posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:08 AM
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