Micki Fraser wrote:

> I was knocking about in my brain what a hypothetical future neo paleolithic
> community might be like.
> First there would have to be a vision, a dream, and the right amount of
> adventurous insanity to try it. Actually all new and innovative things seem to
> begin this way. Why insane? Because it would have to begin at some point, and
> there would of course be the vehement opposition of the status quo. There
> would be however, method to the madness. It would entail a great deal of
> careful planning, a very visible lack of politics and competition, and EGO,

If my knowledge on evolutionary psychology serves me right, the best way to
get rid of politics and competition is to get rid of sexual-selection
pressures.

One version of the theory implies that there are "switches" in our heads
designed to allow us to cooperate at the right times, and to compete at the
right times.  Cooperation is such a good survival strategy that it is
preferred, unless one is talking about sex.  If the theory is right, if you
remove sexual selection pressure (for example, make a rule that pre-ordains
sexual couples on penalty of death), then cooperation and lack of politics is
sure to follow.  If this theory is right, without changing our very genetic
structure, it would be impossible to create a politic-less society in
free-love situation -- and monogamy would be the way to go.  According to my
long talk with the anthropologist Lyall Steadman, polygymous h/g societies are
far more violent (higher murder rate) than h/g societies that practice
monogamy.  Furthermore, the murder rate in general in h/g societies (which are
almost all polygamous, but not all) is many, many times that of modern
societies.

The society you describe seems more early-neolithic than paleo.  In a paleo
situation, there would be no large-scale farming (as in, anything bigger than
a garden), but simply hunting and gathering.  Although one might return to the
same place often, or even every year at the same time of the year, we would
also have to be somewhat nomadic, following the herds, flocks, fish swarms, or
whatever food we fancy.  Structures would be non-permanent.

I've thought about this a whole lot.  I'm not sure how it would be
implemented, anyway.  In order for it to work, you need not simply a lot of
land (neolithic thinking, neolithic practise), but all of the land (of the
world) that you are likely to come across.  In other words, there is no land
area big enough to make a paleo society work (unless you count an entire
continent, a large island, or whatever).  There is no way we could buy such
land.  Even if someone comes into a windfall of money, and also finds a huge,
undeveloped tract of land, and buys it, the taxes on it would soon dry out the
coffers.

What I see over and over in this kind of thinking is a very neolithic approach
to solving the problem of how to become paleo.  And in fact whenever I see any
mention of sustainable living, I see the same thing.  Call me bitter, but the
paleo living held the answer to sustainable living (as we lived quite
successfully for millions of years) and now paleo living is nearly
impossible.  If you like to read Tom Brown (who wrote "The Tracker"), he's got
a book called "Grandfather" about his Grandfather (I believe a mentor, as
opposed to a biological grandfather, but whatever).  As he describes it, his
grandfather lived a paleo life, almost.  In just about every way except one --
he lived alone.  He would go out into the wild, and trek this way and that
across the country (on foot), and continent, and finally continents (South and
North America).  There are some reasons I have not followed his footsteps
(yet! ;)

#1:  This was 50 years ago.  The world is substantially more populated now
than it was.  This problem may not be as bad as I think it is -- still
checking.  And besides, there are other continents (Australia, Africa) that
may have relatively unpopulated and unmolested regions in them, which are
livable to a human being.
#2:  I don't know how.  Grandfather had HIS grandfather (and tribe) teach him
how to live like this.  I have not yet learned (but the opportunity is coming
up to at least start).
#3:  The world is more technological and beurocratic than it once was.  Some
guy wandering around is bound to get caught thesedays and thrown in jail
(don't worry, they'll find a reason to do it).
#4:  And this was by far the biggest reason, and also the reason he wasn't
really living paleo -- he was alone (most of the time).

I have no problem being alone sometimes, and in fact, even most of the time, I
prefer it.  But I wonder if I could handle it month after month.

My other option is a hybrid -- half paleo, half agricultural.  This is far
more likely to succeed, but I don't think the attempts to do it are worked out
by people who really have an understanding of human nature.  This is why they
fail.

But in the meantime, there are commune-like areas which are, to some extent,
working.  They have problems:

#1:  They are hard work.  You have to do agriculture -- probably one of the
hardest work known to man -- and totally (by definition) unpaleo.
#2:  They are usually run by some crackpot and have a cult-like aura which is
stifling, and ugly, and (might I add?) probably unpaleo if you compare it to
the more open "democratic" systems I have read about in various h/g's.
#3:  They usually disintegrate, due, I believe, ultimately to social squabbles
fostered by the psychological reaction to polygamy.  I should note that my
unfavorable slant on polygamy is not due to some religion, in fact I am not
Christian or any of the big 5 religions, nor do I have any religious views
which would see polygamy as a bad thing, simply this is based on my
understanding on how human psychology may work.

Now mind you, I don't believe that any problem is unsolvable, and the vast
majority of them can be worked around without even having to actually solve
them.  I am open to any and all ideas on how this may be made to work.

Erik Hill