3 ms·

Violent death was common, sure, but not necessarily more so in pre-agricultural times. See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari). Agricultural rev

Violent death was common, sure, but not necessarily more so in pre-agricultural times. See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari). Agricultural revolution led to lower standard of living, increased risk of starvation (feast-or-famine dependence on fragile harvest), increased health issues (less-varied diet, also disease rampant in denser populations), and whereas in the presence of potentially hostile competition nomadic hunter-gatherers could choose to move, farmers would logically choose to stay and fight rather than leave the farm and almost certainly die. The agricultural revolution was a pretty bad deal for most people for most of the time since it began.

chrisco255 7y ago
The farmers won. Why would they choose to farm if there were no advantages? What happened was that farming was so successful that the human population boomed. When famine did occur, it caused more deaths because there were more humans.
- legulere 7y ago
  Farming societies are more hierarchical and have more people. For the ones in charge that is for sure advantageous. Also it’s a bit of a trap: as soon as you switch over you cannot go back, as foraging cannot sustain as many people. You will have to constantly expand to feed the growing population.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> whereas in the presence of potentially hostile competition nomadic hunter-gatherers could choose to move, farmers would logically choose to stay and fight rather than leave the farm and almost certainly die You might think this, but the historical pattern -- everywhere -- is that farmers stay where they are and get conquered by more mobile non-farmers. They don't so much fight as submit.
littlestymaar 7y ago
> See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari). This part of Harari's book have been debunked quite a few times already: his views of pre-agricultural are romanticized and doesn't match with the work of the specialists of this period. (While Harari is indeed an historian, he's a specialist of medieval times and has little authority on early-humans history). Btw, I'm not even disagreing with you about agriculture, I just wanted to point out that quoting Harari on that has really little value.
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  Thanks, @littlestymar. To me, Harari's take seems more neutral than "romanticized". I share his skepticism of those who claim concrete knowledge of aspects of pre-literate human culture at which, logically, one can only guess or imagine. This might counter your point about his relative expertise / authority for that time period. That said, I'm no historian, just a layperson who found Harari's work (so far -- I haven't yet finished "Sapiens") thought-provoking and interesting. In the relevant early chapters his perspective is refreshingly different from the norm -- in some ways comparable (for me) to Zinn's "A People's History of the US", in that it provides a PoV sufficiently removed from the standard narrative to serve as a reminder of how shallow and incomplete any one-sided version of events must be. The GP's citing of Pinker likely belongs in this camp, too: referencing an author whose ideas have merit (eg Pinker's computational theory in "How the Mind Works"), independent of their ultimate status as authoritative works.

chrisco255 7y ago

The farmers won. Why would they choose to farm if there were no advantages? What happened was that farming was so successful that the human population boomed. When famine did occur, it caused more deaths because there were more humans.

legulere 7y ago
Farming societies are more hierarchical and have more people. For the ones in charge that is for sure advantageous. Also it’s a bit of a trap: as soon as you switch over you cannot go back, as foraging cannot sustain as many people. You will have to constantly expand to feed the growing population.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> whereas in the presence of potentially hostile competition nomadic hunter-gatherers could choose to move, farmers would logically choose to stay and fight rather than leave the farm and almost certainly die You might think this, but the historical pattern -- everywhere -- is that farmers stay where they are and get conquered by more mobile non-farmers. They don't so much fight as submit.

littlestymaar 7y ago

> See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari). This part of Harari's book have been debunked quite a few times already: his views of pre-agricultural are romanticized and doesn't match with the work of the specialists of this period. (While Harari is indeed an historian, he's a specialist of medieval times and has little authority on early-humans history). Btw, I'm not even disagreing with you about agriculture, I just wanted to point out that quoting Harari on that has really little value.

chrisweekly 7y ago
Thanks, @littlestymar. To me, Harari's take seems more neutral than "romanticized". I share his skepticism of those who claim concrete knowledge of aspects of pre-literate human culture at which, logically, one can only guess or imagine. This might counter your point about his relative expertise / authority for that time period. That said, I'm no historian, just a layperson who found Harari's work (so far -- I haven't yet finished "Sapiens") thought-provoking and interesting. In the relevant early chapters his perspective is refreshingly different from the norm -- in some ways comparable (for me) to Zinn's "A People's History of the US", in that it provides a PoV sufficiently removed from the standard narrative to serve as a reminder of how shallow and incomplete any one-sided version of events must be. The GP's citing of Pinker likely belongs in this camp, too: referencing an author whose ideas have merit (eg Pinker's computational theory in "How the Mind Works"), independent of their ultimate status as authoritative works.