That is positively the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.Originally Posted by midgetbob
Any kind of knowledge of the history of agriculture would point this out. So that's what I'll do. Here's a rudimentary outline of the mother flippin' history of civilisation.
In the Paleolithic ('paleo' = 'old'; 'lithic' = 'stone'; therefore, the paleolithic is the 'old stone age') stage of human development, we were pre-agricultural nomads, although there may have been a few permanent coastal settlements. We lived in small groups (<50) so we could migrate frequently. We ate leaves, nuts, berries, roots, and hunted animals and other humans. We had no domesticated animals. To survive, we needed intimate knowledge of of plant and animal resources, as well as of local geography. Much of this knowledge was reflected in culture, such as traditional songs. It's possible remnants of this still survives today, and the practice itself certainly continues. We were a low-impact 'civilisation'.
As the Neolithic dawned, we began to become agricultural. By about 12,000 years ago, human populations had spread into most habitable regions. Agriculture developed for the first time ~10,000 years ago (the end of the Pleistocene, or the Holocene in geological time, which is the present epoch). The development of agriculture coincided with the emergence of the temperate climate associated with this period.
[By the way, the lower-end projections for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 2100 is 500m parts per million (PPM). This has never existed in the past million years, and certainly not while we humans have used agriculture to sustain our way of life. Can our changes to the environment sustain human population?]
Anyway, we worked out that certain plants and animals could be manipulated, so we wouldn't have to travel around so damn much. Planting crops and simple forms of herding animals led to food surpluses, which had a multitude of impacts. These include:
- Complex divisions of labour (incl. non-productive occupations and capitalists).
- Complex society and political organisation.
- Large armies (empire expansion).
- More control of natural resources.
- Population growth and demographic change.
What this all leads to is the dawn of civilisation.
[By the way, ENERGY is fundamental to every system - even human ones. Agriculturalists harnessed the energy of domesticated animals, wind, and water. Pre-agriculturalist society was driven by human physical work. Our modern society is driven by fossil fuels! 'Cos it's smart to balance our entire civilisation on something that will run out and shit.]
The earliest evidence for agriculture is in the so-called 'Fertile Crescent', which consisted of the temperate regions of the Nile Valley, Western Asia, the Zagros Mountains (in Iran), Anatolia (Turkey), northern Syria, and the Jordan River Valley. Empires were able to develop, because of agriculture. Look at the Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Holy Roman, Xia, Shang, Zhou, and Qin empires (the last four are Chinese, if you didn't know. Turns out they barely teach geography in schools these days.)
As knowledge 'travelled' (most likely with merchants and explorers), agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East, into Europe. Yes, Western Civilsation, you owe your existence to the Arabs. Now stop stealing the oil.
And then time progressed and knowledge traveled further. We had the Renaissance of the 1500s, the Reformation of the 1600s, European revolutions of the 1700s, Industrial revolutions of the 1800s, and then colonialism, and then post-colonialism, and now globalism. Note that this is the Western story. Most of the world didn't get it so sweet. But this is how you're taught it in school, right?
Basically, it's not about some giant, kick-ass flood sent by God to wipe out humanity (I thought He preached love and forgiveness anyway...), and it's certainly not about some aliens with white beards. It's all logical and chronological. Agriculture came naturally, and it led to a series of changes that have culminated in now.
What's interesting is that in 2009, the ratio of rural to urban people tipped, for the first time ever. There are now, officially, more people living in cities than in rural spaces. How this pans out with regards to meeting human needs remains to be seen. We're living in very exciting times!











Bookmarks