4 ms·
Isn't it pretty well established that farming led to an increase in violence? Thinking in terms of "development" is generally a bad approach. History doesn't
by dspeyer 13y ago
Isn't it pretty well established that farming led to an increase in violence?
Thinking in terms of "development" is generally a bad approach. History doesn't have levels. Using generic terms like that implicitly assumes all sorts of correlations that don't actually exist.
- scott_s 13y agoIsn't it pretty well established that farming led to an increase in violence? Not that I'm aware of. My understanding is that agricultural societies were less violent. As I understand it, when humans are in hunter-gathering societies, we are more territorial and less accepting of those outside of our tribe. (On the order of 50 people.) I'd like to know if that understanding is wrong. What I do know is that we have gotten much less violent over time. The 20th century, even with all of its wars, was still much less violent than all previous centuries.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoI would suggest there are two related factors here. Before significant agriculture some amount of warfare was simply a part of life as usual. This scenario suggests martial competence is fairly ubiquitous, and thus dominating enemies without paying a high cost in blood is difficult (e.g. you might need great political skills to stitch together a powerful local coalition). However once significant cities were established, being skilled at warfare was potentially very lucrative. This means a soldier specialist may be a very rewarding career. Is it really the plough itself, or that the larger cities the plough helped create were a big incentive for professional soldiers to become the ruling class?