5 ms·

Thinking the same, for travel and all. After 30+ years of my humble existence in this universe, these are the times I want so badly to see a glimpse of the futu

Thinking the same, for travel and all. After 30+ years of my humble existence in this universe, these are the times I want so badly to see a glimpse of the future, a scene from 10.000 years later. SO, SO curious. Thinking is leading me to nowhere with my limited capacity, dreaming with mostly unrelated fantasies and visions. A real one would be nice, even from the exact location I'm sitting now, the street, the sea nearby, everything around, how they evolved. Mind-blowing universe, amazing planet, very little time sadly.

jdmoreira 6y ago
10.000 years is a lot. In the past that’s roughly when agriculture was invented. In the future chances are humans will be either extinct or living in very though conditions. The future is not necessarily always better. It certainly wasn’t for the grandsons of hunter-gatherers that became farmers
- adrianN 6y ago
  If it wasn't better for the farmers, how come farmers outcompeted hunter-gatherers and pastoralists almost everywhere?
  - jdmoreira 6y ago
    Farming allowed populations to grow but individuals were much more susceptible to abuse, violence, exploitation, disease and a life of chronic back pain
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The argument that hunter-gathering is superior to farming is based on some quality-of-life comparisons, most notably the fact that modern hunter-gatherers spend a surprisingly little amount of their time actually acquiring food (something like 2-3 hours a day). Most anthropologists are extremely skeptical of comparing modern hunter-gatherers with Paleolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, particularly the ones that would develop into agricultural societies. The main reason that farmers outcompete hunter-gatherers is that agriculture allows building larger societies than hunter-gathering can, and this extra population gives a decisive advantage in being able to prosecute wars for as long as is necessary to exterminate hunter-gatherers.
    - pharke 6y ago
      > the fact that modern hunter-gatherers spend a surprisingly little amount of their time actually acquiring food (something like 2-3 hours a day) Thinking about this a bit deeper, this is only true if you have a small population with relatively plentiful resources. Hunter gatherers quickly bump into the limits of their environment if their population increases. The idealization of their lifestyle is misguided because it would necessitate drastic reduction of population levels to reach that balance. The goal should be to increase the abundance of resources in our modern environment so that we reach the same ratio of resources to population, which hopefully would mean a consequent reduction in the amount of effort we have to expend to obtain those resources.

jdmoreira 6y ago

10.000 years is a lot. In the past that’s roughly when agriculture was invented. In the future chances are humans will be either extinct or living in very though conditions. The future is not necessarily always better. It certainly wasn’t for the grandsons of hunter-gatherers that became farmers

adrianN 6y ago
If it wasn't better for the farmers, how come farmers outcompeted hunter-gatherers and pastoralists almost everywhere?
- jdmoreira 6y ago
  Farming allowed populations to grow but individuals were much more susceptible to abuse, violence, exploitation, disease and a life of chronic back pain
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The argument that hunter-gathering is superior to farming is based on some quality-of-life comparisons, most notably the fact that modern hunter-gatherers spend a surprisingly little amount of their time actually acquiring food (something like 2-3 hours a day). Most anthropologists are extremely skeptical of comparing modern hunter-gatherers with Paleolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, particularly the ones that would develop into agricultural societies. The main reason that farmers outcompete hunter-gatherers is that agriculture allows building larger societies than hunter-gathering can, and this extra population gives a decisive advantage in being able to prosecute wars for as long as is necessary to exterminate hunter-gatherers.
  - pharke 6y ago
    > the fact that modern hunter-gatherers spend a surprisingly little amount of their time actually acquiring food (something like 2-3 hours a day) Thinking about this a bit deeper, this is only true if you have a small population with relatively plentiful resources. Hunter gatherers quickly bump into the limits of their environment if their population increases. The idealization of their lifestyle is misguided because it would necessitate drastic reduction of population levels to reach that balance. The goal should be to increase the abundance of resources in our modern environment so that we reach the same ratio of resources to population, which hopefully would mean a consequent reduction in the amount of effort we have to expend to obtain those resources.