If it was worse than hunting and gathering?
They didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.
I read all the downsides and it doesn’t seem like a good thing at all, or is this just one of those “good and bad” things.
It was a necessity in the time and place it began, not something people chose or wanted. That’s how everything starts.
If it was worse than hunting and gathering?Basically, someone discovered (probably by accident) that you could grow food by planting and cultivating certain plants. This meant people did not have to hunt prey as much and would have led to settlements since plants don't move about like game. It was a very major development as it led to more specialization since there was more time to do others things other than hunting and gathering, which entailed a nomadic type of existence. You could argue it brought about 'civilization.'
How is it worse? With some fairly simple principles, your food is now right out your back door. Instead of wandering around, hoping you’ll find, you make it and store it. You overcome the drought and famine cycles.
Farming also led to overpopulation, resource depletion and big agribusiness.
Farming also led to overpopulation, resource depletion and big agribusiness.And leads to wars and monument building to keep all those extra hands and mouths busy.
How is it worse? With some fairly simple principles, your food is now right out your back door. Instead of wandering around, hoping you'll find, you make it and store it. You overcome the drought and famine cycles.http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race Lengthy but also states that it led to gender roles, the rise of religion, social inequality, poorer nutrition and increased risk for diseases. It's kind of a bubble burst for me. I always thought farming was an improvement but I guess not. Makes me question progress.
And chillingly enough that the unabomber may have had a point about modern life.
They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply. Survival of the fittest.
They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply. Survival of the fittest.What about all the after effects
It’s possible that agriculture began to provide alcohol not bread.
As for the development of agriculture being a “mistake” we somehow need to correct, it’s what we do with it that is important. Plentiful food supply has allowed the creation of complex societies and the only reason that we have the science and ability to understand such complex issues is due to the development of agriculture.
Remaining hunter-gatherers would be no guarantee of survival of the species either, in that state the human species almost went extinct about 75,000 years ago.
And chillingly enough that the unabomber may have had a point about modern life.You find Ted Kacyznski chilling but think murdering most other humans is perfectly justified.... how truly bizarre.
And chillingly enough that the unabomber may have had a point about modern life.You find Ted Kacyznski chilling but think murdering most other humans is perfectly justified.... how truly bizarre. I never said it was justified but the ideas behind it seem compelling (albeit no violence though). http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/#comments-anchor In terms of that though I still think it's the user and not the tool to blame.
And chillingly enough that the unabomber may have had a point about modern life.You find Ted Kacyznski chilling but think murdering most other humans is perfectly justified.... how truly bizarre. I never said it was justified but the ideas behind it seem compelling (albeit no violence though). http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/#comments-anchor In terms of that though I still think it's the user and not the tool to blame. You came up with some bullshit explanation of some fictional group we needed to defend ourselves from who want to "cull" most people. When it was you repeating over and over how it's a viable policy to follow. The user and not the tool, what does that even mean? We're not separate from the culture that we're part of and we're still a part of nature. Everything we do is part of the natural process of evolution, if you choose to see people in the most negative terms possible that's on you not most people. When you take a mechanistic approach to people and deal with them in terms shorn completely of human feeling it's not surprising that you end up with extreme views. That's you and people like you, not most people.
And chillingly enough that the unabomber may have had a point about modern life.You find Ted Kacyznski chilling but think murdering most other humans is perfectly justified.... how truly bizarre. I never said it was justified but the ideas behind it seem compelling (albeit no violence though). http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/#comments-anchor In terms of that though I still think it's the user and not the tool to blame. You came up with some bullshit explanation of some fictional group we needed to defend ourselves from who want to "cull" most people. When it was you repeating over and over how it's a viable policy to follow. The user and not the tool, what does that even mean? We're not separate from the culture that we're part of and we're still a part of nature. Everything we do is part of the natural process of evolution, if you choose to see people in the most negative terms possible that's on you not most people. When you take a mechanistic approach to people and deal with them in terms shorn completely of human feeling it's not surprising that you end up with extreme views. That's you and people like you, not most people. Ah I remember you, the overly emotional one
They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply. Survival of the fittest.What about all the after effects The people who started farming and built the first civilizations had no way of knowing about the after effects. They were trying to build better lives, and they succeeded. The unintended consequences came much later. We are now living in those consequences and have the benefit of hindsight to see how much agriculture has hurt our ecosphere. Agriculture has also given us many advantages, but in the long term it may do more harm than good. The originals farmers could not possibly have foreseen all the consequences of their advanced technology, so they did the best they could with the available knowledge.
It's possible that agriculture began to provide alcohol not bread. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2527074/Did-BEER-create-modern-society-Ancient-man-developed-agriculture-brew-alcohol-not-bake-bread-claims-scientist.html As for the development of agriculture being a "mistake" we somehow need to correct, it's what we do with it that is important. Plentiful food supply has allowed the creation of complex societies and the only reason that we have the science and ability to understand such complex issues is due to the development of agriculture. Remaining hunter-gatherers would be no guarantee of survival of the species either, in that state the human species almost went extinct about 75,000 years ago.That's interesting, and it led to another story, http://nautil.us/issue/8/home/beer-domesticated-man
Beer Domesticated Man By Gloria Dawson, Dec 19, 2013 http://nautil.us/issue/8/home/beer-domesticated-man ... Today, the earliest chemical evidence of barley-based beer is at the Godin Tepe archaeological site near the Iran and Iraq border, and dates back to 3,500 B.C. But scientists believe that grain-based fermented drinks have a much longer history than that, and were used around the world. “It isn’t just wheat and barley in the Middle East," says McGovern. “It’s rice in China—rice wine was made from grain, similar to beer. It’s corn in the new world—Chicha is made from corn.That got me to thinking about Gobekli Tepe, it has something to teach us about transition from hunter-gather to agriculture. There's a rather fascinating National Geo Special, much better than all the weird stuff being said about it. ...
Gobekli Tepe - National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDXTmCwAETM
How is it worse? With some fairly simple principles, your food is now right out your back door. Instead of wandering around, hoping you'll find, you make it and store it. You overcome the drought and famine cycles.http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race Lengthy but also states that it led to gender roles, the rise of religion, social inequality, poorer nutrition and increased risk for diseases. It's kind of a bubble burst for me. I always thought farming was an improvement but I guess not. Makes me question progress. I've never said this to anyone, but you should read less.