Agricultural Revolution

[The Hammer]

Author (and armchair anthropologist) Jared Diamond has referred to the advent of Agriculture as the "Worst mistake in the history of the human race.“

What do you think?

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of pros and cons associated with the agricultural revolution..

Positives
–Lower infant mortality
–More permanent housing, sedentary lifestyle
–Increasing yields from agriculture
–Increasing human carrying capacity
–Increasing specialization (science, art, etc)
–Rapid and increasing pace of technological advancement

Negatives
-Overpopulation
–Increase in work time
–Comparatively poor diet
–Shorter Stature
–Net decline in health for entire population
–Increased problems with infectious disease
–Increased rates of malnutrition
–Dental problems
–Epidemic disease
–Environmental degradation
–Social inequality
–Social domination/violence
–Increase in warfare

 

[Quintessence]

I think that one needs to be careful overgeneralizing about agriculture (there are many forms and methods of it) and making statements about its impacts in the pre-historical past that we have limited evidence for or against.

 

[Soandso]

Humans are far too curious to not have come up with agriculture. It's happened independently on different parts of the globe. It wasn't a mistake - it was an innevitability

 

[Valjean]

He does make some good points. It's been only a few thousand years since intensive agriculture has been practiced, and we're on the verge of a fifth mass extinction.
Soaring population, crashing ecosystems.

Maybe a smaller, healthier population, on a bountiful planet, not fighting over diminishing resources, would be preferable.

 

[The Hammer]

I am not so sure I would go as far as calling the agricultural revolution the worst mistake humans have ever made, I would place that crown on centralized power and abuse thereof, but it certainly seems to be more negative than positive overall. Looking at the posted pros and cons, I would even go so far as to classify these:

–More permanent housing, sedentary lifestyle
–Increasing human carrying capacity
–Rapid and increasing pace of technological advancement

As negatives themselves. Because without those positives, their negatives wouldn't exist; poorer health outcomes, overpopulation, and large scale violent warfare, respectively. Even lower infant mortality, which is a "good" thing, to what extent is it? If overall as a population we are living a less healthy lifestyle?

Now, I know my perspective is a bit biased, as I am completely dependent on other people being able to perform agriculture for me, so I may eat, and am fortunate enough that I don't have to face regular threat of a lack of food, either.

 

[The Hammer]

I think that one needs to be careful overgeneralizing about agriculture (there are many forms and methods of it) and making statements about its impacts in the pre-historical past that we have limited evidence for or against.

We've got a pretty good set of ideas of it's impacts in the prehistoric past through the stratigraphic record, and palynology for instance.

 

[Heyo]

Author (and armchair anthropologist) Jared Diamond has referred to the advent of Agriculture as the "Worst mistake in the history of the human race.“

What do you think?

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of pros and cons associated with the agricultural revolution..

Positives
–Lower infant mortality
–More permanent housing, sedentary lifestyle
–Increasing yields from agriculture
–Increasing human carrying capacity
–Increasing specialization (science, art, etc)
–Rapid and increasing pace of technological advancement

Negatives
-Overpopulation
–Increase in work time
–Comparatively poor diet
–Shorter Stature
–Net decline in health for entire population
–Increased problems with infectious disease
–Increased rates of malnutrition
–Dental problems
–Epidemic disease
–Environmental degradation
–Social inequality
–Social domination/violence
–Increase in warfare

I'm not sure the pros and cons are actually where they belong. But one pro needs to be stated: Opportunity. Agriculture opened up paths we didn't have as hunter/gatherers or nomadic herders.

 

[Brian2]

What is this associating all the ills in the world with agriculture all about?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not sure the pros and cons are actually where they belong. But one pro needs to be stated: Opportunity. Agriculture opened up paths we didn't have as hunter/gatherers or nomadic herders.

But did these paths lead to a healthy planet, prosperous humans, and a sustainable lifestyle?

 

[Heyo]

But did these paths lead to a healthy planet, prosperous humans, and a sustainable lifestyle?

Nope, yep, nope. But I think you'll agree that without agriculture we wouldn't have space exploration and thus be pinned to this rock until the sun becomes a red giant (or other cataclysmic event before that). To sustain life beyond that point, we need to get off of Earth. So it might just be the right strategy in the long run, the long long run.

 

[Valjean]

To destroy a planet and all its life to emigrate..... where?

 

[Sedim Haba]

"Worst mistake in the history of the human race.“

What do you think?

No. The worst mistake was the invention of...

The atomic bomb? NOPE

Fertilizer. (synthetic, not natural)

Doubt this? Just google earth's human population, over the last 300 years.
See that stupidly ridiculous and completely unsustainable spike? Ya.

 

[Heyo]

No. The worst mistake was the invention of...

The atomic bomb? NOPE

Fertilizer. (synthetic, not natural)

Fertilizer is the agricultural revolution, the fourth or fifth of its kind.

 

[Heyo]

To destroy a planet and all its life to emigrate..... where?

Wherever the sun doesn't shine. (At least not as hard.)
And we don't have to destroy the planet to go to space, that's an additional option. We also could save the planet by diverting an asteroid. An option which we wouldn't have without space exploration.

 

[Secret Chief]

we're on the verge of a fifth mass extinction

We're now into the sixth. Keep up.

- Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

Wherever the sun doesn't shine. (At least not as hard.)
And we don't have to destroy the planet to go to space, that's an additional option. We also could save the planet by diverting an asteroid. An option which we wouldn't have without space exploration.

AAs far as I'm aware there's no self-sustaining biosphere in space that might sustain us.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Author (and armchair anthropologist) Jared Diamond has referred to the advent of Agriculture as the "Worst mistake in the history of the human race.“

What do you think?

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of pros and cons associated with the agricultural revolution..

Positives
–Lower infant mortality
–More permanent housing, sedentary lifestyle
–Increasing yields from agriculture
–Increasing human carrying capacity
–Increasing specialization (science, art, etc)
–Rapid and increasing pace of technological advancement

Negatives
-Overpopulation
–Increase in work time
–Comparatively poor diet
–Shorter Stature
–Net decline in health for entire population
–Increased problems with infectious disease
–Increased rates of malnutrition
–Dental problems
–Epidemic disease
–Environmental degradation
–Social inequality
–Social domination/violence
–Increase in warfare

Big agriculture has made food into nonfood.

 

[Eddi]

Well, I think it's a little too late for us to un-do the agricultural revolution!

 

[wellwisher]

He does make some good points. It's been only a few thousand years since intensive agriculture has been practiced, and we're on the verge of a fifth mass extinction.
Soaring population, crashing ecosystems.

Maybe a smaller, healthier population, on a bountiful planet, not fighting over diminishing resources, would be preferable.

Farming was natural, until science and technology came along. Pesticides, herbicides, inorganic fertilizers, GMO, machine based tractors, are not natural to early farming. Science and technology tries to make things bigger, better and cheaper, but often it adds new problems to the blend. This may be taboo to say, but it is true. We now can do better and can feed more people, with science, but this adds to secondary global problems.

The old fashion farm lifestyle was anything by sedentary. It was a lot of work. In the USA, the Industrial Revolution in 1800's, caused people to leave the classic farm life, for the big cities with factories; concrete jungle. That was a big change brought about by science and technology leading to sedentary lifestyles.

I watched a science program on TV last week. I came in at the middle, so I was not sure of the full context. But where I came in was about climate change and how some farm crops are being affected.

As a solution, they pointed to an ancient farming technique where the farmers would blend seeds from a range of similar plants, such as plant wheat, oats, barley, etc, all together. What would happen is, depending on the growing season and growing conditions, at least some of the seed and species would do fine. They always would have a good crop, no matter the annual changes. This was before modern science.

Modern science farming prefers to plant one crop over many acres, so it is easier to plant and harvest with one machine. If there are changes in rain or heat, you may get a poor crop. They suggested this ancient technique, so there was always a descent crop. Sorting technology is able to sort out the produce, from different crops growing together. Such machines are already available.

I remember many years back, A home farmer said he did not pick weeds from his gardens, but allowed all the plants; weeds and crops, to grow together. This was good for water retention in dry summers. It also made more compost in the fall, due to more biomass.

I was not sure if this was optimized, so a tried a variant where the plant rows were clear of weeds; black plastic. Between rows I allowed weeds to grow. This seem to maintain soil moisture. The straw could have bene substituted for black plastic, like in older times.

The ideal natural farms would have both plants and animals, since the solar powered animals could help with plowing; horse, chickens could be used for bugs, and all animals can be used for organic fertilizer.

 

[Augustus]

What do you think?

I don't think there is any way to judge.

Certain species have thrived, and most others have been harmed.

From a purely human perspective, the average human has benefitted massively as they would never have been born without it.