>>521957 IIRC around the time it first developed in the middle east was suffering from a drought (general bad conditions etc), while there had been a period of good conditions prior to this, so much so that some hunter gatherer populations were sedentary rather than nomadic, and that the populations were denser than hunter gatherers in many other regions due to it being a bountiful region. So pretty much due to the relatively high population density and worsening climatic conditions, it could be seen that the development of agriculture was a 'necessity is the mother of invention' scenario.
Found this on wiki just now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
>The Natufian culture was an Epipaleolithic culture that existed from 12,500 to 9,500 BC in the Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was unusual in that it was sedentary, or semi-sedentary, before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufian communities are possibly the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world.
A continuous food supply and a guaranteed warm shelter mean that you can have more children survive into adulthood. Which means you will eventually outnumber the hunter gatherers, field armies, kill the men and take the women as trophies.
>>521974 > calls bullshit on it being because it was a more stable source of food > states that H/Gs died out to farmers because they had lower populations and were eventually assimilated > then makes a random statement about humans controlling their society and communism
You get exactly one guess as to WHY the farmers had a significantly higher population than the H/Gs. There's actually a few reasons, but they all pivot around the same fact. Take your time.
I'm not buying it, how is farming a more "stable" source? I'm talking about stone age farming, not modern industrial farms. Your crops are always at chance to fail, by weather, wild beasts, just being planted wrong, tempereature being off, the soil being unsuited for farming, pests and diseases. And if your years harvest is fucked, then you starve. Wild animals on the other hand, are always there, and hunting is always a possibility for food.
>>522073 For starters, farming societies almost always started near rivers and lakes, so there were fish as a supplementary source of food and there was a supply of water that did not depend on weather. So it is not like primitive farming was more stable than hunting-gathering everywhere, but in the places where it was stable, the populations were able to grow at rates three to five times higher than hunter-gatherers.
>>521957 because most of the humanity is far more hedonistic than say stoic and other doctrine which do not take as serious the desires for materiality. Even the hedonists who try to meditate stick to a hedonism which is non-material, but it remains a hedonism. Then there is women who are explicitly hedonistic and histrionics and most men trying to please women contribute to further hedonism. ans most people love to love their desires anyway. it is not as if most people are on earth to adhere to another doctrine.of course, hedonistic parents will do anything to have children like them. so it is not as if you can escape form this.
the original Farmers have faith in the rationality, through the induction, which permits to manufacture a framework for ''objectivity'' which shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] entice people to adhere to this doctrine.
then you have the liberals and libertarians who created the concept of progress in science and this progress would somehow gives progress in society . this positivism has obviously failed which leads to rationalist to fall back on his faith in his concept of ''inter-subjectivity''.
Of course, the connection of the speculations, by the rationalist, to ''the reality and objectivity'' is bogus which leads the rationalist to say, once you ask him the relevance of what he calls science, that ''only science can bring computers and everybody knows that we cannot live without them'' like you find so many here.
so there you are : we love our desires, our pleasures so much and despise our pains so much that we would have faith in any conventions promising to alleviate our hardships and reassuring us with ''certainty truth, knowledge, objectivity, universality''.
>>522135 Allow me to illustrate this simple idea, my man. First, there were plenty of animals in nature. More than enough to support the population of man. But people bred, and always grew in numbers. The more people that exist, the more animals we had to hunt, and the more we hunted the more we could breed. Eventually there were not enough prey to feed us all, we had to adapt or perish. So we switched our main source of sustenance from hunting, to agriculture. To some extent agriculture and farming have always existed side by side, it's just that we preferred ro rely on hunting while that was feasible. When we could not any more, we switched to farming. Hunting still took place, but not to the same extent.
>>522220 Maybe you should read your sources again and realize that none of it actually suggests what you're proposing here: >Allow me to illustrate this simple idea, my man. First, there were plenty of animals in nature. More than enough to support the population of man. But people bred, and always grew in numbers. The more people that exist, the more animals we had to hunt, and the more we hunted the more we could breed. Eventually there were not enough prey to feed us all,
Just because certain species died off it doesn't suggest that there wasn't enough prey to support human populations.
>>522239 >Just because certain species died off it doesn't suggest that there wasn't enough prey to support human populations.
That's exactly what i mean. If men would have continued to rely on hunting instead of switching over to agriculture as their main source of sustenace, they would have hunted the animals to extinction. And then they wouldn't be able to live off of hunting. And woul either way be forced to switch over to agriculture.
>>522243 >they would have hunted the animals to extinction
Yeah but there's nothing to support that idea. It's completely unfounded speculation. Exactly how big of a role humans had in the mega fauna extinctions is hotly debated. If anything hunting seemed more sustainable than agriculture considering hominids practiced it for millions of years without mass extinctions.
>>522108 >Farming reduced food stability due to reduced food source dependence. Farming is not entirely stable due to being limited to fewer species as sources of food, which makes it vulnerable to plagues. That is true. It is still more stable than hunting, since: Your buddy won't make a mistake during farming,which could cause his death and the escape of the animal go in the process, causing your clan to starve for a few days. The likely hood of plagues wiping out your crops is infinitely small compared to some guy slipping on wet mud and smashing his brain open, increasing the amount of food you now have to obtain per hunt to feed his woman and children. It is not like every animal is an ideal prey. Other carnivores and omnivores will often be parasite-ridden. If you want your population to grow, every hunter will have to produce food for 5. So every hunter in the tribe will have to kill roughly 40 pounds worth of animal every day. That is more than enough to drive populations of the better preys to extinction, or at least force them into the territory of another tribe. And if your preys move into the territory of another tribe, you will have to fight them for the territory.
And we know hunter-gatherers struggled for territory, which means they struggled quite a bit for food. The most violent societies in human history, based on the amount of humans killed by other humans, were hunter-gatherers, which clearly means that they did not have an easy time acquiring food most of the time.
>It also lowered calorie intake per person. It definitely lowered protein intakes. I would like some source on the lowered calorie intake, since outside of a few tropical areas, hunter gatherers would probably have to spend months without fruits as a calorie source and have to rely on things like animal fat for calorie sources. Plants don't produce usable food all year long.
>>522281 >Yeah but there's nothing to support that idea.
Yes, common sense supports it. Kill an animal - it dies and it can't bear offspring. Kill too many of the animals - they can't sustain a population any longer. Kill them all - they go extinct. A logical and not far-fetched theory is that humans brought the large animals to extinction, why? Well you want to kill the largest animal in the herd of course, it has the most meat.
>>522309 You keep ignoring climate. This is how you logic seems to work. "We killed off the mega fauna so we were doomed to kill off all other creatures we hunted". But you don't consider that maybe climate was a sigficant if not the most sigficant factor in killing off mega fauna.
>>522316 Did you check my graph? It clearly shows that the hunter lifestyle subsisted even after the agricultural revolution. >>522334 I'm not buying into the climate change theory. By occam's razor, overhunting seems the more reasonable explanation, to me. What evidence is there of climate change causing the quaternary extinction event?
>>522344 This is a thing, and you're right. But the alteration of the land due to agriculture can also be a positive thing for certain species. It can be both good and bad, some specied thrive in the landscapes created by agricultural techniques.
>More recent research has demonstrated that the annual mean temperature of the current interglacial that we have seen for the last 10,000 years is no higher than that of previous interglacials, yet some of the same large mammals survived similar temperature increases. Therefore, warmer temperatures alone may not be a sufficient explanation.
In addition, numerous species such as mammoths on Wrangel Island and St. Paul Island survived in human-free refugia despite changes in climate. This would not be expected if climate change were responsible.
>>522316 >It's almost as if you don't think stable hunter-gather populations existed. By your logic they would have all starved to death long ago as they never adapted to agriculture. They existed because their population remained VERY low. And they also regularly fought other tribes, maintaining that low population.
>By your logic they would have all starved to death long ago as they never adapted to agriculture. In many parts of the world they would have starved to death (and probably many did) had they not switched to agriculture. Look at all our extinct cousin species who died without ever meeting us.
>>522339 >local extinction Well I was talking about real extinction. Still interesting.
>>522340 How is over hunting the simpler answer? Massive climate shifts are pretty good at killing off animals. One species being solely or even mostly responsible for the extinction of all those animals is pretty radical.
As another guy pointed out, the introduction of humans is actually the only thing that correlates all the cases of megafauna going extinct.
Besides, these animals aren't very efficient, mammoths took years to reach sexual maturity, so their population was slow to recover. They were also dependent on the elder animals to communicate where the good supply of food was located, once they died out, the younger ones didn't have the same knowledge of the land.
>>522073 In al those scenarios your crop is rarely completely destroyed. I don't know what neolithic yields were but in modern times a disaster is making less than your inputs farmers still have grain.
Hunting and gathering actually means you don't have to spend much time working, which means more sexy time, which means more kids (mouths to fee) so more time working is needed, along with a stable food source.
Not the only reason, but it may have been a contributing factor.
>>522594 But that depends on deer, elk and bison already living in the existing area, or a nearby area, and tolerating local predators and natural barriers with the success of the mammoths. It seems unlikely to happen in Islands and would take quite a while to happen in other isolated ecosystems.
Plus, these elk and deer would be followed by wolves, their natural predators, so you could indeed make the area being bad for humans for decades, until the populations in the ecosystem readapt to a lost member. Possibly leading to this hunter-gatherer group moving out of their territory due to temporary scarcity and coming into conflict with another hunter-gatherer group.
>>525428 >>525469 me Pure conjecture, but I wonder if the population putting a strain on the available resources of a regions was a large factor in most if not all cases where farming developed. I know that the highlands of Papua are notoriously poor in food resources (the largest native mammal is the tree kangaroo).
Not sure about America specifically, I know that it would have taken a long time for the domestication of Teosinte to even approach the productivity of corn.
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.