Back to Ted

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hunting and gathering wasn’t peace and love. There were wars and resources access problems already. Farming is simply much more efficient. Hunting can only feed people until you reach the natural reproduction of the animals. Same for gathering and plants. Domestication and farming is the process of increasing the volume of food you can have access too. Thus you can feed more people more reliably and with less space.

    Human population on earth is directly linked to food access.

    • tryptaminev@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I totally agree. Thats why i made the argument “for an existing population”. In order to support a growing population changing to farming was the right choice. But not all populations had the ambition or necessity to grow, as we see with many indigenous people that survived quite well until being met with expanding settler societies.

      So hunting and gathering wasnt necessarily an inferior lifestyle in terms of running a stable society. Qnd in the long haul it is very much possible that humanities growth leads to its downfall so severely, that a nomadic lifestyle will reemerge as it tends to be more environmentally sustainable.