3 ms·

> the harsh truth of human existence being that if it was rich enough for agriculture, or good for pastoralism, those lifestyles would have won out. I don't bu

> the harsh truth of human existence being that if it was rich enough for agriculture, or good for pastoralism, those lifestyles would have won out. I don't buy this explanation at all. You could say the exact opposite: their land provides so well that they don't need to. I'm find with not knowing which, that's up to scientists who actually study that; not something that can be deduced a priori.

jbotz 4y ago
I think you're missing the point... agriculture allows for greater population density and specialization, which makes armies possible (not to mention technology leading to superior armaments), which in turn means that when the two enter into conflict, the militarized agricultural society wins. It's not a value judgement about which lifestyle is better, but if hunter-gatherers live on land that's good for agriculture, then eventually an agricultural society will want that land, and the rest is history. This old story is still playing out today, with the very few hunter-gatherers remaining being wiped out as we speak.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I think you're missing the point... the only reason you'd need any of that is if it were useful to you. If your environment provides everything you need, then it isn't. Everything you describe needs to be driven by needs. If those needs don't exist because all wants are satisfied in such a society, then there's no push or pull to do all of that. I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that they're missing out on something, but this is exactly what I'm challenging. If you wanted to convince me, you'd have to establish without a doubt that they do have the shit land and that they live in poverty and don't get what they need and are completely marginalized; however, that's far from what I've seen in documentations about them (ignoring notable exceptions.)

jbotz 4y ago

I think you're missing the point... agriculture allows for greater population density and specialization, which makes armies possible (not to mention technology leading to superior armaments), which in turn means that when the two enter into conflict, the militarized agricultural society wins. It's not a value judgement about which lifestyle is better, but if hunter-gatherers live on land that's good for agriculture, then eventually an agricultural society will want that land, and the rest is history. This old story is still playing out today, with the very few hunter-gatherers remaining being wiped out as we speak.

guerrilla 4y ago
I think you're missing the point... the only reason you'd need any of that is if it were useful to you. If your environment provides everything you need, then it isn't. Everything you describe needs to be driven by needs. If those needs don't exist because all wants are satisfied in such a society, then there's no push or pull to do all of that. I think you're basing your comment on the assumption that they're missing out on something, but this is exactly what I'm challenging. If you wanted to convince me, you'd have to establish without a doubt that they do have the shit land and that they live in poverty and don't get what they need and are completely marginalized; however, that's far from what I've seen in documentations about them (ignoring notable exceptions.)