Agriculture was the worst mistake in human history

Yes it was much more carefree when you just had go out everyday to track down some animal, kill it, take it back home and die from eating some wild berries you found because you didn’t yet have control over your food sources

You say no war but looking at people who didn’t have agriculture like the Africans or native Americans still frequently went to war with each other

Without agriculture you would have the computer you're using to post these low iq statements

Attached: 1512389227776.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Without agriculture there can be no culture

Hasn't average body and brain size been skyrocketing since ancient times though?

this

Yes. People are smarter now with a greater proclivity for understanding complex systems now then before, and multiple generations of excellent nutrition has resulted in people having better developed musculature and height over time.

I can't.
Pastoralism is top tier.

>The Yamnaya were in the Stone Age

or you could just raise animals.

Due to nutrition from Pastoralism, it has been the shift away from Agriculture that has led to greater human prospering.

>prove me wrong
I will once you make an argument.

There is no archaeological evidence that they had wars

I would argue that we would have had it sooner.

But we don't have simpler and more carefree lives do we?

>you tribe have nice land
>me tribe want land
>we war you
>this never happened before agriculture

Attached: 1518050100908.png (733x464, 100K)

We still operate on the same platform we did 10,000 years ago. Evidence of this would be still falling for progress traps. (Example) kill 1 wooly mammoth yay, kill2 even better, population start increasing bc now you can kill 2, then you start running a herd of 300 over a cliff, population explodes, but the mammoths die off = progress trap. We still do it to this day. Collectively we still run the 300 off the cliff and have no grasp of sustainability. Yes we are smarter and can do more things because of knowledge compounding. But we still operate on the same primal platform that we did 10,000 yrs ago.

Again their is no archaeological evidence that it did. And really think about it, why would that happen. Your "tribe" of 20 people have everything they need to survive and live a relatively happy and carefree life. They come across another "tribe" of 20 or so people who have everything they need to survive and live a relatively happy and carefree life. Would you be willing to risk the death of everyone you loved to gain what little stuff they possessed? This way of thinking didn't come about until we started storing stuff and having to protect it.

Hahahahahahh

Hey you guys the formation of history was the worst mistake in human history. This is basically what you’re saying.

As an anti natalist I agree.

Because people instinctively want more than others. You think if joe shmoe over there has a big ass river and plenty of delicious fish to feed his tribe and then some, that another tribe doesnt want to get that food source? Also, if you argue for pastoralism instead it is literally the storage of food/travel/whatever else the animal will be used for. Same concept of storage of one thing, that will lead to people wanting/warring for that thing. Maybe if everyone was magically spaced out enough to have all their needs met (food, water, shelter, etc) then they would be carefree, but this was never the case. Plenty of people today could live carefree with their wealth, but most stay in power and want more. Plenty of people today could live just fine within the city or town they are born in, but want more and choose to move to smaller or bigger cities/towns etc.

But that's wrong, you idiot. Just look at all the nonagricultural groups that invented shields. You think >pic related was for defending himself against fucking spiders or some shit?

Attached: 1998.249.35.2.jpg (159x250, 14K)

Joe Shmoe over there didn't have a big ass river, Joe Shmoe used big ass river, to feed twenty people, oh hey Joe Shmoe that's a big ass river I need to feed my people too. Well jack shone it is a big ass river isn't it

Do you somehow think photography was invented b4 agriculture?

And yes I agree with you on storage of animals. You don't see native Americans warring until horses

Do you think that the guy in the picture is from the same ethnicity as the guy that took the picture? Brainlet.

They invented shields when the agricultural peoples started trying to take the land they used to feed themselves. Jtfc

No they didn't. They already had them.

Whoever planted the first seed fucked it up for everyone, sent all human societies into an arms race with the majority of the populace paying the toll. Thanks for nothing, Gilgamesh

The earliest archeological evidence of war is 10,000 years ago. Ag started roughly 9500 years ago. Man has been around for 450,000 years. Coincidence?

That's because you're not counting tribal warfare in your definition.

And you know this bc some britbong took a picture? Is there any archeological evidence that suggests the Abos had shields b4 and type of crop or livestock storage?

No that's bc it's the earliest archeological evidence of tribal warfare

Yeah, cave paintings and written accounts by the first explorers, you moron.

you should send this info to the anthropology institute they would be thrilled with your findings

It's already well-documented, brainlet.

The earliest we see any evidence of abo wars is around 10,000 years. Again 450,000 year of man. I think them being on an inhospitable shitfilled island and limited resources has something to do with this, but it only furthers the arguement that what causes people to fight is limited resources, and storing resources makes more people more people make resources more limited.

Glad you chose the 1 outlier as an example

t. 3rd semeste highschooler

winter

>lalalalala I CANT HEAR YOU

I didn't choose one outlier, warfare amongst hunter gatherers happened everywhere.

The reason why we don't have evidence of it happening further back, is because we have little evidence of anything that far back. But some of the oldest evidence of warfare was between hunter gatherers, this much is fact.

By ignoring it because it doesn't fit into your commie feminist utopia narrative doesn't make the evidence go away.

nature.com/articles/nature16477

Agriculture never happening would prevent pic related from ever happening

Attached: singularity1.jpg (2250x858, 402K)

Agriculture-great
Industrialization-meh...

Are you saying horticulture>agriculture or do you think we should have stayed hunter gatherers and nomads?

>No war because no resources to fight over
KEK

You don't know that that is true

SAGED
ur a faggot here's a (You)

Whoa calm down, I'm def not a commie lefty nut. Btw the article you linked gives absolutely no detail, just yeah the found some people who died violently and then abandon any type of arguement as soon as they can. Here's one with an arguement

google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-it-natural-for-humans-to-make-war-new-study-of-tribal-societies-reveals-conflict-is-an-alien-8718069.html?amp

Hunter gatherer

WhAt makes you think that humans with more time on there hands that are relatively peaceful wouldn't have developed advanced technology?

How would superintelligent AI be developed if agriculture never existed? The world population was only roughly 7 million 10000 years ago, and if this was still true today, along with medieval Clark-Unz selection never happening, there would be less than 1/1000th of the geniuses who advance this type of technology alive today.

Attached: virginchadtranshumanism.png (1400x650, 221K)

Can't argue with that def less people, but does the more time for thought and less time spent trying to hold on to what you have make up for it?

Anprim Gang approves this message

Your article says that warfare exists in hunter gatherers though. It just makes a strawman by saying that prehistoric tribes weren't in a constant state of war, like anyone expected them to be.

They also use a very narrow definition of war, excluding conflicts between families, so clan warfare is conveniently left out in a time where individuals within bands would be related, and probably different bands within the same region too.

Also, their conclusion isn't based on their evidence. Their evidence showed that warfare by their definition did happen, albeit a small amount of overall deaths. But their conclusion is, it didn't happen.

Basically, it's some shitty metastudy from some obscure university in Finland.