Why did people start farming?

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. Why is that? Isn't the purpose of reading to broaden the mind and gain knowledge and new perspectives. Everyone else seems to have a comment on the matter.
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. I suppose you are right. Everything seems like a good idea at the time but only time will tell if it sucks down the line. To say it's a mistake now is lacking a bit of perspective to me. Hindsight is always a bitch.
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. Well, in the hunter-gatherer scenario things were kept in balance because the available game would control population levels. Tribal communities would not had so much spare time to breed and sustain numbers as much as would be the case in a more 'agricultural' situation.
Why is that? Isn't the purpose of reading to broaden the mind and gain knowledge and new perspectives. Everyone else seems to have a comment on the matter.
That is the purpose, but it's not what you do. You confirm things you already think, or you take part of what the person says and get "stuck" on it. You don't read critically. You don't look at what they left out, you don't question it. Darron explained some of that to you in the post you responded to.

Poor nutrition? The article that was cited gives the impression that farmers don’t grow anything but corn and potatoes. Geez! I suppose if they did, we’d be in big trouble, but that not what I see when I go in the grocery store. There are all kind of fruits and vegetables being grown, some I’ve never even heard of. Hunter/gatherers? What if you were living in a oak/pine forest, where I live, and there just didn’t happen to be any fruit trees within a hundred miles? Agriculture is the BEST idea the human race ever came up with.

Why is that? Isn't the purpose of reading to broaden the mind and gain knowledge and new perspectives. Everyone else seems to have a comment on the matter.
That is the purpose, but it's not what you do. You confirm things you already think, or you take part of what the person says and get "stuck" on it. You don't read critically. You don't look at what they left out, you don't question it. Darron explained some of that to you in the post you responded to. Isn't it drawing attention to points people would just brush off? Also now that we know what happened wouldn't we go back to hunter gatherer to save the environment? More to the point ourselves? And what if further implications? Are we slaves to the technology we created and that resulted from agriculture? Were we designed more for a subsistence lifestyle and are we straying from evolution?
Isn't it drawing attention to points people would just brush off? Also now that we know what happened wouldn't we go back to hunter gatherer to save the environment? More to the point ourselves? And what if further implications? Are we slaves to the technology we created and that resulted from agriculture? Were we designed more for a subsistence lifestyle and are we straying from evolution?
You can't "stray" from evolution. We weren't designed. We aren't slaves. The environment just is, it has no feelings about saved. If you want to go back to hunting and gathering, move to Montana. We have already addressed the quality of the article, as usual, you don't engage, you just keep saying "but, but, but" and "now this bothers me."
Isn't it drawing attention to points people would just brush off? Also now that we know what happened wouldn't we go back to hunter gatherer to save the environment? More to the point ourselves? And what if further implications? Are we slaves to the technology we created and that resulted from agriculture? Were we designed more for a subsistence lifestyle and are we straying from evolution?
You can't "stray" from evolution. We weren't designed. We aren't slaves. The environment just is, it has no feelings about saved. If you want to go back to hunting and gathering, move to Montana. We have already addressed the quality of the article, as usual, you don't engage, you just keep saying "but, but, but" and "now this bothers me." It seems that it's just you who has addressed the quality of the article. If you want to talk about evolution what about the problems the result from sitting most of the day? Isn't the proof that man was not designed to do that?
Isn't it drawing attention to points people would just brush off? Also now that we know what happened wouldn't we go back to hunter gatherer to save the environment? More to the point ourselves? And what if further implications? Are we slaves to the technology we created and that resulted from agriculture? Were we designed more for a subsistence lifestyle and are we straying from evolution?
You can't "stray" from evolution. We weren't designed. We aren't slaves. The environment just is, it has no feelings about saved. If you want to go back to hunting and gathering, move to Montana. We have already addressed the quality of the article, as usual, you don't engage, you just keep saying "but, but, but" and "now this bothers me." It seems that it's just you who has addressed the quality of the article. If you want to talk about evolution what about the problems the result from sitting most of the day? Isn't the proof that man was not designed to do that? What about the problems from getting measles and dying? Isn't that proof that we were designed to create science?
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
I didn't go through all that, but it's possibly that ancient beer was also an antibiotic containing tetracyline. http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/stories/2010/09/07/beer.html
Isn't it drawing attention to points people would just brush off? Also now that we know what happened wouldn't we go back to hunter gatherer to save the environment? More to the point ourselves? And what if further implications? Are we slaves to the technology we created and that resulted from agriculture? Were we designed more for a subsistence lifestyle and are we straying from evolution?
You can't "stray" from evolution. We weren't designed. We aren't slaves. The environment just is, it has no feelings about saved. If you want to go back to hunting and gathering, move to Montana. We have already addressed the quality of the article, as usual, you don't engage, you just keep saying "but, but, but" and "now this bothers me." It seems that it's just you who has addressed the quality of the article. If you want to talk about evolution what about the problems the result from sitting most of the day? Isn't the proof that man was not designed to do that? What about the problems from getting measles and dying? Isn't that proof that we were designed to create science? I don't know if that is what it means. But isn't science what causes most of the problems and that we need science to fix the problems we made? Was civilization really a step forward?
I don't know if that is what it means. But isn't science what causes most of the problems and that we need science to fix the problems we made? Was civilization really a step forward?
No

Why isn’t that the case and how can you be so sure?

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/
And what of things like this?

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. The population would have been decimated if there were no agricultire. If there were no agriculture the whole population of the world would starve to death. Be careful what you wish for. You probably would never have been born, or you would have died within weeks.
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. The population would have been decimated if there were no agricultire. If there were no agriculture the whole population of the world would starve to death. Be careful what you wish for. You probably would never have been born, or you would have died within weeks. But in the recent link that I provided it talks about how technology could possibly be a bad thing. Such a thing wouldn't be possible if we didn't invent agriculture.

The question might be, “who was farming who?" Did the first plants offer the hunter and gathers many uses of value? DNA has created a list of first contenders of plant domestication. Cannabis sativa is one of the front runners.

Farming is not a human invention at all.
Termites have been farmers for some 100 million years.
http://www.kennethnoll.uconn.edu/_Media/termites-on-balsa_med_hr.jpeg
Farming ants have been herding Aphids for some 100 million years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/10/071009212548_1_540x360.jpg
The problem with human farming is that we force farm with fertilizers, which depletes the soil and every few years the soil should lay fallow, to replenish its natural resources.
It was proven by a Japanese farmer that natural farming and rotating crops without the aid of fertilizers allows for continuous crop yield without the need for fallowing the land at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation
Thus, in the long run, natural farming yields about the same volume as forced farming, without polluting the soil or aquifers with chemicals.

My personal thoughts on the subject.
Why did people start farming? The “farming" is part of a bigger picture in the Age of D0mestication. The earth was a hostile place and not created for humanity. D0mestication changed the earth and made the earth a place where humanity could live and thrive. Farming was part of the d0mestication process that included the domestication of animals too.
Why did people start farming? The “people" is the fun part of the question. The big question is what people were farming? The hunter and gatherers? Was humanity built for the tasks of farming? The pre-history stories that have been passed down in the Rig Vega says that humanity was not built for farming. And just as the dog came from the wolf. The farmer came from the hunter. In other words, a domesticated human was created for farming. Just as many types of dogs were created for different tasks, the early Genesis stories have from six to twelve types of humans that were created.

My personal thoughts on the subject. Why did people start farming? The “farming" is part of a bigger picture in the Age of D0mestication. The earth was a hostile place and not created for humanity. D0mestication changed the earth and made the earth a place where humanity could live and thrive. Farming was part of the d0mestication process that included the domestication of animals too. Why did people start farming? The “people" is the fun part of the question. The big question is what people were farming? The hunter and gatherers? Was humanity built for the tasks of farming? The pre-history stories that have been passed down in the Rig Vega says that humanity was not built for farming. And just as the dog came from the wolf. The farmer came from the hunter. In other words, a domesticated human was created for farming. Just as many types of dogs were created for different tasks, the early Genesis stories have from six to twelve types of humans that were created.
Your personal thoughts are not valid if you cite the bible. Also using words like "built for" makes it hard to take anything that comes after seriously. We weren't "built for" anything.