>>508189 >Do you think agriculture was the start of the downfall of mankind? Is it the root of mankind's biggest problems? Nah, think we fucked up once we decided to walk on two legs. Some will argue we had no business leaving the oceans.
>>508516 that's the point where the man started to breed like rabbits and eventually permanently damage their environment. before that we were just a medium-sized, omnivorous pack animal along many others and that's how it should still be.
>>508189 >start of the downfall Prove there will be a downfall. (in b4 a link to some 2 hour long youtube video or a wall of text about the illuminati)
>Is it the root of mankind's biggest problems? What problems?
Skeletons of peasants were shorter but both the skeletons of hunter gatherers and agricultural laborers have similar levels of arthritis (except the men).
In the medieval era diets changed from a mix of protein to mainly grains and they could store grain for years or trade for it, offsetting fluctuations in productivity and famines. Hunter gatherers could not do this, if their region was fully populated they would come into conflict with neighbors in a similar desperate situation. Levels of violence in hunter gatherer societies was objectively greater than the period of ww2.
>>508547 >and that's how it should still be. You know, I've always been extremely skeptical of people who say things like "that's just the way things are" or, "that's how it should still be."
I see a of clergy and politicians using this kind of jargon, as if they hold the deterministic answers for all of...
Could we look at it another way, perhaps? Given our that Homo sapien sapiens are social creatures working in tribes, that their ultimate discourse would be to utilize any advantages for their survival and exploit those advantages to their full potential?
I mean, you can say its "unnatural" or "that's not how it should be" but I argue that everything that takes its discourse is very natural, and only power, knowledge and authority have the means of changing human discourse.
>>508238 IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, GENTLEMAN. alternative history may be fun, but it's flooding /his/. this very thread is fun and cleverly put, but I would prefer some more focused discussions
>>508528 >implying the hunter gathering life style is even possible in today's world You're forgetting humans are pack animals dependent on big wild life populations and diverse ecosystems that simply don't exist in most habitable places nowadays. Living alone in a cottage isn't nearly the same thing.
I'm not a utopian anarcho primitivist, but I do believe most issues regarding humanity are directly caused by civilization. Especially when it comes behavioural problems. Hunter gatherers had few other things than dangerous animals and unpredictable food shortages to worry about.
>>508575 >a world should just run freely as it does I'm suspecting this is a troll but whatever...
You are again, under some predetermined assumption that human beings are not of the world, they are. Human beings grew out of the earth and lifes biological complexities. They are just as much apart of the earth as anything else, so why do you think humans are some unnatural entity? Or could it be that humans are simply fulfilling their natural roles, the way these process allow, for good or worse? Does it matter?
And indeed, if this current discourse doesn't work out, human beings tend to adapt to crucial moments, if they don't adapt, then they die. But in all honesty, what are we, but a tiny blink of an eye in the span of the universe? We could all die tomorrow, and the universe would still be doing its thing, with or without us.
>>508575 I believe the ecosystem is important because it contributes to the happiness of sapient beings, I believe there should be large nature reserves dotted around the planet and a sustainable economy.
Why do you believe it is important enough not to be altered in any way?
Man who spends his free time playing with a computer wonders if maybe life would be more interesting if we didn't have the stability and security in our food supply to make any of the developments towards the present day.
>Hunter gatherers had few other things than dangerous animals and unpredictable food shortages to worry about.
seriously dude? hey, you know what was really cool about living back then? PREDICTABLE food shortages! There was this thing every year called Winter and it was really fun to ask yourself every year if you'd be able to live through it!
Or hell, how about if you got injured or sick? Good luck with the ol hunty gather then, right? OK, maybe your family/tribe can cover for you! But every mouth to feed adds to the original problems...
But nah, totally. You just hung out and occasionally threw a spear at a mammoth or something, food for a month covered, tons of free time, really casual except for the occasional sabertooth tiger or sometimes you'd be a little hungrier for a week because the weather was weird, right?
why has anthropology made it a goal to continually shill for societies completely annihilated by industrial/agricultural/"modern" civilization?
I mean let's face it, these cultures were to a tee raped or forced to emulate foreign techniques. I guess the eventual massacre of the population never factors into these humanitarian quality of life equations
>>508659 It's easy to apply your utopian fantasies to a group that cannot say otherwise.
People love to talk about how enlightened and in tune with nature the Sioux were, yet because they've never spoken to a Sioux they are ignorant of their genocidal campaigns across the plains, their driving the buffalo close to extinction, their practices of mass slavery, and the hilarious levels of violence their society practiced.
>>508547 There is no SHOULD for anything on this planet especially if you believe in the random occurrence of the universe. There is no way evolution SHOULD have gone. There is no way the earth SHOULD have formed ( no one could say oxygen had to develop in large numbers or that it didn't. However, as a result of it other organism were able to live. There is now evidence that all the organisms on EARTH right SHOULD continue to exist and not die out/ be replaced. This is just shitty pipe dreams brought up by people who honestly believe they have all the answers. I for one, am content with the fact that I don't know everything.
>>508583 >>508616 Everyone in this thread IS AWARE that were aren't really even 90% sure exactly how perhistoric humans lived since...idk there was no history written about it? At best, we make extrapolations from artifacts, remains, and random drawings people made when board. How can we be sure it means anything about how all or even most of our ancestors lived. desu we can't even truly know exactly how genderoles worked either because again we weren't there and their is no written documentation. All we can do is speculate and make theories based on artifacts.
>>508702 Wait, wasn't it the combination of them and the westward colonists who were shooting them mostly for fun/target practice that lead to the near extinction? I remember reading something about that.
>>508238 In his book Sapien, Yuval Harari makes the argument that the agricultural revolution was the greatest trap mankind has ever seen.
Hunter-gatherer lifestyles are surprisingly efficient. Spend a few hours hunting every day and spend the rest of it resting, you still have adequate food for yourself and your tribe.
Agriculture, however requires one to work for half the day, is very vulnerable to theft, causes all sorts of health problems from heavy work, spreads diseases from working with animals, hugely vulnerable to famine in a way a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not, and provides overall less of the vital nutrients that humans need.
The only people who would benefit from agriculture are the nobility and the monarchs, who would achieve such status from the creation of cities. For the vast majority of people, they were significantly worse off in agricultural societies than hunter-gatherers.
Only in the last few hundred years did this change. The industrial revolution is what made modern society better than hunter-gatherer societies. If there was no industrial revolution, unless you were nobility, there is literally no benefit to the agricultural lifestyle.
A friend of mine who studies archaeology told me about this book. I find the idea fascinating, and must admit that looking at power struggle compared between pre and post agricultural revolution makes one think ( although the methodologies used in both contexts are very different of course ) that life is generally less shitty for a lower cast gatherer hunter tribe member than for a serf, in terms of access to ressources, privileges, etc.
>>514523 We cant support large populations with a hunter gather lifestyle because the actual good sources of meat take a fuckload of time to breed naturally, and eventually we would eat everything and have to resort to cannibalism.
>>508547 i agree with this. but who can deny man's tendency to master his environment? he is compelled to by the very nature of his mind. agriculture was inevitable. therefore we as a species capable of ethical thought should approach agriculture woth a different philsophy. one of sustainability and harmony with and in the environment, giving more than taking, to the earth and to other humans
>>514545 Humans were made to innovate thats why we have these brains. >middle school There are no schools in hunter gatherer societies because everyone will be either hunting, screwing around or fucking.
>>514607 No our brain literally restricts the actual power of our muscles so we can handle things more tenderly and not break shit everything we grab it like a chimp. Not to mention our hands mutated to use tools.
>>514639 Yes anon I wish we could back to the old days of hunting for food then kidnapping teenage girls in the tribe and raping them in the forest then getting my share of food. Of course psychopaths like me are cancer in a hunter gatherer society because we will do everything we can to fuck everyone over.
>>514668 Did I mention anything related to any of that, first post in thread btw.
Compared to early agriculture, hunter gatherer was probably more comfy.
>From 1050-1175, Dickson Mounds underwent a transitional phase, moving towards a mixed economy of hunting and gathering combined with agriculture, particularly the cultivation of maize. The population was also developing more permanent settlements and trade networks. From 1175 onward to about 1350, the population size expanded significantly and developed complex permanent settlements. These changes can be attributed to the increased reliance on agriculture and expansion of long-distance trade during this period.
>The significant lifestyle changes from a small, nomadic, hunter-gatherer society to a large, sedentary, agrarian society resulted in major health changes among the population. After analyzing trends in bone growth, enamel development, lesions, and mortality, archaeologists determined that there was a major decline in health following the adoption and intensification of agriculture. Compared to the hunter-gatherers before them, skeletons of farmers at Dickson Mounds indicate a significant increase in enamel defects, iron-deficiency anemia, bone lesions, and degenerative spinal conditions.
>>514731 Also this was a study had a sample size of 800 skeletons.
>"Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
>>514462 Why is that a good thing? What is actually positive about expanding our population? From an evolutionary perspective, yes, it is better, but look how well cows have thrived in terms of population since they have been domesticated, yet they live horrendous lives.
>>514798 >Until relatively recently, most good data on the effect of the transition to agriculture came from North American sites (Cohen, 1989; Larsen, 2002), and little was known about the consequences of the transition for much of Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. This is changing, as paleopathologists widen their geographic focus; several studies summarized in the Cohen and Crane-Kramer volume (2007) provide evidence from these neglected areas, much of which confirms the above pattern of declining skeletal health.
>>514901 Not OP (he was obviously exaggerating, he is a faggot after all) but there are some legitimate negative consequence of agriculture.
One example is that our body (physiology etc) has adapted to the hunter gatherer lifestyle over 100's of thousands of years , and there are 'mismatch' diseases due to the difference between the conditions we are adapted to and the modern lifestyle, some issues which have accelerated include heart disease, certain cancers, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, alzheimer's, cavities, anxiety and depression.
I'm not advocating that we return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, or using a false dichotomy of saying one is 100% better than the other. I'm just saying that there are some negative impacts stemming from the transition to agriculture, and that it's worthwhile identifying and being aware of this.
>>514958 Blame Evolution, we have been hunter gathers far longer than agriculturist so our bodies are still designed for it infact it might be impossible to lose it since we have had for such a long time just as how its impossible for us to develop new limbs since the design for limb number goes back 400 mya.
>>515020 Of course, I'd say it's almost certainly impossible to lose an important factor our body has been evolutionarily adapted to. Small changes sure, but over the past 10,000 years what do we have, decreased sensitivity to gluten, increased tolerance of lactose, and a greater tolerance to alcohol.
Instead of seeing it as objectively good or bad, I see it as this. On one hand, it was good on a survival standpoint. We need food and water to live, and it only makes sense to settle where it is abundant. We have to keep others from taking it and so it lead to the establishment of civs.
Course in doing so, we basically allowed for inevitable things like greed, gluttony, and a various other number of things, as well as inevitably running into situations where we may create unsustainable growth(Something that may soon become a problem).
But it is doubtful we would of developed as much had we stuck to the nomadic life style, which while would ensure the earth is largely unharmed by development and man would remain at one with nature would also mean we would not also develop to learn on how to interact and deal with people. Plus not being able to write shit down would be problematic(A thing usually associated with nomadic peoples).
is there a mechanism for having a retarded OP deleted? This isn't even sensible. The people who developed agriculture were the people who had to subsist on scavenging, of course agriculture is better, it was an improvement and that is why they stopped scavenging.
>>515330 Prior to agriculture the number of hours required per person to socially reproduce human society was fairly limited, 2-3 hours a day. Agriculture, by producing class society and surplus, increased this to between 8 and 16 hours.
Protein down, disease up, war up, slavery invented.
>>515408 >prior to ag. once you found your berries you laid in the dirt for several hours. awesome. Your normative claims about the utility of lying in the dirt are exactly the same as your opinion: worthless.
As you'd know utilities are incommensurable between subjects. Thousands of generations of people have enjoyed lying in the dirt, eating starch products and small animals that women have gathered, talking about shit, watching the fire, and occasionally fucking.
There is no blunt cut off between forger and farmer. In fact as we have seen throughout the world from the Pacific Northwest to California to Melanesian and Southeast Asia and Australia peoples who had altered their environment to better facilitate the growth of desirable staples.
They didn't stick to tiny vegetable gardens, they altered their entire landscape in massive patchworks.
It's based brah
That being said regardless of agriculture or not but enough food and too much food both leader to the same things regardless of agriculture or not.
>>515489 Also you clearly don't know about the populations I am talking about because they did have staples and no corn is a term specifically meant for the most important grain crop and that is not the kind of plant I am talking about.
>>515547 The fact that you're focusing on what two autocorrect errors is all you, it's 4chan not a dissertation for my PhD >>515557 ....all people have staple foods, how stupid can you be? Do you not know what that means?
If you like, I can give you a PDF of Guns, Germs and Steel given that your understanding of food is almost at his level :-)
>>508238 >>Would you OP, be so quick to thwart the plethora of inventions and ideas that have come out of civilizations (the computer you are typing from for example)? >le computer meme that the hedonist cannot live without
>>510952 >The industrial revolution is what made modern society better than hunter-gatherer societies. If there was no industrial revolution, unless you were nobility, there is literally no benefit to the agricultural lifestyle.
>>513481 >that life is generally less shitty for a lower cast gatherer hunter tribe member than for a serf, in terms of access to ressources, privileges, etc.
yes, because taking seriously your pains, pleasures, aversion towards pains, avidity towards pleasures, which means living through them, makes for a wonderful life. It is nice to be a hedonist, but mundane hedonism comes with boredom which makes the hedonist anxious since he cannot beat boredom.
>>515932 I specifically stated specific groups >>515454 secondly agriculturalists were not necessarily sedentary and having a territory in which each particular zone has particular foods for a specific time of the year does not invalidate a "staple food" status to their subsistence patterns. It shows how different plants prefer different climates or soils and come into harvest at different times.
Maximizing a given range for all ecological niches on an annual basis is different than this mindless wandering you're insinuating.
Murnong (Victoria), Tree Fern (Tasmania), Millet (New South Wales), bush sweet potato (Western Australia) and these are just some of many more plants that were reliable staples throughout the continent. Beyond that Acacia seeds which are found throughout the continent and are feeding Sahelians as a staple food after it was introduced a couple decades ago.
All people have traditional staples, staple foods do not have to be plants fyi I just want to humor your ignorance :3
>>516156 >There is no exact arbitrary number for a staple! So basically what you're saying is that you're unwilling to make an argument from number or reason, but from the conclusion of a 700 page book you think that a single sentence is evidence.
Thanks for reminding me why I've never sought to collaborate with anthropologists, and never will.
>>515418 >As you'd know utilities are incommensurable between subjects great so now why am I wrong and you right? We can only know from our point of view, which says comfort of shelter and plenty of food is better than not knowing if you'll get enough food / worrying about getting eaten or killed by a tribe.
>Your normative claims about the utility of lying in the dirt are exactly the same as your opinion: worthless. So again, from the perspective of the people who actually lived this, agriculture was the better option. You don't have to take my 'normative' position, take theirs.
>>515511 >You'd know it from class society as "work." Gatherers did a lot less "work" than any member of a class society other than the ruling elite. modern people do less work than gatherers. Not sure how you would compare being an accountant to having to search for food, fight animals, fight other tribes and shit. I'd rather be comfy and using my brain.
>>517894 >We can only know from our point of view >We >utilities are incommensurable between subjects >We >utilities are incommensurable between subjects >We >utilities are incommensurable between subjects >We
You don't get incommensurability.
Except most gatherer societies spent a lot of effort, to the point of death, refusing integration into agricultural economies.
>>518512 I know a lot about the mega fauna extinctions, I still don't see how that is 'moral decay' rather than ignorance about over hunting, combined with climate change leading to extinction. (I do see these extinctions as a bad thing, but applying modern morality to people of the past, nigga pls).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.