3 ms·

"To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of he

"To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered." Science, astronomy, biology and archaeology -- all advanced culture -- cannot happen without the critical mass of population provided by cities, fed by agriculture. This article is such nonsense.

wildranter 14y ago
Exactly. But from this ridiculous scenario one good thing could have happened. We wouldn't have Discover magazine.
rndmize 14y ago
For all our tremendous advances and expansive knowledge, we still have some billions of people that that are malnourished or starving, some that live on less than a dollar a day, some that die by the hundreds of thousands in wars over resources or religion; we have nations and societies that collapse within a few hundred years as they generally grow too top-heavy to function without replacement; we are depleting resources at tremendous rates without care to the cost; and so on. As the article says, if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs. Today, you would most likely be born as one of the masses of poor subsistence farmers throughout the world, but most likely in China or India, who's life and work is miserable/back-breaking enough that they'll choose to make our electronics for 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day and consider it an improvement. It seems that only in the last decade has modern technology reached the point where it can be provided to the masses and begin what might be a global transformation that leads to better lives for all - rather than better lives for a few at the expense of the many.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs" If you survived your first year of life, then your first 5 years of life, etc Then you would have to hunt or do dangerous stuff with precarious tools, no health care in case of accident, etc Oh and you would probably die by your 30s. Makes the chinese factory kind of look good.
  - netcan 14y ago
    probably die by your 30s Average life expectancy at birth is heavily influenced by infant mortality. Most people didn't really die in their 30s.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      Yes, or as some people say "if you survived past 5 years old your expectancy is higher" Not sure about the actual figures for that time period, though.
      - Shorel 14y ago
        About half died at 1 year. The other half died at 60 years. A few died in between because of wars or whatever. Average: 30 years. I oversimplified a bit, but you can see the overview of the statistics misinterpretation.
  - rndmize 14y ago
    That you would speak of doing dangerous stuff with tools and a lack of healthcare and follow that with a mention of the Chinese factory... I find ironic. Further, while infant mortality was a problem (and has continued to be up until the last hundred years), you would probably not die by your thirties (life expectancy calculations are throw off precisely by infant mortality rates - the life expectancy for a person in almost any society goes up to at least 50 if you discount deaths of those under a year of age or so.) Is there something wrong with hunting, or difficult about it? I'm fairly sure we were good enough to wipe out a few species before the rise of agriculture. As for "dangerous stuff with precarious tools"... by all means, enlighten me. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more dangerous than a sharp edge in any non-technologically advanced society. The number of dangers we have today from our tools (heard about a car crash on the radio recently?) and the lethality of them (how many people die from gun accidents? from mixing bleach and ammonia? electrocution? power tools? industrial machinery?) Do I even need to cover healthcare? Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? Or how the majority of medications we develop don't demonstrate a greater effect than a placebo?
michaelgrafl 14y ago
The article claims it was a catastrophe in many ways, not in all of them. I'm glad I was born into my time, in a rich country. And why shouldn't I? I live like a king and don't have to put any real effort into anything to maintain my status. All my problems are literally first world problems. But on a global scale agriculture fucked us up something fierce. And while I take a lot of pleasure in the nicer aspects of advanced culture, I wouldn't just assume that it justifies the horrible things that would never have come to be if we would have kept on living in a healthy symbiotic relationship with our natural environment. Or as Louis CK said at the Beacon Theater (I'm paraphrasing): "God: I gave you everything you need. Why did you put that shit there? Guy: So I can go faster!"

wildranter 14y ago

Exactly. But from this ridiculous scenario one good thing could have happened. We wouldn't have Discover magazine.

rndmize 14y ago

For all our tremendous advances and expansive knowledge, we still have some billions of people that that are malnourished or starving, some that live on less than a dollar a day, some that die by the hundreds of thousands in wars over resources or religion; we have nations and societies that collapse within a few hundred years as they generally grow too top-heavy to function without replacement; we are depleting resources at tremendous rates without care to the cost; and so on. As the article says, if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs. Today, you would most likely be born as one of the masses of poor subsistence farmers throughout the world, but most likely in China or India, who's life and work is miserable/back-breaking enough that they'll choose to make our electronics for 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day and consider it an improvement. It seems that only in the last decade has modern technology reached the point where it can be provided to the masses and begin what might be a global transformation that leads to better lives for all - rather than better lives for a few at the expense of the many.

raverbashing 14y ago
"if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs" If you survived your first year of life, then your first 5 years of life, etc Then you would have to hunt or do dangerous stuff with precarious tools, no health care in case of accident, etc Oh and you would probably die by your 30s. Makes the chinese factory kind of look good.
- netcan 14y ago
  probably die by your 30s Average life expectancy at birth is heavily influenced by infant mortality. Most people didn't really die in their 30s.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Yes, or as some people say "if you survived past 5 years old your expectancy is higher" Not sure about the actual figures for that time period, though.
    - Shorel 14y ago
      About half died at 1 year. The other half died at 60 years. A few died in between because of wars or whatever. Average: 30 years. I oversimplified a bit, but you can see the overview of the statistics misinterpretation.
- rndmize 14y ago
  That you would speak of doing dangerous stuff with tools and a lack of healthcare and follow that with a mention of the Chinese factory... I find ironic. Further, while infant mortality was a problem (and has continued to be up until the last hundred years), you would probably not die by your thirties (life expectancy calculations are throw off precisely by infant mortality rates - the life expectancy for a person in almost any society goes up to at least 50 if you discount deaths of those under a year of age or so.) Is there something wrong with hunting, or difficult about it? I'm fairly sure we were good enough to wipe out a few species before the rise of agriculture. As for "dangerous stuff with precarious tools"... by all means, enlighten me. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more dangerous than a sharp edge in any non-technologically advanced society. The number of dangers we have today from our tools (heard about a car crash on the radio recently?) and the lethality of them (how many people die from gun accidents? from mixing bleach and ammonia? electrocution? power tools? industrial machinery?) Do I even need to cover healthcare? Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? Or how the majority of medications we develop don't demonstrate a greater effect than a placebo?

michaelgrafl 14y ago

The article claims it was a catastrophe in many ways, not in all of them. I'm glad I was born into my time, in a rich country. And why shouldn't I? I live like a king and don't have to put any real effort into anything to maintain my status. All my problems are literally first world problems. But on a global scale agriculture fucked us up something fierce. And while I take a lot of pleasure in the nicer aspects of advanced culture, I wouldn't just assume that it justifies the horrible things that would never have come to be if we would have kept on living in a healthy symbiotic relationship with our natural environment. Or as Louis CK said at the Beacon Theater (I'm paraphrasing): "God: I gave you everything you need. Why did you put that shit there? Guy: So I can go faster!"