Most active commenters
  • margalabargala(3)
  • andsoitis(3)

←back to thread

430 points mhb | 20 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179223[source]
"A woman's work is never done."

In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.

Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).

Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.

We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.

There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.

replies(26): >>46179343 #>>46179376 #>>46179422 #>>46179481 #>>46179798 #>>46179855 #>>46179919 #>>46180233 #>>46180355 #>>46180599 #>>46180969 #>>46181092 #>>46181124 #>>46181414 #>>46181875 #>>46181896 #>>46181937 #>>46181950 #>>46182147 #>>46182207 #>>46182381 #>>46183157 #>>46183746 #>>46184169 #>>46184908 #>>46186251 #
danny_codes ◴[] No.46179343[source]
You seem to be ignoring the vast majority of human history before we developed farming. Agriculture societies are a relatively brief period of our collective history.
replies(2): >>46179540 #>>46181078 #
1. margalabargala ◴[] No.46179540[source]
People moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian society because the latter was easier.
replies(5): >>46179545 #>>46179660 #>>46179821 #>>46180716 #>>46181284 #
2. euroderf ◴[] No.46179545[source]
And also beer became possible.
3. UltraSane ◴[] No.46179660[source]
Initially but the excess food allowed population to increase and the only way to feed them was to keep farming. So in a way humans trapped themselves.
replies(3): >>46179765 #>>46180357 #>>46180904 #
4. LanceH ◴[] No.46179765[source]
The population increased because half of it wasn't dying off immediately. You have to include the half that dies off early in the calculations of QoL for hunter/gatherers.
5. bandrami ◴[] No.46179821[source]
Not easier, lower-risk. Agriculture produced a standard of living with a lower mean but a much thinner left tail.
replies(3): >>46180182 #>>46180400 #>>46183403 #
6. tor825gl ◴[] No.46180182[source]
This wisdom is preserved for us in the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau was a hunter and Jacob was a farmer. When hunting went badly, Esau's desperation for protein, which Jacob could guarantee a supply of by cultivating lentils, was such that he gave up his whole birthright in exchange for the food.

The era in which humans chose whether to continue with a hunter gatherer life or join the new farming communities also seems to have influenced the stories of Adam and Eve ("cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread") and Cain and Abel.

Some have also suggested that archaic prohibitions against eating the food of fairies were a taboo designed to warn off young people from leaving farming or herding groups and joining hunter gatherer communities. They would be 'enchanted' by the easy going lifestyle but then end up hungry and sick.

The need to spend hours every day working a field, in a season when food was plentiful, in order to prepare for another season 6 or 9 months away, must have been a huge cultural crossroads, possibly a bigger break from our close animal ancestors than tool making, and its influence is still with us. Rules around not eating animals who are needed to supply milk and to reproduce the herd similarly cast a long shadow.

replies(3): >>46180349 #>>46180570 #>>46180688 #
7. rhubarbtree ◴[] No.46180357[source]
“Trapped” in a life that meant women didn’t have to regularly murder their children.

Such nonsense the idea that farming was a trap. I think it was Sapiens that propagated this myth in recent times.

replies(1): >>46180554 #
8. watwut ◴[] No.46180400[source]
No, it was easier. Not just lower risk. It gave you advantages both in terms of self defence, resources and even aggression toward surrounding group if you were collectively assholes.

It was easier to make your numbers go up, raise more kids which made you stronger.

9. strudey ◴[] No.46180554{3}[source]
I think there’s a version of the Malthusian trap that has explanatory merit - the idea that as population increased, you got diminishing returns from more people farming the same land. Population would therefore increase until famine, after which there would be good times until the cycle repeated. This cycle was broken by the industrial revolution.
replies(1): >>46181297 #
10. truegoric ◴[] No.46180570{3}[source]
That is a very interesting take. Would you mind sharing some sources, preferably academic, that discuss the topic of agrarian/hunter-gatherer relations and its influence on historical stories and myths?
replies(1): >>46180837 #
11. valesco ◴[] No.46180688{3}[source]
This make me think of Into the Wild. Its cultural appeal may come from its resonance with those ancient cautionary tales.
12. andsoitis ◴[] No.46180716[source]
> People moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian society because the latter was easier.

Agriculture began from a convergence of climate stability, resource abundance, sedentary living, population pressure, and co-evolution with useful plants and animals.

Hunting and gathering alone cannot feed everyone. Farming is harder, less healthy, more labor-intensive but yields more calories per acre.

As a population grows, farming becomes the least bad option.

13. andsoitis ◴[] No.46180837{4}[source]
Some academic sources:

- The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture by Jacques Cauvin (1994/2000)

- Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods by David Lewis‑Williams & David Pearce (2005)

- Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth by Walter Burkert (1972/1983)

- Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion by HC Peoples et al. (2016)

- Subsistence: Models and Metaphors for the Transition to Agriculture by H. Starr (2005)

—————————————

Myths didn’t juts reflect the shift, they were also one of the cultural tools that made the shift psychologically possible.

For instance, the H&G worldview is cyclical (time repeats) but the agricultural worldview is linear. H&G myths emphasize eternal returns, cycles of creation and destruction, spirits of rivers, trees, animals. Agricultural myths introduce beginning of time, progress, destiny, apocalypse.

As animals became domesticated, their spiritual status from H&G mythology declines, while the status of plants and land rises under agriculture. There’s agricultural symbolism in Christ’s body being bread and his blood being wine.

The shift the agriculture produces surplus, property, inheritance, kings, priests, and so myth arise to justify social structures that don’t make sense in nomadic foraging bands.

Sacrifice is an agricultural logic. Classic pattern: god dies, god’s body becomes food, eating is communion. It is directly agricultural: plant dies when harvested, seed is buried (like a corpse), resurrection in spring. Sacrifice becomes cosmic agriculture.

The Garden -> Exile story is a pattern we see in Genesis (“By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread”) but also in Greek mythology; Kronos’ Golden Age changes when Zeus forces humans to work.

In H&G, the trickster gods (Coyote, Raven, Loki, Anansi) are central, but with damaging they become dangerous, marginalized, punished because agriculture requires law, calendar, taboo, not chaos.

replies(1): >>46181091 #
14. andsoitis ◴[] No.46180904[source]
> So in a way humans trapped themselves.

It is actually the plants (barley, grain, grapes, millet, potatoes, taro, maize, rice, sorghum, manioc) that tricked the humans into cultivating (reproduce) them/

15. tor825gl ◴[] No.46181091{5}[source]
Thanks for this!

Another pattern might be that, whereas oral culture matched the 'sufficient unto the day' ethos of hunter gatherers, writing reflected the new agricultural process of carefully building up and storing for the future. Rather than a neutral technological innovation, it embodied the psychological shift.

16. kzrdude ◴[] No.46181284[source]
It looks more like agrarian society outcompeted hunter gatherer society because the agrarians got more surviving kids. This replacement and assimilation happened in Europe, for example, where it's visible in genetic and linguistic history.
replies(1): >>46183358 #
17. kzrdude ◴[] No.46181297{4}[source]
Isn't this the same "trap" that any living life "falls into"? It gets many offspring, and only those survive who can feed themselves. Exponential growth fills up the niche until there are no more resources: any successful species is trapped against some kind of resource or environmental ceiling, unfortunately.

Is there a ceiling in the industrial revolution era? Famously the 1972 book Limits to Growth says yes for that question.

replies(1): >>46187106 #
18. margalabargala ◴[] No.46183358[source]
Yes, because it was easier, to not have your kids die among other things.

Hunter-gathering doesn't scale. What is fine when it's one person, collapses the whole society when it gets too large.

19. margalabargala ◴[] No.46183403[source]
So, easier to not have huge die-offs where you watch your kids die of starvation?
20. UltraSane ◴[] No.46187106{5}[source]
Humans should be able to act smarter than bacteria.