A "Short and Sweet" History Just Kidding (about the "sweet" part

A “Short and Sweet” History Just Kidding (about the “sweet” part)! Jared Diamond, in a 1999 article, referred to the advent of agriculture (during, i.e., the Agricultural Revolution, which began about 12,500 years ago) as “the worst mistake in the history of the human race.” In that article Diamond stated, for example: 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 farmers 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. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities. Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. This raises an important question not addressed by Diamond: Why, then, hunter-gatherers choose to abandon hunting and gathering in favor of agriculture? Assuming, that is, that choice was involved? To answer that question, I need to present a brief sketch of human history, doing so as a series of points: 1. I use as my starting point this recent statement by anthropologist Alan Barnard: Humankind has lived on this planet for around 315,000 years, and for nearly all of this time we have been hunters and gatherers.1 2. Humans “have been designed to live by hunting wild beasts and by collecting wild plants.”2 3. I would modify the claim in point 2 by saying that what’s of particular relevance for today is the fact that we became designed, prior to the Agricultural Revolution, to engage in certain social behaviors: 1 Hunters and Gatherers: What We Can Learn From Them (2020), p. 13. I should add that “foragers” is another term commonly applied to hunter-gatherers. 2 Ibid., p. 56. 1 a. Being in the company of others. b. Sharing with others. c. Helping others. d. Cooperating with others. e. Etc. Each of the above should be qualified with the phrase “within one’s own group.” Recent scientific literature has been asserting that humans are naturally good (click on this link, for example); that fact suggests that: a. We were designed to be good. b. That “designing” occurred during the lengthy period while our ancestors were huntergatherers, prior to the Agricultural Revolution. 4. I would also add that the mobile (as opposed to sedentary) nature of hunting-gathering: a. Forced such groups to be small in population size (fewer than 100 individuals). b. Which fact helped cause us humans to become designed for living in small groups. 5. When agriculture began to displace foraging in some groups, the requirements of a life based on agriculture made such groups increasingly sedentary. 6. That enabled such groups to grow in population size, and they did do so. 7. That growth in population size weakened the bonds that had formerly connected one member of a group with the other members. This weakening resulted in feelings of insecurity and anxiety arising in many. Also, a Discrepancy increasingly developed between the way of life for which humans had become designed, and the new ways of life that were developing. 8. That weakening and the feelings it engendered in many, in conjunction with the fact of human genetic variability (a function of our being a sexually-reproducing species), created a situation conducive to those individuals with a natural tendency to take advantage of others to begin to do so. (Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had developed practices that had prevented this from occurring; what enabled those practices to be effective was that the groups that they lived in were small.) 2 9. That new behavior led to the creation of social classes (and, thereby, increasing inequality3), and to civilization! 10. Although the word “civilization” has positive connotations for most people today, that perception of “civilization: is undeserved! Let me explain why: a. Given that humans had become designed for certain social behaviors (see point 3 above), and that the societal change that was occurring was inconsistent with our design, a discrepancy4 began to develop between:  The social behaviors associated with way of life that humans had prior to the Agricultural Revolution; and  The new social behaviors associated with the new way of life. The particular behaviors that one engaged in became a function of one’s social class. b. Underlying this change was the fact that whereas human biological changes occur slowly, the societal changes that began to occur, during the Agricultural Revolution, became increasingly rapid. David P. Barash has referred to the former using the word “tortoise,” and the word “hare” for the latter!5 c. At an individual level the growing Discrepancy created a coping problem for many. Modern responses to that problem varied: 1) The need to be in the company of others has caused:  Some to be drawn to religious meetings.  Others to be drawn to sporting events, concerts, watching television (which provides vicarious contact with others).  Etc. 2) Caused some to become busy:  Shopping.  Going to a gymnasium or health club. 3 The consequences of inequality have been discussed rather thoroughly in Richard G. Wilkinson’s The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier (2005). 4 See my The Discrepancy: Concept and Consequences . 5 The Hare and the Tortoise: Culture, Biology, and Human Nature (1986). 3  Etc. 3) If neither one’s affiliative needs nor other needs (e.g., physical ones) are being met well, one might respond by:  Acquiring a mental or physical disease (e.g., one of the “diseases of civilization”).  Engaging in anti-social behaviors. d. At a societal level I see our history as being explained by the Discrepancy,6 specifically the history presented by Eugene Linden in his Affluence and Discontent: The Anatomy of Consumer Societies (1979).7 e. Given that history, I am in full agreement with Linden’s conclusion (p. 178): The consumer society continues to roll along despite the diminishing luster of its myths. What this suggests is that we will continue on our present [downward!] course, and that the probability of one or another of our proposed [in the book] disasters will rapidly increase until some small event [the election of “sadopopulist” Donald Trump as President?!] triggers the apocalypse of the consumer society. f. What I would add to Linden’s conclusion are these:  From this source: . . . planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live . . . .  From this source: Nature is declining at an “unprecedented” rate due to human activity, with 1 million plant and animal species at risk of extinction, many within the next few decades, according to a new comprehensive report from 145 of the world’s leading scientists.  And, from this source: , , , there is a group of courageous and prominent climate scientists who offer compelling climate science evidence that human beings, along with 6 I attribute the concept of a Discrepancy to (my hero!) Thorstein Veblen [1857 – 1929]. See my The Current Relevance of Thorstein Veblen. I grew up about 80 miles from where Veblen did (Veblen in Cato, WI, me across Lake Winnebago in Mt. Morris, WI). My heritage is also Norwegian, although my mother (Inez Hasselquist) was part Swede. 7 I summarize the book in my History is Against Our Species! and Gaia’s Cure for Cancer. 4 millions of othejr species, will be extinct by 2026 (and perhaps as early as 2021) in response to a projected 10 degree celsius increase in global temperatures above the pre-industrial level by that date. See ‘Will humans be extinct by 2026?’ 11. As the father of three, and grandfather of five, the possibility of our near-term extinction concerns me greatly!! 12. What I propose in addressing the problem of global warming (while simultaneously addressing some of our social problems, to a degree) is the creation of company-town ecovillages (see my 33-page A Road to Survival?). I would add here that the “village” in “ecovillage” suggests that ecovillages, virtually by definition, are small; and that given that our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small groups, the creation of ecovillages (of which there are many already; see this map) would constitute a “return” of sorts to hunter-gatherer existence! 13. Now, if I could only find that unique entrepreneur who would not only be interested in my proposal, but willing to act on it!! 14. Finally, to answer the questions that I raised at the beginning (about choice): HUMANS DID NOT “CHOOSE” A WAY OF LIFE BASED ON AGRICULTURE; RATHER, THEY DRIFTED INTO IT. 15. And, I would add that: The technological and intellectual developments that have occurred over the millennia, since the Agricultural Revolution, have created a situation that will be difficult (impossible?!) to change. I suspect, in fact, that the current dominance of ideological thinking especially makes important change via governmental agencies virtually impossible. Which is my reason for advocating the creation of company-town ecovillages. 16. However: I have, frankly, little hope for the human future, and give some of my reasons for that in my A Theory as to Why We are Doomed. 5