Most forager cultures are based around sharing, and everybody’s property rights usually include the right to use all of the group’s territory, and a share of all food that was gotten in large amounts like large prey etc. [1] The amount of labor needed for feeding people increased a lot with agriculture[1][2]; in most forager cultures you’d have people with a variety of different roles, anything from child and elder care, to tool making, to cooking etc. – and even some people who basically don’t do jack shit. Their concept of property and ownership was often different, so this’ll sound surprising in today’s culture where you need to earn a right to live.
Agriculture was initially only really good for population growth and rulers (easy to tax production), but it absolutely didn’t make anybody’s life easier or better for a long time when compared to foragers. In addition to taking a lot more work than foraging, it also led to diets getting much worse, a higher incidence of viral outbreaks due to more people living closer together for longer times, and a bunch of other problems, ultimately leading to early sedentary cultures having shorter life spans compared to foragers [1][3]
My sourcing isn’t extensive because this isn’t a scientific article 😁 just for the main points so people can verify I’m not pulling this out of my ass.
True, but agriculture and herding made stable civilizations possible. Hunting and gathering meant you had to go where the food was, and if you overhunted or overgathered, or your staple foods got wiped out by disease/famine/natural disaster/etc then your society was probably just done.
Writing only comes into existence after the first cities are established. Arguably, the ability to share knowledge in this way has improved quality of life for everyone (not just rulers).
Sure, like I said, agriculture is great if you want to grow your population a lot, and I’m not saying life isn’t better now because of agriculture – just that it took a long while for that to become true and early sedentary cultures were usually worse off than the foragers.
Famines obviously didn’t stop being a thing after agriculture, and I’m fairly sure they increased as you’d have groups of people who are much more reliant on just one crop instead of a variety of sources.
Fair points, but also a bit moot. We can’t stop agriculture and go back to tribal hunting, we are entirely too many people on earth and we have already hunted many species to extinction. I’m also fairly sure we wouldn’t have remotely enough “wild” growth of food and game to sustain our global population. All that would do now is cause famine and wars. And probably the extinction of many more animal species.
Where did I say we need to stop agriculture? I said that early sedentary cultures were worse off compared to foragers.
My point was that the claim that humans have always needed to earn a right to live isn’t true, and now everybody’s somehow convinced that I think we need to go back to being foragers
Fair enough, perhaps i misinterpreted your intent. Though I am confused why that needs a lot of evidence, isnt that obvious to anyone who thinks about the subject for a minute? I mean I fully agree with your intent, i am just surprised you consider that such a controversial position that you are coming in full force with reference links, on Lemmy, where the audience will overwhelmingly agree with you already, by virtue of being very left leaning themselves. Good on you though ✊
Considering the person I was replying to was claiming the exact opposite, I really don’t understand where your confusion comes from.
I write sources down for all sorts of stuff in my personal notes, and this myth has come up often enough that I’ve got more than a few links. I’d rather provide sources than just go “trust me bro”, let alone assume everybody agrees with me especially when it’s bleedin’ obvious everybody doesn’t
That is not the default.
Most forager cultures are based around sharing, and everybody’s property rights usually include the right to use all of the group’s territory, and a share of all food that was gotten in large amounts like large prey etc. [1] The amount of labor needed for feeding people increased a lot with agriculture[1][2]; in most forager cultures you’d have people with a variety of different roles, anything from child and elder care, to tool making, to cooking etc. – and even some people who basically don’t do jack shit. Their concept of property and ownership was often different, so this’ll sound surprising in today’s culture where you need to earn a right to live.
Agriculture was initially only really good for population growth and rulers (easy to tax production), but it absolutely didn’t make anybody’s life easier or better for a long time when compared to foragers. In addition to taking a lot more work than foraging, it also led to diets getting much worse, a higher incidence of viral outbreaks due to more people living closer together for longer times, and a bunch of other problems, ultimately leading to early sedentary cultures having shorter life spans compared to foragers [1][3]
My sourcing isn’t extensive because this isn’t a scientific article 😁 just for the main points so people can verify I’m not pulling this out of my ass.
True, but agriculture and herding made stable civilizations possible. Hunting and gathering meant you had to go where the food was, and if you overhunted or overgathered, or your staple foods got wiped out by disease/famine/natural disaster/etc then your society was probably just done.
Writing only comes into existence after the first cities are established. Arguably, the ability to share knowledge in this way has improved quality of life for everyone (not just rulers).
Sure, like I said, agriculture is great if you want to grow your population a lot, and I’m not saying life isn’t better now because of agriculture – just that it took a long while for that to become true and early sedentary cultures were usually worse off than the foragers.
Famines obviously didn’t stop being a thing after agriculture, and I’m fairly sure they increased as you’d have groups of people who are much more reliant on just one crop instead of a variety of sources.
You should read David Graeber for a conclusive counter argument to this.
deleted by creator
Fair points, but also a bit moot. We can’t stop agriculture and go back to tribal hunting, we are entirely too many people on earth and we have already hunted many species to extinction. I’m also fairly sure we wouldn’t have remotely enough “wild” growth of food and game to sustain our global population. All that would do now is cause famine and wars. And probably the extinction of many more animal species.
Where did I say we need to stop agriculture? I said that early sedentary cultures were worse off compared to foragers.
My point was that the claim that humans have always needed to earn a right to live isn’t true, and now everybody’s somehow convinced that I think we need to go back to being foragers
Fair enough, perhaps i misinterpreted your intent. Though I am confused why that needs a lot of evidence, isnt that obvious to anyone who thinks about the subject for a minute? I mean I fully agree with your intent, i am just surprised you consider that such a controversial position that you are coming in full force with reference links, on Lemmy, where the audience will overwhelmingly agree with you already, by virtue of being very left leaning themselves. Good on you though ✊
Considering the person I was replying to was claiming the exact opposite, I really don’t understand where your confusion comes from.
I write sources down for all sorts of stuff in my personal notes, and this myth has come up often enough that I’ve got more than a few links. I’d rather provide sources than just go “trust me bro”, let alone assume everybody agrees with me especially when it’s bleedin’ obvious everybody doesn’t
As I said, I misinterpreted your intent. No need to be so defensive, I have only skimmed the thread and your comment caught my eye.
deleted by creator