Why the world is a better place than before

[Zevico]

We have the bad things we always had. But the amount of good things are ever increasing and the potential is bigger and bigger by the day.

Optimism is a good thing, but I think that we should balance it by looking at the problems we have, admitting we have them, and addressing them.
Technology may increase the quality of life for many of us but the fact is it does have its cost. It has the potential to increase everyone's quality of life.
At the same time, a lot of our technological advances are damaging our environment. That in turn damages our wellbeing and decreases our quality of life.
In the long term the effects of pollution caused by technological advances could be devastating. I think that's it's a problem we should definitely address.

[Arrian]

Why farm? To create an elite class of non-workers, to create an army, to conquer other people.

Christ! Did you freakin read the excerp I posted?

Did you? It certainly doesn't sound like you did.

The article you posted doesn't posit that farming came about because Joe Hunter-Gatherer decided "right, I want to oppress my fellow man. If I could only find a way..."

It came about because it offered a larger & more sure source of food. The article does a good job of talking about the downside of agriculture (pre-20th century). Disease, overpopulation, etc. Also, farming did lead to a more hierarchical society, but you are confusing cause and effect. You seem to be asserting that farming was invented as a means of oppression, which is patently absurd. It was invented as a means to get more food and get it more reliably. This resulted in more people (though no improvement in life span, and quite possibly a decline at first), which in turn resulted in a more complex society with specialization. With specialization you get people who "don't work" (in your mind, anyway), including of course politicians, bureacrats and soldiers - the oppressors, if you will.

Now, once a society adapts farming and sees its population increase dramatically and develops a specialist society, it is obviously in position to dominate a society of hunter-gatherers. So then those h-g's must either adapt farming themselves or (more likely, I think) be conquered/wiped out/assimilated. This clearly happened all over the world, with a few exceptions (the San, for example, at least until recently). I take it that this is what you meant in reply to Imran. But again, the first farmers weren't thinking that. It was an effect, not a cause.

Now, of course, there are upsides to the agricultural switchover. Higher population + specialization = more technological progress, which obviously is also a double-edged sword, but has resulted in some very real progress in terms of life expectancy and, IMO, quality of life. It took a few thousand years, that's all

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

One thing for sure, is that people had a much healthier relation to death when there wasn't medicine and illnesses were unavoidable.

[Arrian]

Possibly. It's something Tolkien was getting at with his concept of how the Numenoreans used to approach death (the "Gift of Illuvatar") and how they came to see it (fearing it, trying to cheat it, and ultimately falling into darkness because of that).

I'm not sure I entirely buy it, but there may be something to that.

-Arrian

[Saras]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
One thing for sure, is that people had a much healthier relation to death when there wasn't medicine and illnesses were unavoidable.

Death

[Fake Boris]

[Eli]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
One thing for sure, is that people had a much healthier relation to death when there wasn't medicine and illnesses were unavoidable.

And this summarizes the entire argument. Vague psychological gains like a healthy relation to death, versus clear and concrete benefits like medicine.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Did you? It certainly doesn't sound like you did.

Exactly. It seems like Kid wanted to read his own biases into an article that doesn't say the reasons for transition were for exploitation.

you are confusing cause and effect. You seem to be asserting that farming was invented as a means of oppression, which is patently absurd. It was invented as a means to get more food and get it more reliably.

Bingo. I mean how ridiculous do you have to be to think that people started farming so they could be oppressed by others who didn't have to work? If they were unaware of the consequences (and that I'm not disagreeing with), do you think that a few folks were and were simply manipulating the rest of the poor hunter-gatherers so they could eventually exploit them all when surpluses came through?

How exactly does that work?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian

Did you? It certainly doesn't sound like you did.

The article you posted doesn't posit that farming came about because Joe Hunter-Gatherer decided "right, I want to oppress my fellow man. If I could only find a way..."

Those are two different paragraphs. I know you know what that means.

It came about because it offered a larger & more sure source of food. The article does a good job of talking about the downside of agriculture (pre-20th century). Disease, overpopulation, etc. Also, farming did lead to a more hierarchical society, but you are confusing cause and effect. You seem to be asserting that farming was invented as a means of oppression, which is patently absurd.

No, I'm not really saying that some evil genious invented it to oppress people. The use of agriculture evolved over time in all cases I believe, except where societies were conquered.

It was invented as a means to get more food and get it more reliably. This resulted in more people (though no improvement in life span, and quite possibly a decline at first),

A decline that lasted up until a couple of centuries ago. You seem to have read that. Imran did not, which is why I made the point. I was not trying to say that agriculture was implemented to oppress people. But the fact is that after it was implemented people were oppressed because their life was made harder. They were forced to work more hours and were in more danger of dying from famine.

which in turn resulted in a more complex society with specialization. With specialization you get people who "don't work" (in your mind, anyway), including of course politicians, bureacrats and soldiers - the oppressors, if you will.

Ah nobility, land owners, duh! You call that specialization. My God!

Now, once a society adapts farming and sees its population increase dramatically and develops a specialist society, it is obviously in position to dominate a society of hunter-gatherers. So then those h-g's must either adapt farming themselves or (more likely, I think) be conquered/wiped out/assimilated. This clearly happened all over the world, with a few exceptions (the San, for example, at least until recently). I take it that this is what you meant in reply to Imran. But again, the first farmers weren't thinking that. It was an effect, not a cause.

Now, of course, there are upsides to the agricultural switchover. Higher population + specialization = more technological progress, which obviously is also a double-edged sword, but has resulted in some very real progress in terms of life expectancy and, IMO, quality of life. It took a few thousand years, that's all

-Arrian

All of the upsides came much much later.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bingo. I mean how ridiculous do you have to be to think that people started farming so they could be oppressed by others who didn't have to work? If they were unaware of the consequences (and that I'm not disagreeing with), do you think that a few folks were and were simply manipulating the rest of the poor hunter-gatherers so they could eventually exploit them all when surpluses came through?

These things evolve over time. People are just trying to make their lives a little better. You can't possibly be so stupid to think things have worked like that throughout history.

[Ramo]

Kid, the reason why agricultural societies developed social hierarchies is that such a society could produce a surplus in food. Hunter-gatherers were too ill-fed to afford an upper class (and other members of society who weren't directly involved in food production).

[Arrian]

Ah nobility, land owners, duh! You call that specialization. My God!

Sure. Specialization simply means that people can have different roles, instead of pretty much everyone doing the same basic thing (hunting, gathering). Without the surplus food, you cannot have people whose job doesn't involve finding food. That's basic stuff.

All of the upsides came much much later.

Right. As in NOW. Which, if you recall, was the basis of this thread (things NOW are better). You don't get to cut history off in the 19th century.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kid, the reason why agricultural societies developed social hierarchies is that such a society could produce a surplus in food. Hunter-gatherers were too ill-fed to afford an upper class (and other members of society who weren't directly involved in food production).

They were not as ill-fed. Peasants were worse fed. Read the excerp. Hunter-gatherer societies didn't have a social hierarchy because there was no property ownership.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Sure. Specialization simply means that people can have different roles, instead of pretty much everyone doing the same basic thing (hunting, gathering). Without the surplus food, you cannot have people whose job doesn't involve finding food. That's basic stuff.

It implies that everyone works. Being a noble is not working. I can't believe that you are trying to say now that feudalism was not exploitive.

Right. As in NOW. Which, if you recall, was the basis of this thread (things NOW are better). You don't get to cut history off in the 19th century.

-Arrian

It is not better now. They have progressed just as feudalism was progression. Some people are happier and better off just as some people were happier and better off in feudal societies. But in both cases the majority of humanity suffers worse. Hell most of them will take a sweet shop job in a second. How bad do you have to be for that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
These things evolve over time. People are just trying to make their lives a little better. You can't possibly be so stupid to think things have worked like that throughout history.

And why did they think agriculture was going to make their lives a little better? There must have been a reason, right?

They were not as ill-fed. Peasants were worse fed. Read the excerp. Hunter-gatherer societies didn't have a social hierarchy because there was no property ownership.

Please read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, please. Social hierarchy existed as a result of food surpluses. It was able to support a group of people who did not toil for food.