What human invention has caused the most net harm (as in harm that outweighs the benefit) to the human race?

Net harm? Agriculture from the sheer fact that it allowed human population to increase so much. More people, more suffering.

Per capita suffering? Dunno.

>Le noble savage meme

Yeah user, why can't we go back to the glory days of tribal skirmishes and night raids for mo' pussy to rape?

>What human invention has caused the most net harm
Muy dude I'm just answering the question. I honestly think we'd all be better off as simple hunter/gatherers.

I don't support that dank meme . Just saying it's hard to do a fiction of damage to your society and environment if all you have is sticks and stones.

>What human invention has caused the most net harm (as in harm that outweighs the benefit) to the human race

It's benefited us pretty well, we're in no danger of going extinct and we're approaching the singularity

Here's a better question: what has caused the most harm to human development?

Of course human development is hardly linear, but development can also be negative.

not him, but the invention of agriculture has objectively caused "the most net harm", and that's what OP's question was, dumbass.

"human development"

Aircraft carriers.

To think, we could have had 100,000+ ton battleships by now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Literally, fuck you and your debunked noble savage meme.

What are you, a Kahama supporter?

...

Shitposting.

luckily TV is somewhat dying

...

High fructose corn syrup

Religion.

>implying you wouldn't get beaten to death by anyone after the development of agriculture

also "before agriculture, humans were violent animals" is a real dumb meme

Yeah I'm sure cavemen were really friendly

Hunter-gatherers in general tend to be more peaceful and egalitarian. That's not to say they couldn't or wouldn't be savage violent fucks who oppressed others, they are fucking humans after all. It's also pretty stupid that someone would murder their tribesman, someone closer than family who you've spent your entire life knowing and seeing everyday, for anything less than something really, really serious.

Marxism

best answer

Can incest really make you look this smug?

>what is endemic warfare

>approaching the singularity

Literally "muh rapture" for fedora tipping retards.

They might not murder their tribesmen often, but something like 60% of north native american deaths were due to constant low level warfare. People were never peaceful. Resources were always scarce.

They just had to put this fucker in on Spain in Empire Total War even though he died the starting year of that game. Bastards.

This

This is retarded. There were civilizations that had zero agriculture.

ehh.... centralized media. television/radio.

society

Well, if a hunter-gatherer makes it to adulthood, then they're likely to naturally live to around 50 or so; that's a lot of time for them to get into a fight and die. The point was violence was definitely a part of life, but it wasn't just constant brutality and viciousness; hunter-gatherers weren't peaceful hippies, but they were more peaceful than the agriculturalists that followed them, what with their greater desire and capacity for violence. But if we're comparing constant low-level warfare to the level of industrial warfare just in the 20th century where tens-of-millions died, I'd much rather pick low-level warfare.

There was a tale that on time Carl V killed his lover with his chin. Chopped her head of clearly. And said 'That's what you get for calling me Carly Chin.'.

Leaded gasoline

McDonalds

>more people die to violence in this type of society
>that makes it less violent somehow

and even with the tens of millions dead in 2 wars, that still gives you a significantly higher chance of remaining free of violence in a post-industrial society than in a hunter gatherer one. If they could also reach billion+ population you'd have 10 million dead to warfare every year instead of twice over the course of 4 to 5 in a century

You keep bringing the topic back to a modern society when a modern society hasn't been the main one for the majority of civilized history. Hunter-gatherers were more peaceful than agriculturalists. It is only now that with increased technology resource scarcity is being overcome and people have less reason to fight. Still, people dying to violence is not the same as someone's culture and society being destroyed or severely affected by violence. If you have a tribe of about 200, even if most of the people in that tribe are going to die of violence eventually, the tribe is likely to keep the same numbers or grow; violence would simply be a part of life, not particularly important, just something that happens. Whereas all countries involved in both World Wars were drastically affected by it for years afterward, with about 80 million dead or missing. Another example is about 470,000 people have died in the Syrian Civil War, which isn't that much compared to the population of 17 million, yet I doubt a single person of those 17 million hasn't had their life drastically changed for the worse; so while not that many have died, their entire country is practically destroyed.

Post-industrial societies are generally more peaceful because there's far less resource scarcity and people have less reasons to fight, but when wars happen it doesn't mean that most of the population will eventually die in one, it means the entire country and civilization is destroyed and has to be rebuilt, if it can be.

>live to 50 or so

Wow, sign me the fuck up.

>but they were more peaceful than the agriculturalists that followed them

This depends whether you define it by frequency or amplitude. I think the fact that like 1% of people are soldiers these days is much better for stress levels. Civilized people actually conquer each other, nomadic tribes have way less security and more often just wipe each other the fuck out. Besides, farming gives you the upper hand in conflicts between the two lifestyles, I would rather be a farmer than get killed by one.

>if we're comparing constant low-level warfare to the level of industrial warfare just in the 20th century where tens-of-millions died, I'd much rather pick low-level warfare

I would distinguish agricultural societies fron industrial ones, and industrial warfare from atomic era warfare. I don't see many wars on my doorstep these days.

Leaded gasoline.

gommunism

>What human invention has caused the most net harm (as in harm that outweighs the benefit) to the human race?
judaism

>ctrl+f
>no fire

come on

Written language

Incest.

Anal Sex. It leads to stuff like this.

Capitalism.

Masturbation and pornography.

Anything beyond the steam engine.

What's a better use for the metals?