4 ms·

Actually, diseases are largely a result of agriculture. Hunter-gatherers were much healthier (and about 6 inches taller) than their farmer successors.

dejb 16y ago
> Hunter-gatherers were much healthier But probably not smarter in the way we think of intelligence. They didn't develop civilisation, agriculturalists did.
- rubashov 16y ago
  > They didn't develop civilisation They didn't make very many durable stone structures. That's about all we know. The complexity and quality of their societies may have generally exceeded ours. We do know they had transcontinental trading routes and fairly advanced astronomy, in Europe at least.
- dmm 16y ago
  So your hypothesis is that what differentiates agriculturists and hunter-gatherers is intelligence? That's an extremely strong statement. Do you have any proof of significant differences in human intelligence amongst populations? Basically I'm saying you're full of shit. You should read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". It was written by someone who took the time to research the issue and develop some convincing arguments.
  - TheSOB88 16y ago
    How about share some of the more convincing of those arguments?
    - dmm 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error "In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors." Look for it and you see it everywhere.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- protomyth 16y ago
  Can you explain how the Mongols fit with this statement?
- chunkbot 16y ago
  That's a convincing argument that higher population density improves collective intelligence, but says less about the individual.
m_eiman 16y ago
I'd guess that the higher population density in a farming civilization is more to blame for diseases than the food they're eating.
- chunkbot 16y ago
  I believe the close proximity of animals and people (for the first time in history) is what was responsible for the new diseases. Of course, the higher human population density means increased likelihood of contagion.
  - kragen 16y ago
    For most domestic animals, that is a possibility, but not for dogs. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Origin_of_the... "Archaeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 30,000 BC, and with certainty at 7,000 BC....Perhaps the earliest clear evidence for this domestication is the first dog found buried together with human [sic] from 12,000 years ago in Israel." And dogs came with many groups of hunter-gatherers in their intercontinental migrations.
- scott_s 16y ago
  There's also the transfer of diseases from some of the animals we depend on.

dejb 16y ago

> Hunter-gatherers were much healthier But probably not smarter in the way we think of intelligence. They didn't develop civilisation, agriculturalists did.

rubashov 16y ago
> They didn't develop civilisation They didn't make very many durable stone structures. That's about all we know. The complexity and quality of their societies may have generally exceeded ours. We do know they had transcontinental trading routes and fairly advanced astronomy, in Europe at least.
dmm 16y ago
So your hypothesis is that what differentiates agriculturists and hunter-gatherers is intelligence? That's an extremely strong statement. Do you have any proof of significant differences in human intelligence amongst populations? Basically I'm saying you're full of shit. You should read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". It was written by someone who took the time to research the issue and develop some convincing arguments.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  How about share some of the more convincing of those arguments?
  - dmm 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error "In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors." Look for it and you see it everywhere.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
protomyth 16y ago
Can you explain how the Mongols fit with this statement?
chunkbot 16y ago
That's a convincing argument that higher population density improves collective intelligence, but says less about the individual.

m_eiman 16y ago

I'd guess that the higher population density in a farming civilization is more to blame for diseases than the food they're eating.

chunkbot 16y ago
I believe the close proximity of animals and people (for the first time in history) is what was responsible for the new diseases. Of course, the higher human population density means increased likelihood of contagion.
- kragen 16y ago
  For most domestic animals, that is a possibility, but not for dogs. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Origin_of_the... "Archaeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 30,000 BC, and with certainty at 7,000 BC....Perhaps the earliest clear evidence for this domestication is the first dog found buried together with human [sic] from 12,000 years ago in Israel." And dogs came with many groups of hunter-gatherers in their intercontinental migrations.
scott_s 16y ago
There's also the transfer of diseases from some of the animals we depend on.