south,, in the third world we are still relying heavily on agricultural and manufacturing sectors of the industry
This was great but I think you need to add a mention of the Potluck Economy.
How are there already five dislikes? It was just uploaded!
Charlie N. it feels like people just can't accept certain facts from sociology or disagree with sociologues (hum karl Marx hum)
I think the way this series explores Marxism is ok, it's more pure Marxism that's the problem. I may be wrong.
While this series mentioning Marx sometimes may contribute to that, some people will inevitably just downvote every random video they come across. Or something like that. No need to get upset, people are dicks.
Infensus that doesn't mean we should not think about how societies change or how capitalism has flaws
There are some people in society who just don't like vidoes.
great stuff - who needs uni anymore?
"... because having a surplus allows a society to grow..." - This struck a chord due to my playing Stellaris a lot recently. Have a surplus of food and you get faster population growth :) .
did food production lead to a higher human density population or did a higher human population density lead to food production?
Yo is there any references or credible sources where you got that saying of “ family structure becomes less important as societies get bigger” I’m trying to cite this as a source but can’t find any relevant articles.
where can I go to discuss this further?
Is there a change in the mind to get to that upspiral of ❤️
Wow a well composed content
Mmm! Digestible bites of information. Very satisfying.
awesome episode! can someone help me find info/terms for basic economy. every search comes up with modern business junk. I want more of an evolution of economy like it was presented in this video.
starbooksfeaa.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/8/6/54869709/the_wordly_philosophers.pdf
This will give you a general idea of the evolution of economics. This was the first book on economics I read as a teen. It was a text book my father was throwing away. I ended up majoring in econ in college.
The worldly philosophers is the work I was going to recommend as well. Great book. I read it in high school and have revisited a few times since. I relate to different chapters more or less as I get older. Think I may have to read it again after watching this crash course episode
If Crash course isn't aware of the low weekly working hours of hunters and gathers, and the pairing of inequality and poverty with progress and growth, I'd highly recommend looking into the works of Henry George and Sebastian Junger
I am only here for the CLEP exam. I finished the modern stares course. It is not worth buying the review book for sociology.
If you want to experience it, play Fallout 4. A great depiction of how humanity would return to the first days of the social contract.
BTW: Bravo, great lesson :)
Really disappointed that this episode failed to acknowledge the major critique of the "development" framing in that it gives a false view that it implies a hierarchy that justified things like colonial subjugation as a given. Reframing it as increasing social complexity rather than more developed societies is entirely accurate without having an explicit values judgement attached.
Even more surprising that you recognized that this exact fallacious thinking was what led to the first iteration of Human Geography to be pulled for a rethink.
We started from the bottom
I love this
THANK YOU FOR THIS
Everyone has to share natural & human resources to survive.
Did we ever get a definition of inequality? Not necessarily disputing what's said in the video, but I would like to be on the same page as the writers.
why this video is private in your playlist.. ?
So the important question then, is whether or not it is possible to live in a postindustrial society and close the inequality gap while maintaining environmental health. If we manage that, we've cracked it. Right?
yep, that's it. It will be called a post-society society.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand this correctly, _in the post-industrial society information is just as, if not even more, valuable than labor?_
Iam loving it
Well the hunter gatherers were also able to make surplus but hat was totally coincidential so they were (are) incapable about handling it, because they did not know how to process and keep resources, so most of the time they were destroying it. At some point some of them start to keep those instead of destroying them, and saw their natural process of rotting, then try to prevent this process.
6:30 Actually the US is still a manufacturing giant, except most of the manufacturing is done by machines or done much more efficiently with machine aid. As this automation trend continues it is possible that industrial societies could dispensary and be replaced by a small portion of the work force which oversees the machines which manufacture.
And the regional I live in there are 11 million of us. It's interest that's CT, RI and MA.
LETTING THE DAYS GO BY
Let the water hold me down
4:56 That's a TF2 map, right?
I keep watching those videos because I'm in love. ❤
They need to tax churches
samuel wrong. they need to focus on establishing 100%ownership of all economic assets by the State, followed by the systematic purge of anyone proposing any form of individual personhood, ie. the capacity to have rights.
apud harald ☭
11B X 1371 PHR-2/711 Even if you were correct, what is your point?
The belief in individual autonomy is the common link between Daesh, the Confederates, Republicans and Democrats. Add the libertarians, western atheists.. and all the other human contemptibles.
Khat Dealer Good night, alt right.
show me an opponent of democratic control of all economic assets, and I will show you an enemy of Democracy, an ideological undesirable, an enemy of the People.
as a christian, I think churches should be taxed if they provide less tangible value to society than the taxes they are saving.
i think we can both agree that an organization that does social good should be able to apply for and receive non-profit status.
a church that saves the state it's in a huge amount of money by keeping people out of prison, keeping kids in school, and teaches job skills to the homeless, obviously deserves to pay fewer taxes...
SOME churches should have non-profit status, but they should be held to the same standards of other humanitarian organizations, not get it automatically.
And to be clear, they should have to provide benefit to society that an atheist would find value in.
The video is so concise and complete, it gave Yuval Noah Harrari a panic attack!
Love it!
Thank you! Please continue to educate me. 😁
let's make this simple:
once man started taking more than he needed, ie "accumulating surplus", greed and selfishness took over.
"specialization" is just a fancy word for classism....
if you don't have a skill i need, you are useless and unworthy of basic necessities.
are material toys and comforts worth the inequality and environmental damage they bring with them?
in my opinion. they are not. 🌎😢
nice, Marx and Durkheim aren't so boring after all)
3:53 - what the... early experiments in agriculture?
Damn that's a nice shirt!
Is it me or she talks kinda fast? Mostly a problem for non english nativs :)
What about agrian?
(Graffiti Tagging the comment section) If Everybody Looked The Same, We'd Get Tired of Looking at Each Other?...
I agreed with everything in this video and had literally been thinking about this in terms of gender identity (with specialization). I had disagreements with the Gender Conflict video (just on a few things - like innate gender identity) but otherwise I am not adverse to social constructs etc (I certainly couldn't understand all the hate that video got). I even got into a long thread with someone and I provided evidence about equality among hunter gathering tribes before specialization start to increase with advancing technology.
This was born out of a discussion on free speech (the video on youtube that sparked it concerned the dominance of the centre of politics and the neo-liberal establishment - it was flalse flagged and taken down). I have concerns with the left and the right and 'the centre'... where's the love? Anyway, I'm too alexithymic to really care but I thought why not just leave my dribble: -
I think a really good discussion would be regarding the positives and negatives of specialisation in our modern technological society - I would include sociology and biology as technologies becuase they are tools for understanding and shaping our environment. I've thought about this in terms of the transgender issue before. I think it could be successfully argued that specialisation increases the risk of curruption (we're all sinners I guess).
Also, I think it is helpful for someone studying sociology to have an awareness of biology... The same for anyone studying biology - they should have a social awareness.
I have matured a lot - I would never have guessed why athiests would be ideologically anti-transgender when I started looking into this. Why sociologists and feminists and libertarians are anti-transgender too. I have actually developed more of a respect for just your bog standard transphobic person (compared to atheists) because at least their objections are genuine, if mis-guided by an obsession with sex.
I'm not sure where Marxism stands on this to be honest. It seems clear to me though that at least Chomsky and his followers have a collateral advantage in supporting Transgender people as it is consistent with Chomsky's theories on innate grammar (and so gender identity by extension is also innate... rather than being exclusively a social construct...).
Athiest anti-transgender comes from rationalism as far as I can make out - that it's irrational for someone to be alternative to a heterosexual "cisgendered" (identify with assigned sex at birth) male or female, presumeably because it makes no evolutionary sense (along those kinds of lines... basically LGBT is non-conformist etc... Sam Harris territory that anything different must be bad - otherwise why be different and 'inferior'?). Libertarians are "incompatibalists" regarding free will and determinism - which is just stupid. But free will is not necessarily the same as consciousness (for example Daniel Dennet - another one of the four horsemen - thinks consciousness is an illusion). Anyway, I'm sure you know all this.
On Feminism and Transgender - it is really complex (almost paradoxical) but I have been able to resolve it... but in a really controversial way, but is representative of how we are as biological entities so it has the advantage of being natural: In my view, Gender being a social construct is not incompatible with Transgender people... My view involves understanding cis male and cis female brain anatomy and how they work differently in different contexts (Stress tolerance and aggressive behaviour - this is the controversial bit) and also the function of oxytocin (a social hormone - involved with social constructs) receptors in the brain and differences between cis males and cis females in this regard also (and relating to stress and aggression). Evidence for biological connections to behavioural differences tends to come form rat studies though (even in papers regarding human beings).. though autopsies on humans can reveal anatomical differences. There are also natural intances of brain damage caused by lesions in specific locations in human brains that reveal behavioural differences with regards to a person's gender perfomance (like aggressiveness or stress tolerance or mating behaviours etc). In transgender people the role of the brain in regards to these aspects is opposite to their sex assigned at birth - so the problem for feminism their is that a biological female (XX chromosomes) with a transgender brain will most likely have a better stress tolerance and be more aggressive than their cis female counterparts (this is still unproven theory btw)... and yet under feminism, this person with a female body (but male brain) should be allowed to dominate other women just like men can dominate women. If this all paints cis females as weak - males being more aggressive and having a better stress tolerance comes at the price of a being out-performed by females in a calm civilised setting when it comes to assimilating information [if that isn't feminsim though, then I don't know what is?].
I still have some issues with being transgender though. I mean, I have researched it - it is a real thing, as real as homosexuality and has just as significant effect on someone I think... so being in the wrong gender is kind of like sleeping with a person of the wrong sex. But I don't think it is quite the same as homosexuality in one respect - fair enough, we have sensory maps of our bodies in our brains that seem to relate to our gender identity so there is nothing we can do about that, and also there really do seem to be parts of the brain that relate socially to our gender identity as well (in relation to being called a man or a woman) and also there is a different feeling and behaviour evident to a persons gender identity as well (like what kinds of things matter to them and behaviours they prefer to exhibit and even the pitch of their voice)... But, I do feel we need to evolve beyond the gender and sex distinctions we have at the moment - to raise our level of consciousness...
In some sense I think transgender people need to adopt their preferred gender identity in order to move on with their lives and not be caught up in the unfulfilled base desires of sex and gender... y'know basically, deal with their private issues much like a homosexual person needs to.
...But in another sense base desires are being constantly pushed down us by society with porn and advertising and gender role expectations that I don't think help us where we are at the moment and won't help us in moving forwards. I seriously question the purpose of gender and what is gender between strangers? I think gender was more important and more public when we lived in tribes in-which everyone knew each other, but now gender is much more private... I guess there is an issue there as to whether we should go back to living in tribes again as a way of fulfilling our human needs, or, adopt a more rational approach for living in large civilised societies? This goes back to my first comment in this thread about the positives and negatives of specialisation: -
On the one hand you can't argue that being transgender is unnatural (having medical intervention to change a person's outwards appearance from female to male for example) because we are all unnatural in our modern technological society in the way we are living our lives (never mind that medical intervention is compassion anyway).
But gender itself is specialising - evolutionary speaking, the more you specialise the greater the risk of going extinct - and I think we over specialise gender in our society with gender roles and appearance etc.. to our detriment.. (we should all be like John Carpenter's "The Thing" - I'm just kidding)... but then if everybody was the same that would be specialising as well.
No one is equal. Free market capitalism is the greatest reflection of this truth.
3:42 "we also get real social inequality for the first time" ... hmm that really depends on what metric you measure inequality by. nomadic tribes are not all democratic - some have chiefs. so there is inequality of power even there. and when it comes to inequality of wealth you have to specify whether you mean inequality in an absolute sense ($), or a relative sense (%).
One note here: Lenski posits technology as the prime-mover for societal change. Bottle necks contradict this: many advances don't change the fundamental structures. You may choose an alternative theory: that inequalities themselves lead to technology change - the crises of capitalism, where variable costs can no longer maximize costs, will inevitably lead to competing business to invest in new fixed costs, R&D, as a means of staying ahead. Therefore, think of whether societies are born of technological change (those who emphasize modernity - and the cultural stasis of "modern socieities"), or the more historically specific measure of dialecticism born of worker-employer relations
Very funny when see karl marx and the worker woman attack
As usual an outstanding episode. will you guys be covering education in a future episode?
We got here with Guns, Germs, and Steel ;) Society is the way it is because the Earth is the way it is. It's Geographical Determinism
Is Adobe sponsoring Crash Course now? You seem to plug their software in every episode.
I wish we were still nomadic. It fun going wild😂
Türkçe altyazı ekleyebilir misiniz?
Can we please just call them "digital" societies instead of "post-industrial"? I hate hate HATE the "post-" nomenclature. Sometimes it's a necessary evil, but not here.
True, we only use it because of our times. Humans 300 years from now are more likely to call this the 'digital' age. The type I, II and III civilisations are excellent extensions of this theory for societies in the far future, and only at the end of digital will we approach type I.
its good to have straight A's.
Hey! This video isn't in the Sociology playlist
BIG HOUSE!!
Isn't this social determinism vs technological determinism??
yea
may be you are the professor of sociology
For when Ferdinand Tönnies?
How many faces did a prehistoric person get to face in a lifetime?
what happens when Thoth punches an eagle and they are then invaded by wait for it.... the mongols
great
12,000 years ago, the earth was formless and void
robots can stand in for the industrial societies. which could lead to an increase in equality related directly to advances of technology.
at least equality for humans.
I think a new conflict theory is "technological conflict" in which technology and automation are taking people's jobs. I don't see that as particularly as bad but it's does require some changes to the socioeconomic structure so it can benefit everyone not just the owners
2019 here 🤓
yeah because backbreaking labour is a great equalizer
Well, yeah - because if everyone needs to do backbreaking labour for everyone to survive, then inequality literally kills everyone.
Another note: Marx didn't simply think that class struggle led to change. He also considered the contradictions in the relations between capitalists themselves (see my note on crises below). Both were of equal importance to Marx. Consider dialecticism as a motor of change. Also, note that Marx isn't set against the idea of Ideas - rather, he is a materialist, so ideas are accrued through material circumstance (see Grundesse)
CLEAN YOUR ROOM, BUCKO
Yes we are social animals , That can be reasonable
Weren’t hunter gatherer diets more nutritious? And wasn’t the time they put toward it not much more than 4 hrs a day - 50% less than how much time we dedicate to our livelihood (without so much surplus). Didn’t they have more disposable time, especially for leisure?
See Pontzer, H., Wood, B. M., & Raichlen, D. A. (2018). Hunter‐gatherers as models in public health. Obesity Reviews, 19, 24-35.