Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I came to the same conclusion after reading his book. His book is pretty terrible.

His viewpoint (while interesting) was not very grounded at all. Simply because agriculture requires more work doesn't mean it's inferior to hunting. Try hunting an antelope if you've got a sprained ankle.

Another perspective that irked me was his blind faith that modern society is built purely conceptual ideas. Citing empires, car brands, and money. In reality all these things work because they provide practical benefits. Few people or groups go out of their way to work purely on ideological bases, and those who do, do so on a rational philosophy. Let alone as soon as it becomes impracticable (See Maslow's hierarchy of needs).




I think you've simplified his view a bit too much. Agriculture not only requires more work but...

* Worse nutrition because you're eating only the narrow selection you can grow.

* Poor nutrition means worse health, digestive, and dental problems.

* Agriculture leads to higher population densities and living in proximity to animals which in turn leads to plagues.

* Agriculture leads to population growth and consequent vulnerability to weather, floods, etc.

* Agriculture leads to population density, leads to social organization, leads to war, genocide, feudalism, etc

There are lots of problems with primitive agriculture and it seems perfectly plausible that it would be a better life to be an early hunter gatherer than an early farmer. Try tilling a field with a sprained ankle, or with rotting teeth after a bad harvest to feed your starving children. Etc.


Err, try tilling the soil, planting, and harvesting with a sprained ankle? No thanks.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: