Quote:
Weasel said:
Jared Diamond (my favorite history author) poses this point in his interesting (but relatively brief) essay about the choice our ancestors made: the change from hunting-gathering to agriculture. Agriculture, as in the basis for all major civilizations and empires. Good stuff.
|
I say:
I too am a huge fan of Diamonds, though we differ in some areas when he talks of rectification in modern times. I hate to use the terms right and left in todays world of politics, but most seem to know what I mean when I do, so I will. I think Jared is a little left leaning into socialist economics, which is why I disagree with his later summations of how to fix the "problems". I agree with almost all of his historical review, as well as modern views, except where his politics enter his writing, which is rare.
Quote:
Weasel said:
Is the author correct in his belief that agriculture is the root of all society's ills? If we had stayed as hunter-gathers what would have happened to classical music, modern medicine, and the microwave oven?
|
I say:
I believe Jared is right on in his conclusions, but I think he fails to address that it was indeed an evolution of man, as we know man. Human understanding, and learning curve took off with technology, the first technology being fire and tools of stone or wood or both. Once man realized he could make his labor more productive using logic, logic set the path for evolution of mans societies. Logic therefore, made survival EASIER for man, by SAVING labor.
In a sense, I fault Diamond for saying that logic is the root of all of mens evils, but in a sense he is right, from HIS view, as a collectivist. Hunter-Gatherer groups were the last vestige of WORKING collectivism......for good reason. Logic allowed societies to flourish, and provide a wealth of labor per necessity. This overabundance of labor was good while being on top of the bubble for production vs consumption. However over time, as per human nature, we as humans generally try to do better for our offspring than we could for ourselves, which leads to an overabundance of educated thinkers, and a shortage of workers. The thing Diamond doesn't notice, is that the evolution of man through technology was inevitable, and it happened in different places at different times. However, surivival was still dependent on labor.
Hunter-Gatherer societies have a CLEAR pecking order. The providers hunt, the gatherers gather, usually younger virile men hunting, and women and elders gathering. This is a NATURAL collective. The bond that holds this collective together is basal instinct, as well as family ties over time. THEY ARE PREDESTINED by nature, to care for one another as blood relatives for survival.
Agricultural societies have a REVERSED pecking order, or severely more complex overall order. The thinkers, coupled with the labor, are equally important though this was a PAINFUL and COSTLY lesson to learn. This is the modern version of natures way, of including the natural pecking order which is inherant to humans through technology. HOWEVER, societies in general under agricultural production have growth and more births, longer lives, better nourishment, etc. This causes society to grow.which deteriorates the ties of the collective, and cause more diverse differences of opinion in greater number, causing a desire among similar minds to SPLIT from the collective and start their OWN collective for individual purposes. This allowed man to be BOTH logical AND individually able and fit for survival.
My argument is that both collective and individual "logic sets" work when put in their proper roles, and scope. The thing that makes or breaks it, through internal corruption, is the size and ties of the collective.
I forget what science has determined to be the human minds (as of now) limit for complete recognition of individual persons comibined with picture, voice, and intimate descriptions. I think the number is between 12 and 35. This would lead me to believe that in nature, as hunter/gatherer societies, the limit of the size of an effective collective would be between 12 and 35 people roughly, since those ties of that strength are required to prevent corruption of the collective. Once going past this "naturally predetermined number" however, ties fade, loyalty and respect are questioned, and the path of individualism begins.
I believe that the proof is in the pudding also, as economics has proven this true using a tool we value and accept known as MATH.
Humanitarian issues MUST balance with economic issues. Economics has taken the place of necessity, because of the introduction of spare time, and the CONCEPT of luxury, and the natural market it provided.
I have much more to say on this, but I don't want to be accused of "peppering the wall and seeing what sticks."
Word.