The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

good topic interesting reading .

the biggest mistake we WILL make is not getting something right about agriculture rather than wrong all the time .

many of the world's best off have no idea how to hunt, gather or farm . but these should be the best armed with knowledge , old and new . yet they are not . they have developed instead , good ways to die off quickly

Agriculture is the best thing that has ever happen to make a solid human society.
It has enabled us to spend time on arts and technology which is a good thing.

Of course anything can be used in the wrong way, but it just can not be the worst mistake in history.

I believe in technological evolution to see the galaxies and learn more about this third dimension, this goal would be impossible if we stayed nomads and didn't evolve to agriculture.

You are totally wrong OP, I have no idea why you spent so much time in thinking a theory that is counter productive and pretty useless. Sure it's open to critical thinking and you make some valid points, but the whole subject is false and misguided.

reply to post by R3KR


Sorry. But if there isn't disagreement and critical peer review, then the scientific method is irrelevant. There is a reason for intelligent debate...it's called the search for the truth.

Originally posted by User8911
Agriculture is the best thing that has ever happen to make a solid human society.
It has enabled us to spend time on arts and technology which is a good thing.

Actually, the opposite is true. Hunter-gatherers generally spend 3-4 hours a day working to procure their needs, and spend the rest of the day enjoying themselves. Once agriculture was adopted, the hours of work increased. We spend about twice as much time working to support ourselves today, than they did 10,000 years ago. And this we call progress.

- Their work week is short enough to make us drool in envy.
- They enjoy almost unbelievable egalitarianism
- The religious gasp at their high levels of sexual freedom, experimentation, and enjoyment.
- They're damn happy people, laughing freely way more than we do.
- Outside a division of labor, women have total social equality with men.
- They rarely resort to violence or war
- Strong social safety nets in most of their societies support the disabled, old, and in many cases, even the lazy.
- They usually live to be at least as old as we do
- Their health is more robust than ours, and they're frequently immune to diseases ravaging their sedentary neighbors. Their social lives are rich, and they have the free time to indulge themselves.
- With a few exceptions, their lifestyle lets them live in harmony with the earth, relying mostly on renewable resources, and keeping their numbers at a sustainable level.
- Their senses appear many times sharper than their own, and many seem curiously immune to extremes of temperature.
- Their strength often seems unbelievable.
- They intelligently use their time to create more productive environments that needs little care.

www.raw-food-health.net...

It's all bollocks. A 'suggestion' based on no evidence, that supporrs his political view on population control

Take it ALL back from Monsanto.

Now .

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Truly, I never disagreed with that. How much of your meat actually comes from pastured farming though? I was speaking of the industrialization of the meat industry which constantly contaminates our water supply, and causes our food crops to become contaminated with bacteria such as E. Coli and Salmonella. And also, keeping livestock complicates matters in the exact same way as the issue described in your OP. Also, do you think that plants in their natural environment destroy the topsoil? Did you even look into what permaculture is? I'm not trying to say that you are wrong about your ideas, I just think that you should find a middle ground. While both a true Vegan and a true Carnivore would quickly become very unhealthy and die from malnutrition, a more natural balance of animal protein/vegetables would serve to make us all more healthy... Much like that which you would find in a hunter/gatherer culture.

Originally posted by chrissiel123
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

reproduce like jackrabbits? lol.
In Canada the average is 1.1 children per family. That isn't so bad. Some families have more, some have less. We are here to reproduce after all. I think couples having two children isnt too bad - it means that two people go into the marriage and two people come out. That is sustainability. Granted we are overpopulated, so for now 1.1 works better than 2. I don't think there should ever be a time or a reason to try to place limits on the ability of people to reproduce. It is unfair, will be abused - meaning the wealthy will find ways to have what they want, and the unconnected middle class will not. For evolution to work there needs to be equal opportunity. Trust me, when we reach a breaking point on the overpopulation scale, mother nature will naturally cull our numbers, with the fittest, smartest or strongest surviving. All will be fine.

I wasn't talking about Canada. You guys don't starve when it doesn't rain when you expect it to. I was referring to countries in Africa (primarily) where agriculture was recently introduced and people had an abundance that they weren't used to. Unfortunately, they didn't breed at a sustainable rate like you guys, they instead started having as many children as possible, in some areas at an average of 6 children per family. I was merely saying that they should be educated about the potential ramifications of their irresponsibility, much like we do with AIDS. I think that this is the only humane thing to do. Either that, or the twisted bastards that control their countries will see no other recourse than to starve them out or kill them directly, or "mother nature" will show them just how nurturing she is. Knowledge is power, I was only saying that we should share that power with the less fortunate, not impose breeding controls or any crazy # like that.

reply to post by daggyz


You know, there is a reason for linking sources...it's so you can validate the claims made by myself and the article linked. It really doesn't take much intelligence, either. Your dogmatically cynical stance is what perpetuates misinformation.

The worst thing human beings ever did was develop the capacity to love, and to define it as something good. Love will kill us all with overbreeding, overuse of natural resources, aggressive competition and conflict to ensure the health and safety of our closest loved ones, etc.

Love is the killer!

(I'm also very controversial. )

Originally posted by Blue Shift
The worst thing human beings ever did was develop the capacity to love, and to define it as something good. Love will kill us all with overbreeding, overuse of natural resources, aggressive competition and conflict to ensure the health and safety of our closest loved ones, etc.

Love is the killer!

(I'm also very controversial.

)

edit on 10-10-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

Most western nations have figured out how to curb the love need and population growth has slowed, stop or is regressing. Other nations have not:

Birth rate per number of birth per 1000

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Truly, I never disagreed with that. How much of your meat actually comes from pastured farming though? I was speaking of the industrialization of the meat industry which constantly contaminates our water supply, and causes our food crops to become contaminated with bacteria such as E. Coli and Salmonella.

Agreed.

And also, keeping livestock complicates matters in the exact same way as the issue described in your OP.

Right. Farming livestock would be considered "agriculture." But pastured cattle herds, in small amounts, are easily managed (of course, depending on the environment). Still...I'm not disagreeing with you, just less impact on the health side.

Also, do you think that plants in their natural environment destroy the topsoil?

No. The wild plants are managed efficiently by the ecosystem.

Did you even look into what permaculture is? I'm not trying to say that you are wrong about your ideas, I just think that you should find a middle ground. While both a true Vegan and a true Carnivore would quickly become very unhealthy and die from malnutrition, a more natural balance of animal protein/vegetables would serve to make us all more healthy... Much like that which you would find in a hunter/gatherer culture.

While a purely carnivorous diet doesn't necessarily lead to death, I would have to agree with the rest of what you're saying. A mix of whole foods, both plant and animal...with as little processing as possible. The human body can function extremely well consuming many different diets..from a balanced/variety diet, to more exclusive diets (including carnivorous).

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
[

While a purely carnivorous diet doesn't necessarily lead to death, I would have to agree with the rest of what you're saying. A mix of whole foods, both plant and animal...with as little processing as possible. The human body can function extremely well consuming many different diets..from a balanced/variety diet, to more exclusive diets (including carnivorous).

The traditional Inuit did quite well on a nearly all meat and fat diet and are able to obtain the necessary vitamin by eating much of the food raw and especially consuming those parts of the animals no longer used for food by the west (except in sausages of course!) Indian vegetarians have shown you can live on a pure veg diet also.

Being an omnivore has it advantages

This train of thought is also supported by
Ted Kaczynski

Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois, where, as an intellectual child prodigy, he excelled academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree, and later earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25, but resigned two years later.

In 1971, he moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient.[2] He decided to start a bombing campaign after watching the wilderness around his home being destroyed by development.[2] From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23. Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto. In his Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.

He claims that revolution, unlike reform, is possible, and calls on sympathetic readers to initiate such revolution using two strategies: to "heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down" and to "develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology".[60] He gives various tactical recommendations, including avoiding the assumption of political power, avoiding all collaboration with leftists, and supporting free trade agreements in order to bind the world economy into a more fragile, unified whole.

Sort of whats actually happening today(but getting pushed by the governments). And to make it all the more silly

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian self-admitted perpetrator of the July 22, 2011 bombing and massacre in Norway[68][69], wrote a manifesto in which large chunks of text were copied and pasted from the manifesto of Kaczynski, with certain terms substituted (e.g. replacing "leftists" with "cultural Marxists" and "multiculturalists").[70][71]

He actually goes quite indepth on this and similar subjects. But yeah, he is a convicted bomber.

Agriculture provided the foundation for modern society. Agriculture is a smart way to feed ourselves, really. We're not all so as naive as the bushmen who seemingly believes in an inexhaustible source of monongo nuts. Once you understand scarcity agriculture makes more sense. I'd argue that agriculture is not a mistake at all; in fact I'd call it an inevitable and necessary component of any advanced industrial society.

Technology or methodology are neutral.

It's like a gun, it's not evil or good.

The wielder of that technology decides how it will be used.

Don't blame technology on the failures of man.

Blame our attitudes, our mindset, our disposition. That would be much more accurate and would direct us towards a reasonable solution without having to create depopulation to solve our crisis.

Depopulation is straight up murder, and anyone who supports it is a genocidal eugenicist.

..............now ain't that something.

Here we went and chose agriculture and because of that we are advanced humans with ipads.

And to think, we could all still be living in trees, grunting and gathering nuts & berries.

Ah. for the good old days!

......................................

reply to post by ZIPMATT


woah woah woah over populated??

I have driven across texas many times and there is TONS of free range there. No one to be seen. On some stretches maybe a town with a gas station and a handful of people.

You might think we are over populated because you live in a crowded city but that is not how it is everywhere.


Africa starves due to greed and political games. we make enough food here in the usa at least corn.

The greatest mistake in the history of the human race was MONEY CURRENCY. Agriculture was an obvious step but if you talk to population control freaks then yeah you are right

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I think your argument is flawed and here's why.
If you took every single human on this planet, we could all fit into an area the size of Australia and every man woman and child would have a quarter acre each.
So overpopulation is not the problem.
As for hunter gatherers being around and active for xxx years,
Do you really know?
Were you there?
Who is to say that mankind didn't live a fully rich life with agriculture and blew it all up millions of years ago?
Only to start from scratch.
Plus even if hunter gatherers were successful for xxx years and we have only been doing this for xx years, this experiment is still running and we may outlast their number of years.
But it is all opinion and speculation and we are entitled to that!

Originally posted by yaluk
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

woah woah woah over populated??

I have driven across texas many times and there is TONS of free range there. No one to be seen. On some stretches maybe a town with a gas station and a handful of people.

That brings up a good point, I remember seeing somewhere that Jim Marrs had said there was enough room in Texas alone to fit the population of the U.S. I will try to find some links but I can't seem to remember where I have heard it from. Has anyone else heard this?