Back in the day

Back in the day
When we lived
Free from paper and words
sticks and stones broke our bones.
No phones, no tv.
just nature, earth our home.
Even metal lay hidden
shyly inside the stones.
Heart beats pounding,
No cars, no planes.
We washed in rivers and lakes,
For some, the swimming pool,
called the sea, always available,
always free.
At night our only light the flame,
be it candle,
or sitting around the bonfire once again.
Animals wild,were clearly
either friends or foes.
Our calender the sun and moon,
no timetables hemming us in.
Never late or to soon.
We yearned for little,
for we knew of nothing more.
Dangers, yes there were many.
But that was the norm,
Living with pride and facing the fear.
Deep inside us, lives this human
Let us honour him or her.
Listen to their heartbeats
Alive and clear.

Eliberocelta Antequera Dic 2015

a reply to: ancientthunder

Yes, a noble savage statement, but must needs...

Every human invention from fire to tools came about by necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention.

If we have dug a grave in doing so well that is the Universe's problem. Evolution learns more from its mistakes than its successes and changes tack accordingly.

In the good old days we were at the mercy of nature's assaults. We were not very comfortable and did not generally live as long as we do today. We were very violent, too. We sacrificed humans, including children, to gods and goddesses. I think the reality is very different to the romantic odes and ideal notions.

Of course there must have been those moments when the sun was shining, the hunters had brought back lots of nice food and the feeling was good. I'll take your offering here as a remembrance of rare halcyon days when we were in the arms of mother nature.

Yes you are right that is for sure, but my back in the day is exactly that a removal of all we have today. Then we return to our current living with an ability to connect with our ancestors. Some do it naturaly, others need to remember. Better to burn out than fade away!a reply to: Revolution9

Mother Nature is harsh and cruel and does not care whether we live or die. The average lifespan was 28 and we usually died of some disease, or at the hand of a predator, often another human. You had no "rights" at all, and if you had the misfortune to be female, you were enslaved, then married off at puberty after which you stayed pregnant or died. People were by and large hungry, dirty, sick, cold, vulnerable, and ignorant--not much better off than the Great apes. If Eden existed, it wasn't on this world.

You mean like the birds and bees then!
a reply to: schuyler

originally posted by: schuyler
Mother Nature is harsh and cruel and does not care whether we live or die. The average lifespan was 28 and we usually died of some disease, or at the hand of a predator, often another human. You had no "rights" at all, and if you had the misfortune to be female, you were enslaved, then married off at puberty after which you stayed pregnant or died. People were by and large hungry, dirty, sick, cold, vulnerable, and ignorant--not much better off than the Great apes. If Eden existed, it wasn't on this world.

Women were only enslaved once we invented "property" and we gave up our freedom in exchange for protection and security. We created wealth by producing a surplus, to prevent ourselves experiencing occasional hunger, that enabled societies to become stratified and justified slavery. We didn't need rights because we had no responsibilities beyond our individual or familial survival. Though the average life span may have been 28, records would only account for those who made it through childhood, you didn't even get given a name in some cases unless you made it to seven. The spread of the city too, in the middle ages, and earlier, was accompanied by restrictions on female activities, particularly in traditional occupations such as midwifery. This led to greater infant and maternal mortality, which was exacerbated with poor sanitation associated with the early foundation period of most towns and cities, as well as later with expansion and conflict over resources and possessions.

Human nature has proved itself harsher and crueler, and in far more inventive, and unusual ways than our environment has. We exploit Edens because when we look at them all we see are commodities and resources to which we can apply an economic value. That must be our nature because no matter how deeply that behaviour is digging a grave for millions of us, we can't seem to stop doing it even though it is resulting in millions of people being left "by and large hungry, dirty, sick, cold, vulnerable, and ignorant".

There were words and timetables present, if language existed and if starvation was to be avoided and shelter built or found. I don't romanticize about the harshness of surviving in the wild.

a reply to: ancientthunder

So due to a few of life's little circumstances I am caught in perpetual fight or flight....since 2.

But I have learned to relax.

A living animal a perpetual machine.

So thanks for what you posted, it resonates with me.

I don't seek a cure, I seek an understanding and a path through the forest.

It's a slow burn like the forest taught me.... A real slow burn.


Always see the point of your stuff, don't stop being you!

Cheers

You have a fine I and a great quill, thanks for your view.
a reply to: Anaana

Depends which wild land your ancestors lived in,there are people who live in the wild nowadays. Rather than a romatic look, it was and honest look.
reply to: InTheLight

thanks treespeaker, may that path always be with you.a reply to: Treespeaker

originally posted by: Anaana


Women were only enslaved once we invented "property" and we gave up our freedom in exchange for protection and security.

And that happened when we were still Apes. Indeed, then it was even more imperative because the reproductive strategies of men and women differ so radically. Women need a safe environment in which to raise the kids and that includes a protective male who can make that happen. Males, on the other hand, need to spread their genes. That's how it works. It doesn't require the invention of property nor is it in any sense a new concept. It's not that women "gave up freedom" as much as it was the ONLY way they, and by extension the species itself, could survive. It was not political any more than making a fire was political. It was the only way to survive.

originally posted by: ancientthunder
You mean like the birds and bees then!
a reply to: schuyler

No. Birds and bees can survive on their own; we cannot.

Nobody said anything about us being on our own, that is your own projection. That is cool too, as long as you know!a reply to: schuyler

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Anaana


Women were only enslaved once we invented "property" and we gave up our freedom in exchange for protection and security.

And that happened when we were still Apes. Indeed, then it was even more imperative because the reproductive strategies of men and women differ so radically. Women need a safe environment in which to raise the kids and that includes a protective male who can make that happen. Males, on the other hand, need to spread their genes. That's how it works. It doesn't require the invention of property nor is it in any sense a new concept. It's not that women "gave up freedom" as much as it was the ONLY way they, and by extension the species itself, could survive. It was not political any more than making a fire was political. It was the only way to survive.

I agree with you, but I think woman did a lot more than just "raise the kids." You're skipping a lot of things in that statement.

Technology and knowledge I think have skewed our perspective on the past. I think men and woman worked together a lot more than we're remembering. Like you say, they HAD TO prioritize.

Schools, day care centers and machines and vibrant economies and so on have made men and woman more independent. We're freer to go our own way. In the past this wasn't as practical.

I think many things will occur in the fuutre. I think in the future homosexuals and lesbians will be having babies. The male homosexuals will be able to use their dna without the host female inserting her own dna. I also think we'll eventually be able to grow babies artificially without needing a female's womb. They might even create synthetic sperm, if it proves to have value. We may also be able to teach children with computer software and AI's, reducing the number of teachers needed in our school system. The school day might also be lessened for the same reason. Computers will be able to read our emotions and anticipate our thoughts, ensuring greater mental stability and making various tasks easier. We will also learn how to better manage our emotions for decision making. We might be able to imprint memories directly onto the brain, meaning we won't require as much time for instruction or learning when acquiring new skills. And of course I think some people will have AI lovers or spouses. Yes, they'll effectively be marrying their computer, although the AI won't be limited to a traditional computer. They're capable of having bodies. Conversely, some--disembodied--people will essentially live on computers.

Reason I say all that is because history and the future are about previous barriers being broken down. People get empowered. And as they're empowered, old customs and prejudices have to be dealt with. One of the things I wonder about is what new barriers will we confront and break down in the future? What people will be empowered?

Survival is a strategy, an evolution, if you will allow.

Yes I agree with you it is and we can all go in to that mode given the circumstances even in a highly modern situation. Take M. Daemon in his roll for Interstellar, he went to great lengths to lie to ensure his own survival. The circle is always turning and at times it stops at a place we thought was over.
spoiler inside this a reply to: InTheLight

originally posted by: schuyler
And that happened when we were still Apes.

Did it? Really? Women were bought and sold, bound by law and contract as chattel...when we were "apes"? Your understanding of both biological and social evolution is rather lacking if you genuinely believe that. As with any mammal we reproduce sexually, we do so based upon a variety of cues that result in attraction. Drive and attraction is not ownership and cannot be ownership until property and possessions are a societal construct. Bonobos may trade sex for food and status, but they don't pimp each other out.

originally posted by: schuyler
Indeed, then it was even more imperative because the reproductive strategies of men and women differ so radically. Women need a safe environment in which to raise the kids and that includes a protective male who can make that happen.

That would depend very much upon the environment. Humans formed groups, certainly for protection, but it was only once heriditary title, and therefore proof of paternity, that they formed monogamus units (or rather that the female was legally bound to one male for the duration of her fertility). The evolution of our genitalia suggest that the pleasure of both parties was paramount to successful reproduction. Our "success" as you put it, has far more to do with the fact that sex is good and we want to do it, than it has about "reproduction" strategies. We development attachments, because we gave each other pleasure. Even though chid birth could be life threatening, we still chose to get it on. The male felt protective and the female felt protective, it's called team work. There is very little size or potential strength difference between human males and females, only when you attribute western or "civilised" values to gender, developed through structures designed to control reproduction and ensure paternity, and therefore inheritance, are women perceive as weaker. In the "natural environment", while a woman who chose to reproduce would be afforded the groups protection, other women would be expected to pull their weight until such a time as they chose to reproduce too. The only reason that men didn't get protected was because they didn't have to carry the child, not because men are the only ones capable of doing the protecting.

originally posted by: schuyler
Males, on the other hand, need to spread their genes. That's how it works.

Not if it is to work well, no it does not. One man spreading his genes amongst multiple women causes stagnation and inbreeding which would eventually lead to all kinds of problems, including infertility. And again, I suggest that you look at the evolution of your penis, that rather unique formation of the glans has been found to act as a scoop strongly supporting the idea that promiscuity was the norm, with females taking multiple partners. The more defined the glans, the more likely that you can clear out the sperm of the guy before and make way for your own.

originally posted by: schuyler
It doesn't require the invention of property nor is it in any sense a new concept. It's not that women "gave up freedom" as much as it was the ONLY way they, and by extension the species itself, could survive. It was not political any more than making a fire was political. It was the only way to survive.

Clearly your one of those stuck in the 20th century who thinks that the only measure of success is growth. Animals do not own property, they are territorial of course, but they do not own that territory for any longer than they can fight and defend it. Owning is not the same as joining, or sharing...do you own your friends? Do you need to a contract before you can enjoy their company? Do you have to know that the birds and bees are yours? Men and women enjoy each other, that is not ownership. Caring, loving, all abilities we have evolved, are not based upon ownership, they're merely exploited by it.