Did Agriculture Destroy Us?

[SLD]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us, and we’ve never recovered even with the advance of modern medicine. Worldwide life expectancy is 71 years +/-. But I’m not sure if it would be much higher if you removed infant mortality.

In Yuval Harari's book, Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind, he makes the same point. He called our pre Agriculture society the Garden of Eden, and pointed out that Agriculture ruined it. But once adopted it could not be stopped.

This thread stems from our discussion in morals and principles about the nature of morals and where they come from. Our morals in a hunter gatherer society would be more cooperative and less selfish, capitalism, which is the offspring of agriculture, may have changed our moral outlook significantly. It really is a terrible invention.

SLD

 

[skepticalbip]

The article reads like a romanticization based on nothing but what 'feels right' to the author. I would challenge the author to test the ideas offered. There are still significant areas of the world where people live the hunter gatherer life such as vast areas of the Amazon rain forest, New Guinea, the mountains of Southeast Asia, some areas of the Congo or Kalahari, outer Siberia. The author could pick any of these, cast off the trappings of modern civilization, take several like minded people, and try living there for four or five years. The come back and report on how much of an Eden it was, at least the ones that survived could.

 

[rousseau]

Yuval Harari and his shitty book miss the point that we didn't choose agriculture, agriculture chose us.

The problems that agriculture may have caused for us are a complete non-sequitur, because land intensification (or lack thereof) is ultimately a product of population density and climactic conditions. In other words, there was absolutely no way to avoid it, and there is no way to avoid the lack of it where hunter gatherer's still exist.

- - - Updated - - -

The article reads like a romanticization based on nothing but what 'feels right' to the author. I would challenge the author to test the ideas offered. There are still significant areas of the world where people live the hunter gatherer life such as vast areas of the Amazon rain forest, New Guinea, the mountains of Southeast Asia, some areas of the Congo or Kalahari, outer Siberia. The author could pick any of these, cast off the trappings of modern civilization, take several like minded people, and try living there for four or five years. The come back and report on how much of an Eden it was, at least the ones that survived could.

There's this too. If you speak to tribes-people who have actually lived in both conditions, they will always prefer the situation where it's easiest to acquire food (hence why agriculture came to be in the first place).

 

[Jokodo]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us,

Define "brought famine". I'm fairly certain the percentage of deaths directly attributable to a lack of food was higher in the average foraging society. I'm also fairly certain the tyical early farmer was suffering hunger for a larger percentage of their life: when that once in a decade dry spell or harsh winter hits, a mobile foraging Band will be reduced to a number low enough that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years, until a similar event hits again, there'll be plenty for everyone - while farmers can to some extent average out such events with stored goods and thus permanently live much closer to the limit.

 

[SLD]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us,

Define "brought famine". I'm fairly certain the percentage of deaths directly attributable to a lack of food was higher in the average foraging society. I'm also fairly certain the tyical early farmer was suffering hunger for a larger percentage of their life: when that once in a decade dry spell or harsh winter hits, a mobile foraging Band will be reduced to a number low enough that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years, until a similar event hits again, there'll be plenty for everyone - while farmers can to some extent average out such events with stored goods and thus permanently live much closer to the limit.

The article states that famine would be rarer in H-G societies since their diet would've been more varied. If some species they depended on for food wasn’t available, something else would have been. But I’m wondering if there is any archeological evidence about this issue one way or the other. Do human remains from 30,000 years ago show evidence of malnutrition? Is that possible? I would think so, since bone growth, age at death would give us lots clues. But I’m not the expert.

 

[Jokodo]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us,

Define "brought famine". I'm fairly certain the percentage of deaths directly attributable to a lack of food was higher in the average foraging society. I'm also fairly certain the tyical early farmer was suffering hunger for a larger percentage of their life: when that once in a decade dry spell or harsh winter hits, a mobile foraging Band will be reduced to a number low enough that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years, until a similar event hits again, there'll be plenty for everyone - while farmers can to some extent average out such events with stored goods and thus permanently live much closer to the limit.

The article states that famine would be rarer in H-G societies since their diet would've been more varied. If some species they depended on for food wasn’t available, something else would have been.

Except for those times when nothing is, but then everyone dies really fast.

But I’m wondering if there is any archeological evidence about this issue one way or the other. Do human remains from 30,000 years ago show evidence of malnutrition? Is that possible? I would think so, since bone growth, age at death would give us lots clues. But I’m not the expert.

Human remains from after the introduction of agriculture indeed show more signs of malnutrition than those of hunter-gatherers, but that may not mean what you think it does.

Bone growth patterns don't tell us that a person died from acute starvation, they can only ever tell us about chronical non-lethal deficits. Archaeology can tell us about the people how survived long periods of barely enough food (and it tells us that there are more of those among early farmers), but it's much less able to tell us about people who didn't survive short periods of no food (presumably, a more common pattern among hunter-gatherers).

 

[steve_bank]

In the sense that modern ag allows population to rise dramatically, outside of any environmental restraints for a time.

A natural restraint would be the population balance between a predator and prey.

 

[J842P]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us,

Define "brought famine". I'm fairly certain the percentage of deaths directly attributable to a lack of food was higher in the average foraging society. I'm also fairly certain the tyical early farmer was suffering hunger for a larger percentage of their life: when that once in a decade dry spell or harsh winter hits, a mobile foraging Band will be reduced to a number low enough that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years, until a similar event hits again, there'll be plenty for everyone - while farmers can to some extent average out such events with stored goods and thus permanently live much closer to the limit.

Well, the archeological record seems to pretty clearly indicate that agriculture made humans more unhealthy, as can be deduced from skeletal remains, and pretty significantly so. Average heights have yet to recover, and the skeletons of early (read, pretty much everything before the 21st/20th century) are clearly less healthy than than the skeletons from the paeleolithic.

Also, hunter gatherers do not spend more time obtaining sufficient calories, quite the opposite, agriculture requires intense labor and often lead to poor nutrition, with human populations starting to depend on fewer and fewer plants for their diet.

Of course, people always try to make this into a black and white "progressivist vs noble savage" dichotomy.

Fundamentally, agriculture didn't spread because it made human life better, it spread because it allowed for human groups to sustain larger and larger populations, and these populations pushed out the hunter gatherer societies.

I first read this argument form Jared Diamond's "The Worst Mistake in Human History".

Here's a blog post that goes over Diamond's argument, and some other stuff as well:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/agriculture-worst-mistake/

 

[skepticalbip]

In the sense that modern ag allows population to rise dramatically, outside of any environmental restraints for a time.

A natural restraint would be the population balance between a predator and prey.

True, but available food supply is also a natural restraint. A given environment can only support a given population. While too many predators will deplete the prey population faster than replacement so deplete the predators, a grazing herd is limited in population by availability of grass, even without predators.

 

[Jokodo]

http://www.rewild.com/in-depth/longevity.html

According to this article, we probably led fairly long lives when we were hunter gatherers, assuming though we survived infancy. The article doesn’t cite though any evidence from graves or fossils of such people as to how long they lived. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Others have made this argument before, but Agriculture brought far more diseases and even famine to us,

Define "brought famine". I'm fairly certain the percentage of deaths directly attributable to a lack of food was higher in the average foraging society. I'm also fairly certain the tyical early farmer was suffering hunger for a larger percentage of their life: when that once in a decade dry spell or harsh winter hits, a mobile foraging Band will be reduced to a number low enough that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years, until a similar event hits again, there'll be plenty for everyone - while farmers can to some extent average out such events with stored goods and thus permanently live much closer to the limit.

Well, the archeological record seems to pretty clearly indicate that agriculture made humans more unhealthy, as can be deduced from skeletal remains, and pretty significantly so. Average heights have yet to recover, and the skeletons of early (read, pretty much everything before the 21st/20th century) are clearly less healthy than than the skeletons from the paeleolithic.

As I said: In blood and flesh a person who was well nourished all their life and a person who was well nourished almost all of their life except for brief episodes of extreme starvation, one of which killed him look very different - only one of them is, after all, dead. When both have been dead for 10,000 years, their bones look pretty much their same, and the guy who had enough to survive but not much more than that is the odd one out.

Early farmers were of that third type. That doesn't imply that agriculture "brought famine", certainly not if by famine you mean "people dying from acute undernourishment", though chronical malnourishment it arguably did bring.

Also, hunter gatherers do not spend more time obtaining sufficient calories, quite the opposite, agriculture requires intense labor and often lead to poor nutrition, with human populations starting to depend on fewer and fewer plants for their diet.

True, and I brought this up myself in another thread recently. But again, being that hunter-gatherers' environment is less predictible, just because they spend less time foraging on average (and this is true even of 20th century hunter gatherer societies that had long been confined to some of the most hostile environments of the planet) doesn't imply that during periods of extreme shortage, they spend all their time trying (and sometimes failing) to get any food whatsoever.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, the thread title asks a far broader question than just the immediate direct impact of going from an H-G diet to an agricultural diet.

Included in the impact of agriculture on our health must be the fact that agriculture allowed for modern civilization, science, tech, and medicine. So, it is fair to compare longevity and quality of life of those in the most advanced modernized countries to that of those in the paleolithic societies. Doing so, makes the ultimate net effects of agriculture fare much better. The avg life expectancy of people in the 34 OECD countries is 81, which is higher than the high end estimate for paleolithic people.

 

[Gun Nut]

in the "real" Garden of Eden, people lived for hundreds of years. So this is good science. After the fall, finding food was much more challenging, so of course people became less healthy in general. agriculture didn't cause this... it was the necessary option. Eve caused it. That bitch.

 

[steve_bank]

From what I read of the Northwest history before the influx of settlers the Native American's lived pretty well.

Marine life for the picking. An abidance of fish and game. Plenty of timber and good water.

The rising population of settlers killed off game west of the Cascades.

What is quality of life?

Sanjay Gupta a doctor has been doing a CNN series on quality of life.

There are communities that live simply in terms of diet and are very healthy. We eat far more protein from animals than we need. The American diet is killing us literally.

We manufacture a huge surplus of calories we do not need in the form of junk food. In the 60s the word decadent was used for the society of the day. It is more true today than ever.

People gorge on cake and ice-cream every day, And we pay for it health wise.

I was walking past Garfield High School in Seattle yesterday when it was getting out. Many overweight. One kid was huge. Destined for an unhappy life.

Science is neutral. Without social wisdom in application science is bad.

Walk into a supermarket and what do you see. Aisles of shelf space for chips and candy. Aisles of frozen junk food. Typicaly two sides of an aisle for frozen foods. A small section for frozen vegetables. The rest pizza, ice cream and the rest.


In about 70 years post WWII we have gone to an obese society.

 

[bilby]

The short answer to the OP question is 'No'.

The long answer is 'Hell, no. Are you out of your fucking mind??'

 

[Treedbear]

The short answer to the OP question is 'No'.

The long answer is 'Hell, no. Are you out of your fucking mind??'

I agree with that and would like to expand on it a bit further.

The OP: Did Agriculture Destroy Us?

If by Us you mean the human race it should be obvious that agriculture enabled us to better control our environment and ensure our survival. Now of course without agriculture we probably wouldn't have science or nuclear weapons. Also mass epidemics. On the other hand science might have given us the ability to intercept a major asteroid impact and possible extinction. That alone makes us rather distinct from the other species that have inhabited the planet. So despite all the negatives people mention, the question of what has benefited Us has to come down to the matter of survival.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Please define "destroy." Picking an apple destroyed us. Now becoming farmers destroyed us. We humans like to think in binary terms where things are either perfect or broken when in reality everything is both. We love to romanticize because romanticizing is akin to having a religion where we can pretend how perfect everything is somewhere or at sometime. And if we do all the right things we can find our lost city of gold or the fountain of youth. We're Dorothy. In reality things can always get better and things can always get worse.

But it is an interesting discussion.

 

[lpetrich]

"Destroyed" is far too strong a word here. "Subjected us to various Bad Things" is a much more defensible hypothesis. There is also the question of why farming "won" over foraging. Was it the ability to support a higher population density?

One also has to ask why farming was independently invented in several places in the world in the Holocene, but not before then. What would make every effort fail before the beginning of the Holocene?

 

[steve_bank]

Overpopulation and exceeding resource's has 'destroyed' civilizations.

The Northeast cod stocks were depleted below sustainable levels. The govt essentially allowed almost unrestricted fishing instead of liming boat licenses.

The Chinese fishing fleet has steadily migrated awy from Chinese waters as supply drops.

Destroy is the proper word.

 

[Jokodo]

Overpopulation and exceeding resource's has 'destroyed' civilizations.

The Northeast cod stocks were depleted below sustainable levels. The govt essentially allowed almost unrestricted fishing instead of liming boat licenses.

The Chinese fishing fleet has steadily migrated awy from Chinese waters as supply drops.

Destroy is the proper word.

I'm not aware of a single civilization in recorded history that collapsed from a lack of cod, so please do enlighten us.

 

[Politesse]

Overpopulation and exceeding resource's has 'destroyed' civilizations.

The Northeast cod stocks were depleted below sustainable levels. The govt essentially allowed almost unrestricted fishing instead of liming boat licenses.

The Chinese fishing fleet has steadily migrated awy from Chinese waters as supply drops.

Destroy is the proper word.

I'm not aware of a single civilization in recorded history that collapsed from a lack of cod, so please do enlighten us.

You've clearly never met many people from the Northeast, or at least not talked to them at length; many elders in that part of the world definitely see the death of their traditional economy as an existential threat to the distinct culture of the Maritimes.