Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2024, 11:49:41 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race  (Read 1374 times)
(oYo) (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 03:15:03 AM
 #1

Found a very interesting article.

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

Quote
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. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence. At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We're better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?

For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It's a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it's nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.

Quote
primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don't think most hunger-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture.

Quote
There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early fanners obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition, (today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease.

Quote
Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions.

Quote
Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well.

Quote
As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers.

Quote
Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off.

Quote
"Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life.

Quote
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.

Quote
Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.

Quote
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?


bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:20:05 AM
 #2

The author is trying to argue that agriculture was the reason why the human population exploded, and it should have been never invented. I too feel the same way. The earth is way overpopulated right now, with more than 7 billion people living on it currently. 2,000 years ago, the human population was 200 million. It would have been better, if the total population had remained at that level.
reyhiesa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 03:26:10 AM
 #3

Quote
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?

Yet it's only after all that that technological development is the highest. Hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to achieve the same progress if they spent all their time just trying to survive.

██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
█████              █
█████     ███       ███
█████     ████      ████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     █████     █████
█████     ████████████████████
█████     ████████████████████
 ██████           ██████
   █████▄       ▄█████
     ███████████████
        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
Start 1st ICO : SEPT 27 - 60 DAYS
▬▬▬ JOIN NOW ! ▬▬▬
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

                 ▄████▄▄    ▄
██             ████████████▀
████▄         █████████████▀
▀████████▄▄   █████████████
▄▄█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
  ▀██████████████████████
   █████████████████████
    ▀█████████████████▀
      ▄█████████████▀
▄▄███████████████▀
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▄████████████████████▄
   ████████████████████████
  ▐█████████████▀▀▀▀▀██████▌
  ▐████████████      ██████▌
  ▐███████████▌   ▄▄▄██████▌
  ▐███████████    █████████▌
  ▐████████▀▀▀    ▀▀▀██████▌
  ▐████████          ██████▌
  ▐███████████    █████████▌
   ███████████    █████████
    ▀█████████    ███████▀
      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀
(oYo) (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 04:11:36 AM
 #4

Yet it's only after all that that technological development is the highest. Hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to achieve the same progress if they spent all their time just trying to survive.

Except, they spent no more time "trying to survive" than farmers do.
Quote
hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers.

The average person living the first world today merely works (a miserable job) to survive, living from paycheck to paycheck. They are not really contributing to any technological advancements.

I don't see any real reason why we wouldn't have comparable technologies (to today's) had we remained hunter-gatherers. Even if we did not become quite as technologically advanced as we are today, I believe we'd still be happier in general, nonetheless, remaining in tune with nature.

bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 05:03:36 AM
 #5

The average person living the first world today merely works (a miserable job) to survive, living from paycheck to paycheck. They are not really contributing to any technological advancements.

The majority of the people living in the world right now are heavily indebted, and severely exploited by the elite (mostly comprising of the bankers, oligarchs, corporations.etc). Only around 10% of the world population are enjoying their life. The remaining 90% are living in misery. Compare that to the uncontacted hunter gatherers. They all seems to be happy with their lives:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
Daniel91
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3374
Merit: 1824



View Profile
June 16, 2015, 08:25:56 AM
 #6

The average person living the first world today merely works (a miserable job) to survive, living from paycheck to paycheck. They are not really contributing to any technological advancements.

The majority of the people living in the world right now are heavily indebted, and severely exploited by the elite (mostly comprising of the bankers, oligarchs, corporations.etc). Only around 10% of the world population are enjoying their life. The remaining 90% are living in misery. Compare that to the uncontacted hunter gatherers. They all seems to be happy with their lives:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

Your facts are true but conclusion is wrong.
People today don't suffer because of human progress but because of moral selfishness of the ruling elite.
Progress itself don't make people suffer but political and economic processes in the last 200 years, which led to the social imbalances that we have today.
Our planet has enough resources that we can all live well but the problem is in the use and availability.
Agriculture is not the worst mistake in the History of the Human Race but modern capitalism.




.freebitcoin.       ▄▄▄█▀▀██▄▄▄
   ▄▄██████▄▄█  █▀▀█▄▄
  ███  █▀▀███████▄▄██▀
   ▀▀▀██▄▄█  ████▀▀  ▄██
▄███▄▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▄▄██████
██▀▀█████▄     ▄██▀█ ▀▀██
██▄▄███▀▀██   ███▀ ▄▄  ▀█
███████▄▄███ ███▄▄ ▀▀▄  █
██▀▀████████ █████  █▀▄██
 █▄▄████████ █████   ███
  ▀████  ███ ████▄▄███▀
     ▀▀████   ████▀▀
BITCOIN
DICE
EVENT
BETTING
WIN A LAMBO !

.
            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████████████████████████▄▄▄▄
▀██████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄▄
▄▄████▄█████▄████████████████████████████▄█████▄████▄▄
▀████████▀▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀▀██████████▄
  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄███████████████████████████████▄▄▄██████████
       ▀█████▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PLAY NOW.
bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
 #7

Your facts are true but conclusion is wrong.
People today don't suffer because of human progress but because of moral selfishness of the ruling elite.
Progress itself don't make people suffer but political and economic processes in the last 200 years, which led to the social imbalances that we have today.
Our planet has enough resources that we can all live well but the problem is in the use and availability.
Agriculture is not the worst mistake in the History of the Human Race but modern capitalism.

I disagree. I don't think that our planet is having enough natural resources, to sustain a human population of 8 billion. It might be able to sustain them for 100 years more, but after that climate change and pollution will make the earth uninhabitable. And I never said that I am against progress. I am against exploitation, which emerged as a byproduct of progress.
(oYo) (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 04:35:02 PM
 #8

The average person living the first world today merely works (a miserable job) to survive, living from paycheck to paycheck. They are not really contributing to any technological advancements.

The majority of the people living in the world right now are heavily indebted, and severely exploited by the elite (mostly comprising of the bankers, oligarchs, corporations.etc). Only around 10% of the world population are enjoying their life. The remaining 90% are living in misery. Compare that to the uncontacted hunter gatherers. They all seems to be happy with their lives:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

Your facts are true but conclusion is wrong.
People today don't suffer because of human progress but because of moral selfishness of the ruling elite.
Progress itself don't make people suffer but political and economic processes in the last 200 years, which led to the social imbalances that we have today.
Our planet has enough resources that we can all live well but the problem is in the use and availability.
Agriculture is not the worst mistake in the History of the Human Race but modern capitalism.

I think the real question is, how do you define progress? You are right when you say, "People today don't suffer because of human progress but because of moral selfishness of the ruling elite."

I don't necessarily believe agriculture is a mistake, but I do believe it is done wrong. Industrial/factory agriculture methods of monoculture crops, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, etc. is not the right approach to farming. Masanobu Fukuoka (a Japanese microbiologist, turned philosopher/farmer) had the right idea when it came to farming. Read his books, 'The One-Straw Revolution' or 'The Natural Way of Farming', if you want to learn about his perspective/philosophy of "Do Nothing Farming" or what he called "Permaculture".

http://www.onestrawrevolution.net/One_Straw_Revolution/Massanobu_Fukuoka.html


Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 05:10:22 PM
Last edit: June 16, 2015, 05:26:27 PM by Beliathon
 #9

Found a very interesting article. (stuff)

You've laid out some of the arguments of Derrick Jensen and other anarcho-primitivists. Premises four, five, and twenty are the most vital for us here and now, but all are worthy of consideration.

Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system. Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.

Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of llusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.

Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.

Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.

Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.

Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.

Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.

Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.
Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.




This is a platitude. Farming doesn't impact happiness any more than hunting deer for survival or visiting grocery store for food do.

Farming isn't cultivating human beings, education/family/tribe/culture inculcation do that.

There is only one good: truth,
and one evil: ignorance

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
(oYo) (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 06:20:31 PM
 #10

I love the premises you posted.


This is a platitude. Farming doesn't impact happiness any more than hunting deer for survival or visiting grocery store for food do.

Farming isn't cultivating human beings, education/family/tribe/culture inculcation do that.

There is only one good: truth,
and one evil: ignorance

His philosophy does not apply to modern industrial agriculture practices. I think if you read his books and take it in that context, then his 'philosophy' (as it pertains to "natural farming") makes better sense. It is about learning to live in harmony with nature, as opposed to bending it to your will. (Basically, premise 8.) In this respect, I feel what he says remains true.

Furthermore, I believe that even the act of hunting cultivates violence (premise 4 could be applied here), while natural farming methods encourage the cultivation of peaceful and harmonious relationships with our environment and each other.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 07:01:04 PM
Last edit: June 17, 2015, 03:00:45 PM by Beliathon
 #11

His philosophy does not apply to modern industrial agriculture practices. I think if you read his books and take it in that context, then his 'philosophy' (as it pertains to "natural farming") makes better sense. It is about learning to live in harmony with nature, as opposed to bending it to your will.
The problem here is that even pre/non-industrial agriculture isn't remotely harmonious with nature. Every inch of land that is now farm was once full of wild flora and fauna that has been destroyed to make room for that farm. Permaculture may offer a way to live harmoniously with Earth, but 2.5 billion max, not seven billion humans.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 07:05:05 PM
 #12

But for this worst mistake, the overwhelming majority of us wouldn't be here in the first place. As to whether that's a good thing or not...
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 07:09:41 PM
Last edit: June 17, 2015, 03:01:50 PM by Beliathon
 #13

But for this worst mistake, the overwhelming majority of us wouldn't be here in the first place. As to whether that's a good thing or not...
Perhaps the worst mistake wasn't a choice at all, but the inevitable conclusion of the Homo Sapien brain, natural product of evolution playing itself out over millions of years on this tiny rock. We are the Gorilla in the Glass house, the breakers of the mathematically perfect, ultra-delicately balanced system that was Earth.  Maybe its the only way it ever could have been.

For all we know the development of a brain capable of sentience is the eventual result on every planet where life is possible, but the distances between all these planets in all cases so vast that every species faces eternity alone.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
countryfree
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3052
Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 11:42:42 PM
 #14

I've heard that before, but it's more than food. Agriculture has also put an end to nomadism. That is the most terrible thing. People living their whole life where they were born. I'm happy not to live like that. I guess I've spent some 70 nights in hotels so far this year (in a dozen hotels, in different cities), and I just couldn't live any other way. Things get too boring after a while if you always stay in the same place.

I used to be a citizen and a taxpayer. Those days are long gone.
bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 03:01:19 AM
 #15

The problem here is that even pre/non-industrial agriculture isn't remotely harmonious with nature. Every inch of land that is now farm was once full of wild flora and fauna that has been destroyed to make room for that farm. Permaculture may offer a way to live harmoniously with Earth, but not for seven billion humans.

More than 80% of the land area of the earth has been altered, in order to make it more inhabitable for the human population. A large number of plant and animal species has gone extinct as a result of it. Even the remaining untouched territory is disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the Peruvian Amazonian forests are disappearing at a rate of 145,000 hectares per year. In Indonesia, the comparative figures are 840,000 hectares per year.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2015, 03:05:45 PM
Last edit: June 17, 2015, 03:20:57 PM by Beliathon
 #16

The problem here is that even pre/non-industrial agriculture isn't remotely harmonious with nature. Every inch of land that is now farm was once full of wild flora and fauna that has been destroyed to make room for that farm. Permaculture may offer a way to live harmoniously with Earth, but not for seven billion humans.

More than 80% of the land area of the earth has been altered, in order to make it more inhabitable for the human population. A large number of plant and animal species has gone extinct as a result of it.
That's quite an understatement friend.

Quote
Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants. Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time

One scientist estimates the current extinction rate may be as high as 10,000 times the background extinction rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

The thing about biodiversity loss is that it's not a problem until it is. It's a tipping point moment, a no turning back moment and we won't know we've hit it until it's too late.

I want to emphasize that it's not improbable we've already hit it, and twenty years from now our children will realize we had started some unstoppable domino effect, ruined Earth and no technology at our disposal can save it.

We are recklessly tampering with extremely delicately balanced systems that we don't fully understand. We're playing a very dangerous game here with fossil fuel industrial civilization, and gambling with the lives of all future Homo Sapiens.



There is no life on Venus. If there were ever oceans there, they boiled away long ago.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 17, 2015, 03:16:14 PM
 #17

The problem here is that even pre/non-industrial agriculture isn't remotely harmonious with nature. Every inch of land that is now farm was once full of wild flora and fauna that has been destroyed to make room for that farm. Permaculture may offer a way to live harmoniously with Earth, but not for seven billion humans.

More than 80% of the land area of the earth has been altered, in order to make it more inhabitable for the human population. A large number of plant and animal species has gone extinct as a result of it.
That's quite an understatement friend.

Quote
Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants. Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time

One scientist estimates the current extinction rate may be as high as 10,000 times the background extinction rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

The thing about biodiversity loss is that it's not a problem until it is. It's a tipping point moment, a no turning back moment and we won't know we've hit it until it's too late. We're playing a very dangerous game here with fossil fuel industrial civilization.

Maybe we've already hit it, and twenty years from now our children will realize we had started some unstoppable domino effect, ruined Earth and no technology at our disposal can save it.

Our children will curse us for destroying the earth. Many of the plant and animal species which become extinct, may contain cure for diseases such as AIDS and cancer. And along with these plants, native tribesmen (who are having knowledge about their medicinal properties) are also becoming extinct, as a result of terrorist organizations such as the New Tribes Mission.
Mt. Gox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 118



View Profile
June 18, 2015, 02:26:46 AM
 #18

The author is trying to argue that agriculture was the reason why the human population exploded, and it should have been never invented. I too feel the same way. The earth is way overpopulated right now, with more than 7 billion people living on it currently. 2,000 years ago, the human population was 200 million. It would have been better, if the total population had remained at that level.

The Agricultural Revolution happened approximately 12,000 years ago. By 2,000 years ago, we already had empires and city states.

The world population in 35,000 BC was around 3 million and by the time humans began adopting agriculture, it was at around 15 million. Even if the Green Revolution had never happened, the world can support far more than 200 million people.

Dear GOD/GODS and/or anyone else who can HELP ME (e.g. MEMBERS OF SUPER-INTELLIGENT ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS): The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD and keep it that way FOREVER. I am so sick of this chubby Asian man body! Thank you! - CHAUL JHIN KIM (a.k.a. A DESPERATE SOUL) P.S. If anyone is reading this then please pray for me! [ www.chauljhin.com ]
bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3696
Merit: 1217


View Profile
June 18, 2015, 02:34:35 AM
 #19

The Agricultural Revolution happened approximately 12,000 years ago. By 2,000 years ago, we already had empires and city states.

The city state of Faiyum (in Egypt) was founded in 4,000 BC, which is almost 6,000 year ago. The Sumerian city-states came in to existence some 5,500 years ago (the Sumerian civilization started 7,500 years ago), and they were much more advanced when compared to the Egyptians. And in Europe, the Greek city states came in to existence around 3,000 years ago.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!