So while hunting and gathering was not necessarily a bad way of life, it did not allow for imperialism and was subsequently diminished by the imperialists.

Have you seen nowadays how they fish? They destroy whole huge areas leaving no fish behind. This is a type of imperialism. The problem is capitalism in its nature

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And for that kind of fishing you need large vessels, built in stationary warfts, using stationary ports. The materials are made in stationary complex apparatusses to extract and shape metals from ore and the ore is mined in stationary mines.

All of this is only possible as a result of settling

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure. So your idea is that people should be mandated to travel and change places every X years? Or what? I don't get it.

Isn't the problem the disproportionate accumulation of goods, resources and money? AKA capitalism? I mean theoretically, if you restrict these, you can also settle in one place without taking advantage and destroying everything around it.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said none of this.

The thesis was that people settled because it was superior in terms of supplying the population back then. All i was saying is that at the time that mustnt have been the case. It was more effective in the capitlaist/imperialist/expansionist mindset that is fucking is over now.

Of course with the current 8 billion people living on earth a nomadic lifestyle is not viable. But that is a very different question from the question if it was viable 10.000 years ago, when there were maybe a few hundred thousand to a few million humans on earthin total.

[–] decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree with you. I'm just asking (theoretically) how could such system regulate itself? Would the travel be mandated?