Crash Course World History

[Geriander]

Yeah, this mode of thinking forces you into silly ideas that massive long-term shifts like the development of agriculture were "invented" by individual people.

Not really relevant to my point. They were no more individual people than the nomads, who prompted this argument, were. My point is that it is complicated to claim if agriculture helped humanity, it is much more complicated to claim that any one people or empire did so.

 

[bz249]

Yeah, this mode of thinking forces you into silly ideas that massive long-term shifts like the development of agriculture were "invented" by individual people.

Sure agriculture was invented by large group of high caliber scholars working for worldwide multinational corporations and indeed a huge patent debate developed which corporation is allowed to collect the royalties from the peasants for the discovery. At first the Church of Ra seemed to be the winner, but after a complex legal case they lost their monopoly for most part of the world.

 

[NorthernXY]

Whoever invented agriculture is the greatest villain in human history. They made the average human less healthy for thousands of years.

Alternatively they created the necessary condition for civilization and higher culture making them a force for good.

I understand the place you're going with this, but it is the only modern day that understands the "evils" of agriculture and the disease and degradation of the human species collective DNA. On the flip side, it has allowed us to specialize in other matters and we are now seeing a higher percentage of our population with higher IQs and have the ability to prevent extinction level events, asteroids, that no other species on this planet has ever been capable to do. Nomads and tribal people might have seen cities as making people weak, but it wasn't because of our modern reasons.

I think the "science" of healthy eating, especially in the U.S., needs to be completely thrown out and rebuilt without any preconceived notions of what a healthy diet really is. Agriculture most likely started by growing fruits, vegetables, and nuts, things that don't require processing. *I guessing it was most likely started by a woman... which I guess might be why it was Eve who plucked the apple from the tree. Women invented agriculture and got us kicked out of the paradise of living a hunter-gatherer life.

*Joke

 

[Geriander]

I understand the place you're going with this, but it is the only modern day that understands the "evils" of agriculture and the disease and degradation of the human species collective DNA. On the flip side, it has allowed us to specialize in other matters and we are now seeing a higher percentage of our population with higher IQs and have the ability to prevent extinction level events, asteroids, that no other species on this planet has ever been capable to do. Nomads and tribal people might have seen cities as making people weak, but it wasn't because of our modern reasons.

I think the "science" of healthy eating, especially in the U.S., needs to be completely thrown out and rebuilt without any preconceived notions of what a healthy diet really is. Agriculture most likely started by growing fruits, vegetables, and nuts, things that don't require processing. I guessing it was most likely started by a woman... which I guess might be why it was Eve who plucked the apple from the tree. Women invented agriculture and got us kicked out of the paradise of living a hunter-gatherer life.

The observation isn’t limited to modern times. Agriculrural peoples are shorter and less healthy than their nomad neighbours on average during most of the archeological record. Arguably the nuclear, AI, biological or fossil fuel technologies that agriculture allowed are as likely to cause our extinction as asteroids are.

 

[NorthernXY]

The observation isn’t limited to modern times. Agriculrural peoples are shorter and less healthy than their nomad neighbours on average during most of the archeological record. Arguably the nuclear, AI, biological or fossil fuel technologies that agriculture allowed are as likely to cause our extinction as asteroids are.

Uh, what? Sources? Mongols men were around 160 cm around 1450 CE with no signs of malnutrition, the modern height of Mongolian men is about 168 cm, and they're less nomadic. Men in Middle Ages Europe were about 173 cm. Are you referring to this? I'm all for us getting a better diet that has fewer carbohydrates (which cause a lot of autoimmune responses in people's diets) and more proteins, but make sure you compare apples to apples.

It's not arguable, man-made climate change is hurting the planet and will cause our societies to change if we don't drastically change our ways. However, it will not wipe out humanity in the way a very large asteroid can.

 

[Geriander]

Uh, what? Sources? Mongols men were around 160 cm around 1450 CE with no signs of malnutrition, the modern height of Mongolian men is about 168 cm, and they're less nomadic. Men in Middle Ages Europe were about 173 cm. Are you referring to this? I'm all for us getting a better diet that has fewer carbohydrates (which cause a lot of autoimmune responses in people's diets) and more proteins, but make sure you compare apples to apples.

It's not arguable, man-made climate change is hurting the planet and will cause our societies to change if we don't drastically change our ways. However, it will not wipe out humanity in the way a very large asteroid can.

Page 284 mentions it: http://www.mitodascalorias.com/wp-c...-Nutrition-S.Boyd-Eaton-and-Melvin-Konner.pdf

For most of history farmers had a protein short diet when compared to hunter gatherers.

 

[NorthernXY]

For most of history farmers had a protein short diet when compared to hunter gatherers.

No doubt, so many people have minor gluten immune responses that I'm sure it affects their potential growth. Which is why the Germans were larger than the Roman legionnaires. It's why people on a vegan diet generally look "sickly" and have to be sure to take supplements/vitamins because they don't get enough with their diet. Whereas a person on a "carnivore" diet doesn't have to worry that much. I've read anecdotal reports that you don't even need to take vitamin C supplements if you don't consume carbs. People get scurvy when they don't have a source of vitamin C but still ingest carbs.

I read something a while back that the diet/health of a person's grandfather had a large impact on their health and potential height.

 

[Herbert West]

Got to love discussions that are based on "I read somewhere", or journal articles from 1985

 

[Geriander]

Got to love discussions that are based on "I read somewhere", or journal articles from 1985

Have there been considerable contrary findings regarding agricultural/ hunter-gatherer nutrition since 1985?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Got to love discussions that are based on "I read somewhere", or journal articles from 1985

Which immediatly forced you to dumb an empty one liner

 

[HuzzButt]

Have there been considerable contrary findings regarding agricultural/ hunter-gatherer nutrition since 1985?

There has been a widening of the perspective at least. The process by which hunter gatherers are replaced with farmers is in most cases natural, the wildlife stock is running low and from that perspective a nutritional deficit or decrease across both groups can be assumed. The longest existing hunter gatherers are the San and they are renowned for their short stature, who's to say that the smaller prey post ice age would not have driven the height down over generations?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

There has been a widening of the perspective at least. The process by which hunter gatherers are replaced with farmers is in most cases natural, the wildlife stock is running low and from that perspective a nutritional deficit or decrease across both groups can be assumed. The longest existing hunter gatherers are the San and they are renowned for their short stature, who's to say that the smaller prey post ice age would not have driven the height down over generations?

The process has more to do with the desire for alcohol than dwindling herds. That requires grains and fruit, which can only be cultivated and nurtured over time in the same place.

 

[HuzzButt]

The process has more to do with the desire for alcohol than dwindling herds. That requires grains and fruit, which can only be cultivated and nurtured over time in the same place.

In the fertile crescent, but why did it spread?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

In the fertile crescent, but why did it spread?

Why did alcohol spread? Surely you jest.

How did fire spread?

 

[HuzzButt]

Why did alcohol spread? Surely you jest.

How did fire spread?

Looking at the genetic records in for example Scandinavia the farmers were distinct from the hunter gatherers, it was not hunter gatherers that took up farming to drink but farmers from elsewhere settling new territory.

 

[Fishman786]

I'm open to my ignorance changing, but maybe I should have been clearer. I'm talking about nomadic Mongols, and to a lesser extent nomadic peoples, never contributing. I'm not talking about nomadic people once they conquer a non-nomadic and assimilating, then losing most of their previous culture while still being the ruling class. Also, I'm not counting the Pax Mongolica protecting the Silk Road which helped culture and ideas (and disease) spread. That was a by-product of them protecting taxable income. Also not including things like Tamerlane being a huge patron of artists, scientists, and engineers, sending them back to Samarkand, the workers did it, not him.

I don't see why nomads have some obligation to "contribute" to what settled people claim to be the betterment of humanity. If you went back in time and asked a nomad they'd probably tell you that it's the settlers and farmers who are the moochers. As for Mongol atrocities Genghis Khan only did what everyone else was doing but more efficiently. Resisting a besieging army tended to be bad news for your health regardless of whether or not the guys doing the raping and pillaging lived in yurts. And history isn't exactly chock full of brutal nomadic conquerors. Genghis Khan and his immediate successors stand out for their cruel reputation, aside from Attila the Hun (debatable in many respects) there aren't really any other steppe nomads who are noted for being especially rapacious.

 

[Henry IX]

from Attila the Hun (debatable in many respects) there aren't really any other steppe nomads who are noted for being especially rapacious.

Huns, Scythians, Avars, Bolgars, Magyars, Turkomens, Mongols and Cumans just to name a few steppe nomads who left an enduring reputation for brutality and rapaciousness.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Huns, Scythians, Avars, Bolgars, Magyars, Turkomens, Mongols and Cumans just to name a few steppe nomads who left an enduring reputation for brutality and rapaciousness.

Yes indeed. Although we do have a problem here in that virtually all our historical records come from settled agricultural societies, and settled agricultural peoples have tended to regard nomadic peoples as strange, incomprehensible, unruly and unpredictable - at best, as exotic noble-savage cultures or at worst as bloodthirsty animal-like raiders. So conflict gets highly exaggerated in the historical record.

Warfare on both sides definitely happened, but either reading between the lines of the historical sources or looking at material culture and objects shows that there was a lot of more peaceful exchange as well, and the two groups tended to be quite interdependent in areas where they were in contact.

 

[NorthernXY]

I don't see why nomads have some obligation to "contribute" to what settled people claim to be the betterment of humanity. If you went back in time and asked a nomad they'd probably tell you that it's the settlers and farmers who are the moochers. As for Mongol atrocities Genghis Khan only did what everyone else was doing but more efficiently. Resisting a besieging army tended to be bad news for your health regardless of whether or not the guys doing the raping and pillaging lived in yurts. And history isn't exactly chock full of brutal nomadic conquerors. Genghis Khan and his immediate successors stand out for their cruel reputation, aside from Attila the Hun (debatable in many respects) there aren't really any other steppe nomads who are noted for being especially rapacious.

Are you referring to your last EUIV game?

 

[NorthernXY]

Got to love discussions that are based on "I read somewhere", or journal articles from 1985

Considering I used four citations in my post before that, three of which were from scientific journals, do you think I was pulling facts from out of the air or I hadn't searched for the article I was referring to?

This isn't the exact article I was referring to but it proves the basis for what I said isn't false.

Got to love oneliners that are based on "I'm a smug @$$hole and you're wrong because you didn't provide proof", from science illiterate idiots.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718110933.htm