What civilization can thrive on subsistence farming? You don’t build impressive canals like China, move large blocks of stone as seeb ub Egypt and the Americas, or produce the hanging gardens of Babylon on subsistence farming. Things like roads, buildings, and english teachers don’t exist without a surplus and so far as I can recall subsistence farming only results in the bare necessary for survival.
Do you have a cite or is this just an opinion?
Marc
Did man just suddenly awake one day and say to himself “This hunting and gathering stuff worked for grandpa, dad, and for me as long as I can remember. I think I’ll just switch to farming and see how that goes.” Probably not. I imagine there was a pretty compelling reason to settle down and it probably occured gradually. As humans got better at hunting they could support a larger population. At some point the population grows to large to be supported by H&H societies. BAM! Here comes permanent settlements based around agricultural endeavors and suddenly you find yourself civilized. It may have been a choice between settling down or starving over the next few generations.
Marc
None, of course.
Things like roads, buildings and English teachers only existed for the very small elite minority over the vast course of history. The vast majority of the population were serfs and peasants and they lived a subsistence lifestyle. Most of their crops went off to feed the army and the nobles.
Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. Hunter Gatherer societies suffered from less disease (since a healthy chunk of diseases came about through high population densities and from domesticated animals), and tended to healthier and lead longer lives.
Exactly. Agricultural societies developed because of need. But the average lifestyle of the hunter gatherer was better than the average lifestyle of the “civilized” person for most of history.
Are your back-to-nature friends using wooden shovels?
Proto-agriculture probably began with HG groups helping to propagate naturally occuring crops. Say there’s a stand of prairie grass that a tribe harvests the seeds from every fall. At some point they discover that if they scatter a quarter of the seeds around instead of eating all of them there will be more grass next season. Gradually over hundreds of years the tribe does more and more to help the prairie grass along, which requires them to linger longer and longer in that particular area.
Now they’re trapped. The additional calories provided by the grass mean that they can’t go back to pure hunting and gathering without hardship. But because they’ve tied themselves to part of the year to a particular location they can’t wander freely. If there are any local fluctuations in the availability of game they can’t just move on looking for greener pastures – instead they’re forced to make up the deficit by farming more intensively.
It’s a vicious cycle. The more they get invested in cultivating a particular area the less flexibility they have in seeking out other sources of food. So if any particular food source becomes unreliable, their only recourse is to get even more invested in cultivation. Eventually they give up hunting and gathering entirely.
At each step along the way choosing “more agriculture” is the least painful choice. But the end result poorer nutrition overall. Small incremental “least bad” choices are not always a successful strategy for gaining the optimum result.
Once year-round agriculture is firmly established it becomes possible to generate the surplusses that allow social stratification and civilization which may ultimately lead to a standard of living higher than the original hunter/gatherers enjoyed. But that comes only after the culture has passed through a period of subsistance farming where everyone is worse off (if perhaps more numerous … .)
Here’s an article by Jared Diamond that goes into it.
No, and I never said they were. I freely admitted they are using some hand tools, such as shovels and needles which *could *be made by hand. They do not make all of them by hand out of choice. They have dug their own toilets, collect rainwater and filter it through sand before use, they only eat what they grow, gather or hunt, and they spin thread from wool from a few sheep they keep and weave it to make clothes they sew. They make candles from beeswax and lamps from animal fats. Their dishes are wooden and instead of silverware, they use chopsticks. They have no electricity, phone, car or computer. They DO have the entire colection of Foxfire books to reference! It’s about as primitive as I’ve seen myself - not hunter-gatherer primitive, but not “modern-life” either. They’ve done all these things out of choice.
And choice, as I stated several times in my first post, is what modern technology gives us more than anything. You seem to be overlooking the main idea of the paragraph while stumbling over the details.
Perhaps an English teacher could teach such things, instead of lecturing about Civilization.
Correct me if I am wrong but weren’t the “dark ages” an example of an extended time where civilization had collapsed. It is a nice little case study for the benifits of Civilization and the conditions that exist in the absense of that with a fairly large population.
Once the Roman empire lost its grip on Europe, life became a damned site more miserable for the common folk than under the regieme. local governmenet and systems of education evaporated. Protection from mauraders disapeared as well. Each person lived by the leave of whoever could muster up the forces to control their little fiefdoms.
There was still agriculture and many of the tied and true skills (building tools, and iron working) but medicine, education, communication, and general infrastructure disapeared. Literacy went bye bye except by those few who hoarded the books in their monestaries and private libraries.
I think Civilization’s benifits (safety security and general health) outweigh the shorter work week and freedom to be at one with that nasty natural world.
Of course, it’s still a pain in the ass when the pikemen defeat your battleship.
You shouldn’t store all your gamepieces in a single box, Bryan. Things can get confusing.
Yeah, except the medieval serfs weren’t hunter gatherers, they were agricultural slaves. The remnants of a big ag and trade civilization propped up by slave labor (the Roman Empire) /= hunter gatherers.
I didn’t realize that we civilized people were no longer subject to the whims of the “nasty natural world.” And I was also under the impression the hunter gatherer had very good general health.
Since it has been made clear than an English teacher is not qualified to make the statement that they were not impressed with modern civilization what kind of teacher is? I mean we clearly can’t have people commenting on subjects outside of their “expertise”; what’s next a professor of linguistics doing social and political criticism.
I thought he was being a good teacher when he said that because that statement lead me to question certain beliefs I had about human kind always progressing forward and improving the quality of life through scientific inquiry and subsequent technological advancement which would not have been possible with out civilization.
Good considering their living conditions. Also, from what I have read, child illness is lower than would have been expected–possibly because breast milk is used longer. (<- from a study of aboriginals in South America.)
But present-day Americans are healthier (in terms of disease rather than physical fitness–which we don’t need.)
Speaking as an English teacher:
And you have resorted to using a personal attack.
Well, if your teacher was a poster here, the standards (or so I have observed) would preclude calling him an idiot. Since he’s not, I gather he’s fair game, though if the matter starts getting excessively heated and/or profane (which I don’t think is likely), the thread can be moved to the Pit.
Of course, that’s up the moderators of this forum.
And you do need to proofread.
Well, it didn’t really collapse like the Mayans. The Roman government collapsed resulting in a more fractured and feudalistic society. IIRC.
So are you really saying that civilization is better for everyone except those who are not part of that civilization? 
Hunting/gathering is a very nomadic lifestyle that does not support large populations so for any group it’s only a matter of time until a population reaches a point where they must turn to a more regular source of food. IMHO, dirt poor peasents working on small farms are not “civilization” (as defined as an organized social group with centralized services and laws) or at most are at the rudementary stages of civilization. Are Chinese peasents part of the Chinese civilization? Well yes and no. Do the reap the benefits of being part of that civilization - access to medicine, tools, electricity? If so, then I have to think they are better off than simple independent sustenance farmers. Maybe not better off than H/Gs but that lifestyle is not sustainable.
It’s all well and good that some H&G had a pretty short work week but was that really the case everywhere and is it really a good measurement of quality of life? Natives of Papua New Guinea and and the Yanomano in Brazil and Venezuala argueably live in a virtual paradise. Watch were you’re sitting when among the Yanamano because they might club you over the head with a big stick while you’re not looking. When hiking across Papua New Guinea and you’re confronted by a native you better be able to communicate and figure out what common friends you have so you have a reason not to kill one another. Maybe the Yanomano aren’t as likely to bash your head in these days and some of the more violent Papua New Guinea groups aren’t so bad these days but it wasn’t long ago that you had to be extremely careful.
Marc
I’m not sure what you mean or where you got that.
Of course. But that’s the point. Civilization didn’t spring up because it was “better” in some abstract sense, it was because it was necessary. In areas where H/G and agricultural societies lived side-by-side, the H/Gs tended to be in better health than most of the people in the agricultural society and probably lived a better life overall. But they did so because the option was still available to them.
Well, dirt poor peasants working on small farms were the majority of the population in any given area until only a couple of hundred years ago. At what point is “civilization” achieved. Was Europe until industrialization got into the swing of things composed of civilizations? China and Japan of 200 years ago?
Some of them do. Others, not so much.
I agree. My point wasn’t that civilization was bad, it was that whether it improved the quality of life for people depended largely on what class you were. While the benefits of civilization are there for people who are able to appreciate them (generally educated folk with a bit of leisure time), most people were never able to appreciate them. That doesn’t make civilization “bad” or anything, it’s just how it was.
I guess what I’m getting at is this - if a group of people are still living in huts and sustenance farming with no modern convieniences, is it still considered “civilization”? Or has civilization not quite reached them yet?