Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

but it came at a terrible price on human health

That statement doesn't make sense.

It was because agriculture contributed so mightily to human health and well-being that we survived and flourished to cover the surface of the earth and travel into space.

Even if some of our ancestors were bigger, it doesn't mean that they were "more healthy".



"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain.

The decline in human health post-agriculture is pretty well accepted within anthropology. Jared Diamond's discussion has been widely cited:

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanne...

Cultures didn't flourish because they were in good health. They likely flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people within that culture, which let them dominate other cultures.


"doesn't make sense" is not a good way to evaluate statements if you don't have knowledge in the domain

I have a great deal of knowledge in the domain of the English language. "Health" can mean a lot of different things. Support of the survival and dominance of a species is a great indicator that the diet is "healthy".

flourished because agriculture supported a lot of people

All you have to do is to refer to modern organizations like the WHO to know that supporting life for a lot of people is a great deal of the meaning of "health".

[edit: clarity]


That's a weird point of view. If we continued to hunt and gather and didn't develop agriculture, we'd be extinct or like any other common animal.

In my mind, existing is healthy than not existing.


This is not about some value-laden speculation whether the humankind "should" have stayed hunter-gatherers or not (as if that sort of a question makes any sense whatsoever). It's about a simple question of facts: Were individual subsistence farmers on average less healthful than hunter-gatherers? The evidence seems to indicate that yes, they were.


I read the above-linked article. I saw a lot of assumption based upon weak links and correlation with assumed causation.

For example, height decreased post agriculture. Did that mean that agriculture didn't allow people to grow as tall, or did agriculture decrease selective pressure on being big?

Anthropology is not as rigorous as math, physics, chemistry, or even economics. Anyone talking condescendingly about things that are "well accepted within anthropology" from 10k or 100k years ago are way overselling the discipline.




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

Search: