Why the world is a better place than before

[aneeshm]

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.

So he does exactly what we all do, only on a much simpler level.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian




Ok, ONE MORE TRY:

Specialization merely means that people in a society do different things. THAT IS ALL IT MEANS.

It implies that there is some efficiency in the division. There is no efficiency in some people doing nothing or whiping them, or whatever you are thinking.

[Arrian]

There certainly can be, but I do not see that merely saying the word "specialization" implies anything other than... specialization.

Again with the reading my posts based on what you think I mean, as opposed to what I've actually written.

There is no efficiency in some people doing nothing or whiping them, or whatever you are thinking.

Un****ingbelievable.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It implies that there is some efficiency in the division. There is no efficiency in some people doing nothing or whiping them, or whatever you are thinking.

....those who work, those who pray, and those who fight.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
There certainly can be, but I do not see that merely saying the word "specialization" implies anything other than... specialization.

Christ! Specialization of what?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


....those who work, those who pray, and those who fight.

And if you don't want to work or pray you better be ready for a fight.

[General Ludd]

Agriculture as we are familiar with it was never essential for humans to live It's only existed for the last 10 thousand years, out of the 2 million years that homos have been around or the 200,000 that homo sapiens have been around. It is customary for people in our culture to imagine humans having always been farmers, or having always been destined to become farmers, but in reality, it is only one culture of of thousands that developed these farming practices, and it is only a very recent development in the history of humanity. These ten thousand years of euro-asian agrianism is hardly representive of humanity, or the conclusion of some sort of human destiny (which is a stange concept to hear coming from atheists)

This style of agriculture does not make people's lives easier - it is alot more difficult to sustain yourself with agriculture than it is to hunt and gather. And simillarily, agriculture does not prevent famines, it causes them by allowing populations to vastly outgrow what the landbase can sustain. Crop failures and resource depletion go hand in hand with agriculture. What agriculture does do is create power, and wealth. By extension of that, it has also lead to large hierarchal societies and nations states (as I think Kid must be arguing - I haven't been reading the thread that closely).

But the question of why would we farm if it is harder and more damaging can be be answered by the simple fact that it's our culture. It developed one way or another, and people forgot there was any other way of living. It's the same reason the aztecs ripped the hearts out of people and sacrificed them to the gods, or other tribes practice cannibalism. it seems stupid, pointless, and brutal to us only because it is not a part of our culture, but to the cultures who practice it, it is the proper order of things and it simply isn't thought of to do otherwise. To other cultures, aspects of our society will seems equally stupid, pointless, and brutal.

[Arrian]

Specialization of what?

Labor, of course, or if you prefer, roles within society.

Examples of specialists in an ancient agricultural society who are not lazing about taking advantage of their oppression of the working man:

farmers
shepards & other herdsmen
fisherman
masons/stoneworkers
carpenters
sailors
merchants (debateable since I'm sure you don't think merchants really "worked")
lumberjacks
doctors/medicine men (Imotep! Imotep! Imotep! )
etc...

Of course, there were also others, like kings and other ruler types, priests, etc.

What is your point?

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I do those things today.

So he does exactly what we all do, only on a much simpler level.

It's hillarious how much my statement is being taken out of context - even by Eli, who provided the context in the first place.

I'm not claiming that these things can only be done in primitive socities. It was a response to Eli claiming that without computers and modern media, that humans can only live boring, mundane, and unfulfilling lives. That for the 2 million years humans have been around before this century, enternainment consisted of nothing but staring contests with rocks.

[Arrian]

or the conclusion of some sort of human destiny (which is a stange concept to hear coming from atheists)

Who said this? Where? When? Nice Strawman.

As for the rest, we've been discussing the origins of farming, which of course is just speculation as none of were around when it happened.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Agriculture as we are familiar with it was never essential for humans to live It's only existed for the last 10 thousand years, out of the 2 million years that homos have been around or the 200,000 that homo sapiens have been around. It is customary for people in our culture to imagine humans having always been farmers, or having always been destined to become farmers, but in reality, it is only one culture of of thousands that developed these farming practices, and it is only a very recent development in the history of humanity. These ten thousand years of euro-asian agrianism is hardly representive of humanity, or the conclusion of some sort of human destiny (which is a stange concept to hear coming from atheists)

This style of agriculture does not make people's lives easier - it is alot more difficult to sustain yourself with agriculture than it is to hunt and gather. And simillarily, agriculture does not prevent famines, it causes them by allowing populations to vastly outgrow what the landbase can sustain. Crop failures and resource depletion go hand in hand with agriculture. What agriculture does do is create power, and wealth. By extension of that, it has also lead to large hierarchal societies and nations states (as I think Kid must be arguing - I haven't been reading the thread that closely).

But the question of why would we farm if it is harder and more damaging can be be answered by the simple fact that it's our culture. It developed one way or another, and people forgot there was any other way of living. It's the same reason the aztecs ripped the hearts out of people and sacrificed them to the gods, or other tribes practice cannibalism. it seems stupid, pointless, and brutal to us only because it is not a part of our culture, but to the cultures who practice it, it is the proper order of things and it simply isn't thought of to do otherwise. To other cultures, aspects of our society will seems equally stupid, pointless, and brutal.

The reason why agriculturation is inevitable, General, is because there is no way in hell that a pre-agricultural society can compete with an agrarian or post-agricultural one. All non-agrarian societies are replaced or outcompeted by agricultural ones.

We win because we're better, more efficient, more powerful, and in general can kick the crap out of anyone who has not made the jump. We can brush away with out might non-agrarian people so completely that no trace will be left of their existence, we can dismiss and destroy them as trivially as you or I would swat a fly.

And given that we're humans, we do.

[Arrian]

So, for instance:

But the question of why would we farm if it is harder and more damaging can be be answered by the simple fact that it's our culture

isn't really what we're talking about at this point. We were discussing why farming took over in the first place. And the answer is that it produced more food (though yes, quite vulnerable to famine), which in turn allowed for a population boom, which in turn led to farming societies with their specialists (including, oh, say, soldiers) to dominate/destroy hunter gatherer societies.

Kid got really, really, really hung up on the use of the word "specialist" and we've been arguing about that for the last couple of pages.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Labor, of course, or if you prefer, roles within society.

I forgot why we are even discussing specialization. It's just crazy to me that you are calling the developement of a class structure speicalization of labor. For the most part there were religious leaders, kings, nobles of some sort, and peasants. You call that specializaiton of labor because they don't have the same role any longer?

Specializaiton of labor means that people divide up labor to get more work done or get it done faster. It's not about exploitation.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Arrian


Who said this? Where? When? Nice Strawman.

I'm not sure if anyone's said it in this thread. I wasn't really responding to anyone in particular in that post, I was simply laying out my point of view.

However, it's a common viewpoint to see modern society or agrianism as some sort of natural conclusion to our development as a species. The very use of the word primitive to refer to any culture that does not practice agriculture, industry, and commerce in the way that we do is indicative of this point of view. If we assume that our culture is more developed or further 'progressed' than others because of our agriculture, industry, technology (or any other standards, really) then by proxy you are creating a ladder scale of development which in turns implies a linear line of progression, ie. a destiny.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I'm not sure if anyone's said it in this thread. I wasn't really responding to anyone in particular in that post, I was simply laying out my point of view.

However, it's a common viewpoint to see modern society or agrianism as some sort of natural conclusion to our development as a species. The very use of the word primitive to refer to any culture that does not practice agriculture, industry, and commerce in the way that we do is indicative of this point of view. If we assume that our culture is more developed or further 'progressed' than others because of our agriculture, industry, technology (or any other standards, really) then by proxy you are creating a ladder scale of development which in turns implies a linear line of progression, ie. a destiny.

Right now, there's been a convergence of progresses. Who's to say there won't be a divergence again?