Did Agriculture Destroy Us?

[skepticalbip]

"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?

Personally, I think supporting a higher population density was more an unintentional result of agriculture. Most likely, the reason agriculture caught on was that it made for a more easy, secure, and comfortable life.
.. A secure and sure source of food could be attained for much less effort - a couple weeks effort planting in the spring and a few weeks effort harvesting and thrashing the crop in the fall supplied a year's supply of the staple food supply. This opposed to hoping to find a water source, food to gather, and having to run down game animals every day or two for hunter-gatherers.
.. Permanent homes provided secure shelter needing only occasional repair as opposed to searching for or erecting shelter with each move required for a nomadic life.

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?

That is an interesting question but I think it is sorta like asking why people in several places around the world independently decided to build with stone. Then is there any evidence that 'every' attempt at agriculture failed before the Holocene or that there were attempts at agriculture before the Holocene.

 

[ronburgundy]

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 away from Chinese waters as supply drops.

Destroy is the proper word.

Fishing is a form of hunting, not agriculture. Also, despite the Cod situation, the Chinese civilization is flourishing not "destroyed". And agriculture is the reason why there is any such thing as a "civilization" in the first place.

 

[Copernicus]

The author's thesis should be easy to prove with empirical research, not just speculative musings. One would expect the fossil record to show that ancient hunter-gatherers lived longer on average than farmers. One would also expect the population of farming societies to tend to shrink over time rather than grow. And, as has already been pointed out, one could look at the health and lifespans of the few primitive societies that have existed in recorded history.

 

[Politesse]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

 

[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 away from Chinese waters as supply drops.

Destroy is the proper word.

Fishing is a form of hunting, not agriculture. Also, despite the Cod situation, the Chinese civilization is flourishing not "destroyed". And agriculture is the reason why there is any such thing as a "civilization" in the first place.

Same category, over use of food supply. I call it farming the sea....

Commercial flashing farms in the Puget Sound have been problematic. Waste pollution. Genteelly modified fish along with diseased fish have escaped into the environment.

- - - Updated - - -

The USA is currently a food net exporter with around 300 million. China is a net food importer at around 1 billion. It has been predicted that with climate change and water problems we will become a net importer.

The Cascade Mountains snowpack is demising. The spring melt goes into the Columbia River which waters ag in Washington and Oregon. The Columbia is predicted to draw down by the Univ Of Washington.

The 24/7 supermarkets with fresh food all the time is probably giving a false sense of security.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

I didn't read any of the bibliographical references but the article itself reminded me of those arguments where people claim aliens build ancient structures. It's crap. The article seems to be saying don't eat grains and plants. The people I know who follow that advice are the sickest people I know. It's just another semi-scientific rah-rah-for-paleo piece.

It goes on to say that HG societies today are unhealthy compared to AG society because they live on such marginal land. That's funny stuff.

"Hunter-gatherers enjoy long, healthy lives." Certainly no bias in that title. AG societies are called WEIRD. No bias certainly. Did Trump's physician write the article maybe?

If agriculture had such a "catastrophic" effect on human health, why did it ever replace the golden age of HG? That never gets explained or addressed.

Since the Agricultural Revolution, however, elites have generally enjoyed far greater health and longevity than the majority of the population. In the modern world, these divisions have become, at least in part, geographical. The world’s elites no longer exist as a globally-distributed upper class, but now exist primarily in WEIRD countries like those in North America and western Europe. While the past century has afforded the inhabitants of these countries lives as long and (almost) as healthy as their hunter-gatherer ancestors, most people do not live in WEIRD countries. For the rest of the world, the catastrophic impact of the Agricultural Revolution on health and longevity remains an every-day reality. When we say that modern populations have regained much of what we lost in the Agricultural Revolution, we must note that we mean only the global elite, leaving out most of the human race.

Is the writer a moron?

 

[Copernicus]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

If you are criticizing anyone else here for daring to disagree with the article on the basis of whether they have read all (or any) of the cited references for the internet blog post, then it is reasonable to ask whether you yourself have read any of them. If you have, then please explain how those references address the criticisms.

Personally, I can only say that I read the article cited in the OP and found it similarly unconvincing. I don't care much about the "noble savage" white supremacist fantasies of 18th and 19th century romanticists, nor do I think that they have much relevance to the topic at hand. The author does not address the lack of empirical evidence that concerned me, so, unless you have something more substantive to criticize, I think that my concern is valid.

 

[DBT]

The current state of China's food production;

''But the breakneck pace of the country’s development brought some nasty side effects. Tracts of prime land were swallowed by factories. Fields were polluted by waste, or by farmers soaking the soil in chemicals. The country became a byword for tainted food, from mercury-laced rice to melamine-infused milk powder.

So how can China produce enough safe food for its growing population if they all start eating like Americans?

The simple answer is it can’t.

It takes about 1 acre (half a hectare) to feed the average U.S. consumer. China only has about 0.2 acres of arable land per citizen, including fields degraded by pollution.

So China’s Communist government has increasingly shifted its focus to reforming agriculture, and its approach divides into four parts: market controls; improving farm efficiency; curbing land loss; and imports.''


"China needs to import as it is unable to produce everything from its limited farmland,” said Li Xiande, a researcher with the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, who said the country bought 106 million tons of cereals and soybeans abroad in 2016. “The country aims at self-sufficiency in staple grains and all other imports would be based on market demand.”

But China will face increasing competition from a population explosion across dozens of countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

''By 2050, 14 of the world’s 20 biggest metropolises will be in Asia and Africa, with Jakarta, Manila, Karachi, Kinshasa and Lagos joining Tokyo, Shanghai and Mumbai, according to a projection by Demographia.

By then, the planet could have as many as 9.7 billion mouths to feed, according to a United Nations report. Factor in changing diets and we will need to raise global food output by 70 percent from 2009 levels, according to an FAO estimate.

The world got a taste of what might be to come a decade ago, when smaller harvests and a rapid adoption of biofuels led to a global food shock, with riots over price increases in some developing nations.''

 

[Politesse]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

If you are criticizing anyone else here for daring to disagree with the article on the basis of whether they have read all (or any) of the cited references for the internet blog post, then it is reasonable to ask whether you yourself have read any of them. If you have, then please explain how those references address the criticisms.

Personally, I can only say that I read the article cited in the OP and found it similarly unconvincing. I don't care much about the "noble savage" white supremacist fantasies of 18th and 19th century romanticists, nor do I think that they have much relevance to the topic at hand. The author does not address the lack of empirical evidence that concerned me, so, unless you have something more substantive to criticize, I think that my concern is valid.

What are you talking about? The article doesn't mention race at all, and the time period it discusses predates European involvement in the Americas by more than a millenium. How long does it take to read an abstract or two?

I'm not criticizing people for "daring to disagree" (as though that took much courage) with an article, I'm just pointing out that you are demanding something that has already been provided. Seems a tad pointless to me. I'm not going to summarize what was already summarized down to the most layman's terms imaginable. You have a college education. You are clearly fluent in English.

 

[Politesse]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

I didn't read any of the bibliographical references but the article itself reminded me of those arguments where people claim aliens build ancient structures. It's crap. The article seems to be saying don't eat grains and plants. The people I know who follow that advice are the sickest people I know. It's just another semi-scientific rah-rah-for-paleo piece.

It goes on to say that HG societies today are unhealthy compared to AG society because they live on such marginal land. That's funny stuff.

"Hunter-gatherers enjoy long, healthy lives." Certainly no bias in that title. AG societies are called WEIRD. No bias certainly. Did Trump's physician write the article maybe?

If agriculture had such a "catastrophic" effect on human health, why did it ever replace the golden age of HG? That never gets explained or addressed.

Since the Agricultural Revolution, however, elites have generally enjoyed far greater health and longevity than the majority of the population. In the modern world, these divisions have become, at least in part, geographical. The world’s elites no longer exist as a globally-distributed upper class, but now exist primarily in WEIRD countries like those in North America and western Europe. While the past century has afforded the inhabitants of these countries lives as long and (almost) as healthy as their hunter-gatherer ancestors, most people do not live in WEIRD countries. For the rest of the world, the catastrophic impact of the Agricultural Revolution on health and longevity remains an every-day reality. When we say that modern populations have regained much of what we lost in the Agricultural Revolution, we must note that we mean only the global elite, leaving out most of the human race.

Is the writer a moron?

Well, at least you're honest.

 

[bilby]

The current state of China's food production;

''But the breakneck pace of the country’s development brought some nasty side effects. Tracts of prime land were swallowed by factories. Fields were polluted by waste, or by farmers soaking the soil in chemicals. The country became a byword for tainted food, from mercury-laced rice to melamine-infused milk powder.

So how can China produce enough safe food for its growing population if they all start eating like Americans?

The simple answer is it can’t.

It takes about 1 acre (half a hectare) to feed the average U.S. consumer. China only has about 0.2 acres of arable land per citizen, including fields degraded by pollution.

So China’s Communist government has increasingly shifted its focus to reforming agriculture, and its approach divides into four parts: market controls; improving farm efficiency; curbing land loss; and imports.''


"China needs to import as it is unable to produce everything from its limited farmland,” said Li Xiande, a researcher with the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, who said the country bought 106 million tons of cereals and soybeans abroad in 2016. “The country aims at self-sufficiency in staple grains and all other imports would be based on market demand.”

But China will face increasing competition from a population explosion across dozens of countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

''By 2050, 14 of the world’s 20 biggest metropolises will be in Asia and Africa, with Jakarta, Manila, Karachi, Kinshasa and Lagos joining Tokyo, Shanghai and Mumbai, according to a projection by Demographia.

By then, the planet could have as many as 9.7 billion mouths to feed, according to a United Nations report. Factor in changing diets and we will need to raise global food output by 70 percent from 2009 levels, according to an FAO estimate.

The world got a taste of what might be to come a decade ago, when smaller harvests and a rapid adoption of biofuels led to a global food shock, with riots over price increases in some developing nations.''

The world already produces enough food for more than 9.7 billion people.

Famine, common in the 20th century, has disappeared in the 21st.

China cannot feed its population without imports, true enough. But then, nor can Manhattan Island, but nobody is expecting famine to strike New York City.

Fear is entertaining, but it's not a sound basis for predictions of the future.

 

[DBT]

The current state of China's food production;

''But the breakneck pace of the country’s development brought some nasty side effects. Tracts of prime land were swallowed by factories. Fields were polluted by waste, or by farmers soaking the soil in chemicals. The country became a byword for tainted food, from mercury-laced rice to melamine-infused milk powder.

So how can China produce enough safe food for its growing population if they all start eating like Americans?

The simple answer is it can’t.

It takes about 1 acre (half a hectare) to feed the average U.S. consumer. China only has about 0.2 acres of arable land per citizen, including fields degraded by pollution.

So China’s Communist government has increasingly shifted its focus to reforming agriculture, and its approach divides into four parts: market controls; improving farm efficiency; curbing land loss; and imports.''


"China needs to import as it is unable to produce everything from its limited farmland,” said Li Xiande, a researcher with the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, who said the country bought 106 million tons of cereals and soybeans abroad in 2016. “The country aims at self-sufficiency in staple grains and all other imports would be based on market demand.”

But China will face increasing competition from a population explosion across dozens of countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

''By 2050, 14 of the world’s 20 biggest metropolises will be in Asia and Africa, with Jakarta, Manila, Karachi, Kinshasa and Lagos joining Tokyo, Shanghai and Mumbai, according to a projection by Demographia.

By then, the planet could have as many as 9.7 billion mouths to feed, according to a United Nations report. Factor in changing diets and we will need to raise global food output by 70 percent from 2009 levels, according to an FAO estimate.

The world got a taste of what might be to come a decade ago, when smaller harvests and a rapid adoption of biofuels led to a global food shock, with riots over price increases in some developing nations.''

The world already produces enough food for more than 9.7 billion people.

Famine, common in the 20th century, has disappeared in the 21st.

China cannot feed its population without imports, true enough. But then, nor can Manhattan Island, but nobody is expecting famine to strike New York City.

Fear is entertaining, but it's not a sound basis for predictions of the future.

I had no thought of causing fear, anxiety or anything else. The article I posted simply gives a summary/ outline of the current situation in China, that's all.

If it causes some readers to fear for the future, that is something that these readers should address.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hunter-gatherers certainly eat cereal grains from time to time, but it never formed a staple for them as it does for agriculturalists.

What were those paleo-golden-age, super-healthy HGers doing eating grains? Didn't they know that grains were bad and would negatively affect their health and the health of their offspring for untold generations? Didn't that become obvious once their teeth started falling out and their children were stunted? Why did they commit this original sin and continue for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years? The horror.

But it's good knowing we could all be super healthy if we just went back to eating antelopes and wild berries.

 

[SLD]

I'm confused as to why people keep criticizing the lack of empirical evidence in the OP, the article it links to clearly cites its sources. Did you not read any of them before posting?

I didn't read any of the bibliographical references but the article itself reminded me of those arguments where people claim aliens build ancient structures. It's crap. The article seems to be saying don't eat grains and plants. The people I know who follow that advice are the sickest people I know. It's just another semi-scientific rah-rah-for-paleo piece.

It goes on to say that HG societies today are unhealthy compared to AG society because they live on such marginal land. That's funny stuff.

"Hunter-gatherers enjoy long, healthy lives." Certainly no bias in that title. AG societies are called WEIRD. No bias certainly. Did Trump's physician write the article maybe?

If agriculture had such a "catastrophic" effect on human health, why did it ever replace the golden age of HG? That never gets explained or addressed.

Since the Agricultural Revolution, however, elites have generally enjoyed far greater health and longevity than the majority of the population. In the modern world, these divisions have become, at least in part, geographical. The world’s elites no longer exist as a globally-distributed upper class, but now exist primarily in WEIRD countries like those in North America and western Europe. While the past century has afforded the inhabitants of these countries lives as long and (almost) as healthy as their hunter-gatherer ancestors, most people do not live in WEIRD countries. For the rest of the world, the catastrophic impact of the Agricultural Revolution on health and longevity remains an every-day reality. When we say that modern populations have regained much of what we lost in the Agricultural Revolution, we must note that we mean only the global elite, leaving out most of the human race.

Is the writer a moron?

In answer to your first question, Harari discusses this at length in his book. Basically once we started going down this path there was no turning back.

What’s specifically wrong with the quoted passage? Elites have indeed enjoyed better health and longevity than others. And indeed those in Western countries have enjoyed better health than those in the third world.

SLD

 

[Politesse]

Hunter-gatherers certainly eat cereal grains from time to time, but it never formed a staple for them as it does for agriculturalists.

What were those paleo-golden-age, super-healthy HGers doing eating grains? Didn't they know that grains were bad and would negatively affect their health and the health of their offspring for untold generations? Didn't that become obvious once their teeth started falling out and their children were stunted? Why did they commit this original sin and continue for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years? The horror.

But it's good knowing we could all be super healthy if we just went back to eating antelopes and wild berries.

Your feelings about contemporary dieting have nothing to do with what the archaeological record demonstrates. Neither are the feelings of our forebears easily available to us, though many explanations have been advanced as to the virtues of agriculture, many in this very thread. All of this can still be true, and the health consequences of agriculture also true, at the same time. We have many, many times in human history traded a con for a pro. Indeed, there is no technology, however wonderful, that comes without any cost at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In answer to your first question, Harari discusses this at length in his book. Basically once we started going down this path there was no turning back.

Even though our growth was stunted, we were malnourished, our teeth were full of decay, etc? The healthy HGers couldn't not compete with these sickly AGers? They could not just eat their farm animals and continue to be dominant? Couldn't they use their grains to feed their animals and just eat the animals? Why were they eating their grains and becoming sick? Why could they not turn back? Were all the animals dead? Had they destroyed the habitat the grazers needed?

I know I'm being snarky, but what is Harari's explanation for why we could not turn back? Could you give me the gist of his argument?

Hunter-gatherers certainly eat cereal grains from time to time, but it never formed a staple for them as it does for agriculturalists.

What were those paleo-golden-age, super-healthy HGers doing eating grains? Didn't they know that grains were bad and would negatively affect their health and the health of their offspring for untold generations? Didn't that become obvious once their teeth started falling out and their children were stunted? Why did they commit this original sin and continue for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years? The horror.

But it's good knowing we could all be super healthy if we just went back to eating antelopes and wild berries.

Your feelings about contemporary dieting have nothing to do with what the archaeological record demonstrates. Neither are the feelings of our forebears easily available to us, though many explanations have been advanced as to the virtues of agriculture, many in this very thread. All of this can still be true, and the health consequences of agriculture also true, at the same time. We have many, many times in human history traded a con for a pro. Indeed, there is no technology, however wonderful, that comes without any cost at all.

Is Harari's argument as balanced? Are we out of choices today? Were our ancestors forced to adopt an agrarian lifestyle or was it a choice they made like paleo nuts wish us to believe? If it was a choice why did they make it? If it wasn't a choice what is the argument again?

 

[steve_bank]

Books, books, and more books but no actions. Books on environmental issues tend to be preaching to the choir.

The vast majority of people appear unable to even frame a problem. Including Congress.

 

[Politesse]

Even though our growth was stunted, we were malnourished, our teeth were full of decay, etc? The healthy HGers couldn't not compete with these sickly AGers? They could not just eat their farm animals and continue to be dominant? Couldn't they use their grains to feed their animals and just eat the animals? Why were they eating their grains and becoming sick? Why could they not turn back? Were all the animals dead? Had they destroyed the habitat the grazers needed?

I know I'm being snarky, but what is Harari's explanation for why we could not turn back? Could you give me the gist of his argument?

Hunter-gatherers certainly eat cereal grains from time to time, but it never formed a staple for them as it does for agriculturalists.

What were those paleo-golden-age, super-healthy HGers doing eating grains? Didn't they know that grains were bad and would negatively affect their health and the health of their offspring for untold generations? Didn't that become obvious once their teeth started falling out and their children were stunted? Why did they commit this original sin and continue for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years? The horror.

But it's good knowing we could all be super healthy if we just went back to eating antelopes and wild berries.

Your feelings about contemporary dieting have nothing to do with what the archaeological record demonstrates. Neither are the feelings of our forebears easily available to us, though many explanations have been advanced as to the virtues of agriculture, many in this very thread. All of this can still be true, and the health consequences of agriculture also true, at the same time. We have many, many times in human history traded a con for a pro. Indeed, there is no technology, however wonderful, that comes without any cost at all.

Is Harari's argument as balanced? Are we out of choices today? Were our ancestors forced to adopt an agrarian lifestyle or was it a choice they made like paleo nuts wish us to believe? If it was a choice why did they make it? If it wasn't a choice what is the argument again?

I have yet to see a balanced perspective on this thread. I'm also not keen on speculation when it comes to the abstract emotions of ancient populations, which are not easy to deduce from things like osteo data and pollen floats, our primary means of learning anything about these epochs.

Was it a choice? Everything humans do is a choice. Whether a choice was "right" is s subjective question and partially depends on your goals. Agriculture does constitute a choice that is difficult to reverse at a certain point, both because it requires a dense population tl be efficient and because its time expenditure negates the possibility of also participating in prime foraging episodes in the same year. But it has occasionally happened. There are at least three areas where intense agriculture gave way to foraging-dominant economies during a relatively short amount of time: the Mayan lowlands around the 9th c., the US southwest after 1250 ce, and the Amazon basin over several recent centuries at different times.

 

[fromderinside]

I may well happen that humans will go extinct from changes due to the invention of agriculture and consumption of grains. After it took place 11 to 13 thousand years ago human became more location centered, smaller, shorter, and began to lose to those who ate more protein. The latest episode of such happening was by the Mongols who developed the capacity to digest milk. They became more mobile due to the lowering of weight carried to keep people fed by using a more portable product. Protein keeps us running longer than does grain.

On the other hand there seems to be several drawbacks to milk digestion and related which may shorten our existence even more than will the stationary tendencies fostered by farm, now city, life.

I believe it can be said that humans survived the great collapse about seventy thousand years ago by adapting to the use of mussels and shell fish for sustenance when land protein became really scarce.

The question arises whether the impetus for humans to migrate will be lost in our current multiple food stuff societies. There are some indicators that this may be so. Or it may just be that the natural rate of explorer production has always been low even when we were hunter gatherers. We living have such a small sample of historical conditions that it will probably be fruitless for us to discern what existing drivers lead to continued survival.

 

[steve_bank]

Balance? The positives are obvious and do not need to be listed.

It is the negatives of most any aspect of mass production that society as a whole has trouble comprehending.

It is not just today, although today the scale is planetary. Species hinted to extinction, over fifing, exhaustion of trees and other resources leading to collapse.

North America timber was a god send for the British. Vast forest of the upper mid west was denuded. Here in the noethwest there is virtually no old growth trees.