Was the Neolithic Revolution the worst mistake in human history?

[sooshi shef]

The Neolithic Revolution took place roughly 10,000 years ago (8000 B.C.E.) and is the time period that archeoligists suppose that humans evolved from hunter/gather lifestyles to a more sophisticaed agricultural lifestyle.

In 1987 Jared Diamond, a college proffesor from UCLA, wrote an article explaining his reason on why the Neolithic Revolution was the worst mistake. So I would like the readers of this thread to read this article below and comment on your oppinion and why. If you have knowledge already then please, by all means, post. Thanks for your contribution and happy debating.

http://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race/

 

[Dre89]

Interesting article. One question I have though is how conceivable the HG lifestyle would be in the contemporary era had it not been abandoned for the agricultural lifestyle. Things such as how HG would probably limit the development of technology, which I consider a bad thing not because I'm a privellaged westerner (they're pretty much synonomous now) but because technology is inherently natural to humans.

 

[sooshi shef]

Interesting article. One question I have though is how conceivable the HG lifestyle would be in the contemporary era had it not been abandoned for the agricultural lifestyle. Things such as how HG would probably limit the development of technology, which I consider a bad thing not because I'm a privellaged westerner (they're pretty much synonomous now) but because technology is inherently natural to humans.

Atually I was asked a similar question by a classmate after studying this in AP World History. They asked that if the Paleolithic era was so good, why don't we revert back to that way of life. I explained that my theory was that as the dominant species on this planet (the only ones who have both sinteint thought, means to achieve goals, and a continued thirst for knowlege) that it would be suicide (quite literaly) to return to those ways.

I do see an advantage however. It would provide mother natures own means of natural selction and give us a possible restart. I'm not saying that I'm some tree hugger comunist hippy, but I am saying though whole article has quite a bit of merit.

 

[Sucumbio]

please disable sigs.

 

[A1lion835]

Jared Diamond's argument shares a lot with Daniel Quinn's in Ishmael. We haven't "reverted back" because most of us lead very comfortable lives, we'll lose our friends and be called weirdos by most people if we leave our present civilization, and because humans seem to resist major change.

 

[Sinji]

The article is interesting.

Now we live in a materialistic world. It is most certainly difficult to revert back to the primitive lifestyle because of the comfortable status we are under now. Such ideas like media and home entertainment forces us to think as if we are in the great beyond. The current generation that we are in will disregard the past until we wont even have a thought about it.

 

[Xatres]

Jared Diamond's argument shares a lot with Daniel Quinn's in Ishmael. We haven't "reverted back" because most of us lead very comfortable lives, we'll lose our friends and be called weirdos by most people if we leave our present civilization, and because humans seem to resist major change.

I was also thinking of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael when I saw this discussion. It's been awhile since I read it, but the basic argument is that while 'Leavers,' those who continue to live the HG lifestyle, die more easily to disease and the elements, their society would live in harmony with nature for eternity, as part of the ecosystem. Meanwhile the 'Takers,' those who take from nature in excess and expand their population, will live longer, more luxurious lives but eventually destroy themselves and the planet.

He eventually argues for a more balanced approach leaning towards a Leaver philosophy, suggesting that mankind is intelligent enough to find a balance, should they choose to seek it.

But again, mankind would probably resist such drastic change.

As for my own views on the subject? I think there's probably a way for us to maintain and expand our technology without further endangering the planet. I believe we're called to be caretakers of the world, not conquerers. That means protecting and preserving wildlife and minimizing pollution.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

For some reason I find this rather hypocritical. Jared Diamond writes books, using knowledge he obtained from books, research papers and personal experience all enabled by civilisation, which happens to be based upon agriculture.

And in all honesty, it doesn't really seem that bad. Sure, we may have suffered for a long time under agriculture, but the upsides now are really becoming apparent. With the advent of modern medicine and sanitation we have seen a dramatic increase in life-expectancies from even the good ol' Palaeolithic days. What's this, I know more about the universe than most hunter-gatherers (I bet that even simple Newtonian Mechanics eludes them!)? What about the fact that I'm typing at a computer?

And another thing, I think the solution should based upon finding ways to make our current civilisation sustainable as opposed to going back to living like hunter-gatherers.

 

[Xatres]

Here's another argument (for the sake of argument):

Who's to say that humanity wiping out other species and polluting the planet is necessarily wrong?

From an evolutionary standpoint, our primary goal as a species is to survive and propagate our species. What if, for beings at our stage of evolution, that means transforming the planet into a world most suitable to sustain human life? What if this means the extinction of other species and the raising of global temperatures?

We are an adaptable species. Humanity will most likely survive any massive climate change caused by industrialization, and the technologies we've developed have extended our life expectancy and improved the living conditions of billions. It seems to me that our actions have been in keeping with the goal of propagating the species.

As the top of the evolutionary chain, should we really feel moral outrage if our development hurts the development of less evolved species?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Who's to say that humanity wiping out other species and polluting the planet is necessarily wrong?

From an evolutionary standpoint, our primary goal as a species is to survive and propagate our species. What if, for beings at our stage of evolution, that means transforming the planet into a world most suitable to sustain human life? What if this means the extinction of other species and the raising of global temperatures?

We are an adaptable species. Humanity will most likely survive any massive climate change caused by industrialization, and the technologies we've developed have extended our life expectancy and improved the living conditions of billions. It seems to me that our actions have been in keeping with the goal of propagating the species.

As the top of the evolutionary chain, should we really feel moral outrage if our development hurts the development of less evolved species?

I don't think this argument holds. Considering that most forms of morality place value upon suffering of any kind, even if it is limited to animals, I do think that we have an obligation to sustain animal life. Never mind the fact that the functioning of ecosystems is integral to the functioning of a biosphere that is relatively habitable for humanity (read: we need a stable climate to grow food). And really, as far as "less evolved species" go, there is no such thing. All animals are equally evolved, as they all descended from a common ancestor and had equal amounts of time to evolve.

 

[Xatres]

Does a shark have a moral obligation to preserve his local fish population? Does a whale worry about how much plankton it eats?

Realistically speaking, mankind could survive entirely on plant life should the need call for it. All our essential vitamins and minerals can be obtained threw various fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other agricultural products. And even if we did somehow require some particular set of proteins from animals (likely fish), cloning technology could eventually remove the need for a natural ecosystem entirely. By taking total control of our food production and ecosystem, we can maximize the survival rate of our species.

Animals are selfish by nature, regardless of how much we'd like to believe that nature is a totally balanced system. Species go extinct for a reason. Animals were dying out before man came long and before any intelligent life was around to have an agricultural revolution. There are ant species alive today that will invade other ants territory and drive them to extinction. Researchers have even observed chimpanzee's who go to war. So really, human behavior isn't that far outside what we've observed from the animal kingdom.

So the question really comes down to this. Are we arguing that the neolithic revolution was a practical mistake, or are we arguing that it have turned into a moral one?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Does a shark have a moral obligation to preserve his local fish population? Does a whale worry about how much plankton it eats?

The shark has a moral obligation to cause as little suffering as possible. While it may not do this, this doesn't mean we shouldn't. Furthermore, if the shark does not preserve its local fish population it dies because it can't eat.

Realistically speaking, mankind could survive entirely on plant life should the need call for it. All our essential vitamins and minerals can be obtained threw various fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other agricultural products. And even if we did somehow require some particular set of proteins from animals (likely fish), cloning technology could eventually remove the need for a natural ecosystem entirely. By taking total control of our food production and ecosystem, we can maximize the survival rate of our species.

Sure, lets get our vegetables, nuts and fruits without animals. Except animals are often necessary to pollinate plants so that they can survive. And in all seriousness, how can you actually take full control of an ecosystem?

Animals are selfish by nature, regardless of how much we'd like to believe that nature is a totally balanced system. Species go extinct for a reason. Animals were dying out before man came long and before any intelligent life was around to have an agricultural revolution. There are ant species alive today that will invade other ants territory and drive them to extinction. Researchers have even observed chimpanzee's who go to war. So really, human behavior isn't that far outside what we've observed from the animal kingdom.

That doesn't justify our behaviour in the slightest. While there are beings that behave in a similar manner to us, it doesn't make our behaviour any more morally correct. I mean it's akin to saying that "people kill people all the time! So... I'm perfectly justified to go out and eat some babies for dinner."

So the question really comes down to this. Are we arguing that the neolithic revolution was a practical mistake, or are we arguing that it have turned into a moral one?

I think we've went off on a tangent, after I decided to see how far down the rabbit hole this argument can go. The topic really has changed from the neolithic revolution to whether it is okay for humans to go destroy the biosphere.