Yeah, that's the real crazy question, why did they? — darthbarracuda
Yeah, that's the real crazy question, why did they?
Agriculture-based states existed only in very specific environmental conditions; conditions that minimized how much work was needed for agriculture to work, and conditions that offered no other obvious alternative. Ancient Mesopotamian city-states were dependent on the flooding of the Tigris and the Euphrates to do a lot of the hard work for them (but certainly not all of it); it would be unimaginable to see a city-state in a different environment, like the mountains.
But even still, ancient Mesopotamia was not a desert, and there were plenty of other alternatives to agriculture nearby to the rivers at the time (unlike how the region is today, which is an arid desert). Many people were able to live outside of and independent of the states, and many tried to escape as well. If agriculture-based societies were an obvious benefit to anyone, why were the majority of humans living outside of them for the majority of human history, and why were so many people trying to escape? — darthbarracuda
I think it would be fair to say that with the development of agriculture in exchange for security people lost their real freedom. Whether or not they knew that I don’t know. But those imposition on their freedom became more and more severe. In that sense I can see how it could be argued that agriculture and its consequences created “anxious man”. — Brett
But was it an acceptable trade off? Obviously if it was not we would not be talking about it. And if not agriculture what other innovation might have entered our world?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.