Why the world is a better place than before

[Pekka]

"It was not rule of the strongest. It was not rule at all."

And that is de facto rule of the strongest.

[Geronimo]

I find the most unappealing aspect of the pre-agricultural existence (and pre-modern societies in general) to be extremely high child mortality rates. The San did not escape this. No ancient peoples did. People had many children and they watched most of those children die.

Another problem being brushed off as inconsequential is famine. This *had* to be inevitable because there was no birth control and the child mortality rate while very high was not so high as to prevent sometimes very rapid population growth when new food supplies became available.

So given that relative population explosions could and did occur when new supplies of became available, what then kept the population in check when the supplies were relatively static? Starvation. The food supply was relatively fixed, there was negligible birth control the population was usually not exploding because starvation kept heading it off.

They lived in a world where they knew they would see most of their children die and where stories from living memory told of times of starvation.

I don't think that world was stress free. Parents probably either stressed about the safety of their children or became calloused insensitive people.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So given that relative population explosions could and did occur when new supplies of became available, what then kept the population in check when the supplies were relatively static? Starvation. The food supply was relatively fixed, there was negligible birth control the population was usually not exploding because starvation kept heading it off.

This isn't true. There is probably more accute hunger today that there was in primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Population explosions did not occur until societies became more dependent on agriculture. Look at other species. Nature does not usually cause widespread starvation.

[Kidlicious]

SURVIVING FAMINE

Food historians propose that hunter-gatherer humans were protected from famine by their very low population density, their dietary diversity, and their ability to migrate when local resources were depleted. Paradoxically it was the dawn of agriculture that heralded seasonal hunger and catastrophic famines caused by climatic instability. Huge populations dependent on a single staple crop could be devastated by drought or blight. And if they escaped the wrath of nature they could be scythed down by man's inhumanity to man when starvation was used as an instrument of war and subjugation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This isn't true. There is probably more accute hunger today that there was in primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Population explosions did not occur until societies became more dependent on agriculture. Look at other species. Nature does not usually cause widespread starvation.

yes look at other species. Massive predation is the norm. Take away the predators and you find that cycles of starvation and population explosion as well as resource depletion become the norm.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious
SURVIVING FAMINE

Their mobility gave them more options than primitive agrarians but often such migration would bring them into conflict with other groups of humans. Oh joy a new source of stress.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously we are better than primitive societies. These threads also indicate to me why I never listen to Kidicious, for the reason that he posts moronic drivel.

Here's an assignment... read 1491 if you believe that natives lived in "harmony with nature". There is tons of evidence suggesting that the natives in the Americas (at least) manipulated nature to suit their own needs. They engaged in massive terraforming and areas we consider pristine, were actually worked over by the natives.

And hey, if you want hunt/gather and starve some years and prosper the next, and sit around all day bored, go right ahead. There is a reason people sought another way. Agriculture didn't come about because some people thought it was a brilliant way to oppress others. It came about because people were sick and tired of scrounging for food and in some years starving.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


yes look at other species. Massive predation is the norm. Take away the predators and you find that cycles of starvation and population explosion as well as resource depletion become the norm.

Human population was not controlled by predators. That's very silly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Their mobility gave them more options than primitive agrarians but often such migration would bring them into conflict with other groups of humans. Oh joy a new source of stress.

There is the archaeological record that shows that hunter-gatherer societies ate better than agrarian societies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously we are better than primitive societies. These threads also indicate to me why I never listen to Kidicious, for the reason that he posts moronic drivel.

Here's an assignment... read 1491 if you believe that natives lived in "harmony with nature". There is tons of evidence suggesting that the natives in the Americas (at least) manipulated nature to suit their own needs. They engaged in massive terraforming and areas we consider pristine, were actually worked over by the natives.

And hey, if you want hunt/gather and starve some years and prosper the next, and sit around all day bored, go right ahead. There is a reason people sought another way. Agriculture didn't come about because some people thought it was a brilliant way to oppress others. It came about because people were sick and tired of scrounging for food and in some years starving.

Talk about moronic drivel. My God. Who is saying that some native americans did not manipulate nature.

And agriculture came about because people found out that you could rule over people and conquer other peoples. The archaeological record shows that people in hunter-gatherer societies ate much better.

What a ridiculous post.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Actually a lot of people are wondering why the hell life is so damn hard today since we have all this technology that is suppose to make things better. They might not all be luddites but most of them are losing their ****ing minds.

Most of them are whiners who have no idea how good they have it. Let them work on a farm or be a hunter gatherer for a few years, without any medicine and health care products, transportation, refrigeration, plumbing, etc. and see how much they complain about the hardships of modern life.

My take: people in the west are spoiled. We're in a malaise because we have it so easy.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Maybe after Whitey came and ****ed everything up. Before that he pretty much lived in harmony with nature and there was plenty for everyone.

They also had singing raccoons, and birds would land on their shoulder to whistle them sweet tunes.

I don't buy into the myth of the noble savage. If life as hunter-gatherers was so great for our ancestors, then they never would have started farming.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Human population was not controlled by predators. That's very silly.

Hey i think you get it!

Human population was not controlled by predators.

So maybe we shouldn't

"Look at other species." or take note that "Nature does not usually cause widespread starvation."

because maybe humans don't have massive predation to spare them from cycles of starvation.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by General Ludd You socialize. You tell stories. You imagine. You love. You play games. You make funny noises. You laugh. You argue. You dance. You sing. You lay in the sun. You live.

I do those things today.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So maybe we shouldn't

"Look at other species." or take note that "Nature does not usually cause widespread starvation."

Except that humans are not the only species not controlled by predators.