Why did pre-modern people have such a casual/positive attitude towards violence and human suffering in general?
culture of high infant mortality, dying at 30 and small heda
>>368946
They were closer to the rawness of a world that was not kind, I mean without a reedemer god who forgave all transgression and preached kindness I don't think they could have a peaceful identity.
Peaceful cultures got killed.
Death was all around them. Mothers died often in childbirth, many children did not survive the first few years of their lives, common illnesses that we can easily survive now killed many, and complications from injuries or infections were much more fatal as well. Life was difficult and short, if you couldn't take a blasé view of violence and suffering, you'd go insane.
Dude, you could have simply walked outside your town and some fucking mountain lion could pounce on you if you weren't looking.
>>368953
>dying at 30
This is a misconception.
It was not uncommon for ancient peoples to live well into their 60s and beyond so long as they survived childhood.
Death was more common, stronger religious beliefs fueled conflict and belief in divine purpose and afterlife, children knew what death was from a very young age, conflicts were often solved by fighting to death etc
>>369000
This
when you niggers learn.
>>369031
>stronger religious beliefs fueled conflict and belief in divine purpose and afterlife
Hey reddit.
>>369050
gtfo newfag
>>369050
Are you a fucking idiot?
>>369031
KEK
>>368946
>Why did pre-modern people have such a casual/positive attitude towards violence and human suffering in general?
Is there any support for this or is everyone talking out of their asses?
>>368946
They had no more different attitudes than we have today. If greater then the ancient attitude is the one we should be having. Unlike what libtards would like you to believe we have are not somehow superior or above violence now. now as then there are people in this world that would have no qualms about killing and otherwise doing horrible shit to you even if you wouldn't do the same .Ancient people were blunt and realistically told you to harden the fuck up motherfucker. Fuck hose evil bastards up before they fuck you and those you care about up, kill if you have to.
>eye for an eye.jpg
Because non-Christian religions justify violence in certain situations, and remove human responsibility, making it the work of a god instead.
bureaucracy is the fourth pillar of chaos
and ancient peoples only needed 3
>>368946
Probably because death was so common
And because when everyone genuinely believes in immediate afterlife's, it's not as much of a big deal.
>>369000
>>369049
It's more like 30 was the average age of death if you combine all the ages at death. It's not necessarily the life expectancy of a person. The natural life expectancy, as in dying of being old, for humans is 60-70.
>>369509
I'd say in the west we definitely hold life to a higher value, especially compared to some countries.
>>369050
You do realise that this is true, right? Religion in ancient times was very intimately coupled with ethnicity, to a far bigger degree than today (modern situation is caused by existence of nation-independent religions like Christianity or Buddhism). Religion is stronger than simple patriotism, so it obviously led to ethnic wars.
>>368946
They weren't drowned in resource like us so they had to fight other people to get them. Now we only have to bully other nations with money to get what in other times you got with violence.
>>368946
Because the development of Civilization was not the peace emergence of life benefiting technology, it was the violent imposition of the will of the few in a process that took centuries.
>>369561
Source for this?
>>369050
>>368946
BECAUSE THEY WERE UNCONSCIOUS, OR BARELY CONSCIOUS, THUS THEY LACKED THE CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY, OR THEIR CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY WAS INCHOATE.
WHY WERE THEY SO VIOLENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? DUE TO EXTREME PHYSICAL, AND PSYCHIC, STRESS CAUSED BY REPEATED TRAUMATIC KOSMIC CATASTROPHES.
>>369000
I always wondered how these stats were computed. When I first read about life expectancies, it seemed like we calculated them based on ages of adult skeletons, and they did not include the infant mortality, but then I began to read the argument that includes infant mortality. Some of the estimates seem to not be clear if they factor deaths from:
>Infant mortality
>Violence
>Accidents
>Disease
So how do we figure this out?
>>372955
Well first of all infants were obviously also found by archeologists. And of course they are counted in life expentancy studies, if they don't specifically say otherwise a life expentancy graph takes literally all the deaths into account.
Anyways, I was pretty sure that the basis for pre-modern life expentancy studies were church records? You can go well back to the 16th in catholic countries.
The rest would be about comparing the always limited amount of evidence of the archeological record with actual plausible works with more complete data, doing a lot of guess work?
>>368946
Because happened whether they wanted it to or not.
>>372513
can you just fuck off you idiotic insane person
btw your music is laughable garbage
