3 of 7
3
Why did people start farming?
Posted: 31 May 2017 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 30 May 2017 10:46 PM

I don’t know if that is what it means. But isn’t science what causes most of the problems and that we need science to fix the problems we made? Was civilization really a step forward?

No

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2017 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29

Why isn’t that the case and how can you be so sure?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2017 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/

And what of things like this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2017 10:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4332
Joined  2014-06-20
DarronS - 29 May 2017 05:42 PM
Titanomachina - 29 May 2017 10:46 AM
LoisL - 29 May 2017 09:49 AM

They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply.  Survival of the fittest.

What about all the after effects

The people who started farming and built the first civilizations had no way of knowing about the after effects. They were trying to build better lives, and they succeeded. The unintended consequences came much later. We are now living in those consequences and have the benefit of hindsight to see how much agriculture has hurt our ecosphere. Agriculture has also given us many advantages, but in the long term it may do more harm than good. The originals farmers could not possibly have foreseen all the consequences of their advanced technology, so they did the best they could with the available knowledge.

The population would have been decimated if there were no agricultire. If there were no agriculture the whole population of the world would starve to death. Be careful what you wish for. You probably would never have been born, or you would have died within weeks.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2017 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29
LoisL - 31 May 2017 10:18 PM
DarronS - 29 May 2017 05:42 PM
Titanomachina - 29 May 2017 10:46 AM
LoisL - 29 May 2017 09:49 AM

They ran out of food. They had to do something. They discovered that growing food was better than migrating for an unreliable supply.  Survival of the fittest.

What about all the after effects

The people who started farming and built the first civilizations had no way of knowing about the after effects. They were trying to build better lives, and they succeeded. The unintended consequences came much later. We are now living in those consequences and have the benefit of hindsight to see how much agriculture has hurt our ecosphere. Agriculture has also given us many advantages, but in the long term it may do more harm than good. The originals farmers could not possibly have foreseen all the consequences of their advanced technology, so they did the best they could with the available knowledge.

The population would have been decimated if there were no agricultire. If there were no agriculture the whole population of the world would starve to death. Be careful what you wish for. You probably would never have been born, or you would have died within weeks.

But in the recent link that I provided it talks about how technology could possibly be a bad thing. Such a thing wouldn’t be possible if we didn’t invent agriculture.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2017 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01

The question might be, “who was farming who?” Did the first plants offer the hunter and gathers many uses of value? DNA has created a list of first contenders of plant domestication. Cannabis sativa is one of the front runners.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2017 08:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26

Farming is not a human invention at all.

Termites have been farmers for some 100 million years.
termites-on-balsa_med_hr.jpeg

Farming ants have been herding Aphids for some 100 million years.
071009212548_1_540x360.jpg

The problem with human farming is that we *force farm* with fertilizers, which depletes the soil and every few years the soil should lay fallow, to replenish its natural resources.

It was proven by a Japanese farmer that natural farming and rotating crops without the aid of fertilizers allows for continuous crop yield without the need for fallowing the land at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation

Thus, in the long run, natural farming yields about the same volume as forced farming, without polluting the soil or aquifers with chemicals.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2017 11:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01

My personal thoughts on the subject.
 
Why did people start farming? The “farming” is part of a bigger picture in the Age of D0mestication. The earth was a hostile place and not created for humanity. D0mestication changed the earth and made the earth a place where humanity could live and thrive. Farming was part of the d0mestication process that included the domestication of animals too. 
 
Why did people start farming? The “people” is the fun part of the question. The big question is what people were farming? The hunter and gatherers? Was humanity built for the tasks of farming? The pre-history stories that have been passed down in the Rig Vega says that humanity was not built for farming. And just as the dog came from the wolf. The farmer came from the hunter. In other words, a domesticated human was created for farming. Just as many types of dogs were created for different tasks, the early Genesis stories have from six to twelve types of humans that were created.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2017 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29
MikeYohe - 01 June 2017 11:22 PM

My personal thoughts on the subject.
 
Why did people start farming? The “farming” is part of a bigger picture in the Age of D0mestication. The earth was a hostile place and not created for humanity. D0mestication changed the earth and made the earth a place where humanity could live and thrive. Farming was part of the d0mestication process that included the domestication of animals too. 
 
Why did people start farming? The “people” is the fun part of the question. The big question is what people were farming? The hunter and gatherers? Was humanity built for the tasks of farming? The pre-history stories that have been passed down in the Rig Vega says that humanity was not built for farming. And just as the dog came from the wolf. The farmer came from the hunter. In other words, a domesticated human was created for farming. Just as many types of dogs were created for different tasks, the early Genesis stories have from six to twelve types of humans that were created.

Your personal thoughts are not valid if you cite the bible.

Also using words like “built for” makes it hard to take anything that comes after seriously. We weren’t “built for” anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2017 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01

Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for”, every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they? 
 
Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories.
 
I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2017 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29
MikeYohe - 02 June 2017 02:55 PM

Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for”, every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they? 
 
Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories.
 
I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.

The hunter gatherers turned to farming when they couldn’t support their growing population with just hunting. Farming fed greater numbers and with greater numbers they subdued any hunters that arrived on their lands. It wasn’t domestication. As for dogs, they approached us first and cats later on moved in when we built cities which resulted in an increase in rats.

Animals aren’t built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It’s also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn’t some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold.

But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2017 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26

Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish” and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.

God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2017 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1019
Joined  2015-12-29
Write4U - 02 June 2017 07:22 PM

Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish” and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.

God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.

Funny how that works.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2017 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26
Titanomachina - 02 June 2017 07:40 PM
Write4U - 02 June 2017 07:22 PM

Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish” and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.

God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.

Funny how that works.

  Yes, and funny how religion works.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2017 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 02 June 2017 06:00 PM
MikeYohe - 02 June 2017 02:55 PM

Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for”, every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they? 
 
Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories.
 
I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.

The hunter gatherers turned to farming when they couldn’t support their growing population with just hunting. Farming fed greater numbers and with greater numbers they subdued any hunters that arrived on their lands. It wasn’t domestication. As for dogs, they approached us first and cats later on moved in when we built cities which resulted in an increase in rats.

Animals aren’t built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It’s also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn’t some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold.

But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on.

Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It’s going to be a good day.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3