Back to Ted

  • I think both of you are not considering two major aspects:

    Farming can feed more people on a given fertile area than hunting and gathering can.

    Farming is area exclusive, e.g. there is a set amount of people farming in one area and considering this area to be theirs, excluding everyone else from usage.

    It is very much possible, that in terms of providing food for the existing population both are equally viable. But with farming you could create larger more densely packed populations, which in turn provided means to exclude others by force. So while hunting and gathering was not necessarily a bad way of life, it did not allow for imperialism and was subsequently diminished by the imperialists.

    • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So while hunting and gathering was not necessarily a bad way of life, it did not allow for imperialism and was subsequently diminished by the imperialists.

      Have you seen nowadays how they fish? They destroy whole huge areas leaving no fish behind. This is a type of imperialism. The problem is capitalism in its nature

      • And for that kind of fishing you need large vessels, built in stationary warfts, using stationary ports. The materials are made in stationary complex apparatusses to extract and shape metals from ore and the ore is mined in stationary mines.

        All of this is only possible as a result of settling

        • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure. So your idea is that people should be mandated to travel and change places every X years? Or what? I don’t get it.

          Isn’t the problem the disproportionate accumulation of goods, resources and money? AKA capitalism? I mean theoretically, if you restrict these, you can also settle in one place without taking advantage and destroying everything around it.

          • I said none of this.

            The thesis was that people settled because it was superior in terms of supplying the population back then. All i was saying is that at the time that mustnt have been the case. It was more effective in the capitlaist/imperialist/expansionist mindset that is fucking is over now.

            Of course with the current 8 billion people living on earth a nomadic lifestyle is not viable. But that is a very different question from the question if it was viable 10.000 years ago, when there were maybe a few hundred thousand to a few million humans on earthin total.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Man’s never heard of the Mongols, Turks, Huns, etc etc etc.

        Whose lifestyles only worked because they could trade for food and goods from farming communities btw

        • And they existed about 2000-1000 years ago. Humans started settling and farming as far back as 10.000-12.000 years ago.

          Of course by then populations have increased tremendously. But in the spirit of the meme that probably wasn’t the best overall course of action, was it?