What changed and made agriculture possible was the climate. The Ice Age ended.
From The Dawn of Everything:
WHY AGRICULTURE DID NOT DEVELOP SOONER
Since our species came into existence, there have been only two sustained periods of warm climate of the kind that might support an agricultural economy for long enough to leave some trace in the archaeological record.
The first was the Eemian interglacial, which took place around 130,000 years ago. Global temperatures stabilized at slightly above their present-day levels, sustaining the spread of boreal forests as far north as Alaska and Finland. Hippos basked on the banks of the Thames and the Rhine. But the impact on human populations was limited by our then restricted geographical range.
The second is the one we are living in now. When it began, around 12,000 years ago, people were already present on all the world’s continents, and in many different kinds of environment. Geologists call this period the Holocene, from Greek holos (entire), kainos (new).
Many earth scientists now consider the Holocene over and done. For at least the last two centuries we have been entering a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene …
Wherever one starts it, the Anthropocene is what we have done with the legacy of a Holocene Age, which in some ways had been a ‘clean sheet’ for humanity. At its onset, many things really were new.
As the ice receded, flora and fauna – once confined to small refuge zones – spread out to new vistas. People followed, helping favoured species on their way by setting fires and clearing land. The effect of global warming on the world’s shorelines was more complex, as coastal shelves formerly under ice sprang back to the surface, while others sank below rising seawaters, fed from glacial melt.13
For many historians, the onset of the Holocene is significant because it created conditions for the origins of agriculture. Yet in many parts of the world, as we’ve already seen, it was also a Golden Age for foragers, and it’s important to remember that this forager paradise was the context in which the first farmers set up shop.
I’m just going to leave it at just finding the idea that hundreds of human generations is “practically simultaneous” too ridiculous to even continue discussing.
I’m not though? Rocks form on the scale of hundreds of millions to billions of years. We are talking about a scale of at most 3 million years, and as little as 300,000 years.
Compared to a miniscule few thousand years to ten thousand at most.
Deep Time can refer to a number of different concepts. It can refer to evolutionary time scales, geologic time scales, or astronomical time scales - which are as different from each other as 10,000 years is from 300,000. Context is king. But I think it’s pretty clear you are more interested in declaring yourself correct than in having a nuanced conversation, so you’re free to ignore my posts.
But that is absolutely the case (at least hundreds of years). The industrial revolution only effected a tiny percentage of the world (even with the effects of colonization) most of the world did exactly what you describe either not changing their technology at all or adopting parts of it, for centuries after industrialization had taken hold of Britain. And thats in an modern world which was more interconnected than anything seen previously. But if you lived in a city in Britain it absolutely felt like a Britain, even if someone in a village in Papua New Guinea would disagree.
Similarly for the agricultural revolution it probably was still probably slower than the industrial revolution but if you lived in the fertile crescent 10000BCE or there abouts it would absolutely have been a revolution.
@MrDibble , @Babale , I think you both have made your points, and any further discussion about “was it fast enough to be called a revolution” isn’t going to add to the discussion. It looks like you both have already realized this (thanks!), but in case one or the other of you has merely stepped away, I’d like to formally ask you to drop the topic.
The question is whether farming societies are better than non-farming.
Non-farming communities didn’t cease existence tens of thousands of years ago, they are and were still around until fairly recent times and we have some accounts of what life was like among them. You’d need to get a sense for what that lifestyle was like, before trying to compare the two.
It’s an interesting video. If you’re free to watch it, I recommend it. If not then…I’d be uncomfortable summarizing what is already a summary, when I haven’t read the actual book and I don’t want to turn into a “telephone” overview of the subject.
Modern hunter-gatherers have very little to tell us about hunter-gatherer societies in the distant past, for many reasons.
Also, nobody in this entire thread has said, or imagined, that ancient hunter-gatherers were Noble Savages “living a peaceful, healthy life” in some kind of early Eden. If you think that’s what anybody here believes you’re very much mistaken.
It helps to read a thread, or at least part of it, before posting in it.
His style is so irritating that I couldn’t even watch 2 minutes of it.
Hm…well, that would be a very good objection! Woops!
My apologies, I had somehow saved it in my memory as an example of a nomadic group but, now that you say it, I seem to recall that they had houses and etc…
