Cannibals and Kings by Marvin Harris.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject:

I think putting a financial burden on parents is one way in which everyone would "naturally" have less children.

This would be the same situation in which the nomadic woman would choose not to have 2 kids because she would be unable to carry both of them 5,000 miles in 4 years. It would be impossible for her... the costs are too high! Instead she can 'afford' to carry one child and will only have one child.

Today, both men and women can share this burden through an increase in taxes and a decrease in public social services. This will also help take the burden off of those people who don't have kids.

I pay taxes for everyone else's child to get public education. Is that really fair (not to mention maintaining the judicial system for child cases, law enforcement for juvenile delinquents, costs of orphanages...the list goes on and on)? If I had a say, I would vote that the parents of the child pay a substantially larger amount than I should be FORCED to. After all, it is THEIR child, not mine. It is their burden and their responsibility. You know how I know? Because I can't discipline their child when it's yelling and screaming while I'm trying to watch a movie.

A third child could incur a major tax increase which would limit the amount of children to two in most cases. It would be a flat tax too, not this AMT nonsense with loopholes.

For those concerned about the rich having more children, I think they'll find that the rich don't want them!

Now, suppose everyone gets free health care. A HUGE financial burden to having kids is removed. Now, give everyone who has a baby 5,000 towards college... another burden removed! The result is that more people will have more kids because the costs have been decreased. This can't be allowed to happen without other taxes put in place specifically for parents. The taxes will never pass after free health care passes.

Wow, I re-read this and it sounds like a total rant Laughing

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject:

Chapter 1.

page 15: "The most widely used method of population control during much of human history was probably some form of female infanticide."

I suppose he guessed this by analyzing information about infanticide in modern times. I'm not going to go into morals here, you wrote, and this is very clear to me, that the conditions were such that they obviously had no choice.

I had read about this suggestion of infanticide in the past, but I hadn't thought "female" particularly-- and yet how else could it be. It makes sense that if a hundred different human groups that had never met each other decided in they all had 10 surplus babies, all ten (or nine out of ten) would be found to be female every time.
Unless you think of itinerant groups. As you said, the woman could only carry one baby when on the move, so the second baby would be killed, so logically regardless of its sex.
Unless... could we imagine (this is going to be a horror thread!) a reasoning like "Well, the eldest baby is a girl, but the new baby is a boy, so..." ? It sounds unlikely.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject:

Elderly parents in Indian tribes.

When I was in primary school one day our teacher read to us a story about a group of migrating Indians (in the past) who abandoned their elderly parents (probably in their forties) when they were on the march and explained how and why it was done, with a particular organization (leaving a fire and food for a day...)
I was stunned of course (mostly because the parents accepted the situation) but I understood why they thought it had to be done, so that the group could survive.

Later I kept returning to that story (and other similar ones).
Why leave a fire and food if the person was going to die of cold and hunger anyway? So that the person who left felt less guilty? Why prolong the situation for one more day with the food?
Yet it made sense that if humans felt they had to do something like this, they would do it with a ritual, so that both sides would know that they had not been careless and that filial duties had been observed.

What I'm getting at is that in one books I read that mentioned this custom in passing, it seemed that those cruel customs applied more to elderly females than elderly males. The male died in battle or hunting, or kept his status until his death, and then his wife lost her status and was turned out or abandoned.
Have you ever read anything about this?

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject:

Chapter 2.

This is definitely an excellent book; it completes things I remember from
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.
Congratulations on your choice Camacho!

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject:

Not too many tribal cultures would sacrifice a boy for a girl, I don't think. I've never heard of this anyway. If it was me, I'd kill all the guys and keep all the ladies for myself - but maybe that's why I'm not a tribal leader.

Only women can manufacture babies. Limiting access to females limits how many babies get produced. Sounds simple. Even though the tribe has more productive males, access to the females within the tribes can be limited. What if access can't be limited? Well then the female population might need to be decreased. I can see why...

There would be no reason to kill a female infant if there was no issue with food/territory and so no issue to kill a male either. I don't want to sound sexist here, but the primitive society needs to be kept in mind when trying to find 'why'.

I think if there were twins the decision would be made in the males favor, if at all. I also think that if there was a 11 month year old female and a newborn male (first male), the young female would be in serious danger. Though, Harris says there were methods in place to prevent this occurring.

I like the nomadic Indian story. It doesn't surprise me at all. I appreciate the ceremony. It makes me think about the lack of ceremony mentioned for infanticide though. I'm assuming, even then, it was so emotionally traumatic that it was dismissed rather than acknowledged as in the form of ceremony.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish old people would do this today. My dad always tells me that when he gets too old he's going to put a bullet through his head, and I know he is serious. I am the same way, except I'm more pragmatic than he is. I'm going to drive to the middle of the everglades and do it there so that there is no messy clean up.

Why be a bother?

I agree with Milton Friedman that college is something that the state shouldn't have to pay for. I think the state should promote areas of the market which needs skilled employees... but that's about it. Let people pay for their own college. I don't know which countries do or do not pay for their citizens' college.

What I do know is that no one wants to go to a public French university. Tell me it isn't so Ophelia... Wink

Thank you very much. I got lucky picking this one. I'm pretty superficial with my selections as I try to get books that have strong reviews. I've read a lot of junk. Who knows... this one might tank later on Laughing

I'm having a lot of fun discussing it with you. I'm glad you agreed to read it with me! King

Ophelia · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:21 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:02 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:36 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:06 am Post subject:

Chapter 2:

Population control through the "lactation method": this is wery well explained , with good comparative examples. I had heard this being mentioned before but this was much clearer.

p 17, a reference you mentioned, and which seems to me an example of a writer saying something which doesn't mean anything:

"Their remarkably thin, finely chapped "laurel leaf" knives, eleven inches (...) cannot be duplicated by modern industrial techniques".

I wonder what he means. Surely if a researcher wanted to test if modern man could replicate an ancient tool, he would turn to a skilled craftsman, not to industry?
And you would try to use techniques that were as close to the original ones, not twentieth century techniques?
Anyway, if a twentieth century craftsman could not reproduce those weapons, he would have made the point that the the ancient men had a good technique, but not necessarily that he was a genius, because he would have had years of practise and teaching, and the modern man would have only limited time...unless he was retired perhaps.

But I still get his point: those were not crude weapons.

p20: "walkabout " way of life as opposed to living in villages: excellent writing.

Bottom of page 20: I absolutely loved the paragraph about Gregar's research on the Mehinacu Indians of Brazil, about the negative aspects of life in villages , and the examples of gossip... I've long suspected that gossip must have been bad in villages, let's say as recently as the first half of the twentieth century, but I wouldn't have thought it was that bad!

I live in a structure that is the very opposite, it's blocks of flats but the garages are underground, so people zoom in and out through the lift on the way to the garage and the flats and you never meet your neighbours!

Well, I do know some of them but you need to take steps in order to meet them. Some people are much happier when they are in a street with houses next to one another and they know the neighbours and have a sense of a community. These flats are a perfect place for me to live (for other reasons), but I understand what they mean abouty the neighbours.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT