Comments on: Agriculture Ruined the World http://danielmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world grep understanding Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:30:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Steven G. Harms http://danielmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-162705 Steven G. Harms Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:52:53 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world#comment-162705 <p>This argument was made much more cogently in <em>Guns, Germs, and Steel</em>.</p> This argument was made much more cogently in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-162254 Daniel Miessler Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:32:16 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world#comment-162254 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Carl M http://danielmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-162246 Carl M Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:06:58 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/agriculture-ruined-the-world#comment-162246 <p>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?</p> <p>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). </p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]>