And ‘wealth’ predates capitalism and mercantilism.

Capitalism was termed and grouped together in response to Marxist philosophy because it was a threat to the aristocracy. Capitalism proposed anyone and everyone can get rich if they slave away hard enough. Yet the “capitalists” still owned much of the capital resources.

It is important to note that the normal person did not have too much opportunity in the mid 1800s. If you seen the movie the “English Game” this is evident in there. The concept of working hard and getting rich was introduced in the early 20th century. This is also about the time when schooling had become compulsory throughout the United States.

I’m using the word to describe an economic system where the means of production are controlled by private capital (ie: capitalists). In such a system, capitalists are able to deploy capital to exploit the labor value of the working classes. This is what Marxism emerged in response to, and as I understand it, is what Marx attempts to describe in Capital.

It seems you’re using the term the way American/NATO Cold War propagandists used it, to describe a free economy where anyone can succeed with enough hard work and determination (in contrast to the Soviet system of planned economies).

The confusion is understandable. The word “capitalism” covers both meanings in everyday use.

Orcas, other than humans, are the most widespread animal. They're in practically every ocean and continental coast and eat a variety of food. Orcas who concentrate on a single or a few species, like salmon, tuna, or rays, do so as a strategy. They are huge animals with huge caloric needs, so it makes sense to diversify so as to not over compete, and thus this makes it possible for different pods to live in the same areas.

Humans the world over are starving and yet there is an over abundance of food. The U.S. alone wastes 120 billion pounds of food every year. Humans have to monitor how much fish we eat because we have filled fish with toxins like mercury and microplastics. So orcas are the "dumb" ones because some eat fish?

Famines are generally caused by bad governance, not by lack of food. We should reduce food waste where practical but that won't really help to feed the starving. For example, the 1980's Ethiopian famine which triggered major international relief efforts was primarily caused by a civil war. The opposing sides used hunger as a weapon and stole food from civilians. I can eat less tuna but that won't solve such problems.

That was primarily my point of calling that out, as it points to the lower emotional intelligence of humans.

https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts

"HIGHEST VALUE OF BLUEFIN TUNA: $3,100,000, CONSERVATION STATUS: ENDANGERED"

"TODAY ONLY 3% OF PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA REMAIN"

"OVERFISHING PUTS $42 BILLION TUNA INDUSTRY AT RISK OF COLLAPSE"

"A MITSUBISHI SUBSIDIARY CONTROLS 40% OF THE WORLDS BLUE FIN TUNA"

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/revealed-t...

"A corporation within the £170bn Mitsubishi empire is importing thousands of tonnes of the fish from Europe into Tokyo's premium fish markets, despite stocks plummeting towards extinction in the Mediterranean.

Bluefin tuna frozen at -60C now could be sold in several years' time for astronomical sums if Atlantic bluefin becomes commercially extinct as forecast, a result of the near free-for-all enjoyed by the tuna fleet."

that's a pretty twisted and incorrect reading of what i said, they don't have human level of intelligence because they all don't do anything else singificant their whole entire lives but hunt fish, not because they eat fish.

I answered that unlike what you are trying to accuse me of, I think there is nothing wrong with eating fish, the problem is inability to do anything else of significance but eat fish, talking about the dietary preferences is a diversion, so can we put that to rest already?

> What about what you said makes them unintelligent?

Can you please point me to cultural, scientific, technological, architectural, philosophical achievements of orcas that are typically associated with human-level intellect?

All moot if we are in The Matrix already? If not, The Matrix is the end game, anyway? I wouldn't mind much as long as chicken tastes better than fish.

Also i wasn't aware how much culture and collaboration orcas apparently have, thank you for sharing all that!

Edit: also, curious if you are aware of the work of marija gimbutas and heide göttner-abendroth on neolithic pre-patriarchal Europe (which seems to have been peaceful for thousands of years)?

* Deep Thinkers: Inside the Minds of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises by Janet Mann

* The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins by Hal Whitehead and Luke Rendell

Whales in general are very fascinating in their social and emotional intelligences. Orcas just take their raw intelligence to a new level.

Also, I am not aware of that work. So thank you! I have been meaning to read Against the Grain by James C. Scott. He mentions that early agrian societies had less leisure time and were less healthy than their hunter gatherer counterparts.

This is also described in high detail in "The Dawn of Everything" by another anarchist David Graeber. Highly recommend.

Evolution doesn't generally add features that aren't needed. Orcas don't have arms, don't build skyscrapers or fly to the moon. There's no need to be that bright.

But if you want to believe that they could, if they just had had arms, well why not (although I dissent).

> Humans are also some of the most if not the most violent species to ever exist. Which is more intelligent?

Those are two different dimensions. Being intelligent doesn't mean you're kind hearted or less violent. Although it can indeed be simpler to understand others (which you can use in evil ways).

I don't really see how you can claim that. What don't you see?

But, you also sort of prove my point as well. An 8 year old is as intelligent as an adult human. It isn't as knowledgeable or socially developed but the brain is basically 95% complete in its growth by 8 years old or so.

Part of the mistake is confusing knowledge or societal integration with intelligence.

> Evolution doesn't generally add features that aren't needed. Orcas don't have arms, don't build skyscrapers or fly to the moon. There's no need to be that bright.

But orcas do require intelligence. Their prey are dolphins, tuna, blue whales, humpback whales, beluga whales, seals, rays, salmon, herring, sharks, etc. Their prey are fast and strong and several of them (i.e., the mammals) have excellent hearing, sight, and intelligence of their own. They need their intelligence to cooperate in their hunting and to teach the learned techniques. And again, there are several indications and observations that their social and emotional intelligence is greater than humans. Orcas are currently considered a single species and thus that single species and brain provides for a huge variance in prey and living environments.

Ancient human brains and intelligence are identical to modern human brains and intelligence, and they had no need or capability for skyscrapers or going to the moon. Because again, technological development doesn't necessarily relate to intelligence. Technological development of humans is a bit of evolutionary runaway process because of our dexterity and brain combination. But just because we have a lot of technology doesn't mean we are the most intelligent. It is quite clear that our technogical development exceeds our social and emotional intelligence's ability to keep up.

> Those are two different dimensions. Being intelligent doesn't mean you're kind hearted or less violent.

It does indeed relate to social and emotional intelligence. Not everything is about bits and atoms.

> > I still see nothing in what you wrote that indicates they'd be brighter that say 5 to 7 years old kid

You then:

> sort of prove my point as well. An 8 year old is as intelligent as an adult

But I said not more than 5-7. (Could be 3-5 what do I know.)

which is not the same as 8.

And kids are kids, at 8 your brain is far from finished. (Maybe volume wise 95% but not IQ wise. I found 90% at age 5, volume/weight wise in a quick websearch). IQ wise: Not until a bit past 20 years.

(Where are you getting your ideas from?)

> Ancient human brains and intelligence are identical to modern human brains and intelligence

No.

You might have a link to some book that says otherwise, if so I would look at the authors as slightly dumb related to that.

> They need their intelligence to cooperate in their hunting

Dogs and hyenas do too.

I'm unlikely to reply any further. Btw, just one thing: when I was a teenager I had completely wildly crazy ideas about animals and their abilities, ... And, maybe in a way, I know where you're coming from. Have a nice day

> No.

> You might have a link to some book that says otherwise, if so I would look at the authors as slightly dumb related to that.

When I said ancient himans I meant early homo sapiens. I have looked into this before and while the brain has evolved over the time of homo sapiens, it is very much the same core brain. And from what I can tell from my research, the homo sapiens brain has been relatively unchanged since about 100,000 - 200,000 years ago, well before any writing or technological developments. Again, knowledge and technology are not requirements for intelligence.

For your kid argument, you would have to argue that the last 5-10% of brain development accounts for the majority of human intelligence. I think that's a tough hill to climb.

> I'm unlikely to reply any further. Btw, just one thing: when I was a teenager I had completely wildly crazy ideas about animals and their abilities, ... And, maybe in a way, I know where you're coming from. Have a nice day

That's fine, but it's also a rather immature and childish way to have a discussion.

I've never hard of this before! Can you explain more?

Granted nobody particularly cares about the absolute scale but if you’re complaining about significance it’s obviously just personal bias.

You have a very weak argument.

But the article is about them organizing a posse to sink a sea-worthy boat!!!

Can you and your friends do that? Without the aid of tools?

That balancing tuna on your nose doesn’t display human like intelligence.

bmitc's inability to understand the argument in a meaningful way is itself evidence that human intelligence is closer to the orcas

nobody suggested that they were intelligent because they eat and wear fish.

actual scientific research shows signs of culture, intelligence, and social learning, all of which point to approximately human-equal intelligence.

And no, fisherman is not a "species" or a pre-defined destiny. Hemingway was a fisherman and a writer. Humans have the ability to do other things, even in the same lifespan. Sounds like arguing for 2+2=4.

... it seems pretty reasonable that a death could trigger a lifelong vendetta.

If humans were casually killed by other animals at the rate we casually kill even the most intelligent non-human species, we'd exterminate that other species. Oh wait, we have.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/the-or...

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/50-years-ago-seven-...

https://us.whales.org/our-4-goals/end-captivity/the-penn-cov...

One of them still lives and has been in a single, tiny tank in Florida for five decades, alone for three decades. Completely sickening.

Do they need to be exploiting each other to be smart or something?

I think it's interesting that orcas and other intelligent animals possess an ability to be contented. Humans are decidedly discontented and crave.

Have you considered that human violence exceeds playing with food by many, many orders of magnitude?

Most people do less, they don't even kill the meat that they eat.

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 1979

Opposable thumbs is also a bit of an advantage

Sometimes you need to know when to stop.