[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

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.

If you look at the whole society, you find that the slaves/serfs/sharecroppers wind up spending a lot more time working to produce food, so that a numerically much smaller warrior/aristocracy class can spend a lot of its time either training for warfare, or hunting for recreation.

So it's conserving time in the same sense that hooking your car to the back of a semi conserves gas.

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.

No? Pre-industrial revolution, where was there much but slaves, serfs, or peasants? Of course eventually you get to the point where farming is all people know, so the freed slaves go out and become sharecroppers.

...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.

OK, got examples? Pre-industrial revolution, remember.

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.

Would your average hunter-gatherer really spend more time working to feed themselves? I agree that it'd be harder to support the large population, and also that there likely wouldn't be nearly so much of a societal pyramid, but you need to remember that the tip of the pyramid is supported by a broad base.,

If I compare each without the other innovation ... the one with agriculture wins.

But again, how do you get that large-scale agriculture without the coercive society? And vice versa, of course. It's really a synergy, each one driving the other.

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.

I very much doubt that you know anyone who enjoys farming with the techniques of say the Romans or medieval serfs.

Last I checked ... the average hunter gatherer spent on average about 28 hours per week to survive ...

And how many hours did your medieval peasant work, or a free Greek/Roman farmer?

...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.

But it is not agriculture which has done this, it is the later application of industrial revolution technology, and especially the use of petroleum. How many hours work would it take to produce the same amount of food if fields were plowed without oxen or horses? (And without horsecollars, one of the first IR innovations.) If the fields had to be harvested by hand? Ever swung a scythe?

Consider the productivity gains from just McCormick's invention of the reaper: "Prior to inventing the reaper, farmers could only harvest 0.5-acre (2,000 m2) an a day; after the reaper was invented, farmers could harvest 12 acres (49,000 m2) a day using less manual labor." Cyrus McCormick Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia