I Am Sorry
This document is too short: ehdfuedfhuvbdeufhdvhuycbb Yeah and Sure, agriculture did dramatically change the course of the human race. There are some things about agriculture that I hate. But to call it a mistake? I wouldn't go so far to say that. This article does a great job at touting the hunter-gatherer society glamorously, but fails to address the bottom line. Would our lives really be better? I've recently picked up hunting. In a hunter-gatherer society, who the hell would invent glasses if everyone's constantly worried about feeding themselves and moving all the time? The truth is, in a hunter-gather society, most of us would not survive, either having died at birth due to the lack of medicine, being mauled by animals while out hunting, death from starvation during drought or long winters, or being physically incapable of hunting or gathering, because you can't see (like me) or because your were born or made cripple. Heck, maybe you fell into a badger hole and broke your ankle. Are there any doctors around? No. Well, I guess your hunting days are over. You're a man but not a warrior and a hunter? What good are you within your family/clan/tribe then? If that's not social inequality, then it's an inequality of a different kind. We definitely wouldn't have the population problems that we have today, which are a plus, but I wouldn't write about this topic through such rose colored lenses, without seriously considering the alternative. Do we really want to go back and live like that? Is that better?
We would not have the computers to comment on it were it not for the agricultural revolution. The average human lifespan is over 70 now--I'd say that's a lot better than 23 or whatever the author says it was for hunter-gatherers. Has the author even considered that hunter-gatherer tribes today have the enormous luxury of little competition for