Suicide and the dawn of man – Catching the bus before the rise of civilization

[Sensei]

​

Which the first humans beings were is a complicated topic, but let's just focus on the first homo sapiens, such as Cro Magnon and the likes, i.e. people who were like us, but didn't eat pizza and watch docusoaps.

What was the suicide rate for the first homo sapiens? Or maybe they didn't commit suicide at all? If they did, what methods may they have used? I obviousy don't have any answers to these questions, barely even any theories, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing what your thoughts are.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

View attachment 37259
​

Which the first humans beings were is a complicated topic, but let's just focus on the first homo sapiens, such as Cro Magnon and the likes, i.e. people who were like us, but didn't eat pizza and watch docusoaps.

What was the suicide rate for the first homo sapiens? Or maybe they didn't commit suicide at all? If they did, what methods may they have used? I obviousy don't have any answers to these questions, barely even any theories, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing what your thoughts are.

I think suicide has been around since even before we "graced" this planet. You have suicide in animals which is still suicide.

As far as ancient depictions of suicide go there must be some instances of it, but I think its been suppressed throughout history. I feel like it's always been a taboo and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

It would be interesting to see a cave painting of ancient man hanging himself or something. But I've never even heard of anything like that. I have heard of old honor suicides, love loss stories, and leaving the elderly or infirmed to die though.

Time to do some research on this. Thanks for stimulating my mind today.

 

[Sensei]

It would be interesting to see a cave painting of ancient man hanging himself or something. But I've never even heard of anything like that. I have heard of old honor suicides, love loss stories, and leaving the elderly or infirmed to die though.

That's a a very interesting thought. It would change how we look on early human beings, which I think we at least unconsiously view as innocent and happy.

On a related note, I wonder if mental health conditions have existed as long as man. I think genetic conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may be that old, but what about depression and social anxiety?

 

[Brick In The Wall]

That's a a very interesting thought. It would change how we look on early human beings, which I think we at least unconsiously view as innocent and happy.

On a related note, I wonder if mental health conditions have existed as long as man. I think genetic conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may be that old, but what about depression and social anxiety?

I would imagine so, but I don't think genetic defects like you've mentioned would've been nearly as prevalent. I'm sure natural selection would've weeded that out.

Traits like that were probably more dormant until now. I'm not advocating euthanasia but the way we live in modern times has tainted our DNA on so many levels.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Unfortunately, no way whatsoever to know the answers to this, though it's an interesting question.
I'd imagine that yes, suicide would always have been an option. Various Palaeolithic cave art depicts scenes that appear to show modern humans concept of mortality, but really, this is obvious. I'd expect early hominids to have grasped the concept of mortality easily.
So ending their lives by choice?
1. How did ancient humans die?
Mostly I'd guess (and it would be a guess) the same way other animals die if they manage to avoid predation. So starvation, dehydration, hypothermia.
2. How would they have chosen to die?
Dunno. Not peacefully, that's for sure. Violent self harm, plant based poisons, jumping off cliffs...who knows?

Interesting graphic. Note the use of complex tools and thus the ability to manipulate the environment is when the apogee is hit. It's all downhill from there until silicon based technology is used and cultural evolution has out stripped biological evolution causing societal pressure.

Also: is that a pneumatic drill or a parking meter in the penultimate frame?

 

[Sensei]

I would imagine so, but I don't think genetic defects like you've mentioned would've been nearly as prevalent. I'm sure natural selection would've weeded that out.

Traits like that were probably more dormant until now. I'm not advocating euthanasia but the way we live in modern times has tainted our DNA on so many levels.

@Brick In The Wall, I'm not so sure about that. As I've brought up many times, but not expect anyone to remember as I babble about all too many things, the prevalences for schizophrenia and bipolarity remain steady, even though they logically should go down as there are hereditary elements and people with mental health conidtions get fewer children. So, the theory goes that these conditions exist for evolutionary reasons.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

@Brick In The Wall, I'm not so sure about that. As I've brought up many times, but not expect anyone to remember as I babble about all too many things, the prevalences for schizophrenia and bipolarity remain steady, even though they logically should go down as there are hereditary elements and people with mental health conidtions get fewer children. So, the theory goes that these conditions exist for evolutionary reasons.

Well yes they do exist for evolutionary reasons. They will persist throughout time and they can never be rid of. My point was that our modern lifestyle has given rise to issues like these.

Especially with all of the poisons that we're exposed to nowadays. It most assuredly will give rise to mental and physical issues like these as well as some that we've never seen before.

 

[Sensei]

Unfortunately, no way whatsoever to know the answers to this, though it's an interesting question.
I'd imagine that yes, suicide would always have been an option. Various Palaeolithic cave art depicts scenes that appear to show modern humans concept of mortality, but really, this is obvious. I'd expect early hominids to have grasped the concept of mortality easily.

@Underscore Sounds reasonable. I'd like to believe that they had a somewhat different view on mortality, though. For instance, how would they have reacted to a stroke with their probably very limited anatomical knowledge?

So ending their lives by choice?
1. How did ancient humans die?
Mostly I'd guess (and it would be a guess) the same way other animals die if they manage to avoid predation. So starvation, dehydration, hypothermia.

Sounds reasonable. In isolated Stone Age tribes still in existence, it's been observed that individuals can live until they're 60-80 years old and die of old age, so possibly a few of them made it all the way.

2. How would they have chosen to die?
Dunno. Not peacefully, that's for sure. Violent self harm, plant based poisons, jumping off cliffs...who knows?

Sounds reasonable too. I can't come up with any peaceful methods they could have used. Well, there's an exotic one: descend into an inactive volcano and die of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Interesting graphic. Note the use of complex tools and thus the ability to manipulate the environment is when the apogee is hit. It's all downhill from there until silicon based technology is used and cultural evolution has out stripped biological evolution causing societal pressure.

It makes me wonder, is technological progress necessary to reach the kind of decadent decay we're in now? Something similar seems to have happened in Rome.

Also: is that a pneumatic drill or a parking meter in the penultimate frame?

Ha ha! Maybe it's a hobbyhorse?

 

[Brick In The Wall]

@Underscore Sounds reasonable. I'd like to believe that they had a somewhat different view on mortality, though. For instance, how would they have reacted to a stroke with their probably very limited anatomical knowledge?



Sounds reasonable. In isolated Stone Age tribes still in existence, it's been observed that individuals can live until they're 60-80 years old and die of old age, so possibly a few of them made it all the way.



Sounds reasonable too. I can't come up with any peaceful methods they could have used. Well, there's an exotic one: descend into an inactive volcano and die of carbon monoxide poisoning.



It makes me wonder, is technological progress necessary to reach the kind of decadent decay we're in now? Something similar seems to have happened in Rome.



Ha ha! Maybe it's a hobbyhorse?

Well damn man, I'll leave you two to it then hah. Maybe he can dig up some evidence of some ancient suicide.

 

[Sensei]

Well yes they do exist for evolutionary reasons. They will persist throughout time and they can never be rid of. My point was that our modern lifestyle has given rise to issues like these.

Especially with all of the poisons that we're exposed to nowadays. It most assuredly will give rise to mental and physical issues like these as well as some that we've never seen before.

I believe you're right. Also, there's eletronics. The prevalence for some mental health conditions has risen since the introduction of smartphones. I wonder what will happen when all the children with smartphones become adults.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

I believe you're right. Also, there's eletronics. The prevalence for some mental health conditions has risen since the introduction of smartphones. I wonder what will happen when all the children with smartphones become adults.

You want to get into EMF now? Okay so the safe limit on any smartphone nowadays is if it's held a few feet from your ear. But obviously no one does that, it's still clear in the instruction booklet.

Now we go to EMF. EMF is the field that affects your circadian rhythm and much more. It's being effected by so many things nowadays is it even worth mentioning? If you dunno then you have no stake in this conversation.

The "governing body" of course works for big cell phone companies. We're getting thousands of times the safe limits on the daily, even through concrete structures.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

My view is that intelligence leads to technology leads to environmental manipulation to make life easier. Then cultural evolution begins to out strip biological evolution via agriculture, the surplus creates the need for the development of industry, which is when things accelerate. Now the environment begins to alter with population growth, anthropic species extinction and climate change and eventually pandemic diseases, social unrest and repeated wars, eventually culminating in a gradual extinction event.
Can you see a familiar pattern here?

I refer to this process as the Toolmaker Paradigm. I've only ever seen it referred to once in a work of science fiction. It's my belief that any intelligent species has within it an automatic kill switch and that kill switch is the development of technology.
Paradoxically, technological innovation may be the only thing that can save us. Ironic.
i suspect it's this metastatic crisis point that is one reason we don't see aliens. Any species clever enough to eventually invent interstellar flight is more than likely to bugger up its home environment long before it's technology develops to that point. It's a built in natural homeostatic safeguard.
Intelligence is what lifts us up and also, without wisdom, what casts us down. That's also how I interpret Genesis.

tldr: yes technology is necessary to reach the decay we now find ourselves in.

It could be a hobbyhorse but I think if it is, he's holding it wrong.

 

[Sensei]

You want to get into EMF now? Okay so the safe limit on any smartphone nowadays is if it's held a few feet from your ear. But obviously no one does that, it's still clear in the instruction booklet.

Now we go to EMF. EMF is the field that affects your circadian rhythm and much more. It's being effected by so many things nowadays is it even worth mentioning? If you dunno then you have no stake in this conversation.

The "governing body" of course works for big cell phone companies. We're getting thousands of times the safe limits on the daily, even through concrete structures.

@Brick In The Wall, I have to be honest and say that I know close to nothing about EMF, although I probably should have read up since it's being discussed so much. What I'm referring to here is the light smartphones emit, which evidently is harmful in many different ways. If we should take a not-so-alarming example of its hidden harmful effects, It's well established that it becomes more difficult for you to go to sleep and you tend too sleep badly if you expose yourself to blue light before you go to bed; I can testify to that myself. If this is one of the explanations or even the explanation behind the increasing health problems among young people, it's a problem that will get worse and worse, as younger and younger children are given smartphones by their parents.

My view is that intelligence leads to technology leads to environmental manipulation to make life easier. Then cultural evolution begins to out strip biological evolution via agriculture, the surplus creates the need for the development of industry, which is when things accelerate. Now the environment begins to alter with population growth, anthropic species extinction and climate change and eventually pandemic diseases, social unrest and repeated wars, eventually culminating in a gradual extinction event.
Can you see a familiar pattern here?

I refer to this process as the Toolmaker Paradigm. I've only ever seen it referred to once in a work of science fiction. It's my belief that any intelligent species has within it an automatic kill switch and that kill switch is the development of technology.
Paradoxically, technological innovation may be the only thing that can save us. Ironic.
i suspect it's this metastatic crisis point that is one reason we don't see aliens. Any species clever enough to eventually invent interstellar flight is more than likely to bugger up its home environment long before it's technology develops to that point. It's a built in natural homeostatic safeguard.
Intelligence is what lifts us up and also, without wisdom, what casts us down. That's also how I interpret Genesis.

tldr: yes technology is necessary to reach the decay we now find ourselves in.

It could be a hobbyhorse but I think if it is, he's holding it wrong.

@Underscore, I see that you speak my lingo! Technology might very well be the Great Filter. It doesn't even have to be hypertechnology; you can get a long way with oil, heavy metals, and atomic weapons. I must say that I like your thinking. The higher the technology, the higher the risk for stagnation and extermination. It could take many different forms. I come to think of the Kessler syndrome, i.e. the fact that we fill space around Earth with so much junk that it eventually may become impossible to safely travel to space. It's sort of an illustration of your interpretation of Genesis. The technology that can take us to space may prevent us from going there since it's used thoughtlessly. What a sad irony.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Brick In The Wall, I have to be honest and say that I know close to nothing about EMF, although I probably should have read up since it's being discussed so much. What I'm referring to here is the light smartphones emit, which evidently is harmful in many different ways. If we should take a not-so-alarming example of its hidden harmful effects, It's well established that it becomes more difficult for you to go to sleep and you tend too sleep badly if you expose yourself to blue light before you go to bed; I can testify to that myself. If this is one of the explanations or even the explanation behind the increasing health problems among young people, it's a problem that will get worse and worse, as younger and younger children are given smartphones by their parents.


@Underscore, I see that you speak my lingo! Technology might very well be the Great Filter. It doesn't even have to be hypertechnology; you can get a long way with oil, heavy metals, and atomic weapons. I must say that I like your thinking. The higher the technology, the higher the risk for stagnation and extermination. It could take many different forms. I come to think of the Kessler syndrome, i.e. the fact that we fill space around Earth with so much junk that it eventually may become impossible to safely travel to space. It's sort of an illustration of your interpretation of Genesis. The technology that can take us to space may prevent us from going there since it's used thoughtlessly. What a sad irony.

Exactly. But that's how nature works. It self regulates through homeostasis. I can fully understand people seeing this as the action of God, because it is pretty spectacular and if viewed from the anthropic principle, looks orchestrated. It's ironic, it's contradictory and it's paradoxical. The very things that raise us up also strike us down. Each opposing principle has the seed of the other embedded within it, in a constantly moving dynamic equilibrium.

There are several rational reactions to this:

• Faith that there is a greater plan or reality
• Stand back, point and laugh
• Go insane
• Run

I can't help but feel that that's why religion is so common. Because the other alternatives are not desirable.
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

 

[FusRohDracarys]

Talking out of my ass here, I would expect the suicide rate way back then to be much lower, but not zero. There are hundreds of factors to consider, but life expectancy was significantly shorter, which can mean people died of natural causes before they might have otherwise committed suicide. I'm too tired right now to coherently get into any other reasons why I think it would be lower, but basically survival of the fittest. Depression weakens the immune system and makes it harder to learn.

 

[Jean Améry]

As soon as awareness of death entered the picture the thought and possibility of suicide will likely not have come far behind. While the environment would have been very different I'd think human or human-like emotions and mental states would probably have been present in the hominid species so that would broadly cover motives. Culture plays an important role but I don't think a lot is known about that.

All one can do is speculate but I'd venture that the methods would likely have been what they had readily available: plants that are poisonous, falling on a weapon, cutting oneself with a sharp object, jumping from a height, drowning or using a predator or an enemy as means.

As to estimation of suicide rates in those times: that's a virtual impossibility even in civilized cultures like ancient Greece and Rome that knew writing let alone in early humans. Venturing a percentage wouldn't even be educated guessing (which is possible with the aforementioned cultures given knowledge of their moral and religious views as well as their laws and customs) so I'm afraid I have nothing even remotely useful to say about that. Probably no-one has.

Interesting subject and post though.

 

[Sensei]

Exactly. But that's how nature works. It self regulates through homeostasis. I can fully understand people seeing this as the action of God, because it is pretty spectacular and if viewed from the anthropic principle, looks orchestrated. It's ironic, it's contradictory and it's paradoxical. The very things that raise us up also strike us down. Each opposing principle has the seed of the other embedded within it, in a constantly moving dynamic equilibrium.

There are several rational reactions to this:

• Faith that there is a greater plan or reality
• Stand back, point and laugh
• Go insane
• Run

I can't help but feel that that's why religion is so common. Because the other alternatives are not desirable.
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

@Underscore, I'm pessimistic, to say the very least, but not as pessimistic as you. I don't necessarily think that it must be unavoidable. I'd like to liken it to climbing a mountain. First, it might be hybris to think that you can reach the summit at all. If you actually manage to approach the summit, you reach a critical point. Will you be able to remain focused and cautious, or will you become sloppy and over-confident and get stuck, tumble down the cliffs, or even fall to your death? Unfortunately, I think mankind has become sloppy and over-confident.

Damn, the more I think about it, the more I like your Genesis metaphore. I will steal it from you and use it in a book.

Talking out of my ass here, I would expect the suicide rate way back then to be much lower, but not zero. There are hundreds of factors to consider, but life expectancy was significantly shorter, which can mean people died of natural causes before they might have otherwise committed suicide. I'm too tired right now to coherently get into any other reasons why I think it would be lower, but basically survival of the fittest. Depression weakens the immune system and makes it harder to learn.

@FusRohDracarys, I believe you should continue to talk out of your ass, because I think the link between suicide and life expectancy is very interesting and hasn't even entered my mind, to be honest. Nowdays, the majority, although probably not a big majority, of all suicidess are middle-aged or old. The question is, how important is culture as a factor for the higher suicide frequency among middle-aged and old people today? I suspect that social factors speicific for our era might play an important role.

As soon as awareness of death entered the picture the thought and possibility of suicide will likely not have come far behind. While the environment would have been very different I'd think human or human-like emotions and mental states would probably have been present in the hominid species so that would broadly cover motives. Culture plays an important role but I don't think a lot is known about that.

@Jean Améry, sounds very reasonable. I guess the big question is, how big a role does culture play in suicides? There are members of this forum that basically thinks that mental health conditions and suicides purely are products of societal and cultural factors. I don't really share this point of view, but they present most reasonable poins.

All one can do is speculate but I'd venture that the methods would likely have been what they had readily available: plants that are poisonous, falling on a weapon, cutting oneself with a sharp object, jumping from a height, drowning or using a predator or an enemy as means.

Interesting! I haven't even thought about the possibility of using a predator or enemy as a means of suicide. When I think about it, it might very well have been common. Cf. death by cop. On a related note, 2hen you speak of predators I come to think of using poisonous snakes, à la Cleopatra. They must have made the connection between getting bitten by a snake and dying. As for cutting, I wonder how aware the first humans were of anatomy. Did they know that cutting one's wrist or neck could lead to death? I think they did, but I'm of course not sure.

As to estimation of suicide rates in those times: that's a virtual impossibility even in civilized cultures like ancient Greece and Rome that knew writing let alone in early humans. Venturing a percentage wouldn't even be educated guessing (which is possible with the aforementioned cultures given knowledge of their moral and religious views as well as their laws and customs) so I'm afraid I have nothing even remotely useful to say about that. Probably no-one has.

Indeed, it's difficult to even make a wild guess what the suicide frequency might have been. Still, it's interesting to speculate. History is basically speculation. The history of Rome is based on the writings of bafflingly few authors and there are many gaps.

 

[FusRohDracarys]

@Sensei
Haha, glad my sleep deprived musings aren't complete rubbish after a night of sleep. But anyhow, I was thinking more along the lines that the probability of someone contemplating suicide increases with the increase of their life span, not for cultural reasons so much as simply they have more time to think about it. Someone who lives to 50 has more time to think "ah shit, life sucks and isn't going to change" than someone who lives to 30.

Time tends to be kind of relative so it's hard to form an opinion on this one, but I also wonder if it might be easier to live out your life knowing it's going to be shorter. If I'm suicidal but I know that my death will cause pain for my family and community, would it be easier for me to decide to take my life anyway if I know I have a long 50 years ahead of me versus if I know I'll be dead in 10 years anyway? Maybe it's easier to say "I'm already two thirds into my life, I might as well ride it out" than it is to face what seems to be an entire lifetime. But this is a thought coming through the lens of someone who lives in a world where life expectancy is into the 70s, 80s, and beyond. Maybe that extra 10 years was indeed as hard to face as an another 30 or 40 years might be today.

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei
Haha, glad my sleep deprived musings aren't complete rubbish after a night of sleep. But anyhow, I was thinking more along the lines that the probability of someone contemplating suicide increases with the increase of their life span, not for cultural reasons so much as simply they have more time to think about it. Someone who lives to 50 has more time to think "ah shit, life sucks and isn't going to change" than someone who lives to 30.

Time tends to be kind of relative so it's hard to form an opinion on this one, but I also wonder if it might be easier to live out your life knowing it's going to be shorter. If I'm suicidal but I know that my death will cause pain for my family and community, would it be easier for me to decide to take my life anyway if I know I have a long 50 years ahead of me versus if I know I'll be dead in 10 years anyway? Maybe it's easier to say "I'm already two thirds into my life, I might as well ride it out" than it is to face what seems to be an entire lifetime. But this is a thought coming through the lens of someone who lives in a world where life expectancy is into the 70s, 80s, and beyond. Maybe that extra 10 years was indeed as hard to face as an another 30 or 40 years might be today.

That makes sense. The longer one lives, the longer one suffers. Also, if life is short, it becomes more precious. If we were to meet an alien species with a life-span of one year, I believe their suicide rate would be close to 0 %.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Sensei I'm sometimes called a pessimist, but I regard myself as a realist or as the saying goes ' an optimist with experience.' It's summed up in my signature.

I do think there is a way out, but it involves a catastrophic re ordering of human consciousness. Without the catastrophe, it will trundle on relentlessly getting worse until the catastrophe happens anyway. That is the nature of things.

We fast approach a divergence of paths.
Our choices are:
Continue on as we are courting slow decline and disaster at every turn.
Go backwards, realising that our relentless progress is causing is harm.
Push on forwards, using technology to attempt to outwit our fate, possibly even transplanting our species to Mars. It's possible, but we have this metastatic period to navigate first.

Looking at the current behaviour of our species, which option appears to be the post likely? Are there any other options I've missed?

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei I'm sometimes called a pessimist, but I regard myself as a realist or as the saying goes ' an optimist with experience.' It's summed up in my signature.

Indeed, the line between pessimism and realism can be thin.

I do think there is a way out, but it involves a catastrophic re ordering of human consciousness. Without the catastrophe, it will trundle on relentlessly getting worse until the catastrophe happens anyway. That is the nature of things.

I agree. It may seem trivial, but I often think of the, at least to me, appealling utopia in Star Trek. It's often forgotten that it's built on ashes and bones. It was only possible to unite the peoples of Earth after a devastating nuclear war and the following "post-atomic horrors". I think the 21st century will become a true nightmare, but it might possibly lead to the creation of a superior, global society. I'm not very optimistic, but I won't rule out the possibility.

We fast approach a divergence of paths.
Our choices are:
Continue on as we are courting slow decline and disaster at every turn.
Go backwards, realising that our relentless progress is causing is harm.
Push on forwards, using technology to attempt to outwit our fate, possibly even transplanting our species to Mars. It's possible, but we have this metastatic period to navigate first.

Looking at the current behaviour of our species, which option appears to be the post likely? Are there any other options I've missed?

I believe you have forgotten one option: We learn from our mistakes and continue in a wiser manner. I find it unlikely, but who knows? I think the bitter truth is that we have entered a negative spirale which will entail inevitable decline and decay. However, I believe some societies may be able to evolve more or less unscathed, but they will be rare exceptions.

(My apoplogies if my post is incoherent. As someone once told me: Don't let it stop you from posting if you're drunk. :P)

 

[Jean Améry]

how big a role does culture play in suicides?

Good question but quite difficult to answer. Given that suicide is essentially a choice (even if made under duress) it'd say social and cultural factors play a fairly substantial role given that humans are social creatures and learn to operate within certain structures and to a large degree assimilate the values of their peergroup, society...

It seems to be the case that the suicide rate is influenced by how permissibile public morality is towards the phenomenon. In Arabic countries the suicide rate is very low as well as in the Middle-Ages but then again it's doubtful good records are kept in the first case (a lot of suicides are probably passed off as accidents) and there were no extensive records kept in the MA.

As to the thesis of 'mental illnesses' causing suicide: while I don't rule out certain mental afflictions could be due to an undiscovered neurological condition I believe most of what is termed as such is medicalized suffering with virtually no actual knowledge about the supposed disease let alone the causes. Which would explain why they are so bad at effectively treating said ailments: if psychiatry was halfway effective at treating 'mental illnesses' there wouldn't be no pressing let alone such a widespread and growing problem and the suicide rate should be a fraction of what it is now.

Of course that suffering is very real and a lot of people here are suicidal because of physical issues as well. Plus psychiatry is very apt at denying some suicides are entirely reasonable as escaping being forced to live in a state worse than death is entirely rational. Psychiatry rest on ideology first and foremost, not an actual science.

As for cutting, I wonder how aware the first humans were of anatomy.

As hunters I'm sure they had an extensive practical knowledge of anatomy. If you kill animals by letting them bleed out surely you know that extensive bloodloss leads to death. I'm also pretty sure they knew the throat was a very vulnerable target for a spear or other sharp object. The hominid brain should be large enough to have made possible reasoning by analogy so I'd venture that they knew cutting the throat would lead to death.

There's also violence between groups: this might have been rare in the beginning but I'd say such encounters would generate useful anatomical knowledge as well.

History is basically speculation.

Yes and no. Of course history can't be studied directly (as in hopping into a time-machine and observe it happening) and the written and other sources are fairly limited but certain events and periods are much better documented than others. I think it's pretty much indisputable that Rome was once a monarchy which then evolved into a republic and later on an absolute monarchy. Many authors confirm this independently of each-other: given that the chance that there was a general conspiracy to fool the later generations by spreading falsehoods in a coordinated manner I think it's safe to say that what we know of history is a mixed bag of fairly solid knowledge and speculation to various degrees.

If historiography was mere conjecture and nothing could be said of it with any degree of accuracy it wouldn't be an academic discipline. We learn more and more about the past and we adjust our knowledge accordingly.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I believe you have forgotten one option: We learn from our mistakes and continue in a wiser manner. I find it unlikely, but who knows? I think the bitter truth is that we have entered a negative spirale which will entail inevitable decline and decay. However, I believe some societies may be able to evolve more or less unscathed, but they will be rare exceptions.

That's a fair point, I should have included it. I would hope for that option, but I honestly think it's unlikely looking at society today. And don't forget, countless societies have risen and fallen from the same mistakes and hubris. If we do learn, we learn very slowly and forget very quickly.

 

[Sensei]

Good question but quite difficult to answer. Given that suicide is essentially a choice (even if made under duress) it'd say social and cultural factors play a fairly substantial role given that humans are social creatures and learn to operate within certain structures and to a large degree assimilate the values of their peergroup, society...

It seems to be the case that the suicide rate is influenced by how permissibile public morality is towards the phenomenon. In Arabic countries the suicide rate is very low as well as in the Middle-Ages but then again it's doubtful good records are kept in the first case (a lot of suicides are probably passed off as accidents) and there were no extensive records kept in the MA.

Very interesting, @Jean Améry . I have to admit that I wasn't aware that the suicide rate is low in Arabic countries and was low in the Middle Ages. This gives rise to another question. In comparison to other historical time periods, how permissive is society towards suicide today?

As to the thesis of 'mental illnesses' causing suicide: while I don't rule certain mental afflictions could be due to an undiscovered neurological condition I believe most of what is termed as such is medicalized suffering with virtually no actual knowledge about the supposed disease let alone the causes. Which would explain why they are so bad at effectively treating said ailments: if psychiatry was halfway effective at treating 'mental illnesses' there wouldn't be no pressing let alone such a widespread and growing problem and the suicide rate should be a fraction of what it is now.

Of course that suffering is very real and a lot of people here are suicidal because of physical issues as well. Plus psychiatry is very apt at denying some suicides are entirely reasonable as escaping being forced to live in a state worse than death is entirely rational. Psychiatry rest on ideology first and foremost, not an actual science.

I do not agree with this. An obvious argument against it is that for instance the descriptions of symptoms of bipolar disorder in Ancient Greece correspond with current descriptions, even though we're talking about very different societies and there weren't really anything which can be called psychiatric medicines back then.

I shan't bore you with the details here. If you would be interested in my standpoint, may I refer to this discussion, which at least I found very interesting: on rational thinking and societal factors.

As hunters I'm sure they had an extensive practical knowledge of anatomy. If you kill animals by letting them bleed out surely you know that extensive bloodloss leads to death. I'm also pretty sure they knew the throat was a very vulnerable target for a spear or other sharp object. The hominid brain should be large enough to have made possible reasoning by analogy so I'd venture that they knew cutting the throat would lead to death.

There's also violence between groups: this might have been rare in the beginning but I'd say such encounters would generate useful anatomical knowledge as well.

That makes very much sense. I don't think I have any interesting counterarguments to offer.

Yes and no. Of course history can't be studied directly (as in hopping into a time-machine and observe it happening) and the written and other sources are fairly limited but certain events and periods are much better documented than others. I think it's pretty much indisputable that Rome was once a monarchy which then evolved into a republic and later on an absolute monarchy. Many authors confirm this independently of each-other: given that the chance that there was a general conspiracy to fool the later generations by spreading falsehoods in a coordinated manner I think it's safe to say that what we know of history is a mixed bag of fairly solid knowledge and speculation to various degrees.

If historiography was mere conjecture and nothing could be said of it with any degree of accuracy it wouldn't be an academic discipline. We learn more and more about the past and we adjust our knowledge accordingly.

Ah, I've expressed myself unclearly. I don't question history as a discipline. In fact, I write history books on the side. What I mean is that ancient history requires some extrapolation to become meaningful. For instance, we can say with very high certainty that Rome evolved from being a monarchy into becoming a republic, but what exactly drove this transition is, as far as I know, not explicitly stated in any ancient sources. Yes, there's the rape of Lucretia, but that can obviously only have been a trigger and not the reason Roman society as a whole was transformed. However, from other facts that are known, i.e. concerning economy, law, culture, and whatnot, it's possible to extrapolate what the driving force(s) may have been. This is by definition a kind of speculation, but it's meaningful and useful, and almost invariably presented in tandem with honest caveats and reservations. I hope I've made my point a little bit clearer now.

That's a fair point, I should have included it. I would hope for that option, but I honestly think it's unlikely looking at society today. And don't forget, countless societies have risen and fallen from the same mistakes and hubris. If we do learn, we learn very slowly and forget very quickly.

I agree, @Underscore. We show all the signs of being in a state of decline and decay. I agree that it's unlikely that the trend will turn, but I claim that the probability is higher than 0, although not even close to 1 by a mile. Let me put it this way: I'm happy that I most likely will be dead by the year 2050. If I had children, I would have been very worried.

 

[Jean Améry]

I do not agree with this. An obvious argument against it is that for instance the descriptions of symptoms of bipolar disorder in Ancient Greece correspond with current descriptions, even though we're talking about very different societies and there weren't really anything which can be called psychiatric medicines back then.

I fail to see why that would constitute a counterargument to what I wrote. I did not state certain behaviours and patterns of thoughts and feelings only occur in recent history. Obviously human behaviour and suffering will remain pretty much the same aslong as humanity retains its basic characteristics. That does not make it a disease though.

 

[ArtsyDrawer]

Also: is that a pneumatic drill or a parking meter in the penultimate frame?

It looks like he's trying to fuck a jackhammer to me!

 

[Sensei]

I fail to see why that would constitute a counterargument to what I wrote. I did not state certain behaviours and patterns of thoughts and feelings only occur in recent history. Obviously human behaviour and suffering will remain pretty much the same aslong as humanity retains its basic characteristics. That does not make it a disease though.

Please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. I'm not inclined to repeat either.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

It looks like he's trying to fuck a jackhammer to me!

I think he's thinking about it!