The Sanctuary

Ego => Spurious Generalities => Topic started by: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 02:17:04 pm

Title: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 02:17:04 pm
I am pretty fed up with the way the world works. I am forced to go to school and learn bullshit that doesnt intrest me so I can earn money and be   "succesful". Since the world is all about getting more that means I cannot live life the way I want, I have the play the game even to buy food and survive.

If we lived a hunter gatherer life however I would be able to focus on what I want to learn, and have individual worth. No longer would I be valued at how society thinks I fit in, I would be valued at how I want to be valued. We wouldnt have evolved anywhere near the speed we have now, buy slowly and surely we would have evolved.

My problem is however, if the agricultaral revolution never occured than my life wouldnt be as fuffiling. While I dont get 8 hours a day to dick around like prehistoric humans, every day from 6 to ten and on weekends I get to listen to music that effects me emotionally, carry out relationships, and use synthetic drugs that change my consciousness. None of this would have come to pass if the AR hadnt occured.

any thoughts? The AR has killed much creativity, stunted individuality, and created a shit life dor many people, but it has given the few hours of off time we do have much more meaning I think.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Obbe on October 03, 2014, 02:57:25 pm
Nothing is good or bad.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 04:12:02 pm
Ehhh I guess but some choices can be better or worse than others
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Infinityshock on October 03, 2014, 04:22:28 pm
Im not sure what your definition of the agricultural revolution was since there really hasnt been one, in comparison to the industrial one.

Is it back thousands of years ago when hunter-gatherers decided to start planting things intentionally instead of looking around for them? Or back when the farmer class was made responsible for growing/raising food for others who did differetasks? Or back when heavy machinery made it possible to grow shit in a manner that reduced man-hours of labor to nearly nothing?

Either way...if it weren't for the way food is produced in modern times, everyone but the societal rulers would be out in the fields,  before the sun came up and after the sun set, either tending animals or playing with the crops

No time for anything else
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Vulture on October 03, 2014, 04:55:59 pm
Jared Diamond says it was the worst mistake in the history of the human race, but I'm more inclined towards optimism. I don't think the world doesn't currently suck at least in some ways because of it, but I think the population dynamics of subtypes of people (think personality and neurodiversity as opposed to race) will eventually be restored to a ratio resembling that from before the revolution. It'll be violent... Ag is great for feeding armies while providing no incentive to slow population growth, and the economic system that arose with ag will be at stake. A bit of devolution is called for at that point.

This is what it's looked like leading up to this point:
Spoiler
(http://www.cliodynamics.info/auxiliary/uspv.jpg)
With the rise of terrorism, violent power is becoming increasingly more concentrated and detached from its targets.
---
"Ah, but you see. I could have been a shaman. Perhaps if things worked out differently I would have been. The simple life one where I am not hunted and hated every moment of my life, ah, that would be lovely. I would have a mate by now, children and a home. But these are dreams wasted, no sense dwelling on what might have been."
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Infinityshock on October 03, 2014, 04:59:06 pm
That analysis is flawed because it doesnt take into consideration other factors, not the least of which is the current state of technology that must be supported with massive amounts of man-hours to keep it functioning. This wouldn't be possible with an agricultural based economy
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 05:17:19 pm
By agricultaral revolution I do mean back when humans started planting stuff, which in turn created class systems and wealth and cities, ect.

And I have read the jared diamond article. The most interesting part in my opinion is him talking about early humans health. I wonder if we are healthier today, we do have modern medicine but lots of medicine wouldnt be needed if cities werent built.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: RisiR on October 03, 2014, 08:36:34 pm
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 05:17:19 pm
By agricultaral revolution I do mean back when humans started planting stuff, which in turn created class systems and wealth and cities, ect.
???
Do you have a forest where you live? Yea? Ok, go there without... well anything. Try to catch something to eat and make cloth of. Try to survive for one weekend.

That would be your life without that agricultural revolution. The class systems were also a thing before that revolution took place. The best hunter had the most food and fucked the most chicks.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Infinityshock on October 03, 2014, 10:14:44 pm
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 05:17:19 pm
By agricultaral revolution I do mean back when humans started planting stuff, which in turn created class systems and wealth and cities, ect.

And I have read the jared diamond article. The most interesting part in my opinion is him talking about early humans health. I wonder if we are healthier today, we do have modern medicine but lots of medicine wouldnt be needed if cities werent built.

Class systems exist regardless of the agricultural or cultural systems. Classes exist due to basic human nature and are present in every culture

I haven't
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 10:25:11 pm
Ehh I guess complex class systems would be a better term than to get my point across.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Infinityshock on October 03, 2014, 10:29:20 pm
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 10:25:11 pm
Ehh I guess complex class systems would be a better term than to get my point across.

There doesnt need to be a complex system. It starts out simple....the peons and the rulers. Eventually the rulers need loyal supporters so they elevate some peons at which point it spirals out of control into a complex system of the rulers and the slaves

Human nature.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Bart the General on October 03, 2014, 11:32:04 pm
Quote from: Obbe on October 03, 2014, 02:57:25 pm
Nothing is good or bad.

This is worse than the most steaming shitpost by sploo or bling. You were better off just mashing keys


asdhbsdhuabslb hmv e7e83445/RF4uhv

^more insightful contribution
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: LostStranger on October 04, 2014, 02:19:24 am
I think the main problem is we become too dependent to the system.
The agriculture itself is not the problem, we turn into agriculture because the hunter society cannot support many people.

Sure, at an older time hunting can solve most food problem in very small tribes and we don't actually have to hunt everyday because hunted animals are more common than today so there are moments where hunted food can actually last for a couple of days. You can smoke the meat and store it for later.

Now, more people means more food and more lands. Technology solves most of this problem but they require capital and instead of fully giving everything for humanity they put a price tag for it and force everyone to pay it for double. Our current society are actually capable of self sustaining with energy and food for everyone but the liberty is still being hold for higher class.

There are many proposed methods for this, basic income for example ensured that everyone get everything they need for survival, food, shelter, health care and even internet, so they can invest their time in something that truly matter. The method has been tried in several cities and have a desirable result but still the main problem with basic income is the political message that tends to more aligned to socialism.
 
Other methods will be something like having a self sustained home, solar panel for electricity, permaculture for foods, etc, there are people that has try this and I heard there's even an entire community dedicated for this but the main reason still lies back in the system. The land still belonged to the system and doing this means most of the time you are not in the regulations. The only way this could be possible is if we are in space age and have self sustaining spaceship.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Bart the General on October 04, 2014, 02:46:13 am
For some reason I hate tryhard pseudo, sudo, sudio intellectual threads like this worse than the most frivolous shitpost. Like, what was even the point?

"Human development has some unforseen side effects that are seen in retrospect"
 "lets discuss this like its incendiary and important and pretend they were important enough to hold back our own fucking species"
 "I just took an anthropology class because I don't know how to treat things quantitatively and I don't know what I really like but I realized a little while ago that I'm a human so I'll go with that, lol"

Look, the fagricultural ron paul revolution obviously happened and was objectively a good thing. Maybe a hundred trillion people died but kafillian trillions will have exponentially higher standards of living and our species advanced as a result. The alternative is to go against progress which is objectively retarded.

This thread is stupid and it baited stupid people into posting in it seriously. Fucking christ, go live in a forest and get choked to death by a rabbit you weak fucking affirmative action sperm
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 02:49:15 am
Quote from: Bart the General on October 04, 2014, 02:46:13 am
For some reason I hate tryhard pseudo, sudo, sudio intellectual threads like this worse than the most frivolous shitpost. Like, what was even the point?

"Human development has some unforseen side effects that are seen in retrospect"
 "lets discuss this like its incendiary and important and pretend they were important enough to hold back our own fucking species"
 "I just took an anthropology class because I don't know how to treat things quantitatively and I don't know what I really like but I realized a little while ago that I'm a human so I'll go with that, lol"

Look, the fagricultural ron paul revolution obviously happened and was objectively a good thing. Maybe a hundred trillion people died but kafillian trillions will have exponentially higher standards of living and our species advanced as a result. The alternative is to go against progress which is objectively retarded.

This thread is stupid and it baited stupid people into posting in it seriously. Fucking christ, go live in a forest and get choked to death by a rabbit you weak fucking affirmative action sperm
[size=22pt] 420 [/size]
[size=18pt] BIGGIE SMALLS [/size]
[size=12pt] SKATEBOARDING [/size]
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: millionsofdeadcats on October 04, 2014, 02:56:03 am
I am keeping this sig line for the next 30 hours.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 04, 2014, 11:35:06 am
Its just a discussion thread, just because we agree on something doesnt mean we are goung to go against progress. Your banned anyway though so suck it fajjit. Also RisiR my sig is just too deep for you man, dont hurt your head understanding ;)
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Slave of the Beast on October 04, 2014, 12:42:31 pm
 
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 02:17:04 pm
We wouldnt have evolved anywhere near the speed we have now, buy slowly and surely we would have evolved.

Evolution? Technologically? Prior to settled existence around ~12,000 BC, Homo sapiens hunter-gathers spent about 150,000+ years essentially throwing spears at each other and little else. That's fine if you want to wait until the year 2.27 million-or-so AD before flushing toilets are invented.

EDIT: Having said that, what the hell does a hunter-gather need a flushing toilet for?
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
Quote from: Infinityshock on October 03, 2014, 10:14:44 pm
Class systems exist regardless of the agricultural or cultural systems. Classes exist due to basic human nature and are present in every culture
No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C7%83Kung_people). Ascribed authority is unique to the modern problem.

Rephrased correctly: "Classes Roles exist due to basic human nature and are present in every culture." Roles are based on achieved authority.
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 05:17:19 pm
And I have read the jared diamond article. The most interesting part in my opinion is him talking about early humans health. I wonder if we are healthier today, we do have modern medicine but lots of medicine wouldnt be needed if cities werent built.
I'm honestly more of a fan of quality of life. Lots of people living in close quarters has its own manifestations of illness in the form of mental health and more inefficient decision-making due to difficulty in reaching group consensus.
Quote from: RisiR on October 03, 2014, 08:36:34 pm
Do you have a forest where you live? Yea? Ok, go there without... well anything. Try to catch something to eat and make cloth of. Try to survive for one weekend.

That would be your life without that agricultural revolution. The class systems were also a thing before that revolution took place. The best hunter had the most food and fucked the most chicks.
Also no. Primitivism isn't required, and changes induced by the ag revolution weren't restricted to subsistence alone. Think of this thing in terms of integrated systems.
Quote from: LostStranger on October 04, 2014, 02:19:24 am
Spoiler
I think the main problem is we become too dependent to the system.
The agriculture itself is not the problem, we turn into agriculture because the hunter society cannot support many people.

Sure, at an older time hunting can solve most food problem in very small tribes and we don't actually have to hunt everyday because hunted animals are more common than today so there are moments where hunted food can actually last for a couple of days. You can smoke the meat and store it for later.

Now, more people means more food and more lands. Technology solves most of this problem but they require capital and instead of fully giving everything for humanity they put a price tag for it and force everyone to pay it for double. Our current society are actually capable of self sustaining with energy and food for everyone but the liberty is still being hold for higher class.

There are many proposed methods for this, basic income for example ensured that everyone get everything they need for survival, food, shelter, health care and even internet, so they can invest their time in something that truly matter. The method has been tried in several cities and have a desirable result but still the main problem with basic income is the political message that tends to more aligned to socialism.
I'd argue that the main benefit of ag isn't increased quantity of food, but increased availability through storage which makes food reliable.

The population problem seems entirely separate, which is why people still starve today after (and during) the ag revolution amidst the same food & people positive feedback loop rife with shitty access and distribution. Many HG populations were self-regulating. They didn't pop out kids to create a food demand that only ag could fill, they used primitive methods of contraception, spaced out births, and participated in infanticide.
Quote from: LostStranger on October 04, 2014, 02:19:24 am
Other methods will be something like having a self sustained home, solar panel for electricity, permaculture for foods, etc, there are people that has try this and I heard there's even an entire community dedicated for this but the main reason still lies back in the system. The land still belonged to the system and doing this means most of the time you are not in the regulations.
Marry me. Right fucking now.  :-*
Quote from: Bart the General on October 04, 2014, 02:46:13 am
For some reason I hate tryhard pseudo, sudo, sudio intellectual threads like this worse than the most frivolous shitpost. Like, what was even the point?

Look, the fagricultural ron paul revolution obviously happened and was objectively a good thing. Maybe a hundred trillion people died but kafillian trillions will have exponentially higher standards of living and our species advanced as a result. The alternative is to go against progress which is objectively retarded.
Provide us with something more interesting (like this thread (http://www.intosanctuary.com/index.php?topic=2090.msg30718#msg30718)). I'm guessing your IQ's high enough, right?

Entirely subjective. False.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: mojo4567 on October 04, 2014, 01:10:03 pm
Vulture I <3 you. Make me more word porn about cool stuff plz
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 01:28:09 pm
Quote
Also no. Primitivism isn't required, and changes induced by the ag revolution weren't restricted to subsistence alone. Think of this thing in terms of integrated systems.

The change of nutrition in the diet after the AG revolution (I'm just calling it like that for this thread) changed the physiology of the human brain and made all of evolution even possible. Y'know, hunting all day and eating berries needs lots more energy than farming and eating meat on a regular basis without hunting it - losing energy.

Quote
Other methods will be something like having a self sustained home, solar panel for electricity, permaculture for foods, etc, there are people that has try this and I heard there's even an entire community dedicated for this but the main reason still lies back in the system. The land still belonged to the system and doing this means most of the time you are not in the regulations.

None of that stuff would exist if we still had hunter brains. Look at the African tribes that are still hunter and gatherers. None of them has invented a self sustained home or solar panel or anything because they have to hunt and gather all day. No process.

Therefor.
Quote
Also no. Primitivism isn't required

Utopian and false.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: splooge gook on October 04, 2014, 01:43:00 pm
I agree. I'd rather be posting on this forum with a computer made out of yak hide and sticks.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 03:11:20 pm
Quote from: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 01:28:09 pm
The change of nutrition in the diet after the AG revolution (I'm just calling it like that for this thread) changed the physiology of the human brain and made all of evolution even possible. Y'know, hunting all day and eating berries needs lots more energy than farming and eating meat on a regular basis without hunting it - losing energy.
lolwut? Source? Maybe you're confusing the rise of ag with the earlier shift to a high protein diet that allowed for increased brain size?

I don't know what you're getting at with the energy expenditure thing. Ag initially allowed spare time which fostered creativity and technological innovation, but for the overwhelming majority of the population a large portion of that free time was later lost to increasing demand for production and the rise of the class system.

I normally take things literally, but I'm not going to hold you to green because that has to be a joke, right? ;D
Quote from: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 01:28:09 pm
None of that stuff would exist if we still had hunter brains. Look at the African tribes that are still hunter and gatherers. None of them has invented a self sustained home or solar panel or anything because they have to hunt and gather all day. No process.
What is this "hunter brain" stuff? I'm finding a lot of stuff relating HG ancestry to useful things like hyperfocus and psychopathy, and I know that most quantifiable data on IQ in Africa shows it to be lower than elsewhere, but the two aren't correlated.

They haven't invented any of it because they haven't needed to. They don't need solar panels, I don't think anyone ITT ever defined a self-sustained home as being restricted to the actual household, and the women provided most of the food by spending between two and three days per week foraging for roots, nuts and berries in the Kalahari Desert. (http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/culture.htm#Anchor-24819) 4-5 day weekends don't sound all that bad to me, personally. The question to ask is why all that stuff is now needed.
Quote from: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 01:28:09 pm
Utopian and false.
Which is based on...?

I think the interesting thing is that we appear to be heading back to a similar model, but on a larger scale. Population growth is slowing in the developed world and has been shown to have an inverse relationship with educational status and contraceptive availability, the rising trend of dominant assurance contracts at the forefront of cryptocurrency reform closely resembles the reverse dominance in HG societies, leading work environments in the developed world are becoming increasingly more playful, and the dominance of Hegelian philosophy in education has thankfully been eroding since it became established.
Quote from: splooge gook on October 04, 2014, 01:43:00 pm
I agree. I'd rather be posting on this forum with a computer made out of yak hide and sticks.
I <3 sploo.
Spoiler
(https://forums.oneplus.net/attachments/why-not-both-jpg.137309/)

Don't you just want to... stab her with a pencil? :crooked:
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 03:14:09 pm
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 04, 2014, 01:10:03 pm
Vulture I <3 you. Make me more word porn about cool stuff plz
Oh lawd... You'd be third wheel to me and LostStranger. ;D
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 03:37:19 pm
Quote from: mojo4567 on October 03, 2014, 05:17:19 pm
By agricultaral revolution I do mean back when humans started planting stuff
Uhmm.... I don't really think we can argue with that as base point anyway.

How can you be against people planting stuff, Vulture?
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 03:41:13 pm
Quote from: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 03:37:19 pm
How can you be against people planting stuff, Vulture?
I'm not... at all. I'm against some of the things that have arisen because of it.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 03:43:09 pm
Oh ok.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: LostStranger on October 05, 2014, 08:36:20 pm
Quote from: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
I'm honestly more of a fan of quality of life. Lots of people living in close quarters has its own manifestations of illness in the form of mental health and more inefficient decision-making due to difficulty in reaching group consensus.

True to that, the most efficient numbers for a group whether it's for work or community is the dunbar's number, 150 people. Anymore than that some kind of inefficient bureaucracy start to appear and the work flow of the group start falling down. There are companies that start implementing this and seen a great boost in work environment and productivity. Older community also affect how this work, when a community start to reach a tipping point, they split up and form a new one. This is impossible to happen in modern community even though it is against our natural behavior. As a result many social related problem appear and social-related stress persist on everyone.

Quote from: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
Also no. Primitivism isn't required, and changes induced by the ag revolution weren't restricted to subsistence alone. Think of this thing in terms of integrated systems.

Indeed, but nevertheless, our constricted main governmental lifestyle is a necessary step in our societal evolution. What we need to do now is to take the next step. Which I think it will be a decentralized social control and  swarm like community.

Quote from: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
I'd argue that the main benefit of ag isn't increased quantity of food, but increased availability through storage which makes food reliable.

The problem is the storage require some kind of static place which is impossible in hunter lifestyle that basically forcing you to become a nomads.

Quote from: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
The population problem seems entirely separate, which is why people still starve today after (and during) the ag revolution amidst the same food & people positive feedback loop rife with shitty access and distribution. Many HG populations were self-regulating. They didn't pop out kids to create a food demand that only ag could fill, they used primitive methods of contraception, spaced out births, and participated in infanticide.

People starve because of bad distribution system and.. well, the system. If the government put real effort in producing and distributing foods for free to everyone, this won't happen. But no, because having free food and shelter means someone can leech of from it and we will be damned if someone do not have a job just for the sake of it. Notes on the yearly rise on global unemployment due to technological advancement.

Quote from: Vulture on October 04, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
Marry me. Right fucking now.  :-*

Sure, no homo though.

Quote from: Bart the General on October 04, 2014, 02:46:13 am
For some reason I hate tryhard pseudo, sudo, sudio intellectual threads like this worse than the most frivolous shitpost. Like, what was even the point?

It's fun? At the very least you learn some random vocabulary.

Quote from: RisiR on October 04, 2014, 01:28:09 pm
None of that stuff would exist if we still had hunter brains. Look at the African tribes that are still hunter and gatherers. None of them has invented a self sustained home or solar panel or anything because they have to hunt and gather all day. No process.

Therefore

Utopian and false.

We will never reach utopia but we should always aim for something like that, it's how we get progress. I don't think this is related to hunter brains because our brain does not undergo major evolution in the last 50,000 years. Theoretically, you can take an ancient baby homo sapiens and took them here, and raise him up as another modern human child. What happens is the non-tropical region of earth suddenly experience some extreme climate change and force people to be more resourceful than just some hunter.

As you can see, most advanced people came from harsher climate, china have harsh winter and they are one of the earliest people to found black powder, paper monetary system, and printing press. The middle-age islamic kingdom which is just plain desert is the father of algebra, astronomy, and many advancement on science. The greek, the egypt, etc. Most of these countries have a harsh climate.

Our societal structure changes many times and I think we are now in the beginning of new social structure yet again from industrial age to real information age society. Working 2 jobs every day is industrial laborer lifestyle.

Another random though, should we introduce all the hunter tribes to modern lifestyle?
Many people say it's ruining ancient heritage but I don't think that's true.
At the very least let all their descendant have modern lifestyle.
Title: Re: Was the agricultural revolution really a good thing?
Post by: WS on October 06, 2014, 02:02:22 pm
OP Jus Read Ishmael.