6 ms·

How does this apply to the article?

by soared 4y ago

retrac 4y ago
Unless I misread things, the article is about a hypothesis, that before the current era, many tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure. My own conjecture, is that the material/scientific/intellectual process that seems to have started around the time of agriculture, and which has been accelerating ever since until we're all sucked into this global mechanical survival process, is driven mostly by the number of people able to sit around and think about surviving in this runaway process (i.e. they face Malthusian pressure, they want and need more), and also their ease of communicating with each other. People pondering how to feed themselves more in large forums come up with ways to transform the world physically through their collective labour. Such a runaway process would not likely occur in a small stable population without the pressure to do so in the first place.
- abetusk 4y ago
  I think the next article by the author addresses this point directly and, as far as I can tell, comes to largely the same conclusion as you [0]. [0] https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/why-do-humans-ever-develop?sd=pf https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/why-do-humans-ever-devel...
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  The advantage off agriculture is not quite so clear. Early farming was barely more efficient, one farmer barely producing more than they themselves consumed. And the decrease in diversity of foodstuffs made them each individually less nourished compared to the variety of berries and nuts the foragers would eat. Hunter gatherer societies actually had lots of free time. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle. What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership.
  - dopidopHN 4y ago
    Exactly, agriculture was not a overnight “eureka” moment. It took actual milenaries to be implemented. And some societies decided to ditch agriculture or only use it partially.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      Fyi, the English word you're looking for here is millennia.
      - dopidopHN 4y ago
        Thanks!
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > Finding food wasn't a constant struggle. What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle but when it happened it was an extinction event. A farmer can rely on extra food created to sustain them in fallow years, and is much more stable than chasing deers around.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Famine hardly ended with the advent of agriculture.
      - t-3 4y ago
        If anything, farming made societies more susceptible to famine. Specialization of labor and dependence on a specific plot of land made it much harder to simply move somewhere else when food was scarce. Hunter-gatherers and herders were almost always nomadic and moved to wherever food was available.
      - Ygg2 4y ago
        Sure, but it isn't my claim. Agriculture and farming were more stable/predictable source of food and shelter. Especially during winter. Sure you can move, but nothing guarantees another tribe/predator isn't in the new place.
- lisper 4y ago
  > tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure. Yes, but you left out an important bit of context: "The obvious reason why the Yanomamö didn't reach a Malthusian condition was their high level of violence. The Yanomamö simply killed each other efficiently enough to keep populations down. In practice they ran into violent neighbors long before they ran out of land to farm och game to hunt. For security reasons they had to leave large swathes of land as buffers between villages. These buffer lands made excellent hunting and foraging grounds, which helped feed the population, but any tribe that settled these lands more permanently would most probably be raided and killed by neighboring villages." So "being free of food pressure" != "living in a utopian paradise".
  - Fricken 4y ago
    We've decided violence is only good when carried out by the state, but if you take a look around, it's quite popular. Our entertainments dwell on subjects of human violence, and many of our recreations are forms of simulated violence. It is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds.
    - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
      > [Violence] is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds. This might be a hyperactive, coked-up view of humanity. Ultimately, we're mammals. And, have you ever kept a mammal as a pet? Their favorite things are basically eating and finding cozy places to sleep, whether that's in a pool of sunlight or in someone's lap. Indeed, getting a good meal and a comfortable night's sleep are among my highest priorities. If I had to worry about jungle-tribes attacking me, I'd probably start walking until I'd crossed the Bering Strait -- or I'd build a raft and go set out for Austronesia. A sunny island and some coconut trees, that's all I need. A honey too? Sure, that'd be nice, but I'm not going to swing war-clubs around over it. I'd have to reach an extremely high level of annoyance before anything came to that. I'd much prefer to slowly carve giant stone heads.
      - 4y ago

How does this apply to the article?

by soared 4y ago

How does this apply to the article?

Unless I misread things, the article is about a hypothesis, that before the current era, many tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure. My own conjecture, is that the material/scientific/intellectual process that seems to have started around the time of agriculture, and which has been accelerating ever since until we're all sucked into this global mechanical survival process, is driven mostly by the number of people able to sit around and think about surviving in this runaway process (i.e. they face Malthusian pressure, they want and need more), and also their ease of communicating with each other. People pondering how to feed themselves more in large forums come up with ways to transform the world physically through their collective labour. Such a runaway process would not likely occur in a small stable population without the pressure to do so in the first place.

abetusk 4y ago
I think the next article by the author addresses this point directly and, as far as I can tell, comes to largely the same conclusion as you [0]. [0] https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/why-do-humans-ever-develop?sd=pf https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/why-do-humans-ever-devel...
IIAOPSW 4y ago
The advantage off agriculture is not quite so clear. Early farming was barely more efficient, one farmer barely producing more than they themselves consumed. And the decrease in diversity of foodstuffs made them each individually less nourished compared to the variety of berries and nuts the foragers would eat. Hunter gatherer societies actually had lots of free time. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle. What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Exactly, agriculture was not a overnight “eureka” moment. It took actual milenaries to be implemented. And some societies decided to ditch agriculture or only use it partially.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    Fyi, the English word you're looking for here is millennia.
    - dopidopHN 4y ago
      Thanks!
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > Finding food wasn't a constant struggle. What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle but when it happened it was an extinction event. A farmer can rely on extra food created to sustain them in fallow years, and is much more stable than chasing deers around.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Famine hardly ended with the advent of agriculture.
    - t-3 4y ago
      If anything, farming made societies more susceptible to famine. Specialization of labor and dependence on a specific plot of land made it much harder to simply move somewhere else when food was scarce. Hunter-gatherers and herders were almost always nomadic and moved to wherever food was available.
    - Ygg2 4y ago
      Sure, but it isn't my claim. Agriculture and farming were more stable/predictable source of food and shelter. Especially during winter. Sure you can move, but nothing guarantees another tribe/predator isn't in the new place.
lisper 4y ago
> tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure. Yes, but you left out an important bit of context: "The obvious reason why the Yanomamö didn't reach a Malthusian condition was their high level of violence. The Yanomamö simply killed each other efficiently enough to keep populations down. In practice they ran into violent neighbors long before they ran out of land to farm och game to hunt. For security reasons they had to leave large swathes of land as buffers between villages. These buffer lands made excellent hunting and foraging grounds, which helped feed the population, but any tribe that settled these lands more permanently would most probably be raided and killed by neighboring villages." So "being free of food pressure" != "living in a utopian paradise".
- Fricken 4y ago
  We've decided violence is only good when carried out by the state, but if you take a look around, it's quite popular. Our entertainments dwell on subjects of human violence, and many of our recreations are forms of simulated violence. It is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds.
  - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
    > [Violence] is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds. This might be a hyperactive, coked-up view of humanity. Ultimately, we're mammals. And, have you ever kept a mammal as a pet? Their favorite things are basically eating and finding cozy places to sleep, whether that's in a pool of sunlight or in someone's lap. Indeed, getting a good meal and a comfortable night's sleep are among my highest priorities. If I had to worry about jungle-tribes attacking me, I'd probably start walking until I'd crossed the Bering Strait -- or I'd build a raft and go set out for Austronesia. A sunny island and some coconut trees, that's all I need. A honey too? Sure, that'd be nice, but I'm not going to swing war-clubs around over it. I'd have to reach an extremely high level of annoyance before anything came to that. I'd much prefer to slowly carve giant stone heads.
    - 4y ago