View Single Post
  #4  
Old 03-08-2011, 09:18 PM
MindfulAgony's Avatar
MindfulAgony MindfulAgony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNeacail View Post
I liked it, but thought it was pretty one sided. I felt as if the authors were pushing the idea that the "Hunter/Gatherer" society was far superior than the "Agrarian" societies and we should do away with agriculture all together and go back to being hunter/gatherers. There didn't seem to be much room for a balance between the two.
I agree that the authors were pretty clear that immediate-return hunter gatherer societies had some structural advantages with respect to egalitarian balance between the sexes, role of sex in society, and role of property/possessions.

He was pretty clear about the role of agriculture having some clear advantages in being able to support much larger populations - but still leading to systematic poverty, etc... It's success from a cultural/technical evolution perspective is manifest. It is a successful model and - now - necessary to our very survival. Which is why there was so much hand wringing about it in the book - the unintended consequences are severe.

I thought it a provocative argument. Only one sided in the sense that he doesn't spend a lot of time on arguing how agricultural revolution allowed our species to dominate the earth in real terms. I also don't think it requires much argument. He was focused on the under-appreciated impact of this wildly success cultural/techno revolution.
__________________
Male, Straight, Poly

OKC Profile

Blogs:
Mind Crush
sloetry

“Instead of getting better and better at avoiding, learn to accept the present moment as if you had invited it. And work with it instead of against it. And making it your ally rather than your enemy.”
-Pema Chodron
Reply With Quote