This man convinced me that the agricultural revolution was a mistake

This man convinced me that the agricultural revolution was a mistake.

Hunter-gatherer:
>wake up when the sun gets in your eyes, naturally
>walk a pleasant natural path to your "job"
>30 hours of work per week
>work is interesting
>no house work after you get "home"
>communal sex life and child raising
>athletic stud with a long life expectancy

Farmer:
>wake up with rooster/alarm clock
>walk the mud or polluted streets to job
>50-60 hours of work per week
>don't even like the people i work with
>work is boring and dull
>more work after i get home
>wife too busy to fuck me, im too busy to ask anyway
>back broken small teethless man dies at age of 60

Do you agree?

Other urls found in this thread:

vice.com/en_id/article/kb4p83/archeologists-say-we-can-blame-the-patriarchy-on-meat-id
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The fantasy of being a hunter-gatherer is surely more fun that the fantasy of being a farmer.

That said enjoy living in the uncertainty of having food at the end of the day, dying of some minor injury or having your woman be raped and impreganted by some dude from your tribe or a rival one.

Nope

I hate these pseudoscientific fucks that nowadays are so popular.

You just have to think the following:

If the agricultural revolution was worse than being hunter-gatherer then why did every ethnicity shift to agriculture ?

These people have reality mixed up with their fantasies of sexual freedom and adventure.

>dying of some minor injury
There are evidences that people survived with severe injuries and were in care of their community.
Not sure if a farmer with a little injury would have received any help.

Sure the hunter gatherer life was probably the nost fulfulling and happiest of any stage in mankind. But it didn't achieve anything.

One day mankind will take its rightful place in the stars, even if we all have to suffer for a few millenia of suffering our species will be the first to rule this galaxy.

Just finished Homo Deus by the same guy btw, i definetely recommend it OP if you enjoyed Sapiens

The classical answer to that is that the more miserable harder working people can outcompete the happier lazier people. Farmers produce more food so they can support specialists to do all sorts of fancy things.
The same thing happened with the industrial revolution where everyone was miserable working in factories instead of on the farm, but they could cuck the rest of the world to death with their cheap goods.

Jared Diamond once claimed “in mental ability, New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners”.

Hunter gatherers population don't grow beyond available resources, that's the point.

Milk-drinking pastoralist: tall, healthy, warriors, ruling caste

Grain-eating farmers: manlets, diseased, slaves

Hunter-gatherers: literal subhumans

Are you saying mud didn't exist before farming?

Better for the genetic spread doesn't equal better for the individual person.
We aren't just selfish genes trying to reproduce, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and so on.
There is more to being a human than ensuring you survive for 40 years so you can fuck and raise children who also survive to 40 and fuck.

vice.com/en_id/article/kb4p83/archeologists-say-we-can-blame-the-patriarchy-on-meat-id

>The gender news emerged when Pechenkina and her colleagues analyzed the bones of Chinese people who lived roughly 10,000 years ago. According to Scientific American, bone tissues' nitrogen signature highlighted a reliance on meat, and a carbon signature correlated to wheat-based diets. Early findings matched Pechenkina hypothesis—both men and women depended on wheat in the Neolithic Period—but bones show a huge shift by the dawn of the Bronze Age.

>"We discovered very unexpectedly that female diets are very affected by wheat and barley, but male diets stay the same with high proportion of animal products," Pechenkina says.

>10 000 years ago in China

Those are dirty f*rmers.

>or having your woman be raped and impreganted by some dude from your tribe or a rival one.
Just as likely to happen if not more so in an primitive agricultural society

>170 cm
>tall

Lol

You won't be better off when the other group of people who decided to start farming and ended up with a huge population advantage over your group come and enslave you. Then they get to lay about all day while your ass works their fields.

>long life expectancy
lmao

Not every ethnicity switched to agriculture, and nomads were a dominant military force until the end of the middle ages.

Hydraulic despotism. A sedentary population is easier to control. If you raise taxes they won't run away. If you levy them for war and labor they won't run away. If you kill them for disobedience they won't run away.

>those other idiots decided to live like shit, and make you live like shit too
>thus living well was a mistake

>tiger attack
>a couple of guys die

>failed harvest
>thousands die

>No form of food in any close area
>Everyone dies

>no food in this area
>move to another area

works pretty well until winter

Did you think for even 2 seconds before posting?
You walk away from winter. Its not winter everywhere on the planet. Some places don't even have a proper winter ever.
You eat mushrooms and honey this month, then as climate changes you go eat nuts and squirrels and fish in the valley, then you move on and hunt and eat berries in the planes, and when weather improves you come back.

That's not what a hydraulic despotism is.

A hydraulic despotism is a regime whose control of a vital resource is so thorough as to make them both the supreme political and economic power of a society. Gets its name from Phaoronic Egypt, Mesopotamia, and early dynastic China: their control of the Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, and Yellow Rivers made their societies so interconnected that the ruling class could economically strangle rebellious provinces by cutting off trade, making it virtually impossible to dislodge them from within. However these societies would become sclerotic and economically wither so thoroughly that even nomads normally kept in check by the centralized authority could tip them over, but they always installed themselves as the next ruling class, and the cycle would repeat itself with another band of nomads. Turns out that being the ruler of farmers is a much more preferable lifestyle to scratching a living in some wasteland.

Being a king beats being a nomad.
Only so many kings though. Most the farmers were peasants.

maybe if that farmer never fought a war in his life.

>hunter-gatherers
>one child per woman every 5-6 years, since you have to wait for the previous one to start walking by itself

>farmers
>every woman pregnant every year
>half of them die, but its fine, we still make more

Evolution doesn't care for quality of life, only for number of living creatures.
Thousands of miserable sick farmers can live on the same amount of land that a hundred fit and happy nomads can.
And it doesn't matter if you die at 40, at that age you've already lost most reproductive fitness anyways, might as well die to make room.

Stop using computers then, hypocrite edgelord

I hate this stupid non-argument.
Wishing things were different doesn't mean you should live badly in the current situation on purpose.

>move to another area
>it already ocupated for another nomads
>kill them all

The true anprim paradise

How the fuck did HG managed this. Did they pull out?

>get found by civilization
>get forced onto a reservation out of pity, or just displaced and killed
I'd rather fuck someone than get fucked. That's why I'll never be a primitivist

>Be hunter-gatherer
>live in a cave
>no fire at night because might attract predators
>spend all day trying to tie a sharp rock to a stick
>go down from cave to hunting ground
>cut my feet on the rocks because no socks or shoes
>finally reach hunting ground
>all the game migrated yesterday
>ohfuck.cavepainting
>begin tracking game
>spend two days running after them, have only a couple of berries to eat because no food reserves
>finally find a wounded deer, has fallen behind the herd
>attack it with rockstick
>rockstick breaks
>oh well, at least animal dead
>spend all day making long sharp rock
>haven't eaten in three days now
>begin cutting some meat off animal
>eat it raw because no fire
>get salmonella
>die
>entire family starve because no brought back food

Such is life in hunter-gatherer society

>fire attracting predators
You're aware every animal BUT humans tend to avoid fire?

Breast Feeding.

For the majority of human history hunter gatherers probably had it far better than the average peasant. Maybe nobles and royals had it better than hunter gatherers, but they're a tiny fraction of the population. Even still, woth modern technology, hunter gatherers probably have it better than your average asian factory slave, bangladeshi sweatshop seamstress, etc.

>Wishing things were different doesn't mean you should live badly in the current situation on purpose.


You can't undo the current technological progress, how can you romanticizing your stupid meme ideology when you use all these "evil" technology? you must go to the woods and see by yourself if you fit in that conditions.

t. the anprim virgin

because the agricultural societies literally hopped on horses and slaughtered any hunter gatherers they could find before settling down wherever they could farm since they could take on any pre-agricultural group with ease.
Its not that people stopped because they wanted to, they stopped because they were stopped.

>two groups of nomads meet
>they have a short fight
>the one that loses walks away
>goes elsewhere

>two groups of farmers fight for land
>one loses
>the other butchers them and takes their stuff
>survivors die as they flee because they can't live without fields

Frequent and regular breastfeeding as a form of contraception is called lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM). LAM is about 98 per cent effective.
Farmers fed their children wheat goo.

>no fire at night because might attract predators

Nigga its the exact opposite.

>how can you wish for things to be different while living in a world where they aren't different?!?!?!? hello?!?!?!?!?!?!

a couple scout ants might die but the colony gets revenge, farming societies have always used their larger populations to their advantage, its inevitable that their populations will swallow every other lifestyle around them. remember, even the nomads needed to raid civilized societies to keep their way of life viable, its not like they could have survived and prospered like they did without the agricultural societies to steal from.

Nigga the "steppe people" or "horse warlords" that terrorized the settled world for 5000 years were nomads.
Not hunter-gatherers, mind, but herders and pastoral tribes. Not agriculturalists, and settled people were like a pinata for them.

Full retard debate from the beginning because the transition between agriculture and hunting was not a decisive boundary line and most early societies hunted, gathered, AND did primitive agriculture like Nauftian culture. It was only when agriculture became more effective that it became the dominant source of food for man. And even then, hunting + gathering never died out. Forage and small game, fishing made up a huge chunk of the Roman poor's diet.

This concept seems designed to sell fad diets to stupid people in ignorance to what actually happened in history.

you dont get it, theres a difference between the indoeuropean horse tribes that Im referring to, the tribes that killed or drove off all the hunter gatherers in eurasia and settled there with the use of war horses. steppe nomads are a different beast entirely, and also dependent on how big the civilizations next to them are. Horse tribes cant get Hun-sized unless there is hun-sized prey to be justifying such a confederation. Large pops require farmers one way or the other.

farmer will die around the age 60
hunter will die if he isn´t concentrated
30hours of work per week (if u find food)
idk i would saay hunter is more entertaining but that the humankind settle down and farm their goods was a step in the right direction
+fuck the group u hunt with would likely be the same u do the farming with

Greater production of food allows for larger organizations with which you can easily conquer hunter-gatherers.

We shifted away from our natural form of living to obtain power. We've been accelerating that process every since.

Wow, that's a big pile of bullshit.

>its inevitable that their populations will swallow every other lifestyle around them.
Yet this isn't what happens, ants never exterminated the beetles around.

>no food in this area
>too weak to move to another area
>everyone dies

How did you enter an area with no food, walked through hundreds of miles of no food, and when starving decided to go back through the same hundreds of miles with no food?

The scenario you are describing doesn't occur.

wtf is that analogy we are talking about humans changing other humans lifestyles not changing other animals. if an ant colony were to grow several times in population compared to others, it could easily outcompete other any colonies in the are

I wonder how they survived millions of years if they were as stupid as you...