Forum Lobby

Equality in Ancient Cities

Here is a nice article that will hopefully provoke some discussion when it comes to designing the societies as they develop in the game.

Interesting article.

They definitely point out the change in women’s roles which occurs early in and at the end of the Neolithic period. Although it is important to consider that women did play an important role in certain societies which existed after this (e.g. Sarmatia, Media, Scythia), though in general, the role becomes diminished.

“Neolithic societies look strikingly egalitarian when compared to their hunter-gatherer neighbours, with a dramatic increase in the economic and social importance of women, clearly reflected in their art and ritual life (contrast here the female figurines of Jericho or Çatalhöyük with the hyper-masculine sculpture of Göbekli Tepe).” (Graeber, D. Wengrow, D. 2 March 2018, How to change the course of human history. )

EDIT : just as a precision, that’s a very personal opinion, that may be debated, criticized and all.

I’m a partisan of plausability when coming to A.C.: it should feel as historical as possible in game, should not feel “fantasy”. In the gaps, everything judge possible should be used. The most important thing to keep in mind is that it should always be fun, as this is a game. SO, all in all: don’t see that post as a history nazi. Needed to be said probably :wink:

I’m in :slight_smile:

I love debates (notably when I may learn something new ), and the timing is perfect, according to the last news on twitter:

My first thought when reading this article was I wanted to qualify it as “itching”, as this is something new, revolutionary, that ask interesting questions. However, I’ll be firmly more critical now, and even wonder if it should not be called “fake news”.

Note my words: this is not at all against you @KingSeven and that’s an interesting link you posted. My critics here are against the two authors.

So, why call that “fake news”, which is a trendy vocabulary used essentially for politics? As I said, a variety of reasons:

The two authors make politics, instead of acting as scientists. We don’t have any information on their knowledge on the field just by reading the article. When looking a bit on the Internet, David Graeber is an anarchist and an anthropologist (although not an “anarchist anthropologist” according to his Twitter). David Wengrow seems a bit more harder to classify, but the fact he pertains to something called “Radical Anthropology Group” with Graeber seems to point the same direction.
No trouble with that. You may be a scientist and have political conviction. French Marxist history allowed advancements in research, by asking new questions, that were either badly or well answered. The most important is they allowed to ask new questions, gain new knowledge by creating debates. The same with gender history, that is a political movement.

But trouble arrive when you present yourself as a scientist but don’t act as such and just want to advance your political cause but asking new or interesting questions, meddle things proven and unproven and don’t present any form of evidence to prove you’re right. If this reminds you a lot of populism and fake news used as a political tool by some famous politicians, that’s probably not not a coincidence. And that’s what the two authors do.

I evidently found some interesting parts in their article. Probably the most interesting was asking if it was a good thing to use always this good old Rousseau to think about Prehistory society.

The French Neolithic specialist Jean-Paul Demoule, in his last book Les dix millénaires oubliés qui ont fait l’histoire (“The Ten Forgotten Millennia That Made History”) use a lot La Boétie, Rousseau and Locke. Is he outdated? Maybe. Maybe not.

The question on relying on the Enlightenment needs to be asked. But you can’t just destroy your predecessor without explaining why they were wrong and what should replace their vision. And this needs to rely on a scientific method: every assertion has to point to evidence – which in archaeology are first and second hand sources: archaeological surveys and articles by specialists. There are not in the article by Graeber and Wengrow. Only two refences, while they encompass millennias for the whole world. That’s a bit short, to say the least.

C. I spoke of fake news and said there were lies in the article – in the sense they voluntarily deform things that have been proven in scientific ways.

Let’s take Sungir and other related sites showing very powerful and prestigious people being buried there, “princes” of the time. Their answer to those interrogations as why they are so spare evidences, why there are both equality and inequality in Prehistory society is a double, seasonal system. The trouble is that it just (voluntarily?) forget to take into account such things concerning the Sungir “prince”:

  • Paleolithic people were far less numerous than in the following eras (even Neolithic), so the chances to find their graves are limited;
  • Paleolithic people were nomads, so had no cemeteries, only used isolated burials, so the chances to find their graves are still more limited;
  • The date, according to Demoule, is this: we know less than 100 burials for 25,000 years of Paleolithic have been found. That’s very few. Does this mean they were princes buried in very visible graves? Nope. They’ve left nearly no trace on the ground and are mostly found randomly. They were common people.
  • Paleolithic people apparently needed far less time to feed themselves with hunting and gathering than when farming, so they had far more time to do non productive things they liked (or even nothing): sing, dance and weave pearls on their clothes.

So, basically, one grave has been found of something that liked to wear wonderful pearls on his clothes. Is he a prince? Nope. He likes pearls. That’s as much valid as any “prince” theory.

About the gender history: contrary to @lotus253 I don’t think there’s anything interesting said here, and I don’t believe the interpretation proposed in the article – that I don’t hesitate to qualify as totally naive, if not oriented.

Take this citation:
These Neolithic societies look strikingly egalitarian when compared to their hunter-gatherer neighbours, with a dramatic increase in the economic and social importance of women, clearly reflected in their art and ritual life (contrast here the female figurines of Jericho or Çatalhöyük with the hyper-masculine sculpture of Göbekli Tepe).

Demoule interpretation seems (to me! this may obviously be discussed, as he tells himself clearly) far more direct and seems to make far more sense: in his 9th Chapter about “Male Domination” he just tells that his opinion is man will be man, and that having Venus statuettes in Paleolithic just shows that the man of the time was as much obsessed with sexuality as modern man is (just look at the more frequented websites today, where porno sites are quite common!). So, a Venus statuette does not seem to convey much sense when studying the position of women in society.

Probably far more factual, but this times to show I don’t rely only on Demoule to read Graeber and Wengrow:
And in the more established heartlands of urbanisation – Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, the Basin of Mexico – there is mounting evidence that the first cities were organised on self-consciously egalitarian lines, municipal councils retaining significant autonomy from central government. In the first two cases, cities with sophisticated civic infrastructures flourished for over half a millennium with no trace of royal burials or monuments, no standing armies or other means of large-scale coercion, nor any hint of direct bureaucratic control over most citizen’s lives.

Sorry. It needs dates and more precise data to make such assertions. As there are a number of issues there:

  • in Sumer city-states, there were numerous depictions of authorities and enforcement: temples administrations, kings or priests represented by convention as taller than any other man, etc. The Warka vase (antic site of Uruk) depicts commoners (either workers or faithful) carrying gifts to the ruler/priest for the goddess (no need to read long time the explanation there as I perfectly recognize the two poles depicting Inanna/Ištar on the upper part of the vase). Narmer’s palette, in Egypt around the same time, depicts a chief or ruler crushing enemies. So, there is an authority using violence. Both Sumer and Egypt invented administration: people keeping counts, managing, being managed themselves by a superior authority.

  • Earlier, in the same Near East, as this seems to be vaguely dating back to early Neolithic so we know this time what the authors are speaking about:

If anything, it is among those populations – the ‘Mesolithic’ peoples – who refused farming through the warming centuries of the early Holocene, that we find stratification becoming more entrenched; at least, if opulent burial, predatory warfare, and monumental buildings are anything to go by. In at least some cases, like the Middle East, the first farmers seem to have consciously developed alternative forms of community, to go along with their more labour-intensive way of life.

Well, if they’re speaking about such places as Nattufian villages or the first towns in Sumer, finding a few houses and ONE granary is not enough to prove the society didn’t relied on inequality. One granary means the whole grain is stocked in one place, and that every house takes its share in it. That does not say if those shares were decided according to a principle of equality (e.g. 1 person or 1 household = 1 share) or equity (this job considered as most important, be it surveying the granary of checking that everybody gets only his share, on a common agreement, receives 2 shares for his extra work). And one granary means you can’t discuss everything everyday: “this one took too much”, “this one deserves more”, etc. So, someone needs to manage, to decide and answer to the population if anything is considered as an injustice. That’s what we call an authority.

To take another example: in Roman Northern Africa, a text has been found stating the time every farmer could receive water for his field. This could seem to be equality. But do everybody receive the same share according to the surface of his field? Or on other considerations, because he paid more? And once again, there is an authority, to manage reaching an agreement and open the sluice gate.

  • Let’s go on:

Walter Scheidel notwithstanding, it is simply not true that ruling classes, once established, cannot be gotten rid of except by general catastrophe. To take just one well-documented example: around 200 AD, the city of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico, with a population of 120,000 (one of the largest in the world at the time), appears to have undergone a profound transformation, turning its back on pyramid-temples and human sacrifice, and reconstructing itself as a vast collection of comfortable villas, all almost exactly the same size. It remained so for perhaps 400 years. Even in Cortés’ day, Central Mexico was still home to cities like Tlaxcala, run by an elected council whose members were periodically whipped by their constituents to remind them who was ultimately in charge.

That’s well documented. So why no more precise reference? That’s really lacking any form or academic seriousness…
Let’s speak about Tlaxcala. I don’t know this custom of whipping the ruling council – which is very interesting, to say the truth. But, one question has to be asked: where the members of the council whipped everyday? Every month? Year? Every ten years? I’d easily accept being whipped regularly if this gave me power every single day on my whole life, after having raised up in the ranks of the army. That’s not a proof that elites may be totally overthrowned.

Let’s use another example: at Rome was a feast called the Saturnalia (with equivalents in Christianity, in Greece, etc.). Every social rule was, for a short time, totally reversed. This was the equivalent to the Roman triumph, where a victorious general was raised as a prominent character for the City, but also constantly told he was only one citizen amongst the whole population. In such occasion, his 4th triumph, Caesar was mockingly acclaimed by his soldiers singing “This is Caesar, the husband of every wife and the wife of every husband!”
Do seriously anyone imagine Caesar renouncing his triumph for that? Is it possible to imagine that any Roman then would not have easily taken his place that day? Obviously nope.

When there are long terms benefits to be a member of the elites, it is common sense to accept short term cons, both in Rome and in Tlaxcala – essentially because that’s purely symbolic.

Last but not least: the temporary conclusion. Neolithic was a time when people had two social organization, being partly nomads, being partly sedentarized. Having a society being some seasons totally hierarchical, some seasons totally equalitarian.

Graber and Wengrow are re-inventing hot water here. That would be fun if it would be intended as a joke. Sadly, it doesn’t seem so.

What’ they’re depicting is semi-nomadism. Let’s take one case I know for having read multiple texts and authors describing that: Mari letters, in the Older Babylonian period (19th/18th century B.C.) show that nomadic confederations were constituted of tribes and clans, each having their own villages in the Euphrate valley around the (sadly!) now well-known town of Der ez-Zor, Syria. They lived there by farming fields.
(Everybody interested with such things may read either Daniel Fleming (I don’t really approve all of his ideas, but at least that’s in English) or Jean-Marie Durand, the specialist on that point, but in French.)

Every year, a part of them left those villages, and the clans of the five tribes gathered to move together and practiced nomadism with their sheep on their traditional nomadic territories. The kings and chiefs could either stay in the villages and towns, or go with the cattle. There were “chiefs of pastures”, meaning an authority, reporting to the king. Those “chiefs of pastures” were very important characters, with important connections with every single ruler around their nomadism territories. They had a bit of independence, met other clans, tribes and confederations during formal celebrations called the riḫṣum, which probably were like what we call quite fast the palaver in our imaginary vision of African tribes – meaning roughly probably not an “Assembly of freemen” or something similar, but a meeting of authorities to conclude alliances, renew vows of fidelity, just cheer and feast and perpetuate good relations.

That doesn’t make that a double authority, not a double society. That’s making ONE society, with ONE authority (the king) delegated depending on the purpose (chiefs in villages, kings for tribes, etc.). There were season cycles management, but not total social revolutions for one part of the year.

As a conclusion (yup, that’s the end…)

As such, I just can’t take the two authors idea that such a thing could have existed in Neolithic – at least not without any scientifically proven evidences.

And to say it plainly, this was an interesting reading, but just I consider sorting it in my “political” reading, or alongside Tolkien and Robin Hobb as “fantasy”. Thinking about it, even “The Strike at Shayol Ghul” by Robert Jordan is more “historical” given the number of references and end notes given there, contrary to Graeber and Wengrow :confused:


Being an artist myself one thing I know for sure about -at least some of them- Venus statuettes. People who make them have an actual women of that characteristics just in front of them or very close. Some of the anatomical details are just so precise that I can’t imagine other way to make them. You just can’t do that based on imagination, memories or descriptions. A model is just needed.
With just this starting point or all women were feed to the limit - which is hardly plausible -, or some of them were just special in some way.

  1. We can only guess how it all started today. Who knows exactly how many human-like civilization attempts were made on Earth?
  2. We know much about Homo sapiens, so the division of our historical horizon begins before, with, and after him. The species of Homo Sapiens was certainly small at the beginning and relatively not widespread. Had many natural enemies and food competition.
  3. Like all living beings, it was subject to the natural law of multiplication.
  4. Humans and animals have never been equal. That’s what distinguishes an individual, everything else would be a clone, an identical “series”. As we now know, natural multiplication between clones is problematic or even impossible.
  5. Multiplication needs a secure diet, protection of the offspring, a good “gene cocktail” and a learning immune system.
  6. Humans need to multiply XXX females and at least 1 male.
  7. Many males and only a few females … what happens? Who brings the most food (see 5) into the cave? Who is the strongest protector? So, who is the boss here?
  8. And if there are several potential “bosses”? The more peaceful split from the group, take their females and children and move into an unoccupied area.
  9. All territories are “occupied”, a newcomer may still be accepted as an enrichment of the gene pool. 10 newcomers? And one of them is very, very strong and extremely attractive for her own females … A fight with him could mean the end of his “boss career” …
  10. He still has the traditional backing of his group. So he can access the life achievement of his group members, “use” them. Of course, a return is expected of him … The rest is "history"
    And that is - in a modified form - until today the story. Social inequality? We remember: all areas are already (multiple) occupied, so what can be the consequence? In our days daddy does not use spear and stone anymore, but with laptop and SUV. The loot is colorful paper for which other daddy build houses and bake bread in exchange. Who has the biggest house, the biggest SUV? Who goes to eat every day at their favorite Italian and drinks wine for 400 euros? For whom do most slaves work, even pay “tax” (hää?) From their wages and find it normal, even glad they are allowed to work? So, who is the boss here?
    As long as the Homo sapiens continue to multiply unrestrained, nothing will change. In fact, AC could be an interesting educational game in this regard. The timing or situation where the whole thing collapsed a very long time ago, we might be able to determine playfully. Faith, in the Neolithic this point had long been exceeded. Settlements were a consequence, no cause
1 Like

As for true egalitarianism, I doubt it has ever existed beyond the academic halls. Its like searching for the Holy Grail.


Those researching Catalhoyuk seem to think it was pretty likely.

Section ‘1.4.1. Description of the Site.’ states that “The Neolithic Site of Çatalhöyük is the best example of the agglomeration of people into egalitarian society in the Neolithic.” MANAGEMENT PLAN OF NEOLITHIC SITE OF ÇATALHÖYÜK. May 2013.

We see this occur at other periods of time as well.

1 Like

Temporarily, as long as sufficient resources are available for each individual, this may work. It shows basics of reason, the ability to balance between advantage and conflict. It becomes problematic when resources become scarce, whether through overpopulation or declining amounts of food. If then territorial expansion is not possible (island) or would lead to conflicts with neighbors, it would be over with the equality very quickly … The “hunting gene” is just too deep in our DNA :wink:

1 Like

I would just wanted to be evidence-based, and the archaeology seems to favor egalitarian society through much of the Neolithic. This is not to suggest that men or women were not dominant or subservient within Society, just that the ate and lived similarly and there’s no major indication that one was mistreated more so than the other, in general.

It’s actually not particularly easy to determine the cultural equality, though biological equality he is pretty easy to determine examining bones and teeth. Looking at grave Goods, religious figurines and similar methods shed light on the culture but are hardly conclusive. To the best of my knowledge, there is no real Smoking Gun indicator of cultural equality or inequality, and to presume maybe in err. If all cultures that existed had men dominating women, that might be a reasonable assumption. But we empirically know there have been many cultures with varying degrees of egalitarianism, so such a presumption is not valid.

1 Like

Surely something like that worked for longer periods of time. Interesting if you compare, for example: 3000 - 2000 BC:
A) Egypt: A world empire, pharaoh, temples, writing, relief art, pyramids, wars with chariots, dynasties, etc.
B) Germania - after evaluating recent excavations, a well-fed, peaceful population lived in small villages for over 1000 years. No wars, no epidemics, no hirarchies, no significant religion. I believe that it has to do with the available resources.


I get your point on the availability of food making that people don’t need to find anything more, so allowing to have a more peaceful society. And the fact is that – speaking very roughly – civilization made further advances whenever and wherever there was a crucial need for something other, something better, allowing a better survival. That’s how river valleys in the middle of desert gave birth to Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus civilization. That may also be why Greek cities and Rome, due to mountains areas and necessity for communities to live around valleys and limited territories, had to work hard for keeping peace, so creating institutions an authorities (like in Meopotamia or Egypt, by the way, for party different, partly similar reasons).

However: I’m really not sure that Germany knew peace and no plague for 1 millennium. Or you’ll have to find a real convoluted etymology explaining why the name “Germany” is a legacy of “Eden Garden”. I got it, you’ve excellent cakes other side of the Rhine, but that’s a bit much nonetheless :grin:

:grin: it certainly does not affect Germany completely. The area described is located in the Saale-Unstrut area, today known as the “Thuringian Basin”, a still very fertile area. (The cake is better elsewhere) :grin:

I thought now more of the equality of the population. There was no reason for major imbalances. Surely one was more diligent than another, and more prosperous, but apparently it did not (yet) lead to the formation of an elite or a hierarchy.

Undeniably, progress needs cause and necessity. If you have everything, why change something? Progress begins the moment something starts to be missed. This can be food (it was probably the most common) or a threat, you have to recognize the cause and do something about the cause. Or, on the contrary, do something to make life better.

1 Like

Catalhoyuk existed for at least two thousand years. That’s a pretty long time to experience an abundance of food without any major troubles. Other societies that had varying degrees of egalitarianism existed for a thousand or more years, namely Pontic, Saka, Scythian, Sarmation and similar steppes people. As Nomads who are almost constantly in the state of conflict, one can hardly tribute they’re egalitarian ways to a resource abundance.

I think what is likely is that the level of equality in societies various strata has moved in many different directions throughout time, and we cannot simply entertain Legacy interpretations as archaeology uncovers newer, more nuanced models for these societies. As an example of this, grave after a grave that had been deemed to be male based, on grave goods, have been confirmed to be female, based on the structure of bones via modern forensic archaeology( let me know if you want specific examples. I have several books full of them, and another one on the way)

I thought we kind of settled for a game design that allows us to pursue whatever course we want in this conflicting issue? A game design that treats men and women mostly the same, and for all functional reasons equal, but where random events may, if the player allows or wants it, tip the balance towards different societal models, whether it be more or less equality between the sexes, or equality between people generally, and so forth.

There are a myriad of “variations” on neolithic societies known to us, so… there should be a myriad kinds of neolithic societies created by players in this fantastic game. Sometimes the unexpected happens, like when the descendants of Catholic count Burkhard of Zollern in southern modern Germany, vassals of the Holy Roman Emperor, became Protestant dukes of Prussia in modern today’s Russia, vassals of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in Kraków, only to change completely again, to emperors of Germany! Today, though, they’re just… businessmen. Who would have thought that a thousand years earlier? But it was possible… as should many unlikely turn of events be in Ancient Cities… science permitting…


There has never really been an equalism between genres! SIMPLY because historical and cultural circumstances tend to dominate one or the other. There have been and there are societies with greater power than women to men. Nepalese society there are ethnic groups where 1 woman can have 4 men, the opposite of the islamic society a man can have 4 women. They are extreme; patriarchy and matriarchy. The other current societies adjust between them. For me it is quite possible that we have in the neolithic societies with greater feminine power. Maybe the girl is right; CITAS and others with societies of greater openness to women. And societies as closed to women as those proto-Arabs. I believe that the environment and the context of peace allow this. SEE the current society. I am Brazilian, for about 40 or 50 years the explicit eroticism was leveraged by the State and even stimulated the use of the image of women to sex tourism and carnival degenerating the real orgy. Although it is a historically Christian country. This fall is due to both the left and the right. Geopolitical environment was of peace to everything and everyone. We were on the US side in the Cold War, socialism seemed distant. Today we have in Venezuela, we suffered a horrible decade in economy with the left, but also in customs what was bad became worse. Then society has closed, we are more conservative, more puritanical. Carnival already has less orgy and nudism, football no longer excites us, now it’s politics. On the other hand EUROPE had socialism in Germany this forced the Germans to be conservative. Fall of the wall, left in power gradually, in complete peace, without enemies. The guidelines on the left resonate as “truths”: Children for what? Long live the pleasure - the “300 million genres”, whatever you want even a cat, ah it’s a process to tell you that you’ve gone crazy. This paranoid state of absurdity and broad freedom of the sexes is destroying Europe. Why have more rigid patriarchal societies survived so far? Because they make the right adjustments in releasing a certain percentage of women to functions or freedoms that would otherwise destroy society. The current context is well-known. We can see the effect of this in the NEPAL matriarchal and monarchical society was unable to defend the monarchy against the communists and their patriarchalism. Today is a republic and with strong changes. Obviously over time, what we see in Europe will come and destabilize the country. Just as one day the left destabilized my country in customs. This equalization is always superficial or relative, even among prehistoric, Neolithic peoples.
Although we can speak and accept that 30% of burials are “women warriors”. What I believe is not true, since in archeology a lot of political or ideological militancy is a fact. I agree with the opinion of others, many of these funerals are of status, recognition of defense bellicose involvement, but not what they necessarily were in life; artisans, weavers, housewives. But if we admit this reality does not mean an “equality” because it means that they were 30% the predominance would still be masculine and therefore patriarchal. Women are a valuable asset to any society, proof of this we can see in the present and antiques, in wars women are generally spared from being killed, but not raped, enslaved, indoctrinated. Because? Women procreate, they generate substitutes and population growth. People with millions of people have more power, more trade, more technology in general conditions. Consider, for example, the Russian Revolution of 1917, SEVERAL ephemeral states came to life from 1 to 4 years, were unable to face the larger society then emerged; Soviet-Communists. These are the dilemmas in today’s Europe. In a civilizing sense, the lefts in power have led to a great IGUALITARISM, to the point that I see a German deputy salute 12 “sexes” to give their vote. Aberration the situation. The real civilizing result is a population decline, but men and women are so artificially “equal” that their societies are gradually self-exterminating and their economies do not collapse, they resort to the most fertile people precisely because they do not have “equality”; the Arabs. It means that in decades we will see more Arabs than Germans in Germany and even Turks. Until the erase of that people. It is what we see in Nepal with the communists erase the “empowered” matriarchal society. I simply realize, many people with good knowledge on specific issues, want to impose positions of IDEOLOGY DE GENERER, which is a political form, within a game. This in a way that the developers do not realize, contributes still more in cultural scope to influence young people to this perspective. We must be realistic, some societies had more feminine participation. END. Soon we will see, you are the same people wanting you to stand; “300 million genres”. The game promises to have great graphic quality this attracts children and young people! HISTORY MAY HAVE BEEN OF SEMI-NUTIC WOMEN. OK. But we are talking about a game that what everything indicates the father wants to play with the son and the daughter, teacher wants to use the students.
Right or wrong archeologists from time to time portray more dressed men and women. We should know it’s just a game. NOT EVERYTHING IS 100% REAL, and neither should it. It should be suitable to the public first, to know that most gamers are children and young people. The reality is that this new era of “archeologists” of the “politically correct” of the dissemination update, nevertheless it is necessary to filter. THE GAME CAN BE 99% REALITY The clothes if they represent 1% in the game is a lot. So we have 99% realism, and that would make it very sellable. It’s like SCS SR PAVEL said. Simulation games seek to capture 100% of reality, but will never be 100% have other factors to think about; the gameplay and the public. Yes semi nude women have a great appeal among the adult public, it can yield up to good critics, but in sales it saturates very quickly, because it also receives criticism. And our society still exists children despite the abjections of the militancy of gender. And it is with them that we must have concern. Positive reviews will come with graphic quality already. The clothes though important is a case in which they should not be realistic at 100% or 0%. But they should make this a less relevant detail than some people want to impose. Equality of gender, equality. This is futile detail to me. I want only the environment of the time, the relations of commerce, relations of war, diplomacy, being able to make a family in the game, to have that dog half wolf. I’m not worried about secularism. I find it very futile. Slider to move to have more or less female participation solves the case. BUT ALERT FROM HERE A LITTLE THOSE PEOPLE WANT 300 MILLION SLIDERS OF GENDER. Because their minds do not support the fact that there are only 2; man and woman.
I expected a forum, more involved in relevant topics. What will be the new topic: “dildo in the Neolithic”, The GLBT movement in the Neolithic and its perpectives trans women in the Rhine and Moselle?

A few quibbles.

Humans are animals by definition. So to say they are not is like saying rectangles and squares have never been equal.
Clones by nature would be of the same sex (think identical twins), so they would have trouble reproducing with each other, but I’m not sure what point this is trying to make

While 1 male can have children with multiple females, it helps to have multiple males to ensure genetic diversity.

Interestingly, education and wealth seem to be the best way natural way to limit population growth.


Yes education, and also wars are efficient means of population control. But also how we can see here in Latin America, domestic politics as; hunger, unemployment, are very limiting population. We are seeing this in NICARAGUA and VENEZUELA. And interestingly, they do not go to the US, but to the countries of South America, the Venezuelans and COSTA RICA the Nicaraguans. For the sake of curiosity, the supposed “refugees” who try to enter the United States are from HONDURAS, a country that is calm in economy, being an action of the corrupt leftist Zelaya THAT LEFT OF THE POWER FOR VIOLATING THE LAW that prevented him from electing himself again. It has since sought to destroy elected governments. One way is to wear the country down as “failure,” when it is the opposite. Of course they are funded by the OPEN SOCIETY and receive money to do the activism, all logistical support in the “march”. In fact it is to justify the GLOBAL PROTOCOL of MIGRATION, which in practice extinguishes borders and is legal or illegal, signatory countries will have to let in, be a bandit, drug dealer, terrorist, guerrilla, levas of patients with diseases that do not exist in your country. In the end chaos.

“Humanos são animais por definição. Então, dizer que não são é como dizer que retângulos e quadrados nunca foram iguais.
Clones por natureza seriam do mesmo sexo (pense em gêmeos idênticos), então eles teriam dificuldade de se reproduzir, mas não tenho certeza de que ponto isso está tentando fazer.” - @Ryan

Discordo por um motivo que ainda não pensou. Seres humanos habitam corpos animais, mas não são animais. Se fossemos animais, então toda a consciência de si, não existiria. Por exemplo animais não sabem que vão morrer, não fazem a minima ideia se vivem 5, 10 ou 20 anos. SERES HUMANOS sabem que vivem em média 70 anos no máximo, alguns países um pouco mais, mas é o padrão biológico da maquina organica corpo. Sabemos que vamos morrer, sabemos o que é certo e errado “instintivamente”, cães não sabem quem é mãe ou filha, transam sem se importar com consequências genéticas de co-sanguíneos. Seres humanos sabem das consequencias a saúde da prole. Criaram algo chamado cultura e tradição, conscientes de sua mortalidade carnal, tais almas - os humanos - buscam perpetuar as novas almas tradições de ações e valores que o beneficiam evolutivamente. Por isto há leis proibitivas como as leis penais que buscam impedir homcidios,por exemplo. Tschuschi tem razão , no que afirma a valorização da especie é pelo mulher. E elas que geram vida, mas quem gera variabilidade genetica é as leis monogamicas. Uma elevada parte da população da Asia Central tem genes diretos a GENGIS KHAN. Isto se deve a poligamia. Por tanto geneticamente GENGHIS KHAN gerou “clones geneticos”, uma marca genetica comum. Mas o efeito clone real vemos na Islandia poucas familias colonizaram o país, com o tempo gerou um padrão genetico comum que quase os impedem de se reproduzir, pois gera co-sanguinidade, gera " clones" doentes, filhos. Um tempo atras o governo “importou” homens, fez uma politica de salarios e empregos tentando atrair homens, genetica nova a prole de mulheres solteiras,para gerar matrimonios e filhos mais saudaveis.

Could we please stay on topic? Also, there is a bold option, no need for all caps.

Ah, maybe you are using Google Translate. That could explain a few misunderstandings.