Many years ago I wrote a paper suggesting that the domestication of species (that would include plants) was original sin. In essence, we deprive an animal of it's essence. This cannot be good for our spirit. Our soul. Counterintuitively, it also did not help with our insecurity and desperation. Rather, it compounded them. So much so that we now consider objective vices to be proof-positive evidence of what are really subjective virtues.

I've also considered fire as a potential culprit. But I'm still cogitating on that.

The grass is questionably greener on the counterfactual side of the fence.

I...suggest that the discovery of agriculture is one of civilisation’s biggest mistakes. — David S

Are you Yuval Noah Harari in disguise?

Sorry, just being a smart-ass... I do miss all the hunting and gathering with my chums, though.
I think that to isolate a mistake for the conundra (do not use that word in your thesis defense!) which distress humankind, you might have to regress much further in time, and discern a non-human agency. For my part, I blame it all on the faulty way in which organic molecules developed in the primordial sea. Those pesky polynucleotide chains which led to DNA, which led to evolution, which led to us having brains too large for our own good. In short, chance, rather than agriculture, is the culprit (or God, if you subscribe to the notion of a creator), and that which is to blame for all of our puzzling circumstances.

ooooh, what a cute little doggie! What is that ugly thing on the bottom?

You probably want to look at Against the Grain. I haven't read it, but I think several folks here have.

excellent referral, thanks

this does look quite interesting. Thanks.

I wanted to start with quite a controversial argument I imagine which is to suggest that the discovery of agriculture is one of civilisation’s biggest mistakes. I will set out some of the main reasons why but the main one to start with is the fact that it created surplus and with that the idea or concept of wealth. — David S

I think it is easier to argue that agriculture is the reason for human civilisations.

Surplus would merely free up time for human cultivation - ie. free time and the pursuit of self-improvement (or simply scientific study, politics, mathematics and other interests).

Agriculture led to larger populations and better standards of living as far as we know (meaning medicine, education and cooperation). Basically I don’t see the negatives outweighing the positives. It is certainly intriguing to look at what we may have lost along the way though.

I had a conversation with a guy a couple of decades ago. He was citing increased longevity over time. I pointed out that it was my understanding that decreasing infant mortality made up the lions share of that. That studies of pre-contact indigenous skeletal remains showed that the ratio of people who lived into their 80s, 90s and 100s showed little difference. There was more evidence of a hard life in our ancestors, like a bull rider's muscle attachments and broken bones. But I argued that regardless, living seven days a week made for a longer life than living two days a week and working for the man five days a week.

It brings to mind a sign in a bar just off the Shoshoni/Paiute Reservation. It said something to the effect: "We hunted and fished and crafted and sang and danced and had sex all day. We paid no taxes and the women did all the work. The white man showed up and figured he could improve on that."

I think Pleistocene diets work best when you have to work for your food.

I had a conversation with a guy a couple of decades ago. He was citing increased longevity over time. I pointed out that it was my understanding that decreasing infant mortality made up the lions share of that. — James Riley

You were completely wrong. Longevity is increasing - the same trend is seen where child mortality has remained constant. The data is pretty clear in this regard. We are undoubtedly living longer and longer on average and it isn't due to healthcare or healthier living as far as we can tell - because we are not exactly living healthier lives. It is a puzzling phenomenon and it is exponential in growth. You musty have heard scientists say that if you were born in the 2000's you're likely to live to 100.

It is probably something to do with a more species wide phenomenon that can be observed in other creatures from time to time. For some reason some creatures physically alter due to certain population limits. I wouldn't be at all surprised if humans acted in kind of the same manner (even though the mechanisms remain a mystery). Think of it like each human cell seemingly 'knowing' how to read the DNA coding and produce a fingernail cell rather than a neuron. Blow that up and think of each human being as a singular 'cell' with the species. Once a certain threshold is hit a new stage kicks in.

Given that CRISPR is on the horizon we will be pretty much able to live for ever - barring accidents and such. Diseases will be eradicated by CRISPR as will (almost certainly) what we currently regard as the human race ... we're going to recreate ourselves genetically and who knows what the results will be.

Note: It is okay to point out unexplained phenomenon. Examples of this are strewn through human history with the miasma theory of disease - which had some relation to mosquitoes living in humid climes. It took some time for people to figure out the it was the mosquitoes rather than the weather.

t brings to mind a sign in a bar just off the Shoshoni/Paiute Reservation. It said something to the effect: "We hunted and fished and crafted and sang and danced and had sex all day. We paid no taxes and the women did all the work. The white man showed up and figured he could improve on that." — James Riley

Generally speaking the lives of hunter gatherers was pretty brutal from what we can tell - and 'modern day' hunter gatherers are not exactly living to a ripe old age in perfect health (even though 'modern day' is not equated to actual prehistoric human lifestyles so not much of an argument there either way). There was likely a Golden Age of sorts where humans had plenty of freetime between basic sustainance, yet disease, parasites and general interhuman brutality were not exactly non-existent.

It could be argued that in our modern societies life seems harder than it is because we have it pretty easy for the most part - as in acquiring salts, sugars and fats.

There is also the issue of how our physical well-being has deteriorated from more physical life styles. Our diets have almost certainly impacted our physiological status ... how? We have limited data and not exactly a comprehensive understand of epigenetics and how the interplay of species and environment can shift in relatively sort spans of time.

The Birth of Inequality is a pretty well argued topic in anthropology. The issue of unearthing such matters proves difficult due to too many extrapolated fields of research that act contrary to each other rather than together (anthropology, psychology, neurosciences, biology, econmics, etc.,.).

You were completely wrong. — I like sushi

I stand corrected. I was probably thinking of something like this: https://socratic.org/questions/5a84f54411ef6b017ad524fa That, and anecdotal statements from indig clients and friends who said their old people (over a 100) was common before alcohol and reservation life.

Either way, when I look around at people now, I don't see much "life." I see lot's of suicide, depression, diversion, desperation, insecurity (ironic, eh?) and malaise. Having spent a good deal of time "living off the land" alone in "wilderness", hunting, gathering, fishing, and laying around thinking, drinking clean water and breathing clean air and eating clean food, I pine for something I never knew: Living every day. Rose colored glasses? Maybe. But hunting bison priscus and wooly mammoths is attractive to me.

We do not know why hunter-gatherer people, who had been doing reasonably well hunting game and gathering roots, nuts, and berries, decided to pursue the much more difficult approach of agriculture. Presumably this conversion from spear to plow was gradual.

One theorist (maybe in Against the Grain--not sure) proposed that agriculture was not intended to make life better for the farmer; it was intended to make life better for those who controlled the farmer. Capturing labor for economic exploitation would have had to wait until agriculture was developed well enough to produce a surplus for the new exploiters. Getting from the first bowl of oatmeal (so to speak) to the first grain collection bins may have taken several millennia.

The prosecution of the case against agriculture is a search for The Fall. Ah, it was settling down, living in one place, and working the land that corrupted us. Before agriculture, we were free and virtuous.

Some people suspect other serpents in the garden.

I've also considered fire as a potential culprit. — James Riley

Whether it was grain, fire, forbidden fruit, or something else -- many people think we were once innocent. For some, the entire population of the Western Hemisphere were innocent until the Europeans came along and fucked everyone and everything over.

A question: Do human beings have much choice about developing elaborate responses to the conditions in which they live? If we were to start all over again--15,000 or 20,000 years ago--we'd probably do the same thing over again. Does that make us bad actors?

For some, the entire population of the Western Hemisphere were innocent until the Europeans came along and fucked everyone and everything over. — Bitter Crank

HA! Hardly. Part of my fantasy is that I'm the first and only, never having to look over my shoulder, except for maybe a Dire Wolf or Saber Tooth Tiger. Well, I'd allow for 30 or so women. LOL! But Indians were torturing and killing each other long before the Europeans showed up. It's that damn free time! And competition for resources. And fire.

That's funny...and yet not; now I'm conflicted. :groan: :yikes: :scream:

I love dogs, have two myself, and try to impose my will on them as little as possible.

I wanted to start with quite a controversial argument I imagine which is to suggest that the discovery of agriculture is one of civilisation’s biggest mistakes. — David S

Since agriculture would seem to be a necessary condition for civilization, I can't see how it could be one of civilization's mistakes. So, in the interests of charitability I'll take the qeustion to be whether it was one of humankind's biggest mistakes. And then I'll say that question cannot be answered.because we really don't know what it would be like to live as hunter/gatherers. I suspect it would be a very fulfilling way to live, but who knows?

Since agriculture would seem to be a necessary condition for civilization, — Janus

Just as a point of order, I know some Indians who would say there is a difference between "civilization" and "civilized."

One theorist (maybe in Against the Grain--not sure) proposed that agriculture was not intended to make life better for the farmer; it was intended to make life better for those who controlled the farmer. Capturing labor for economic exploitation would have had to wait until agriculture was developed well enough to produce a surplus for the new exploiters. Getting from the first bowl of oatmeal (so to speak) to the first grain collection bins may have taken several millennia. — Bitter Crank

Whoever that theorist is I imagine they know next to nothing about anthropological studies in this area. Agriculture is a group effort and I cannot imagine that farming began through dictatorship given the amount of effort that must be invested. It looks far more likely to have be a cooperative group effort.

I doubt it was an overnight revolution either. In sites of the earliest known 'buildings' there is good evidence for social gatherings between tribes/groups. Great amounts of labor were needed to construct such artifacts and so food would be needed ... it kind of makes sense that either they started building due to having the free time to do so OR that they made the free time to do so and set aside resources (food) for such events.

I doubt there is a singular main explaination either. Obvious factors would involve happenstance, climate change, religious ideas and sendentary living (which almost certainly went hand in hand with the onset of farming).

Since agriculture would seem to be a necessary condition for civilization, I can't see how it could be one of civilization's mistakes. — Janus

Not exactly. There are exceptions. Generally a complex social heirarchical strata is what defines a body of people as a 'civilisation'. If a hunter gatherer society could sustain a large enough populace then there is no reason why it couldn't be considered 'civilised' (so to speak).

:lol:

Whoever that theorist is — I like sushi

It's not a theory I accept or find of much use.

The process of getting from wild plants that bore edible seeds (like the various grasses)--corn, wheat, rye, oats, rice, sorghum, millet, etc.; all the new-world foods--tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, and tobacco (all nightshade family plants); kidney and lima beans; cacao; peanuts, and all the plants developed in Europe, Asia, and Africa, ALL required a lot of long, careful, insightful attention. Some foods grew on trees ready to eat (nuts), but most had to be bred up from what must have been rather unpromising plants. Hunter-gatherers, requiring skilled observation to survive, likely knew about these plants before they started to domesticate them.

Settling down required some level of agriculture, and some level of agriculture required stability. No body switched from a breakfast of venison with wild nuts and berries to oatmeal, yoghurt, and toast overnight. More like centuries or millennia were required to learn how to grow plentiful grain, mill it, and make bread and beer. How they accomplished all this is just not known. And what all they did while they were developing domesticated crops isn't known either.

The first iteration of Jericho was built around 11,000 years ago. Is that the beginning of settled life? Almost certainly not. Before we built with stone, we built with wood, material which rots away under ordinary circumstances. Stone tools were poor for making planks out of a big tree, but smaller trees and branches could be harvested for simpler construction.

My guess is that they hunted, gathered, built shelter, and cultivated--gradually shifting away from the former and toward the latter. All of this required community -- cooperation -- along with preserving memories, methods, and material culture. Eventually they arrived at a stage where they could grow the food they needed, and began other agricultural / material cultural tasks, depending on their location.

Correct me if I am wrong; Civilization came about with the benefit of agriculture. They go hand-in-hand.

Are you Yuval Noah Harari in disguise? — Michael Zwingli

While we're on the topic, a few excerpts from the section on agriculture & humans from Yuval Noah Harari's book, Sapiens vide infra:

[...]gathering was Sapiens' main activity and it provided most of their calories.

there is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. surviving in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone. when agriculture and industry came along people could increasingly rely on the skills of others for survival, and new 'niches for imbeciles' were opened up. you could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.

the hunter-gatherer way of life differed significantly from region to region and from season to season, but on the whole foragers seem to have enjoyed a more comfortable and rewarding lifestyle than most of the peasants; shepherds, laborers and office clerks who followed in their footsteps.

while people in today's affluent societies work on average forty to forty-five hours a week, and people in the developing world work sixty and even eighty hours a week, hunter-gatherers living today in the most inhospitable of habitats - such as the Kalahari desert - work on average for just thirty-five to forty-five hours a week. They hunt only one day out of three, and gathering takes up just three to six hours daily. — Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens)

That's just to offer a taste of Harari's disparaging account of the so-called agricultural "revolution".

He goes on to say how depending on just a handful of crops/fruits/vegetables is a recipe for famine, the weather being out of our control. Then there's crop failure due to pests, fungus, etc.

Add to the above list of extra burden humans have to bear the fact that the severe reduction in dietary variety, the one thing that gave us an edge in the evolutionary rat race, translates into poor health, environmental degradation brought about by deforestation for farming.

Moreover, health issues:

1. Our bodies are adapted for hunting & gathering, not farming. Exhumed remains bear the mark of many orthopedic ailments - from all the backbreaking work I surmise.

2. Too many people from all that surplus food meant infectious diseases were rampant.

All that said, there's a glimmer of, albeit dark, hope. It can be said that humans are mother nature's trump card against extinction level events. Check this out: NEO Surveyor. Only humans seem to possess the capability of deflecting a planet-killer asteroid. Disagree? We're at least working on it.

So, the agricultural revolution may lead to man-made catastrophes but it also enabled mother nature, through us, to deploy its only defense against extinction level events. Mother nature, it seems, is prepared to take a few losses in order to ensure the reset button is left alone.

We, humans, then are frenemies of mother nature.

Frenemy bad. Asteroid worse. — Confucius

Yes, I can see a valid distinction there. Judging from some studies of contemporary hunter gatherer communities they are more civilized than we are.

You're wrong. We assume this but we don't know it for fact. I'm not denying that they don't go hand in hand BUT I am stating that it is not always as simple as we first assume because with prehistory we're relying on artifacts alone not documented history ... another element that some consider as a sign of 'civilisation' (mythos and folklore don't count as 'history' written for histories sake.

Like I said, there is nothing to say a 'civilised' society couldn't come into being based on a hunter gather lifestyle. The main issue would be sustaining a larger population.

Of course there is the view that some form of complex economic record keeping plays into the idea of what a 'civilisation' is - be this with common writing or other forms of symbolic representation like quipu in the Incan empire.

Generally though a 'civilisation' is just a body of people organised into complex social strata with more skilled-labour being a major hallmark.

Defining the term it's cut and dry. There are many gray areas. A big problem is some people get caught up in arguing what the term means rather than focusing on what they were originally interested in :D

Here the question posed is basically 'Is agriculture a mistake because it has led to a disparity in wealth?'

I think that is a rather myopic view because it fails to take into account anything but the idea that agriculture caused some kind of social tyranny. In the cosmological sense I see the habits of humans to be one of controlling our surroundings in order to reconcile our sense of 'World'. We draw a line in the sand and 'claim a space' in order to experiment within it and see what kind of control we can inhabit within the space. An extension of this happens as we come to appreciate what we gliby refer to as 'time' now and through that insight we can plan and act upon the natural world wilfully.

In a purely biological energy sense we paid for our lack of strength with a more energy thirsty brain. This brain has paid off as we can expend little energy by acting in concert and by manipulating the world around us (fire helps us digest food more quickly and happened to kill harmful parasites too). A lot of what we do exists because it has benefitted us in some way (known and unknown).

Referring to another thread it is in these kinds of areas that Critical Theory is of use in reexamining possibles. The danger is getting carried away by them.

Like I said, there is nothing to say a 'civilised' society couldn't come into being based on a hunter gather lifestyle. The main issue would be sustaining a larger population. — I like sushi

I'm not quite sure I agree. Farming yields a steady predictable supply of food, which fits in well with an organized society. Hunter gathering is less predictable, much harder to feed an entire civilization. It's necessary to constantly migrate to new areas just to find prey.

Generally though a 'civilisation' is just a body of people organised into complex social strata with more skilled-labour being a major hallmark. — I like sushi

Which is different than hunter-gathering.

Not exactly. There are exceptions. — I like sushi

Examples?

Frenemy bad. Asteroid worse.
— Confucius — TheMadFool

Haha.. wise man, he.

there is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging — Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens)

Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk.

Harari is not wrong about everything, or even about much in particular. It is just his sweeping conclusions which are questionable, which appear suspect on their face. The poor fellow takes a bit of a beating for his conclusion that the development of agriculture was bad for humans as a species, which I think does not follow from the evidence. Undoubtedly, it entailed suffering for some, or even many, individual people along the path of history. To say, though, that agriculture itself is at fault for that suffering is similar to saying "that gun killed Billy the Kid" as opposed to "Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid with that gun"; I think it involves an error of misattribution.

The old maxim, "homo homini lupus est", but becomes nonsensical when changed to "homo agriculturae lupus est". If agriculture had never developed amongst us, and so men had never been able to behave wolfishly towards their less fortunate contemporaries in the presence thereof throughout succeeding history, men would yet have behaved wolfishly towards other men while all were hunting and gathering. Point is, the cause of human inequity, and so of suffering amidst abundance (the very abundance partially resulting from agricultural industry) proceeds not from extraneous causes, but from within us, as a result of our nature.

I would hesitate, as well, to say that agriculture has been bad for humans in general. If anything, it along with advances in medicine and in technology generally, has resulted in our being too successful. We have overpopulated, and threaten the ecological status quo. The statement with which I could agree is that, "the development of agriculture by humans has had a negative influence upon the ecology of the Earth", because of the role agriculture has played in humans experiencing a special success which we have evidently been incapable of managing to best effect.

Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk. — Michael Zwingli

So, disinformation is not beneath Yuval Noah Harari. His book was just getting interesting. Oh well! I suppose he had his reasons to make that claim or maybe he didn't know or perhaps you're wrong or where you picked that tidbit from has poor credibility ratings. More possibilities than I can handle.

Point is, the cause of human inequity, and so of suffering amidst abundance (the very abundance partially resulting from agricultural industry) proceeds not from extraneous causes, but from within us, as a result of our nature. — Michael Zwingli

Yep, we're hunter-gatherers; ill-equipped for farming, and whatever else that followed from ploughing fields, planting seeds & irrigating them.

Harari also points out that human intellect or whatever it is that put us on top of the food chain brought about change at such a pace that the environment and other animals had no time to adapt. The usual way things happen in evolutionatry terms is a slow rate, spanning over millions of years, at which individual species impact other species and the environmentn giving them time to, well, adjust. Human impact, however, has occurred over a mere 30 or so thousand years, agriculture being one of them.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. A complex social strata doesn't necessarily have to have farming ... we don't have any clear instances of this but that doesn't necessarily mean they have never existed.

This is the anthropological view. We CANNOT assume that it never happened or could never happen.

Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk. — Michael Zwingli

Brain size doesn't dictate brain power. There is obviously a loose connection. The cranial size doesn't tell us about how compact and interwoven the actual neural networks are. A skull doesn't tell us anything like the whole picture when it comes to brain power.

It is interesting to hear the arguments for whether agriculture was forced on certain populations or was collaborative. For sure history has always had when groups gather of leaders and followers. Without opening the real fact of slavery for labour purposes it is assumed that ensuring a plentiful food supply helped population growth and the birth of towns from villages and then cities. Cities are a different subject but for sure an outcome. What I was proposing was that the arrival of agriculture gave rise to surplus and this accumulation led to wealth meaning that there was power and influence over this wealth. Once money or the early concept of exchange for value this surplus then became a tool or weapon depending on your point of view. It may not necessarily have been the only thing but it is one most people will recognise. Douglas Adams of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy game put it well when he observed about arguing over little pieces of green paper. That aside and back on point is the creation of a surplus an issue in itself but it is how this is used and controlled that is at the heart of the opening post and at least agreeing that agriculture was pretty central in uniformly creating this surplus and resultant wealth off the back of it.

There is evidence from Turkish sites (Göbekli Tepe) that points to a complex society that doesn't appear to have been farming at all. There was clearly a very well established community of various human tribes and it goes without saying that the work they put into constructing/producing what I would call works of art is not exactly something we would assume to be 'uncivilised'.

To be clear I am NOT assuming they were civilised only using some conjecture about what we define as being 'civilisation'. Some people insist that 'writing' is what makes a 'civilisation' but there are unseen forms of writing that people miss (ie. quipu from the Inca Empire).

Note: I don't vie wit as a 'mistake' either. It is interesting to discuss and look at how the onset of agriculture has changed the face of humanity, and it is fair to muse about what we may have forgotten/left behind. I could argue the same for the written word as there is some interesting study into the area of mnemonic techniques and knoweldge passed down through mythos.

YOu are assuming people cared about 'wealth'. This is to impose a modern day mindset on our ancestors. Something all too easily done.

There is evidence (somewhat anecdotal) that 'prestige' was more important. Putting on a feast for other tribes rather than being viewed as a display of wealth was more accurately viewed as a competition of sorts where one tribal leader would try to outdo the other. The idea of 'material wealth' is much more of a modern concept and may very well be tied into the onset of sedentry living and farming (a very old topic in anthropological circles - The Birth of Inequality).

It shows the issue with language and words. I guess I used wealth when I talked about surplus - the better word. Yes there is good discussion to be had on the benefits of that surplus and it’s a good point made that the demonstration of how (insert appropriate word for wealth, rich, whatever) that was used and the main purpose - altruistic or selfish.