"The worst mistake in the history of the human race"

[weasel]

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.

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses...ndmistake.html

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?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

[lsbskins1]

Kinda makes you wonder a little at the Capitalist dogma all the way around. Maybe Osborn is right for entirely the wrong reasons. He thinks we need some kind of armageddon to get back to the "right and natural state of capitalistic economics", when we may need that armageddon to purge us of the "evil corruption of land ownership and capitalistic production". An interesting idea. I'm all for looking at where our conceits and our assumptions have caused us harm. I am in the middle of reading Collapse right now. I need to go back and read The Third Chimpanzee. I love Diamond too. Very readable and extremely thought provoking.

[Milton Bradley]

I also think Diamond is a great author. He has a way of zooming out beyond that of his peers, and is often able to provide a better view of the same topic.

Quote by: waesel 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 think he is fundamentally correct, but that evolution was inevitable in the end. One isolated hunter gatherer group, or another would have eventually decided that was the path of least resistance, and taken humanity down that same path in th end.

Quote by: lsbskins Kinda makes you wonder a little at the Capitalist dogma all the way around. Maybe Osborn is right for entirely the wrong reasons.

Here I thought he was arguing for the natural state of man that constitution recognized, and articulated. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

[tinybear]

Eating that apple. That's how our troubles began.

[Osborn F Enready]

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.

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.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Maybe Osborn is right for entirely the wrong reasons.

I say:
Osborn is right because Osborn has studied the issue, and come to sound conclusions after trying several opposing theories. How do I KNOW I am right? I think nature serves as my witness in this case, as we understand more.

I am always willing to debate any level of topic you choose Issy, so bring it or porch it.

[tman_ndsu08]

Going from gathering and hunting to agriculture wasn't a conscious decision.

It was evolution.


We could've no more stopped that than we could've stopped going from quadpedalism to bipedialism

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Osborn is right because Osborn has studied the issue, and come to sound conclusions after trying several opposing theories. How do I KNOW I am right? I think nature serves as my witness in this case, as we understand more. I am always willing to debate any level of topic you choose Issy, so bring it or porch it.

I was commenting on something you had said earlier, not really calling you out. It just seemed like an interesting idea, having to suffer a collapse in order to reset from the "mistake". I was only saying that I found it interesting that I could see a parallel between what you had seen as a "possible path" and one that I saw. Not that I would not go to it in this forum as well. I just DO NOT want this to start out as some kind of libertarian v. "socialist" ( I am using your term because I am addressing you, not because I accept it) battle of wills.

[Osborn F Enready]

Word Isbskins. The respect is mutual. We are both right to some degree, it just depends on what time, and what level you wish to discuss the topic.

Collectivism is apparent everyday in the family, but it is also shown not to work at larger levels.

There is a marriage there of ideals and rightness in both, but they have a clear line of delineation and I think that is where we differ.

[weasel]

To me, the choice (or "process" if thats how you see it) between hunting-gathering and agriculture sounds like a prehistoric choice (or "process") between communism and capitalism: the good of the many versus the good of the few or the one. This may be a stretch but I think its a possible point that may apply to this topic.

Additionally, do you think, had we not shifted to agriculture, we would be better off today without the advances of technology but benefitting from communal tribe relationships(i.e. maybe a greater sense of belonging)? Perhaps this is the reason why many early American colonists who were kidnapped by Native Americans decided to stay with them and why ordinary, regular colonists (and later citizens of the US) left civilization to live with in the "red man": perhaps they saw that the "communist benefits" looked better than the "capalist benefits."

[tman_ndsu08]

Weasel, it wasn't a choice.

Agriculture allows way more people to live way longer with far fewer risks.


Think of it from an evolutionary point of view. Those who posessed agriculture genes would've had a many times greater chance of surviving to pass those genes on versus those with hunter genes.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Weasel, it wasn't a choice. Agriculture allows way more people to live way longer with far fewer risks. Think of it from an evolutionary point of view. Those who posessed agriculture genes would've had a many times greater chance of surviving to pass those genes on versus those with hunter genes.

Although those who have taken the agricultural route have become more sickly and weak as individuals, as opposed to the hunter gatherers. I think of it like natures catch-22, it lets more of us live and permenent settling encourages further science, but the tradeoff is that we become poorer specimens of humanity. As we are seeing, fertility is decreasing, and in time our species will go into decline. I don't think it's something to worry about though, just accept it and try to deal with as best you can for your family. In other words, YOU try and as healthy as you can, pick a partner as healthy as you can and pass off such values to your children. At least your genes will stand a chance of continuing.

[Osborn F Enready]

G Adams said: Although those who have taken the agricultural route have become more sickly and weak as individuals, as opposed to the hunter gatherers. I think of it like natures catch-22, it lets more of us live and permenent settling encourages further science, but the tradeoff is that we become poorer specimens of humanity. As we are seeing, fertility is decreasing, and in time our species will go into decline. I don't think it's something to worry about though, just accept it and try to deal with as best you can for your family. In other words, YOU try and as healthy as you can, pick a partner as healthy as you can and pass off such values to your children. At least your genes will stand a chance of continuing

I say:
I disagree.

People who are part of successful cultures who have adapted well to technology overall, are much healthier OVERALL. Individually, there are cases of extremely poor shape, as well as the other extreme.

Technology provides more choice to individuals, therefore individuals will choose to focus on what THEY value as a person, not what SOCIETY needs.

When I didn't have to worry about my food spending, and had time and money to work out as I pleased, I stayed in great shape. Once my income was slashed, I had to eat on a budget, and can no longer afford the gym. Those combined removed a lot of my "incentive" to stay in shape. I still could stay in shape more, if I did more at home to supplement my workouts, and worked harder to prepare my meals, but I don't as the incentive is not worth the labor involved.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I disagree. People who are part of successful cultures who have adapted well to technology overall, are much healthier OVERALL. Individually, there are cases of extremely poor shape, as well as the other extreme. Technology provides more choice to individuals, therefore individuals will choose to focus on what THEY value as a person, not what SOCIETY needs. When I didn't have to worry about my food spending, and had time and money to work out as I pleased, I stayed in great shape. Once my income was slashed, I had to eat on a budget, and can no longer afford the gym. Those combined removed a lot of my "incentive" to stay in shape. I still could stay in shape more, if I did more at home to supplement my workouts, and worked harder to prepare my meals, but I don't as the incentive is not worth the labor involved.

Compare a section of Westerners to Masaii, Aussie Aboriginals or Maori living their traditional lifestyles. You'll see the difference. For a start, compare their teeth.

Agrarian society is one that has it's diets heavily based upon grains, and grains are NOT natural foods for humans. The only species designed to eat them are bids. They place a massive amount of stress on the body, bloating the pancreas as it attempts to produce enough gastric juices to keep up, similtaneously draining the body of vitamens and minerals. Hunter gatherer society however has a good balance between meat/fish, dairy and fruit/veg, supplemented by grains occaisionally.

Individually, agrarian society can produce strong, healthy people, but as a society it turns out poor specimens. And you'll notice those strong healthy people run right against the grain of modern society in terms of diet and lifestyle. Hell, a lot of people around me consider me vain and obsessed because I regularly go to the gym and take care with my diet, when that's certainly not the case. Now I'll admit that a lot of this has developed over the last sixty-seventy years, with the rise of processed foods and ass-on-chair jobs, but these have only replaced the other diet and lifestyle problems of the past such as rickets and scurvy. In turn, agrarian societies problems replaced hunter-gatherer ones - insecurity of food supply, susceptibility to changes in environment.

Most people in modern society are weak, plagued by illness induced by bad diet, lifestyle, environment and stress.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: G. Adams Although those who have taken the agricultural route have become more sickly and weak as individuals, as opposed to the hunter gatherers. I think of it like natures catch-22, it lets more of us live and permenent settling encourages further science, but the tradeoff is that we become poorer specimens of humanity. As we are seeing, fertility is decreasing, and in time our species will go into decline. I don't think it's something to worry about though, just accept it and try to deal with as best you can for your family. In other words, YOU try and as healthy as you can, pick a partner as healthy as you can and pass off such values to your children. At least your genes will stand a chance of continuing.

None of what you just said is true.

You must have a cute modified definition for health.


Let's see, do I want to live 30-40 years and probably have massive injuries as I walk 100 miles every week or do I want to live 70 years without having to hunt anything.
LOL! And you call the latter "healthier" and "a better specimen of humanity".

[Osborn F Enready]

I do see your points G.Adams, but I think there is more to the ABILITY to be healthy than meets the eye.

Complacency by choice, plays a large role, but only by those that HAVE the choice of complacency.

[lsbskins1]

tman-

As usually seems be the case, you aren't seeing the larger picture. Man is causing himself massive long term problems (that may cause his extinction) for short term gains. Don't think "short term" in relativity to your life span... think short in terms of the amount of time homo sapiens have been roaming the planet.

We are deforesting (threatening ourselves in many ways including erosion) for agriculture, we are straining the planet for energy sources to support and sustain what is essentially the human over- population of it's habitat. Nature bites back. If you have not done it, read the posted article. If you can not comprehend the language of the article, stay out of the debate.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 None of what you just said is true. You must have a cute modified definition for health. Let's see, do I want to live 30-40 years and probably have massive injuries as I walk 100 miles every week or do I want to live 70 years without having to hunt anything. LOL! And you call the latter "healthier" and "a better specimen of humanity".

The lives people led back then kept average lifespan down, not health. They were healthier, but had much more dangerous lives than we do in our sheltered little bubbles. They wern't riddled with asthma, allergies and obesity. They didn't suffer diabetes, tooth decay, heart disease or stomach ulcers.

And interestingly, they work on average a 4 hour day, not the 8-10 hour day we do. They had time for family, community, spirituality and various aspects of culture.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: lsbskins1 We are deforesting (threatening ourselves in many ways including erosion) for agriculture

Good.

, we are straining the planet for energy sources to support and sustain what is essentially the human over- population of it's habitat.

Good.

Nature bites back.

Nature is weak. Go ahead nature, give me what you got you patheic weenie!

Technology > nature.

We win.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: G. Adams The lives people led back then kept average lifespan down, not health.

Ah, so you are using a modified definition for health.


A longer lifespan = better health.

They were healthier, but had much more dangerous lives than we do in our sheltered little bubbles.

So go ahead and live out in the jungle. Have fun being torn apart by lions when you're 35.

You'll have really proved your point!

They wern't riddled with asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes heart disease, tooth decay, or stomach ulcers.

They didn't live long enough for those!

And interestingly, they work on average a 4 hour day, not the 8-10 hour day we do. They had time for family, community, spirituality and various aspects of culture.

IE, they sat around and did nothing for 20 hours a week.

Yeah baby! Now that's being productive!


Look, you can go sit around outside for as many hours a week as you want, right now! It's called being a bum.

Have fun.




And liberals make fun of conservatives for wanting to go back to the way things used to be! LOL!