3 comments

• 

  CarlM

  11 months ago

  I don't get this at all. He explains many of the ways in which agriculture has improved life on Earth for mankind. Then he poses the ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT QUESTION: How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming?

  
  

  That's like asking "How do you show that the lives of (let's say) British soldiers during World War II got better when they fought the Germans?" Of course, they didn't. They suffered terribly, but that's not the point. It's the outcome that measures the success. And, most would argue that they did not suffer (and die) in vain, but to make the world a better place (or at least to preserve the values of Britain).

  
  

  Similarly, I don't think that anyone would claim that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got immediately better during the transition to a predominantly agricultural society. He gives evidence to show that their lives did not immediately improve, but I don't see that this is really the point. Certainly I find it rather absurd to call it Humanity's worst mistake.

  reply
• 

  Daniel Miessler

  11 months ago

  I agree, Carl. I think it's specious at best. But it's though-provoking at least. I think it makes for good exercise to be able to articulate the problem with the argument.

  reply
• 

  Steven G. Harms

  11 months ago

  This argument was made much more cogently in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

  reply