Agriculture Ruined the World

By Daniel Miessler on July 20th, 2008: Tagged as History | Society

A provoking argument about the effects of agriculture.

Links

[ The Worst Mistake | awok.org ]

  • Carl M

    I don’t get this at all. He explains many of the ways in which agriculture has improved life on Earth for mankind. Then he poses the ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT QUESTION: How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming?

    That’s like asking “How do you show that the lives of (let’s say) British soldiers during World War II got better when they fought the Germans?” Of course, they didn’t. They suffered terribly, but that’s not the point. It’s the outcome that measures the success. And, most would argue that they did not suffer (and die) in vain, but to make the world a better place (or at least to preserve the values of Britain).

    Similarly, I don’t think that anyone would claim that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got immediately better during the transition to a predominantly agricultural society. He gives evidence to show that their lives did not immediately improve, but I don’t see that this is really the point. Certainly I find it rather absurd to call it Humanity’s worst mistake.

    • http://profiles.google.com/autumn.ablushtothesnow Autumn Garland

      i think Diamond is trying to suggest that there has been a net increase in suffering since we moved from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural society. i think it is an interesting point, but highly speculative given the small amount of evidence presented.

  • Carl M

    I don’t get this at all. He explains many of the ways in which agriculture has improved life on Earth for mankind. Then he poses the ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT QUESTION: How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming?

    That’s like asking “How do you show that the lives of (let’s say) British soldiers during World War II got better when they fought the Germans?” Of course, they didn’t. They suffered terribly, but that’s not the point. It’s the outcome that measures the success. And, most would argue that they did not suffer (and die) in vain, but to make the world a better place (or at least to preserve the values of Britain).

    Similarly, I don’t think that anyone would claim that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got immediately better during the transition to a predominantly agricultural society. He gives evidence to show that their lives did not immediately improve, but I don’t see that this is really the point. Certainly I find it rather absurd to call it Humanity’s worst mistake.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    I agree, Carl. I think it’s specious at best. But it’s though-provoking at least. I think it makes for good exercise to be able to articulate the problem with the argument.

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    I agree, Carl. I think it’s specious at best. But it’s though-provoking at least. I think it makes for good exercise to be able to articulate the problem with the argument.

  • http://www.stevengharms.com/ Steven G. Harms

    This argument was made much more cogently in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

  • http://www.stevengharms.com Steven G. Harms

    This argument was made much more cogently in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KHHXAEEDVDRCJGAMR2WZAQNN3A Gomee Zheng

    our media usually gives so much attention to the athletes,

    singers and actresses who deserve recognition, but it’s nice

    to see a balance. Thank you

    http://www.mvpsupra.com


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs