# anti-farming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2000, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594 "2000-10-11T20:33:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/21 "2000-10-12T16:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you have anything to contribute other that insults and sarcasm? Sometimes. It’s just … SO _hard_ in this case. But I’ll try. Nen - Do you agree that we humans are chiefly motivated by our own self-interest? By the comfort and security of ourselves and those closest to us? If your answer is no, what is our primary motivation? If your answer is yes, then please explain to me how me and mine would be better off raising our own crops and livestock in some little tribe, as opposed to going to the grocery store or the pizza parlor? I don’t want to work in a field all day. My great- great- great- great- great-grandfather, thankfully, took that place in history for me. You may tell me that I don’t have to work in a field. That I can instead do whatever skill I may do well, and then barter it for my livelihood. But for people to do that efficiently in such a system, they have to be in close proximity to one another. And because human nature isn’t always pure, crime and disputes will arise. How do you solve those? Maybe some in our tribe will take the designation of peace officers and mediators of disputes - judges, if you will. And again, because human nature isn’t always pure, maybe some nearby tribe who isn’t doing as well as us will continually attack us and pillage our good fortune. Maybe we get really sick of that, and decide to fight back, or at least defend ourselves sufficiently. So some in our tribe agree to be an army. Because people often get sick, we decide that the most efficient way to care for them is to have a one-stop medical center with our smartest medical minds, rather than everyone fending for themselves to varying degrees of medical success. We take a similar approach to educating our children. Soon things are riffing right along, and other tribes model themselves after us, even join us. Hey! Whaddaya know! A society! You’re right about one thing. It is, indeed, a cycle that only serves to build itself. But it is natural, and the way it is supposed to be. Any other way would be counter to logic and natural advancement of the human species. You railing against this, however intellectual your phrasing may try to sound, sounds as silly as me throwing a tantrum over the sky being blue. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/22 "2000-10-12T19:15:27Z")
I will present a proposal and then respond to questions/arguments. Bear in mind, I haven’t perfected this model. I realize that there will be inherent problems with it; however, rather than simply attack it, I request that teeming millions thoughtfully analyze it and offer constructive criticism or present modifications which would make the model feasible. That said… Given the fact that approximately six billion people live on the planet, a return to tribalism is clear not a viable alternative to our current sociocultural types. I present a model in which two types would coexist: 1. The band and/or tribe 2. The post-industrialized state Bands are characterized by small, nomadic populations. Tribes are characterized by slightly larger population which may set up temporary villages. Both are egalitarian in nature. Both utilize hunting and gathering to provide their subsistence. Extremely small scale horticulture may be present in the latter, i.e., gardening. Social relations in these types tend to be kinship-based rather than class-based. Bands and tribes (hereinafter referred to as tribes for the sake of ease unless some distinction is necessary) would populate the entire hospitable surface of the planet as the members thereof desired. I would hazard an estimate that approximately one million people could survive in this fashion. Since this model is still in the stages of creation and a great deal of research remains to be completed, I can’t offer a better estimate. Note that it is not a necessary condition of the tribe that it be primitive. The benefits of technology may be reaped by individuals in those communities. The aim here is to seek an equilibrium with our environment. It is not necessary to run around naked and eat twigs, although I imagine if people wished to, they could. The hypothesis of the post-industrialized state is thus. The cooperation of the entire world population would be required (yup, big catch). Put five hundred million people in a megalopolis. This would yield roughly twelve megalopoli. A megalopolis would be a single structure in which a self-sufficient community would live. Consider advances in architecture in which skyscrapers have been designed which would be roughly 2.5 times that of the tallest existing structure. Increase the girth to about twenty kilometers in diameter, and presto, instant megalopoli (well, maybe not quite instant). The megalopolis would find energy in solar, geothermal, wind, and possibly nuclear sources. Natural light could be provided to the interior of the structure via fiber optics. Transportation within and between megalopoli would be via high speed maglev rail. Inhabitants of the megalopolis would both work and reside within it. Economic production pertaining to subsistence would be agricultural (either conventional or hydroponic) and pastoral in nature. At this juncture, I have yet to determine the area required to furnish such a food supply. Money would not be in use in this sociocultural type. Being the root of many sources of crime and class stratification, a lack of a monetary sytem would predicate a decrease in crime and a move away from class-based relations. Transportation, shelter, clothing, food, et cetera would be “rights” in this system. One must simply contribute to the society, preferably in vein of one’s choosing. This type would be characterized by egailitarianism. Government would not be instituted as it creates centralization of power. Considering that money and property are recognized for their illusory concepts, crime would be greatly reduced. The remaining “crimes of passion” or those of deviance and mental illness would be mediated by a third party. (Consider Rousseau’s concept of government in its purest form). The above is a summary of my proposal. I am aware of problems in gaining favor of the entire population, having adequate labor for all necessary functions, cultural tolerance, et cetera. I am hoping to find solutions to these issues. Regarding previous posts: **kunilou** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > Nen, you say you believe in egalitarianism and anarchy. What is your method for solving disputes? See the above. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > Do you agree that eliminating (I assume from your explanation it would be done over several generations) what you refer to as agriculturism would inevitably lead to each member of your society being responsible for their own food gathering? In a megalopolis, that would not be the case. In a tribe, sharing would be the norm, if you will. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > Would you also agree that food gathering would then comprise a major part of everyone’s day? No. Actually, gathering is less time consuming than agriculture due to the intensive effort required. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > Without a differentiated labor structure, who then would make clothes, build shelter, care for the sick, etc. This is the primary reason society evolved in the first place. I believe I have addressed this issue above. Do you find my response satisfactory? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kunilou \* > You say that there is “need for our sociocultural system to evolve to the next (and as of now undefined) type.” Since you are unable to define what type of system would support six billion people with even a minimal standard of existence, your position is untenable. First, not having solution does not dictate that a position is untenable. Secondly, I have now presented a rough model for this system. **Enderw23** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > I can understand how you can be against what’s going on today, but you can’t make the blanket claim that this is bad if you don’t have a reasonable alternative. I appreciate your understanding; however, one may claim that something needs improvement without having the solution. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > And anarchy is not an alternate reasonable suggestion. Anarchy leads to violence, pure and simple. The only possible way anarchy wouldn’t lead to mass chaos, raping, looting, vandalism, and murders is if we get rid of all evil thoughts within the human mind. Got news for you, agriculture wasn’t what put those evil thoughts in our heads. No, agriculture did not present us with “evil thoughts.” Anarchy is not synonymous with violence. Anarchy is a system of self-governing. Sure, conflicts would arise just as they do in the current forms of government. Perhaps if people stopped spending their time fearing the guy standing next to him and showing a little respect instead, mass chaos, rape, looting, etc. wouldn’t be as prevalent. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > Where will our food come from? See the above. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > The main question is: if you don’t know what the next step is, how can you possibly believe it’s better than what we have now? I don’t know what the next step is, but I do see a problem and I can hypothesize about a better system and how to implement it. **Milossarian** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Sometimes. It’s just … SO _hard_ in this case. > > But I’ll try. I understand. I have debated in many of these evolution threads, atheism threads, et cetera and found it quite difficult at times not to let my sarcastic nature get the better of me. I don’t understand how people can believe in creationism. I tend to be the rational one in those debates, and I feel I am being rational here. I am trying to present an idea which I am aware is flawed to a certain degree. Despite that fact, I appreciate you taking the time to help me with the development of the concept rather that dismissing it outright. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Nen - Do you agree that we humans are chiefly motivated by our own self-interest? By the comfort and security of ourselves and those closest to us? Chiefly, yes. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > If your answer is yes, then please explain to me how me and mine would be better off raising our own crops and livestock in some little tribe, as opposed to going to the grocery store or the pizza parlor? I don’t want to work in a field all day. You wouldn’t be toiling in a field unless (hopefully) you so chose to do so in a megalopolis. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > You may tell me that I don’t have to work in a field. That I can instead do whatever skill I may do well, and then barter it for my livelihood. But for people to do that efficiently in such a system, they have to be in close proximity to one another. See the above. Does it adequately address this issue? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > And because human nature isn’t always pure, crime and disputes will arise. How do you solve those? Maybe some in our tribe will take the designation of peace officers and mediators of disputes - judges, if you will. See the above. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > And again, because human nature isn’t always pure, maybe some nearby tribe who isn’t doing as well as us will continually attack us and pillage our good fortune. Circumscription is one factor I hope to avoid with this model. I know people aren’t “pure” by nature, but a little education and respect can go a long way. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Hey! Whaddaya know! A society! I’m not against society. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > You’re right about one thing. It is, indeed, a cycle that only serves to build itself. But it is natural, and the way it is supposed to be. Any other way would be counter to logic and natural advancement of the human species. It is a cycle which limits growths beyond the confines of itself. That is a rather limited advancement of the human species, no? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > You railing against this, however intellectual your phrasing may try to sound, sounds as silly as me throwing a tantrum over the sky being blue. There are reasons why the sky is blue. There are reasons why the current sociocultural systems are. There are also reasons to move beyond them. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/23 "2000-10-12T19:22:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*MGibson wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > The increase in population is directly tied to agriculture. Hunter/gatherer tribes and groups don’t grow very large because they only take advantage of food that can be found or killed. > > There is some evidence of early permanent settlements (i.e. towns) with populations close to 100 that pre-date agriculture. \*\* There’s a strong possibility that those humans were migratory. They moved to different places depending on the season. It isn’t unreasonable to think that they might have had a permanent settlement in an area they went to every summer or winter. Marc ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/24 "2000-10-12T19:37:46Z")
Nen – It is all well and good to be idealistic, but there are few ways to bring such a system about. 1. Call for a general strike (Ghandi, Jesus, etc.) 2. Wait for the system to collapse on its own and take advantage of the situation (Lenin, Hitler, etc.) 3. Kidnap some leading potentate’s wife (Monty Python, etc.) > [@](#): > > Rogers: We get in through the underground heating-system here ,up through an inamane audience chamber here, and Pilate’s > wife’s bedroom is here. Having grabbed his wife, we inform Pilate that she is in our custody, and fore with issue our demands. > Any questions? > Revolutionary I: What exactly are the demands? > Reg: We’re giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman imperialist state, and if he doesn’t agree > immediately, we execute her. > Matthias: Cut her head off? > Rogers: Cut all her bits off! Send them back on the hour, every hour! Seldom why not to be tried for it. > Reg: And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to > blackmale. > All revolutionaries except Reg: No blackmale! > Reg: They bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had. And not just from us! From our fathers, and from > our father’s fathers. > Loretta: And from our father’s father’s fathers. > Reg: Yeah. > Loretta: And from our father’s father’s father’s fathers. > Reg: Yeah, all right Stan, don’t delay with the point. And what have they ever given us in return? > Revolutionary I: The aqueduct? > Reg: What? > Revolutionary I: The aqueduct. > Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah, they did give us that, ah, that’s true, yeah. > Revolutionary II: And the sanitation. > Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like. > Reg: Yeah, all right, I’ll grant you the aqueduct and sanitation, the two things the Romans have done. > Matthias: And the roads. > Reg: Oh, yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from the sanitation, the > aqueduct, and the roads… > Revolutionary III: Irrigation. > Revolutionary I: Medicine. > Revolutionary IV: Education. > Reg: Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough. > Revolutionary V: And the wine. > All revolutionaries except Reg: Oh, yeah! Right! > Rogers: Yeah! Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss Reg, if the Romans left. Huh. > Revolutionary VI: Public bathes. > Loretta: And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg. > Rogers: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it; they’re the only ones who could in a place like this. > All revolutionaries except Reg: Hahaha…all right… > Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water > system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? > Revolutionary I: Brought peace? > Reg: Oh, peace! Shut up! A rapid system wide change seems impractical, as people on the whole do not consider the current system flawed, nor can they concieve anything better. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/25 "2000-10-12T19:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > It all depends on what you mean by “good” – it’s fairly clear from the archaeological record that farming entailed the following: increase in carrying capacity (vis a vis number of humans) of a given area, subsequent increase in population. \*\* It was good in that people had a very reliable source of food. > [@](#): > > \*\* > However it did not entail an increase in the standard of living, the opposite. Rather it seems that hunter gathers lived better than _early_ farmers, all things being equal (which they’re not of course) in terms of liesure time and diet. \*\* What evidence is there to suggest that they didn’t live as well? A decrease in height isn’t enough to make that determination. Most people who switched to agriculture ended up building permanent settlements of some kind. > [@](#): > > \*\* > We can see this from the decrease in stature among farming populations compared to hunter- \*\* There were European groups who maintained farms and still hunted quite a bit. I don’t think these people shrank all that much and there’s evidence that they lived quite well. They had tattoos, created metal tools, crafted well made clothing, had acupuncture, medicines, and took hallucinogenic drugs. It seems to me like they had plenty of leisure time and this was 5,300 years ago. Granted I wouldn’t want to live like that but it doens’t sound like quality of life went down. Uh, I saw a show about this on the Discovery channel many moons ago so I apologize if I don’t have a cite. Check out their web site and look at the ice man mummy if they still have it up. > [@](#): > > \*\* > However, demographically, farmers overwhelmed hunters. As the process of transition was slow, this was not a “choice” – agriculture probably usually began as a part time thing, but as pops increased, they reached a point of no return, it was either farming or nothing to support the population level arrived at. \*\* Come on, there was still a lot of space for them to leave if they thought farming wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. When groups got to large they’d probably split up. The point of no return probably wouldn’t have occured until long after farming was a way of life. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Now, a couple thousand years down the line we’ve pretty much gotten beyond the problems of early farming and for the industrialized world, live pretty comfortably. \*\* I’d say they got beyond the problems of early farming once they started building major cities. And that was a long long time ago. You couldn’t build a civilization without agriculture. Marc ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/26 "2000-10-12T20:32:04Z")
Nen wrote: > [@](#): > > Put five hundred million people in a megalopolis. This would yield roughly twelve megalopoli. A megalopolis would be a single structure in which a self-sufficient community would live. Consider advances in architecture in which skyscrapers have been designed which would be roughly 2.5 times that of the tallest existing structure. Increase the girth to about twenty kilometers in diameter, and presto, instant megalopoli (well, maybe not quite instant). > > The megalopolis would find energy in solar, geothermal, wind, and possibly nuclear sources. Natural light could be provided to the interior of the structure via fiber optics. Transportation within and between megalopoli would be via high speed maglev rail. Inhabitants of the megalopolis would both work and reside within it. Economic production pertaining to subsistence would be agricultural (either conventional or hydroponic) and pastoral in nature. _ **ARCOLOGIES!!!** _ Ah, fond memories of _Sim City 2000_… ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/27 "2000-10-12T20:35:26Z")
Nen, I think that the best system of government in the world is communism. Look at it on paper, and how could you not agree? But in practicality, it doesn’t work. Ever. Why? Humans are greedy and they screw the system up. The Kibbutz’s in Israel are nice places to live but one could argue that they’re actually more of a socialistic society than communistic. But there numbers are small and they look each other in the face and know each others names. When you get large enough that you don’t know everyone, society starts to break down. When it breaks down, and it will, there are a few solutions. 1) Highlander style. Every man for himself because there can be only one. 2) Bands form to terrorize. Counter bands form to protect, war ensues. At the very least, no one can feel safe. 3) A authority, be it military or other, steps in to take control. With no government to punish me, what’s to stop me from stealing? Why shouldn’t I rape the women and kill the men trying to stop me? You’d ask me, do you do those things now? No, of course I don’t. Then why would you in this society? I probably wouldn’t, but others do do that now. Do you think that number is going to decrease when we stop making it a crime to do so? Let’s talk about your megalopolis, begining with the very very first question we must ask ourselves. How will this be built? Who will build it? Who will provide the materials? Who will pay for all this knowing that, once it is built, money will be abolished and they won’t be paid back? Who is going to decide what is fair? Who determines in this society of yours how much I deserve for working at job X? Must I rely on the kindness of others to just give it to me, or will there be a system set up to tell me what is owed of me for the job I’ve done? If so, which people decide this? How close do we come to having a government before we actually have one? How do you stop drugs? Well, you don’t under anarchy. But the drug cartels then run unchecked and soon have absolute power over everyone. No money in this system? OK…I want food for my drugs. I want clothing and jewelry and your body for my drugs. Don’t like it? Tough, nothing you can do about it. And if you don’t like agriculture, where, oh where, do you think you’ll find the food for 500 million people anyway? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/28 "2000-10-12T21:54:10Z")
I have to tell you the truth that farming is totally unnecessary and only sustained by a vast conspiracy of farmers and their powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. Several people have discovered dirt is edible and would render farming obsolete but the powerful conspiracy of farming interests has silenced them (have you ever heard of them? no? see? the conspiracy is working!) even to the extent of making them disappear. PS. I can’t believe people are seriously discussing this. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/29 "2000-10-12T22:23:55Z")
Well, Nen, that was a very long post – too long for me to quote, cut, paste and repost. Let me just respond to a few of the high points. You have a megalopolis of a single structure. It requires a tremendous infrastructure to generate power, communicate via fiber optics, build the maglev rail systems, etc. How do all the megalopoli get the resources they need to build and maintain their infrastructure? I assume you accept that they will have some sort of system of trade. Trade requires a common medium of exchange (how else do you determine the exchange ratio between fiber optics and maglev parts?) but you have no monetary system. You require each member of society to contribute in order to share the wealth. Does that also require either a central authority or some unseen hand of the market to determine whether one has actually contributed or what job one should perform when there is no need for a contribution “in vein of one’s choosing” (we can’t all be poets, after all)? And since even the most primitive development has some impact on the environment, how will the various megalopoli ensure that one won’t be dumping untreated sewage, for example, into the ocean where the other gets its fish? Perhaps that will call for something like treaties, and perhaps a governing body to monitor compliance and mediate disputes. You postulate that there will be no crimes of economics in your system, but you will have a third party to mediate crimes of passion. I assume you’ll also have some sort of system in place, and a supporting system of institutions, either rehabilitative or penal, to ensure the decision of the third party is implemented. No offense, but you call yourself an anarchist? What you’ve designed is a society at least as complicated and stratified as any cultural system in the world today. Since you’ve asked for constructive criticism, I’ll offer two suggestions. Add a commonly accepted medium of exchange (you can call it money) and a system to act on common goals (call it government) and you may have a workable model. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/30 "2000-10-12T22:36:48Z")
**jmullaney** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > A rapid system wide change seems impractical, as people on the whole do not consider the current system flawed, nor can they concieve anything better. Nearly everyone is perfectly happy with the utopia in which we live? I apologize for the sarcasm, but perhaps you could give a cite to back up your claim. **Enderw23** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > With no government to punish me, what’s to stop me from stealing? Why shouldn’t I rape the women and kill the men trying to stop me? Why would one need to steal in such a society. One only needs to steal what one cannot obtain due to financial constraints. If money is not a factor, one can obtain what one desires. As for rape and murder, I truly don’t understand the motivation behind the acts. As I said before, a little more awareness on the part of humanity is necessary to make this concept work flawlessly. Until then, the best idea I can come up with is to borrow the pure and simple form of government from Rousseau. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > Let’s talk about your megalopolis, begining with the very very first question we must ask ourselves. How will this be built? Who will build it? Who will provide the materials? Who will pay for all this knowing that, once it is built, money will be abolished and they won’t be paid back? You pose some good questions here. If a company was to initiate this movement, the employer could offer the employees a residence in the megalopolis in exchange for a cut in salary. As the company prospers, it becomes the parent to other diverisified companies. Those companies in turn provide other goods and services at no charge to employees. Eventually, there will be a self-sufficient community without money. If the world goverments were to unify their efforts, one could simply offer incredible tax breaks to live in a megalopolis. As the populations shift, again self-sufficient communities form. Who will pay for it? Can you imagine the tax breaks that could be offered. Where’s the worry about getting something back that will be deemed worthless? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > Who is going to decide what is fair? Who determines in this society of yours how much I deserve for working at job X? Must I rely on the kindness of others to just give it to me, or will there be a system set up to tell me what is owed of me for the job I’ve done? If so, which people decide this? How close do we come to having a government before we actually have one? There’s a bit of the honor system in this one, but it’s really very similar to capitalism in a supply and demand sense. Everyone gets the necessities in exchange for working in this society. Some people are busy making iMac’s. People really like the iMac’s. More people work to make iMac’s. The iMac’s lose their novelty. Less people work to make iMac’s and do something else. I know it’s a foreign concept, but production wouldn’t be driven by profit in a moentary sense, but a social one. No rules are required in such a model. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > How do you stop drugs? Well, you don’t under anarchy. But the drug cartels then run unchecked and soon have absolute power over everyone. No money in this system? OK…I want food for my drugs. I want clothing and jewelry and your body for my drugs. Don’t like it? Tough, nothing you can do about it. You don’t stop drugs. People will partake of them or they won’t. There isn’t a barter system in effect. I don’t go down to the corner with a hot dog to exchange it for a rock of crack. Places are available to get food–kinda like a grocery store except without cash registers. Food starts getting low. “How about we do the smart thing a go help out in the fields. Hey you, pothead Bob, can you spare some free time to assist since noone want your weed due to the ensuing munchies.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw23 \* > And if you don’t like agriculture, where, oh where, do you think you’ll find the food for 500 million people anyway? I’ll assume you missed that line that went something to the effect of, “Economic production pertaining to subsistence would be agricultural (either conventional or hydroponic) and pastoral in nature.” You and **sailor** seem to be missing the point. Agriculture in itself isn’t that bad. The problem with it is that it creates a population boom which spins out of control and results in nasty things like centralization of power, stratification, et cetera. You two may want to re-read the blurb on the emergence of the state. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Engineer\_Don](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e95f7d/32.png) [@Engineer\_Don](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Engineer_Don)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/31 "2000-10-12T23:05:01Z")
How about orbital farms? Using the moon for raw materials, we make large orbital structures and farm in them, leaving the Earth to be the hunter/gatherer paradise it could be. Farmers could then observe the happy healthy paradise below, and occasionally remove needed raw materials in small quantities to restore the balance to there own imperfect bio-systems until they achieve something sustainable for a long term. At this point, hopefully, they would leave orbit and pursue development of life on other planets. They would have to. I know if they stayed around it would be too tempting to drop bannana peels beneath hunters feet at inopportune moments, and get on “Orbital Farm 14’s Funniest Home-World Videos.” ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/32 "2000-10-13T04:53:59Z")
Really I believe that the US was the hunter gatherer state Nen refres to.It stayed that way until the hunter gatherers could not keep up with the demand. Yes we brought farming to the “New World” if thats what you want to call it.Ox powered plows carved from a tree.Clearing land with a spade and axe.Oh yeah the best land clearing tool Fire.Then some fool after a lifetime of very hard back breaking work said "I hope my son,daughter,doesn’t have to live like this."Damn him,her, Anyway. All the time we were building this country we had market hunters.They brought what we now call game to town and sold it.No hunting seasons. That almost exterminated the deer herd in North America.Turkeys too.Then came the game laws and the hated Game Warden. Anyway Nen,I am not sure how you plan on surviving in your personal little Eutopia.Did you know you have to do most of the work yourself?Or maybe you’d be the chief. After all it is your world. What would you use for fuel?Furniture?Housing? Have you seen the paintings of the American Indian woman harvesting rice.Don’t know the artist.She is bent over picking it with a papoose on her back.She is dressed in hide.Well sort of dressed.Sorry no cotton fabrics. No farms. I don’t think you realize what kind of life that was. I kind of agree with you in principle though. Sometimes I want to say “Oh screw the world” and wish I could go back to simpler times.Thing is they weren’t that simple. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/33 "2000-10-13T10:55:48Z")
Well, I think I’ll hijack this thread since I don’t even think Nen’s inanities are worth responding to. So, Eary Agriculture: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > It all depends on what you mean by “good” – it’s fairly clear from the archaeological record that farming entailed the following: increase in carrying capacity (vis a vis number of humans) of a given area, subsequent increase in population. > > \*\* > > It was good in that people had a very reliable source of food. > \*\* Reliable? Well, there a capacity developed to store food and not move around so much. However, immobility brought its own threats – you suffered more when things really went into the toilet because you didn’t just move away as hunter gatherers did. Again the caveat is all things being equal. However, since your land area has a higher carrying capacity with agriculture, your average numbers will increase over time. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > However it did not entail an increase in the standard of living, the opposite. Rather it seems that hunter gathers lived better than _early_ farmers, all things being equal (which they’re not of course) in terms of liesure time and diet. > > \*\* > > What evidence is there to suggest that they didn’t live as well? A decrease in height isn’t enough to make that determination. Most people who switched to agriculture ended up building permanent settlements of some kind. Decrease in height is symptomatic of inferior caloric and/or nutritional intact. In conjunction with widespread evidence of increased disease (stay in one place, disease catches up to you, increased sanitation problems etc.) and other issues, you have evidence for a general decline in well being for the majority of the population. However, at the same time, there is an ability through increased population and more elaborate social structures to store and accumulate surpluses and based on that, build cities etc. So, on one hand the development agriculture enables future developments, but on the other hand results in a near term decline. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > We can see this from the decrease in stature among farming populations compared to hunter- > > \*\* > > There were European groups who maintained farms and still hunted quite a bit. I don’t think these people shrank all that much and there’s evidence that they lived quite well. They had tattoos, created metal tools, crafted well made clothing, had acupuncture, medicines, and took hallucinogenic drugs. It seems to me like they had plenty of leisure time and this was 5,300 years ago. Granted I wouldn’t want to live like that but it doens’t sound like quality of life went down. As I said, all things being equal, which they are not. Of course there are some groups who maintained lifestyles which mixed agriculture with supplemental activities better. Clearly specific environments allowed different possibilities. As to liesure time, you need to make a comparision between pre and post agriculture subsitance activities and the amount of time needed for those activities, and not to confuse elite consumption with the general population. Note, this is not to say to argue against agriculture, its only noting that the trade offs were more complicated than we normally think – the old ever progressing forward story. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > However, demographically, farmers overwhelmed hunters. As the process of transition was slow, this was not a “choice” – agriculture probably usually began as a part time thing, but as pops increased, they reached a point of no return, it was either farming or nothing to support the population level arrived at. > > \*\* > > Come on, there was still a lot of space for them to leave if they thought farming wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. When groups got to large they’d probably split up. The point of no return probably wouldn’t have occured until long after farming was a way of life. Wrong, you’re thinking there is some kind of analysis going on, this process is over generations and frankly folks were not sitting around doing opportunity cost analyses. In the middle east, the cradle of most of this activity for example its probable that population densities reached a point where splitting up was no longer an option. It’s no longer your group alone, its everyone else too. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > Now, a couple thousand years down the line we’ve pretty much gotten beyond the problems of early farming and for the industrialized world, live pretty comfortably. > > \*\* > > I’d say they got beyond the problems of early farming once they started building major cities. And that was a long long time ago. You couldn’t build a civilization without agriculture. No, they did not. We clearly don’t see a large rebound in nutritional and caloric intake for the whole of the population for a very, very long time. You’re missing the point. Cities were living on the surplus of agricultural production, and had of course negative demographics. The question isn’t about whether you could build civilization or not, its about average living standards. Quantity over quality for the masses. Agriculture was quantity for most people, although the elites who created all the wonderful civilization which leads to us certainly had quality too. All this of course has nothing to do with Nen’s inanities. Utopianism is a fun little game. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/34 "2000-10-13T12:52:55Z")
Nen is not the first to feel this way about agriculture. Recently I asked that age old quesion: Who did Cain marry? While doing a little web research into this question, I found this site: [http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/kass.html](http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/kass.html) According to some, one of the points of the parable (or true story, take your pick) of Cain and Abel is to show that herding is better than farming when it comes to God. At least this is my interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/35 "2000-10-13T14:33:00Z")
Nen, What if people want to move out the megalopoli? I’m sure many would want to; I would at least. I would grab a bit of land maybe 20 miles outside the city and commute in to work. Probably many other people would also. Once enough people had done so, they’d find that there was no need to go into the city; there would be work to do by their homes. As people moved farther and farther away, they would be able to build up their own towns, and then cities. There’s no way you can keep the world’s population cooped up like that unless you have armed guards keeping them in. And what would happen if a megalopolous realized that there was oil under the ground where the tribes were hanging out? The tribes wouldn’t stand a chance. They would probably try to fight back, and maybe they would win a victory here and there, like when they manage to trap a General, say his name is Custer, and massacre all his men. But later they would be put on reservations and build casinos… oops, got carried away there. Anyway, the set up you propose is too artificial. Without someone enforcing it, it would evenutally change back to a similar system that we have today. PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/36 "2000-10-13T17:08:15Z")
**I.** **@#% \*&^% #%& ^%$@!!!** This debate would be much more fruitful if several things were to happen. 1. People should read the details of a post before replying and assuming the opposite was stated of what actually was. 2. People should respond on a point by point basis, i.e., if someone shows the courtesy to respond to your post, show the courtesy to respond to their responses. 3. People should acknowledge the validity of statements whch might differ from their preconceptions where necessary. 4. People should refrain from making insults in lieu of adding valuable contributions. 5. People should refrain from asserting generalizations. How many times must I state that I am not against agriculture as a form of economic production? I clearly assert that agriculture would be a form of economic production and then someone states that my idea is silly because one cannot feed the population without agriculture. How many times must I state that the tribal type of a sociocultural system is not synonymous with living a primitive lifestyle? I state that people living in such a system will reap the benefits of technology, medicine, literature and art, yet someone responds stating that they will be twig-eating, tree-hugging, filthy dimwits. How many times must I see posts pertaining to generalizations about how happy everyone is with the current sociocultural systems? The conflict in Israel, the war in Kosovo, thirty years of legislation to improve health care and countless more to improve education are all examples of how our current systems and their intrinsic beauracracy are quite utopian. I suppose that’s enough of my ranting. **II.** **tracer** , I wish this were as easy as Sim City 2000. Damn, I kicked ass in that game. [homer] Mmmmmmm…arcologies… [/homer] **III.** **kunilou** : > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > How do all the megalopoli get the resources they need to build and maintain their infrastructure? I assume you accept that they will have some sort of system of trade. > > Trade requires a common medium of exchange (how else do you determine the exchange ratio between fiber optics and maglev parts?) but you have no monetary system. What you are dealing with in this postulation is a unified entity. Self-interest in the chief motivating factor in our system and will continue to be in all that come if I may hazard a guess. But consider a corporation, specifically a computer company for example. A portion of the company manufactures monitors. Another portion of the company manufactures keyboards. The entire company requires both continue working properly. Do those that have the keyboards hoard them or preposterously state that one keyboard is worth one thousand monitors? It is detrimental to the entire unit if they don’t trade freely. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > You require each member of society to contribute in order to share the wealth. Does that also require either a central authority or some unseen hand of the market to determine whether one has actually contributed or what job one should perform when there is no need for a contribution “in vein of one’s choosing” (we can’t all be poets, after all)? As I stated before, consider food supply. There would be markets at which one could obtain food. Food supplies dwindle. Perchance someone will think, “I think more effort is required to produce food–perhaps I should assist.” It is beneficial to both the individual and the unified group to contribute and to do so in a fashion such that needs are sated. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > And since even the most primitive development has some impact on the environment, how will the various megalopoli ensure that one won’t be dumping untreated sewage, for example, into the ocean where the other gets its fish? Perhaps that will call for something like treaties, and perhaps a governing body to monitor compliance and mediate disputes. Why do people currently rid themselves of waste in harmful ways? They do so because they consider it to be profitable. It is easier to turn a blind eye to environmental impacts than to incur the costs associated with proper disposal. Without an illusory monetary system, where is the benefit in acting in such a fashion? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > You postulate that there will be no crimes of economics in your system, but you will have a third party to mediate crimes of passion. I assume you’ll also have some sort of system in place, and a supporting system of institutions, either rehabilitative or penal, to ensure the decision of the third party is implemented. Let’s consider crimes of passion for a moment (although I don’t feel you are convinced about a lack of economic crime at this juncture). Why are humans the only species in which the members kill other members? I would offer the idea that while other species adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to ourselves. We do so out of a need to support our population. In that regard, until our population decreases to a suitable size, I’m not sure how to address the issue; ergo, I must concede the point. I would like to think that such deviance could be dissuaded through education, e.g., show people that it is not beneficial to kill other people. Such crimes are not logical, but to my dismay, they occur anyway. Many deaths, such as those incurred by war, would not be “required” in the proposed system. But I suspect that a change in human nature is will be a long time in coming, if ever. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > No offense, but you call yourself an anarchist? What you’ve designed is a society at least as complicated and stratified as any cultural system in the world today. Is it complicated? Yes. There is diversification of labor. There is technology. Is it stratified? No. Where is there stratification in egalitarianism? I thought the two definitions were mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by kunilou:_ > Since you’ve asked for constructive criticism, I’ll offer two suggestions. Add a commonly accepted medium of exchange (you can call it money) and a system to act on common goals (call it government) and you may have a workable model. I think I have shown how money is not necessary. Personally, I don’t see why people are so attached to such a system. I will concede that government of some for is necessary for “crimes of passion.” That is, until I discovery why they happen and how to stop them, thereby winning the Nobel peace prize. **IV.** **justwannano** , I’m glad to see that someone recognizes that the current system isn’t inherently perfect. Pertaining to your comments regarding tribal lifestyle, work, et cetera. Please refer to Part I and the post which delineated the nature of the post-industrialized state. **V.** **Collounsbury** : A large part of your post details portions of the emergence of the state and compares and contrasts forms of economic production. From a historical and anthropological perspective, those assertions are largely correct. You are wrong in asserting that such concepts have nothing to do with my “inanities.” By the way, pal, if you want insult me in such a fashion, present to me that you have the courage to accept a rebuttal by taking said insults to the proper forum. I’ll gladly meet your wanton remarks there. **VI.** **PeeQueue** , I thought you had hung me out to dry, as it were. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PeeQueue:_ > What if people want to move out the megalopoli? I’m sure many would want to; I would at least. I would grab a bit of land maybe 20 miles outside the city and commute in to work. Probably many other people would also. I’m sure many would (I for one am torn between the two ideas), but why would people wish to revert to monetary and stratified systems which prove to be derisive, when, hypothetically, an alternative has been offered which proves to work? “…put on reservations and build casinos…”–you don’t perchance live in Connecticut, do you? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/37 "2000-10-13T17:50:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nen \* > > **Collounsbury** : > > A large part of your post details portions of the emergence of the state and compares and contrasts forms of economic production. From a historical and anthropological perspective, those assertions are largely correct. You are wrong in asserting that such concepts have nothing to do with my “inanities.” By the way, pal, if you want insult me in such a fashion, present to me that you have the courage to accept a rebuttal by taking said insults to the proper forum. I’ll gladly meet your wanton remarks there. > > \*\* Courage? Are smoking crack? This is freaking message board. Courage is irrelevant. Frankly, I don’t consider neo-tribalism or whatever you want to call your utopian fantasy(ies) worthy of commentary. I’d rather, if I was going to spend time debating utopian fantasies, debate libertarians, as their vision is a lot closer to the realm of reason. All they need to do is get a grip on game theory and less-than-optimal outcomes. The reasonably foreseeable future of six billion and counting is not a return to some mythical age of unstratified societies. I’m soley concerned that some folks have a too simplistic picture of the emergence of civilization, which I do not consider a bad thing per se. I like lots of things civilization produced… such as this computer as well as my nice job and the wonderful biologically engineered plants we work on. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/38 "2000-10-13T18:22:34Z")
Nen – I can’t say for sure whether people are happy or not. I’m not happy, but that is because I know there is something better. But take for example Plato’s analogy of the Cave, (which, for the unfamiliar, is where a man, raised from childhood in a cave knows nothing of the real world aside from shadows he sees cast on the wall.) Is the man in the cave happy? He doesn’t know there is a three dimensional world or even life outside of the cave, so why would he be unhappy? And if you told him such a thing he probably would not believe you. Even if you could convince him he could quite easily break his chains, perhaps he would find life outside the cave overwhelming or not worth passing discomforts he would not be used to and would return. Or perhaps he would insist that life outside the cave is so terrible he would never consider leaving it in the first place. And that is basically the problem, even on a purely philosophical level, you have to deal with, and why you are finding your argument so frustrating to further as no one is going to listen to you, or even concede the possibility that you might be right. People are all greedy rapist murderers and if it weren’t for our capitalist democracy we’d all perish, right? Et cetera. No one _knows_ all that, of course, but they were told that in third grade by Mrs. Crabopple and as long as they believed it they got an ‘A’. These people can not think for themselves. And the people who can think for themselves in our society have such an overwhelming advantage over the more weak-minded, that they have little interest in an egalitarian society. Well, that is my rant. Hope you can see where I’m coming from. Even the ones who are unhappy are too weak and uncaring to try for anything better, myself these days included. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/39 "2000-10-13T18:32:55Z")
Nen: > [@](#): > > PeeQueue, I thought you had hung me out to dry, as it were. Sorry about that; Something came up unexpectedly yesterday. But, to continue… > [@](#): > > Why are humans the only species in which the members kill other members? I’m pretty sure this is untrue. I know chimpanzees have been known to kill each other for no obvious reason. Male lions often kill other males to take their territory and females; they then move on to kill the old male’s young. There are species that kill each other after mating. Many species who compete for mates end up killing each other during competition. I’m sure your set up would not remove all jealousy, selfishness, mental illness and other non-economical reasons for murder. Do you propose that we do not have a police force? Won’t people realize that they can gain power over others simply by threatening physical harm? > [@](#): > > I’m sure many would (I for one am torn between the two ideas), but why would people wish to revert to monetary and stratified systems which prove to be derisive, when, hypothetically, an alternative has been offered which proves to work? Because some people will always want to have power and authority over others. These people will be able to produce something that others will want, and will be able to dictate the terms to those that want. Realize that not everyone wants to be equal or fair. Even if you eliminated money (which I don’t think is possible at this time), there would still be a need for some to have more respect or power than others. Ambition drives a large percentage of people. But there’s a part of my question you didn’t answer. What will happen to the bands/tribes as the large cities want/need to expand? Won’t there be roads built between the cities and won’t towns and cities spring up on said roads? It seems natural that people would want to spread out. What’s to keep them in? They could still be a part of “the system” even if they lived outside the cities (supposing they wanted to be part of the system). PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594/40 "2000-10-13T18:56:46Z")
**Collounsbury** , your attempts do illustrate the finer points of civilization are admirable. You state that my thoughts are not worthy of commentary, yet you make comments in an insulting fashion. Either back up your allegations, take them to the appropriate forum for your acidic tone, or don’t make them at all. Again, maybe you should read more carefully before alluding to the idea that I believe civilization is a bad thing. **jmullaney** , the cave analogy is a good one. I do understand where you are coming from (I can’t seem to use such grammar without thinking of Sir Winston Churchill and the remark, “That is a rule with which I shall not put”). Anyway, I guess I should resign myself to the fact that people would rather keep existing beauracracy rather than have a little vision. **PeeQueue** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PeeQueue \* > I’m pretty sure this is untrue. I know chimpanzees have been known to kill each other for no obvious reason. Male lions often kill other males to take their territory and females; they then move on to kill the old male’s young. There are species that kill each other after mating. Many species who compete for mates end up killing each other during competition. I wasn’t aware of those interactions between lions. I have heard of isolated incidences among chimps. Killing after mating does occur among some arachnids and insects. Most mammals, reptiles, etc. tend to avoid serious injury during competition for mating rights as it may lead to their own death. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PeeQueue \* > I’m sure your set up would not remove all jealousy, selfishness, mental illness and other non-economical reasons for murder. Do you propose that we do not have a police force? Won’t people realize that they can gain power over others simply by threatening physical harm? As I stated before, I don’t have an answer to this dilemma. I don’t understand the need to have power over others. I don’t understand why crimes are committed out of passion. I can’t resolve mental illness. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PeeQueue \* > Because some people will always want to have power and authority over others. These people will be able to produce something that others will want, and will be able to dictate the terms to those that want. Realize that not everyone wants to be equal or fair. Even if you eliminated money (which I don’t think is possible at this time), there would still be a need for some to have more respect or power than others. Ambition drives a large percentage of people. See my response to the previous quote. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PeeQueue \* > But there’s a part of my question you didn’t answer. What will happen to the bands/tribes as the large cities want/need to expand? Won’t there be roads built between the cities and won’t towns and cities spring up on said roads? It seems natural that people would want to spread out. What’s to keep them in? They could still be a part of “the system” even if they lived outside the cities (supposing they wanted to be part of the system). Well, I thought I did respond by posing the question, “…why would people wish to revert to monetary and stratified systems which prove to be derisive, when, hypothetically, an alternative has been offered which proves to work?” PeeQueue, thank you for the opportunity to voice my thoughts. Great strides in human nature are apparently necessary evolve in the sociocultural arena. That truly disgusts me. Anyway, I have grown completely weary of hearing how humanity is hopeless. I am an idealist. I will continue to be so. I hereby withdraw from this thread. As I did in the beginning, I concede that my theory is flawed. Although I had expected much criticism, I had hoped the teeming millions would offer some of it in a constructive format. Thanks again, PeeQueue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-farming/36594.md?page=3)