3 ms·

But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big. And you probably already grow more tha

by dTal 5y ago

But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big. And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus. :) > And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years. That surplus can only be either a reserve for hard times or currency for trade, but not both. If you want currency you have to have a surplus on top of your reserve. > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around. "Subsistence" is kind of a confusing term because we use it in cases like feudal Europe where most people were subsisting because their surplus was being taken by their Lords. If you aren't generating a surplus at all, then you presumably don't get an agrarian economy (but you can still trade other things, like local minerals).
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  >> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big > I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus. There are different ways for something to be a reality of life. Starvation was a risk throughout history in a way that it isn't today. But it wasn't something that happened to people under normal circumstances. The historical norm involves paying a large portion of your crop as taxes. Starvation tends to happen to many people at once, due to bad weather or other inclement circumstances. > If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years. You do. You always grow enough to have a surplus. But you can't just sit on it indefinitely or it will rot. So you personally store enough for winter, part of your in-kind taxes go to fill public granaries (which need to be continually refreshed), and otherwise you attempt to dispose of any remaining surplus as you can, often by giving it away.
tablespoon 5y ago
> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big. You're forgetting that people like to have kids, and those kids like to eat, too. > And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. IIRC, this problem was usually solved by having good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year. There's whole host of reasons why individualist solutions probably didn't work: e.g. storing surplus food for long periods using pre-modern technology is not as easy as it may seem. > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around. But not necessarily a market economy.
- dTal 5y ago
  >good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year Yes! that's exactly the point. That's an economy. You share your food with your neighbors when their harvest is bad, and vice versa. You also swap foods when you get bored. And the more people in your food-ring, the better it works, but also the more complex it becomes to keep track of, and eventually someone gets the bright idea to start writing it down, or swapping tokens...
Ekaros 5y ago
My understanding is that most of the history there really wasn't whole lot more to grow. At least on marginal effort. Most of the history it was pretty tough and slim margins, at least outside certain areas.
analog31 5y ago
We were taught in first grade (just to give credit where due) that a big enough food surplus allowed for specialization of labor. So it might not have stimulated trade directly, but enabled people to work on things that could be traded, such as artisan goods, smelted metals, and so forth.

by dTal 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus. :) > And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years. That surplus can only be either a reserve for hard times or currency for trade, but not both. If you want currency you have to have a surplus on top of your reserve. > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around. "Subsistence" is kind of a confusing term because we use it in cases like feudal Europe where most people were subsisting because their surplus was being taken by their Lords. If you aren't generating a surplus at all, then you presumably don't get an agrarian economy (but you can still trade other things, like local minerals).

thaumasiotes 5y ago
>> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big > I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus. There are different ways for something to be a reality of life. Starvation was a risk throughout history in a way that it isn't today. But it wasn't something that happened to people under normal circumstances. The historical norm involves paying a large portion of your crop as taxes. Starvation tends to happen to many people at once, due to bad weather or other inclement circumstances. > If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years. You do. You always grow enough to have a surplus. But you can't just sit on it indefinitely or it will rot. So you personally store enough for winter, part of your in-kind taxes go to fill public granaries (which need to be continually refreshed), and otherwise you attempt to dispose of any remaining surplus as you can, often by giving it away.

tablespoon 5y ago

> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big. You're forgetting that people like to have kids, and those kids like to eat, too. > And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. IIRC, this problem was usually solved by having good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year. There's whole host of reasons why individualist solutions probably didn't work: e.g. storing surplus food for long periods using pre-modern technology is not as easy as it may seem. > Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around. But not necessarily a market economy.

dTal 5y ago
>good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year Yes! that's exactly the point. That's an economy. You share your food with your neighbors when their harvest is bad, and vice versa. You also swap foods when you get bored. And the more people in your food-ring, the better it works, but also the more complex it becomes to keep track of, and eventually someone gets the bright idea to start writing it down, or swapping tokens...

Ekaros 5y ago

My understanding is that most of the history there really wasn't whole lot more to grow. At least on marginal effort. Most of the history it was pretty tough and slim margins, at least outside certain areas.

analog31 5y ago

We were taught in first grade (just to give credit where due) that a big enough food surplus allowed for specialization of labor. So it might not have stimulated trade directly, but enabled people to work on things that could be traded, such as artisan goods, smelted metals, and so forth.