|>> || |
>>You couldn't even have enough specialists to develop the sociological insight to understand why you society did/didn't develop agriculture, without agriculture. Yes, but you also didn't worry about that. I would say the reason we are interested in it at all is that society has caused symptoms, and we rightfully are looking into how and why a society changes in order to figure out our next move to try and guide the next leap with ideas and theories. I won't deny though that one of the major things that agriculture contributed was continuity. Culture is the conglomerate of human society over tens of thousands of years and without that we would not have been able to amass knowledge that can only be discovered with time outside the range of a single humans lifetime. But we also didn't need that knowledge with the limited things we had to deal with in a lifetime.
>>Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.Yes, so they had a preadult mortality rate of over 50%. If you look at it like that the average age was 45+, Crorrywell saying people became 60-70 while huntergatherer is not actually disproven, I tried to access the citation in the wiki article to see if there was a percentage of people who reached 60, but the direct link doesn't work and I didn't feel like putting more effort into it.
>>Without agriculture human populations never could have increased the way they did.More humans=/=Better life. For the majority of the time agriculture has been a part of society, beyond the huntergather/agriculture mix type societal structure that still existed in the beginning, the majority of humans have been serfs to an increasingly small portion of humans. Not only were the farmers serfs to their leader, but every functional society worth position was based off of being serfs to support or economize the agriculture industry, especially when we began to farm animals. Bakers, blacksmiths, weavers, tanners, coopers, cobblers, knights, you name it. They supported them, proccessed their produce, made transportation of goods possible, protected them, made everyones tools to do so, It made specialization possible, but only after the result of enslaving humans to society, and it was not the goal.
>>It depends on how you define warfare.He obviously means conflicts that kill large percentages of the human race. Which as you agree, can only be possible with large enduring social structures, and while a single tribe of less then 150 would be wiped out(maybe not most, but all the men of course, most likely including the male children), that doesn't represent a risk to the extiction of the human race.
>>You really have it out for food security, don't you?I think he's trying to point out that the starting reason for agreeing to society was for food security, and that that society may not be needed for that, as we know now what things are bad for food security. Buuut, hindsight is 20/20, and we wouldn't know that if not for agriculture, as you said.
>>Life expectancyLife expectancy is bad mkay. Because it counts child mortality, deaths from war, accidents etc. Children were allowed to survive on their merit until recently, which may or may not be a reason our society is going so askew, and is definitely a contributing factor to healthcare costs, life expectancy not rising etc. I am a blind asthmatic, I would have died as a baby in the wild, but there would also be less asthmatic genetics surviving in the gene pool if we didn't save them.
I wonder if theres an average age of those who survived to adulthood who died from natural death or disease. I would bet that number would be pretty stable around 50-70 for the last 70,000 years. Also, I might discount major disease outbreaks, as that is a function of society and trade, and would not exist without them.
>>So the only people you knew and thought of as people were members of your tribe?Its called the monkeysphere, and is actually a limitation of the primate mind, that is shared with humans, that only allows a certain number of people to be fleshed out as actual personhoods in your reality. It still exists, and is the cause of alot of problems with large structures and whatnot not being able to actively seek promise for all of the members, such as corporations, or governments or unions etc.
>>Don't you think there's a reason for them making so much less of all those things per capita than everyone who came after? Of course they weren't inherently dumber, they had the same biological capacities as us, so something else, pretty significant, must have changed...Yep, demand. You needed economics to happen in order to form kingdoms to profit from those economics and you needed ever increasing supply to create an ever increasing base to feed economics to form armies to steal resources to increase supply to increase the base on your human farm to fight the other human farms in their quest to do the same. Its cyclic and just because it happened doesn't mean there couldn't have been or isnt a better way.
But until the right technological breakthrough happens is was never really possible and wont be. And even if it does happen, the question of if humans are societally capable of existing in a world where no effort takes place is possible will be answered, and the answer may be extinction from apathy or destruction, or Utopia.
>>Or are you talking about some sort of sky daddy's intention?I think he means more of purpose and overcoming challenge and growing, rather then the vapid lifestyle with no meaning we life today. But probably more metaphysical then actual as you surmise. I personally think the meaning of life is to make life have meaning, to make the world a better place and more conducive to life and against death, and in that sense the majority of humans are stuck keeping society afloat and are unable to pursue this.
>> "Boy it sure is hard work, but it'll all pay someday in the future when we have loads of stuff" I think you misunderstand him, he's not talking about personal gain, but that peasants were not doing what they were doing in order to further society, but to live and survive. No one wanted to make society to pursue technological inventions and knowledge, those things became necessary to society so it became valuable and what we got as a byproduct was not expected aka the modern world.
>>Well, ok, but that's a much weaker claim than you started out with. It's also a purely subjective aesthetic judgement.Well in a way, but not aesthetic, philosophic. If societies function was to make the individual a better person, it has failed and was a mistake. The only way society has been a success is to strengthen society in order to keep a workforce to further society.