Agriculture: Humanity's Biggest Mistake? -

[Niachu]

For all the contemplating I've done on spirituality and the modern attitude towards climate change, this is a new argument to me.

Back in the 80's, Jared Diamond, a renowned American scientist and author, published a controversial anti-progressivist article in Discover magazine that argued the birth of agriculture was overwhelmingly detrimental to humanity. I'll try to sum up some of his main points:

• Societal unbalance and exploitation (discrimination, tyranny, warfare) stemmed from monopolizing food, wealth and resources
• Agriculture has had a negative effect on human health throughout the ages (farmers relying on less varied and starchy diets, overpopulation and subsequent transference of disease between people and animals, etc)
• Agriculture has had a negative effect on animals and the environment (carbon emissions, overpopulation, animal abuse, massive footprints)
• Hunting and gathering was the way of life for the majority of human history, and agriculture and the effects have harmed us more than it has helped

I've searched for what other people have to say about this, and from what I've seen this viewpoint has gained more acceptance but remains somewhat controversial. However, to keep things fair, I'll provide a link to a debate on the topic here.

Though I don't like acknowledging it, Diamond has made some compelling arguments. It's true that agriculture was/is necessary to sustain growing populations, but there are both good and bad things that come with that. Technological innovation is perhaps the best result, but there still remains overpopulation and the strain it causes on natural resources. There are food companies that keep their animals in deplorable conditions because it is more cost effective, and the wealthy who lounge on the backs of undernourished proletarians. In that sense, Diamond argues we are still feeling the negative impact of agriculture. While I praise him for introducing this argument to America, a first-class nation, I disagree with his strictly anti-progressive view. If nothing else, I think we must focus on more progression while acknowledging where modern society comes up short.

So, I am curious. Is this new to any of you? Have you heard about this before? Have you thought about this on your own? Which side do you fall on? Do you agree with the points of both sides, but favor one or the other?

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

It's like saying antibiotics are a mistake because there are now superbugs that can't be killed by antibiotics. It's true, but a lot of good has come from antibiotics, too.

Unless you want to spend all day trying to gather food, hunt animals and only know a few hundred people I wouldn't diss farming. Sheesh, I wonder if Diamond would prefer to trade in his cushy job writing books to live in a Stone Age tribe. I'm thinking no

Also:

Hunting and gathering was the way of life for the majority of human history, and agriculture and the effects have harmed us more than it has helped

I really disagree with this point. I have no idea how anyone can think agriculture has hurt us more than it has helped us.

If nothing else, I think we must focus on more progression while acknowledging where modern society comes up short.

Agreed. Lifestyles make more sense in one context than another, and there are ups and downs to them. If it cost a lot to produce meat but little to produce vegetables, a mostly vegan/vegetarian society makes sense.

That said, there are still people in certain parts of the world who are still hunter-gatherers. I doubt anyone would say they are better off than we are.

 

[The Hunter]

This isn't really news to me. I read a lot of magazines, and as you could imagine, lots of them lean heavily to the left. I was actually reading one yesterday that made a brief mention of how humans are destroying the environment through farming, which caught me off guard. I had to sit there and think about it for a couple of seconds to consider how farming could be harmful to the Earth. A prime example I could think of is the whole Dust Bowl thing in the 1930's. Again, it wasn't like a whole article on it or anything, just a quick mention on how agriculture is hurting a certain area and that it hurts the rest of the environment when it's done on a larger scale. Although I'd still be in favor of agriculture sticking around.

 

[Niachu]

That said, there are still people in certain parts of the world who are still hunter-gatherers. I doubt anyone would say they are better off than we are.

I would say this is relative. Hunter-gatherers are generally much healthier and in tune with their environment. I'm not trying to romanticize the whole lifestyle, but as a Native I'm aware of the indigenous lifestyle and how first contact affected it, which is a good example. Smaller societies and hunting and gathering is how humanity has lived for the majority of our evolutionary history. Heck, during my visit to Costa Rica, I felt much more happy and healthy while my days were spent trekking around and becoming adjusted to eating less but fresh food.

Of course, the major retort to that is our technological innovation and how it enables us to enjoy a much lesser risk of getting torn apart by lions or bears and time to devote to scientific observation of our surroundings.

Now, the major retort to THAT is how we've become disconnected from our environment and how overpopulation is running amok.

So, with those points in mind, how would you define "better off"? I still favor the benefits of agriculture, but the benefits of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle shouldn't be ignored.

This isn't really news to me. I read a lot of magazines, and as you could imagine, lots of them lean heavily to the left. I was actually reading one yesterday that made a brief mention of how humans are destroying the environment through farming, which caught me off guard. I had to sit there and think about it for a couple of seconds to consider how farming could be harmful to the Earth. A prime example I could think of is the whole Dust Bowl thing in the 1930's. Again, it wasn't like a whole article on it or anything, just a quick mention on how agriculture is hurting a certain area and that it hurts the rest of the environment when it's done on a larger scale. Although I'd still be in favor of agriculture sticking around.

I know you're Native, yeah? Is there anything you can add to the pro hunter-gatherer argument based on any knowledge you have of the indigenous North American tribes?

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

Well, maybe they are better off in some ways. I don't know what I really meant by "better off" other than I doubt most people in the Western world would like to live as them. But like I said, certain cultures make sense in certain situations.

Still, I don't think there are any hunter-gatherer cultures that have more than a few hundred people. We certainly can't have 7 billion people living as hunter-gatherers. Even if hunting-gathering is a better way to live, it's not really possible for most people.

 

[Niachu]

Well, maybe they are better off in some ways. I don't know what I really meant by "better off" other than I doubt most people in the Western world would like to live as them. But like I said, certain cultures make sense in certain situations.

Still, I don't think there are any hunter-gatherer cultures that have more than a few hundred people. We certainly can't have 7 billion people living as hunter-gatherers. Even if hunting-gathering is a better way to live, it's not really possible for most people.

This is a very good point. Agriculture was necessary to support a growing population and is most certainly a major cause of the population boom. It's impossible for the majority of people to adopt the hunter-gatherer lifestyle nowadays, and I don't think Diamond was arguing that we should. Rather, ultimately, was the shift to agriculture a good thing for humanity?

 

[The Hunter]

This isn't really news to me. I read a lot of magazines, and as you could imagine, lots of them lean heavily to the left. I was actually reading one yesterday that made a brief mention of how humans are destroying the environment through farming, which caught me off guard. I had to sit there and think about it for a couple of seconds to consider how farming could be harmful to the Earth. A prime example I could think of is the whole Dust Bowl thing in the 1930's. Again, it wasn't like a whole article on it or anything, just a quick mention on how agriculture is hurting a certain area and that it hurts the rest of the environment when it's done on a larger scale. Although I'd still be in favor of agriculture sticking around.

I know you're Native, yeah? Is there anything you can add to the pro hunter-gatherer argument based on any knowledge you have of the indigenous North American tribes?

Actually, I finally got a chance to look into that recently (last time I was able to was when I was like, 13 or 14). I met a few aunts and uncles that my dad hadn't seen in ages, and they were able to shine some light onto my heritage, and I got all the answers I was looking for. Chances are, I do have some native blood in me somewhere, but there's another side to it all. I have very, very, very, very strong Spanish blood, more than I thought previously. According to my dad's older cousin, the first appearance of our family in the Americas was in the 17th century with a group of Spanish explorers. We showed up in Texas, and pretty much stayed there. Since my last name is Spanish, I'm assuming any natives they did reproduce with were either women or men who took the name. This is what's referred to as Mestizo, being of heavy Hispanic/White decent being mixed with native Americans. Another example of this is Mulatto, being of African/Black decent mixed with native Americans (usually in south America and the Caribbean). Since then, we just sort of settled in Texas. Texas was a part of Mexico, so technically we were classified as Mexicans, but precisely nobody in the family agrees with this because Texas isn't a part of Mexico anymore (hence why some of the relatives tend to go by Native Texan, which really just translates to being primarily of Spanish decent). However, one thing I noticed (and this was the reason my dad was never vocal about heritage) was that nobody really cared about being Mexican or American or white or Hispanic or anything like that. And that's kind of what I felt about myself before speculation of being native was brought up. However, they legally identify as Hispanic/Mexican when it comes to that sort of thing.

But enough of my heritage. Even without having full confidence of being native, I still liked to study the culture of certain tribes and learn to appreciate their values and customs, and I still do (we are on their land, after all). On the subject of hunting/gathering, it's obviously not as convenient as having one person own a big strip of land and grow everything for us, but it is a pretty great way to live if you know what you're doing. And trust me, if you don't think there's enough meat in one buffalo to feed a family, let alone five families, you obviously haven't seen a buffalo before. A lot of native tribes (as well as people dating back to the stupid ages (before civilization even became a thing)) had a lot of methods to grow small crops of maize, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. You could probably learn about a few just by attending a 10th grade history class (which is, admittedly, where most of my knowledge on hunting and gathering comes from). Not like they're going to teach you how to do it, but my teacher talked about it for quite a bit. I always maintained that if it wasn't for white people (15 year old me speaking again), there'd be plenty of buffalo for everyone to hunt, there'd be much more room to plant crops, and we wouldn't have bees because bees are ass. Although these days, I'm just going to stick with going to the grocery store for all my meat and produce. Although I think I'm going to have a hard time doing it, as the Monsanto Protection Act was recently passed, which strips federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns (genetically modified crops being another thing I've been keeping up with).

So yeah, I do somewhat agree with the conservative side of it, that living by hunting and gathering would be more of a possibility if not for farming, and I already know for a fact that a lot of messed up stuff happens on American farms and ranches for the sake of saving money, but we've come too far and have done too much damage to return to that way of life, and it's better to progress and find ways to restore what we've damaged before it's too late, and try to find ways on reducing the environmental risks of agriculture. So I can appreciate the argument, but I'd have to disagree on trying to take action on any of it. It's almost like torching SUVs, or trying to get people to just stop buying meat. The damage is already done. It's best to just start making better choices and learning from history.

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

Rather, ultimately, was the shift to agriculture a good thing for humanity?

That sounds like a value judgment that might be beyond the scope of anthropology. It comes down to whether it's a good thing to have so many people around, I guess. It also comes down to what is best for the long-term survival of the human race. I know some people think we have to colonize planets to prevent the human race from going extinct sometime in the next few centuries. Then again, if we were all still hunter-gatherers and had 1,000th the population we do now, would that even be an issue?

Agriculture was necessary to support a growing population and is most certainly a major cause of the population boom.

I forgot what it was, but from what I understand, for most of human history the human population was like most animals, growing at a rate that was just around the replacement rate. I forgot what the event was, but it happened about 200-300 years ago, so it certainly wasn't the Neo-Lithic Revolution, but it may have been an improvement in agricultural technology. Argh, I wish I could remember what it was.

 

[Judge Holden]

I have heard this viewpoint expressed before, and overall I gotta call bull on a lot of it, since it depends hugely on a romanticised stereotype of what being a rugged "noble savage" entails.

Societal unbalance and exploitation (discrimination, tyranny, warfare) stemmed from monopolizing food, wealth and resources

a) All of these would still exist to some extent without the invention of agriculture. Hell, there is archeological evidence aplenty of pre agricultural war and mass violence which would then mean there would automatically entail both discrimination and tyranny of the victor over the defeated party.

b) None of which hold a candle to the positive advances brought about by agriculture and resulting civilization. While roaming the plains searching for the nearest buffalo or apple tree sounds awesome at first, but when you factor in the immediate things like stability (i.e. far more guaranteed sources of food and a single location to develop in), security (from starvation, from animals, and from the elements), and resulting factors like technology and medicine, both for the individual and for any dependent friends/families, it becomes clear why so few people continue the hunter gatherer thing today.

Agriculture has had a negative effect on human health throughout the ages (farmers relying on less varied and starchy diets, overpopulation and subsequent transference of disease between people and animals, etc)

Compared to the negative effects on human health "hunter gathering" had such as malnutrition, infection, massively increased chance of being gored, bitten, devoured, or crushed, and of course exposure to the elements that would be suffered by EVERY human on the planet in this case, I think crappy diets and possible overpopulation/epidemic (the latter of which helps take care of the former) are worth the trade off.

Agriculture has had a negative effect on animals and the environment (carbon emissions, overpopulation, animal abuse, massive footprints)

Given the crap the average wild animal goes through in it's life (non stop violence including rape if its female, infection, fear, and bloody competition including with others in their species) I doubt their standard of living will be raised much by the absense of civilisation.

Hunting and gathering was the way of life for the majority of human history, and agriculture and the effects have harmed us more than it has helped

No. Just.... no.

Agriculture, aside from bringing humanity a more stable, productive, and reliable food source, helped group humans together and thus form the beginning of civiliation beyond a tribal/family level. Humanity before agriculture lived pretty much entirely in thrall to nature and the elements, and was entirely focused on mere survival and unable to do much anything but try to survive as best as they could.

While modern/agricultural civilization has its problems, the immediate benefits of agriculture and the eventual benefits of resulting civilization far outweigh them. You may as well say fire was mankind's greatest mistake because of things like arson or carbon emissions.

This diamond guy seems pretty reasonable and reputable, and I think I read part of his books once (Guns, Germs, and Steel) and had no disagreements, but on this subject I have to disagree with him

 

[Bgheff]

Well, maybe they are better off in some ways. I don't know what I really meant by "better off" other than I doubt most people in the Western world would like to live as them. But like I said, certain cultures make sense in certain situations.

Still, I don't think there are any hunter-gatherer cultures that have more than a few hundred people. We certainly can't have 7 billion people living as hunter-gatherers. Even if hunting-gathering is a better way to live, it's not really possible for most people.

This is a very good point. Agriculture was necessary to support a growing population and is most certainly a major cause of the population boom. It's impossible for the majority of people to adopt the hunter-gatherer lifestyle nowadays, and I don't think Diamond was arguing that we should. Rather, ultimately, was the shift to agriculture a good thing for humanity?

Yes, it was. Agriculture was key in starting civilization. With the abundance of food produced through farming, large segments of the popular could turn their focus from food gathering to other undertakings. If you view technology itself as evil, I'd assume you'd be opposed to Agriculture.

While there are drawbacks, I think the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.

 

[Hyperion]

So, this is why college professors twitch whenever Jared Diamond's name is mentioned.

 

[Tubular Monkey]

I like the idea of the world burning and it being entirely the fault of corn. Bastard plant.

 

[Trombonista]

Agriculture gave us Jazz and Kiku apples, and if Jazz and Kiku apples are wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[Jack Haywood]

I think that as long as people don't become too greedy with resources, everything will still be ok.

 

[QI 541]

I think we're going to run out of oil really soon.

 

[Fallensaint]

Without agriculture and the move to sedentary lifestyles there would be no cities.

No cities mean the greatest cultural and scientific developments of the last few millenia would never have happened as people would have been too busy trying to stay alive to think deeper about life.

No Philosophy, no great works of art, very likely no written word at all.

Humanity as a species would not exist as we think of them.

 

[Joan Nyan]

If you want to go live in the woods and survive by hunting and gathering, I guess you can.

I'll keep my technology, medicine, plentiful food, entertainment, infrastructure, safety, laws, education, and anime.

I don't really think there's any way agriculture could have not been invented. Humans are smart enough to realize that if you bury seeds more plants grow. From there it's a foregone conclusion that people will start planting things so they don't go hungry. Hunger is one of the greatest, if not the greatest human motivator, and people will do anything to avoid going hungry.

Also nice 2 year old thread bump.

 

[Ravenor]

I don't really think there's any way agriculture could have not been invented. Humans are smart enough to realize that if you bury seeds more plants grow. From there it's a foregone conclusion that people will start planting things so they don't go hungry. Hunger is one of the greatest, if not the greatest human motivator, and people will do anything to avoid going hungry.

We owe our whole innovative process as a species to our killer digestive system, we where able to process enough of our food so efficiently we had "Free time" and our brains evolved to use that time, this lead to tool use, that in turn lead to more efficient hunting ergo more free time and more inovation, and after long enough it's lead to us today.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

We owe our whole innovative process as a species to our killer digestive system, we where able to process enough of our food so efficiently we had "Free time" and our brains evolved to use that time, this lead to tool use, that in turn lead to more efficient hunting ergo more free time and more inovation, and after long enough it's lead to us today.

Are you talking about cooking as external digestion?

 

[Ravenor]

Are you talking about cooking as external digestion?

No, that wasn't exactly clear I'll grant you.

Our digestive system is prity god damned efficient and it allowed us the mental space we where not using to find the next meal to work on other things (being omnivorous helped spur this on as well), Tool use came before we tamed fire as a species once we got regular access to fire it spured on human development partly though allowing us to cook food.

We had tool use and fire a lot longer than we have had agriculture but it was a intersection of a Tool using ape that had a powerful and flexible digestive system to take advantage of natural resources and to come up with agriculture thus freeing up more resources to focus on other things and that's what has lead to modern civilisation.