Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

page: 2
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
This is from my phone so never mind sp&g mistakes.
thank you so much for bringing this subject to attention. This is our next biig revolution in the making. And for you haters who are going to try to debunk this info, its of no use, its been studied and confirmed many times all over the world...the biggest mistake you can make when pondering about this is to see it through youre cultural lens. Totalitarian agriculture is our cultural lens. Ever heard of prehistory? Yeah, thats what totalitarian agriculturalists call the 200,000 years of human history before the agricultural revolution. The word Prehistory implies that things that happened then were nothing really noteworthy. This is a period at least twenty times longer than our presently dominating culture has existed! This is one of many clues that tell you were being brainwashed by our culture. I highly advise anyone interested in this to read Daniel Quinn, especially his Story of B, and Ishmael. Also, coincidentally my girlfriend (who is an anthropologist) just started writing a blog about this subject. I highly advise you to check it out, it wil answer some curious questions. the-atavist.blogspot.com...




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
You guys DO know that every family of two needs to have two to four children just to keep their culture from dying out right?
edit on 10-10-2011 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
One could also argue that technology was one of the greatest downfalls. While most people will begin by pointing out medical advances, I would argue that it defies that most basic laws of nature and now we are stuck in a never-ending destructive cycle of trying to balance out each advancement with even more technology. It has to have a zero point in my opinion.

As far as agriculture, the entire premise is actually very logical. Although I would disagree with the inequality of gender having been fueled by this movement. There was a division in gender long before the introduction of agriculture. Women weren't permitted to hunt generally, only gather. Not to mention that even in the nomadic lifestyle it was the women's responsibility to care for the children entirely. In my opinion, the separation of gender began during the caveman era and merely continued. The responsibilities of each gender changed as time progressed and different needs were realized, but there was always a division of who did what, mostly determined and dictated by men.

In terms of disease, this makes sense as well. As people were consuming naturally evolving plants and animals, the changes in composition entered our system and we were better able to adapt to what we were eating. When we began increasing food production, we stopped eating naturally evolving plants and became more susceptible to the newer strains of bacteria and viruses. This is one of the reasons why children have so many more allergies now, are more susceptible to germs, asthma is on the rise, etc. We have managed to create a "bubble environment" but we have done so at the cost of not evolving our systems at the same rate as nature is evolving.

This is also the problem with global warming. Had we remained living off the land, our bodies would naturally have adapted to handling warmer temperatures, our diets would have adapted to be able to continue to eat a changing ecosystem, we would have been less vulnerable to the new strains of bacteria, etc., since we would have been gradually exposed and built up natural immunity. Yes, a lot more people would die in the process, but those that survived would have procreated and produced offspring also immune, thus continuing the human race. Isn't this merely survival of the fittest?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Yea, but...

I'd imagine that hunting Mammoth was a pretty dangerous game. They're big, they're strong, and when hunted I'd bet they can get pretty PISSED OFF. I imagine there was plenty of suffering & death that came from hunting.

As for gathering, it means you've got to move around a lot. If a drought passes through your area and you can't walk far enough to get out of it you and your group starve.

Not to mention that without proper housing and being constantly on the move the hunters can easily become the HUNTED. That's not a very pleasant realization.

If you consider population as being a measure of success, I think that almost 7 BILLION is a pretty impressive number. Measuring 7 billion against the rest of the time we spent on this planet on that 24 hour scale I'd guess that 7 billion might be the population for the entirety of the total population for around 23.5 hours.

edit on 10-10-2011 by LazyGuy because: Fixed Mistake



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 



What if starvation, warefare and tyranny aren't conspiratorially driven facets that plague the modern world? Is it really possible that the simple act of trying to increase food production led, ironically enough, to starvation and disease? Or that in an effort to increase population, we effectively paved the way for its division and social classifications? It's an interesting theory..but if it's true, can we dig ourselves out of the rut?


Thank you for a most thought provoking post. Diamond's thesis is certainly contrarian. He is correct in an almost tautological way, reminiscent of Groucho Marx's famous formulation: "Do you want to be wage slaves? Do you know what causes wage slavery? Wages!" Our ancestors did not "decide" to take up agriculture rather than control their population; when they discovered agriculture they gradually ceased hunting and gathering because agriculture was a more efficient means of feeding themselves. As has been pointed out, the nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle had its own perils. The population tended to remain stable because of predation. There is no reason to believe that conflict over territory (hunting grounds, fresh water, etc) and famine (due to ecological changes, etc) were any less prevalent in pre-historic times. Also, not all hunter-gatherers managed to find the correct ecological balance with their environment; there is reason to believe that humans are responsible for the extinction of most of the mega-fauna in North America. Native Americans were "hunting" by driving entire herd of buffalo off cliffs as recently as the 19th century.

On the other hand, by establishing fixed settlements, agriculture promoted the development of a self aware culture, one that was capable of creating the concept of "history" itself. If human beings create totalitarian societies or rigid caste systems, it is not because of agriculture; it is because humans have base drives at times. If humanity is to survive for another 100,000 years, it will need to take all that it has learned that has been made possible by agriculture and apply it towards creating a sustainable global civilization. This involves not only a wise use of material resources, but developing social systems that promote peaceful co-existence and mutual assistance. I, for one, think we can do it.
edit on 10-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Our greater mistake was gaining a sense of self. Once we realized who we were, the game was over........

lol



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


Oh hush. Pastured farming actually promotes a healthy ecosystem. Crops destroy them.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
One could also argue that technology was one of the greatest downfalls.


Sure. And technology certainly drove agriculture.

But I don't think technology is inherently a downfall; perhaps it's how technology is used/applied. In which case, it's simply an indirect association, and not a causation.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
But agriculture does allow for much larger population. It is bad for the planet? Like the rock cares.
It is bad for us? If there was no agriculture there likely will not be me or you. I consider exiting a benefit.
Ecosystem is decreasing in variety due to our population growth - yes of course. Taking a rifle and going to hunt will not solve this problem though.
In my opinion the current solution of decreasing growth of population using moral means (like education and economic pressure) is not enough, people should understand though education that we need to consume less and government job is to not let the economy or job market crash during all this.
Billions of hunters suddenly roaming the wilderness of megapolises will not cut it.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You are all going to find this ironic, but I believe we are how we are now because of our ability to fight, our desire to be the the best. Which is what everyone is doing now right here in this thread. There can be no solution or answer because everyone is arguing opposite points. Both have facts and both are absolutely sure they are correct.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 


Our competitive nature which has allowed us to survive and (depending on your point of view) flourish and may also lead to our destruction or reduction



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


Your family line got through the hunter gatherer part OK, and droughts were probably rare before we blocked waterways and cut down trees.

Some ancient people built mud brick cities and the wondered why their crops wouldnot grow in the desert they left...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I believe this is the "forbidden fruit of knowledge" which adam and even ate. The apple represents agriculture, which forced adam and eve out of "eden" or the natural environment that god gave us, and instead we decided to create our own, manmade environment. Eden isn't a place, rather, it is the natural world that hunter gatherers learn to live with vs the man made city environments that go against the natural world.

Agriculture, however, can be done correctly. As a civilization, I believe our final goal as a culture is to become part of a galactic alliance with other civilizations, not of this world. Agriculture at it's current stage is completely inefficient. Not only this, but we are poisoning our own food. Until we learn to take care of ourselves and manage a population our size, which is completely possible if we start using our money for the right priorities, then we will not reach this goal.
edit on 10-10-2011 by dadank because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Interesting post, OP -- and some excellent comments by members.


My own take on this is that in respect of growing crops, two of the major problems are that these days, we tend to grow mainly annuals rather than perennials. For example, many grain crops are annuals: they have to be planted, they grow, we harvest the grain, the plants die off -- and then the next year we have to start all over again. This involves a considerable amount of time and energy in preparing the soil, and also requires us to maintain supplies of seed to replant.

The other important consideration directly associated with the annual versus perennial concept is that generally speaking, annuals put out much shallower roots and are far less hardy when it comes to surviving harsher years. Perennials often have very deep and extensive root systems and can find the water that is literally beyond the reach of the annual plants.

The second problem is that we have been slowly and steadily reducing species diversity. Where there were in the past often hundreds or even thousands varieties of plants that we sourced for food within given geographical areas, most are now gone and we rely on the output of just a fraction of the former species. That huge diversity existed for a reason -- and it wasn't just for our benefit, but for the whole ecosystem. By reducing this diversity to such a degree we may ultimately be the losers.

In fact I suspect that in some cases we already are.

Mike

edit on 10/10/11 by JustMike because: I needed to.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
George Carlin has some words that at least relate to the topics being discussed:
(Warning: Carlin occasionally uses harsh language to make his philosophical points)
And ignore the title: He never even mentions global warming


Our "purpose" is to bring plastic to Earth
edit on 10-10-2011 by radosta because: clarification



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


reproduce like jackrabbits? lol.
In Canada the average is 1.1 children per family. That isn't so bad. Some families have more, some have less. We are here to reproduce after all. I think couples having two children isnt too bad - it means that two people go into the marriage and two people come out. That is sustainability. Granted we are overpopulated, so for now 1.1 works better than 2. I don't think there should ever be a time or a reason to try to place limits on the ability of people to reproduce. It is unfair, will be abused - meaning the wealthy will find ways to have what they want, and the unconnected middle class will not. For evolution to work there needs to be equal opportunity. Trust me, when we reach a breaking point on the overpopulation scale, mother nature will naturally cull our numbers, with the fittest, smartest or strongest surviving. All will be fine.






top topics



 
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join