3 ms·

This brings to mind the hypothesis that humans during the hunter-gatherer phase were better off health-wise without the adoption of agriculture.

ekianjo 6y ago
Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable.
- lovecg 6y ago
  I don’t buy this. It’s not like humans had a species-wide conference and decided to adopt agriculture. It must have taken lots of tiny steps, each one somehow beneficial to the individuals taking them. The end result is not a guarantee either — we only think it was beneficial to the species because it survived. There could have been other “good ideas” in the area of food production that lasted for a hundred or a thousand years and then got wiped out in a single unfortunate event.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    You dont need to buy it. Humans who relied on agriculture thrived in numbers or at least survives compared to the ones who relied on other means.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Your first comment made sense but this one just sounds like you’re making stuff up. Did you read the hypothesis? It’s been around since the 80s. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...
- unishark 6y ago
  > Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable. Sounds like it would be a trade-off then, not a clear favorite, depending on what you're optimizing for. Especially when we can afford to focus on maintaining health at an individual level too.

3 ms·

This brings to mind the hypothesis that humans during the hunter-gatherer phase were better off health-wise without the adoption of agriculture.

by daniel957 6y ago

ekianjo 6y ago
Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable.
- lovecg 6y ago
  I don’t buy this. It’s not like humans had a species-wide conference and decided to adopt agriculture. It must have taken lots of tiny steps, each one somehow beneficial to the individuals taking them. The end result is not a guarantee either — we only think it was beneficial to the species because it survived. There could have been other “good ideas” in the area of food production that lasted for a hundred or a thousand years and then got wiped out in a single unfortunate event.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    You dont need to buy it. Humans who relied on agriculture thrived in numbers or at least survives compared to the ones who relied on other means.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Your first comment made sense but this one just sounds like you’re making stuff up. Did you read the hypothesis? It’s been around since the 80s. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...
- unishark 6y ago
  > Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable. Sounds like it would be a trade-off then, not a clear favorite, depending on what you're optimizing for. Especially when we can afford to focus on maintaining health at an individual level too.