Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I think you missed my point, which was that large-scale agriculture quite likely wouldn't ever have existed without the social & military organization needed to force people to spend their lives laboring in the fields, and thus that organization is more of a major innovation than agriculture itself. How many people would choose to spend their lives doing field work, when they could get all they needed from hunting & gathering?
|
And ... I think you missed my point that you were replying to about an non-conservation innovation.
What you listed is a conservation innovation ... the whole reason to enslave someone to work for you is so that they are now doing work you don't have to ... thus it conserves the en-slaver's time.
And thus it only serves as one more example of my point about innovation coming from conservation efforts.
- - - - - - - - - -
As for you theory about about a system that forces or enslaves people to labor in fields being needed for large scale agriculture ... I don't see sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.
After all ... not every farmer in the history of the world was forced or enslaved to be that farmer ... not every society in history used slave labor in the fields.
Yes some did ... but the conclusion / theory you make about it that ... it wouldn't have happened ... I think that goes way beyond the evidence that I see ... and if anything I see evidence to show that the enslavement and forced labor in the fields is not needed ... and that societies are capable of growing without enslaving others or using forced labor in the fields.
- - - - - - - - - - -
As for the enslaving organization being a bigger innovation than agriculture itself ... that is your opinion ... I don't share it ... but even if it is bigger ... it still does not meet the criteria ... it is not a non-conservation innovation.
Take agriculture innovation without your enslaving culture ... and it is still possible for it to grow as a culture without being an enslaving of others culture ... while still keeping the benefits of agriculture.
On the other hand ... if you take your enslaving culture without agriculture ... they stay as hunter gatherers ... they spend more time on average to get food ... they won't be able to support nearly as large of a population.
If I compare each without the other innovation ... the one with agriculture wins.
- - - - - - - -
As for who would want to farm for food instead of hunt and gather for food.
The person who wants to conserve their own time and energy... and I know some people who enjoy doing it.
Try going out and hunting and gathering year round without modern equipment ... it's very very hard work ... and takes lots of your own time and energy.
Last I checked ... the average hunter gatherer spent on average about 28 hours per week to survive ... and was often under feed , and suffer from some type of malnutrition ... while today ( without the now antiquated enslaving you listed ) , our current agriculture system allows the average person in the US to eat better ( over eat in many cases ) have better nutrition ... and do it for on average about 4 hours per week worth of work ... 1/7 the amount of time on average ... that is a major conservation of time... especially as it is for the average person in this society.
I'd say there is a good reason why we don't see people hunting and gathering anymore ... agriculture conserves more of the average persons time than hunting and gathering does.
But by all means if you think you can go out hunt and gather without any technology developed sense the invention of agriculture ... and spend less of your own time and energy doing that to feed yourself , year round ... have at it ... best of luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPGranger
What we did was discovered a way to let one guy specialize in food production to free up others into taking others food.
|
I disagree with the 2nd part.
I do not see sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that the reason we developed agriculture was to free up time to go take food from others.
If anything the evidence I see shows that the advantages of agriculture meant there was more food available ... thus less motivation even want the food from others.
And even if that was why we did it ... that doesn't change that it is still a conservation innovation ... because it was conversing those other people's time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPGranger
So let's go to the next innovation: Roads. Is it a more efficient way to move goods for trade or a way to quickly move your troops to reinforce key areas?
|
Doesn't matter ... it is a conversation innovation either way ... weather it conserves the time and energy to moves goods during peace time ... or if it conserves time and energy to move troops in war time ... either way it is still a conservation innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPGranger
Have you ever thought of the concept of total war? The idea that the factories and farms of a country are a military asset? So attacking civilian populations was acceptable to stop resource development.
|
Also another conservation innovation ... the attack that reduces and conserves the amount of resources needed to wage war or win a war is still conserving time and resources of the person trying to win that war.
- - - - - - - - -
Remember what I wrote was for ( Bold Added ):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamIan
what military non-conservation innovation was 'bigger' than agriculture?
|
Any conservation innovation does not meet the criteria listed... and thus far people have only listed additional conservation innovations ... thus reinforcing my point.