Jared Diamond: World's Worst Mistake?

[Cory Duchesne]

Just reread parts of Jared Diamond's essay - Agriculture: World's Worst Mistake. I was impressed with this essay when I was younger, but now that I'm older, I'm starting to wonder if it is seriously misleading. Jared Diamond does admit that it isn't solely just agriculture that is the problem, it is the human propensity toward population growth that brings about a need for agriculture. Diamond himself writes:

"Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny."

So is it right to conclude that just because we couldn't control our reproductive instincts that agriculture is to blame for that? Agriculture arguably permitted less warfare, because by being able to feed more people, there was less of a reason to go to war. Steven Pinker covers the subject of violence in his TED talk, A brief History of Violence. His argument is that the hunter gatherer mode of existence was equally if not more prone to violence due to the much larger land space required to support a small tribe, so when there was any kind of population pressure or if there was a need to migrate due to change in environment, there was a reason to go to war with neighboring tribes, and warfare was ultimately more frequent, even dramatically so.

Now, with Pinker, this is suddenly a quite flattering view of agriculture and a rather derogatory view of hunter gatherer existence.

Pinker and Diamond are amazingly opposed ideologically, so one of them is being very dishonest or deluded.

Now, I acknowledge that the graph in Pinker's talk is a bit suspicious and I will go onto the official TED site to see if I can find any citations that support his graph. Also to note, is that there are thousands of tribes in the world, but it shows eight specific (and perhaps obscure) tribes. It doesn't show overall averages across tribal societies in general, so there's no indication that these eight tribes are representative of tribal societies in general. So these examples could be cherrypicked.

Diamond refers more than a couple times to the Kalahari bushmen, who he seems to see as a model for sustainable living. I wonder how often the Kalahari go to war? Why don't their populations start to spill out into other areas causing conflict. These are questions I plan on researching over the next month or to, I just though these issues would be interesting to discuss with you all.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Now, I acknowledge that the graph in Pinker's talk is a bit suspicious and I will go onto the official TED site to see if I can find any citations that support his graph. Also to note, is that there are thousands of tribes in the world, but it shows eight specific (and perhaps obscure) tribes. It doesn't show overall averages across tribal societies in general, so there's no indication that these eight tribes are representative of tribal societies in general. So these examples could be cherrypicked.

Pinker only compared them to modern day US and Europe..he did not compare them to various points in human history from 10,000 years ago to present. Maybe that would make a difference.

Jared Diamond does not argue that the present day quality of life is worse than primitive hunter-gatherer societies, he argues that agriculture was a bad thing at the time. When agriculture was introduced, the quality of life decreased. Nutrition became worse, people got smaller, income inequality grew, and etc. Even if death from warfare didn't increase on a per capita basis, that is only one part of Diamond's argument and doesn't even encapsulate all of violence.

 

[Cory Duchesne]

Why is he calling it the world's worst mistake then? We're doing better now, so although our progress via agriculture has bitter roots, we are apparently stronger for it. It's not the world's worst mistake, far from it.

 

[king catfish]

Maybe limiting population is a better idea after all. But I (that is, not you) get to decide who is permitted to reproduce. There, see how easy that was?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I will need to find and read this essay, but just from what is posted here, I have to wonder what Mr. Diamond (Dr. Diamond) has been ingesting.

The world's population soared after agriculture began, and has increased again after each substantial improvement in agriculture. The amount of quality nutrition that is reliably available to the overall population is higher under agriculture; the opportunity for some leisure time, which is when humans are able to develop more complex arts and social activities, in much higher. Just remaining in one place long enough to do longer-term structures is a step forward.

It is demonstrably true that the surviving members of hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be very healthy; they have to be, or they don't last long enough to either reproduce, or be counted.

The Kalahari has spawned some remarkably tough people, but don't forget there are very few of them, and that when they compete against even modestly developed agrarian societies, they lose. The 'bushmen' are actually a different genetic subset of the human race--one of several found only in Africa--and the reason they are found only there is that they couldn't survive anywhere else. They are specialists in a very particular environment, and they behave in a way uniquely well adapted to that environment; but they have not grown in numbers or in sophistication in thousands of years.

If Diamond is saying that the Bushmen are gentle and egalitarian, he is applying some inappropriate standards. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are behaving as they must to survive. It's not hard to be 'egalitarian' when there isn't really anything much for anyone to have "more" or "better" of; and when even a badly sprained knee can cause you and your tribe to risk death, you limit combat and for that matter, sport.

But at heart, Diamond is an old school Rousseauian "noble savage" believer. He feels that the uncorrupt primitives of the world are better suited to life than we ignorant evil civilized louts; that the advance of Western civilization was nothing more than luck--the premise of his book "Guns, Germs and Steel"--and doomed to fail soon due to our hubris (the premise of "Collapse"). Having staked out his thesis on philosophic preference, he does a good job of selecting evidence that backs his position; but you will not find in either book examples of praise for the "Western" mindset or condemnation for the "primitive" worldview. He completely ignores the role of ideas, because any sophisticated thinking is, from his corner, inherently bad.

I enjoy reading his work, because he is very thoughtful and finds lots of cool evidence; you just have to remember that he's not necessarily going to examine that evidence with an openness to complex society or especially, any form of wealth or technology being a Good Thing. Thus, the distribution of domesticable plants and animals and their role in developing civilization is carefully noted; the idea that lots of people had the same plants and animals around them, but did not use them to develop does not enter his dissertations. That intellectual piece is left out of it, because he deeply feels that that human urge to change and make better is somehow evil, unnatural.

The mindset that a beaver dam is good, but a fishing weir is bad, is a sort of inverse form of special pleading, and Diamond is a most eloquent exponent of it. Note that he is saying that it is far, far better to have most of your children die, and the few remaining be Noble Hunter Gatherers, than to have most of your children live but be smaller. What an easy decision to make, for everyone else's kids...

It's interesting to see someone actually nakedly announce that what the goal of "Sustainable Lifestyle" is, is primitive bare survival. Obviously, he would have even less kind things to say about medicine, which has allowed us to become the cockroaches of the continents at an even more detestable rate. Oh, wait: He likes cockroaches. At least they aren't farmers.

 

[geni]

Maybe limiting population is a better idea after all. But I (that is, not you) get to decide who is permitted to reproduce. There, see how easy that was?

Since much of western europe has fertility rates below 2.1 no one needs to decide.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Why is he calling it the world's worst mistake then? We're doing better now, so although our progress via agriculture has bitter roots, we are apparently stronger for it. It's not the world's worst mistake, far from it.

Well I reread his essay and he does make some arguments that the elite are better off today, but the poor are worse off...and that our current lifestyle is not sustainable, thus the future is unknown.

I still think the thrust of his argument are the hardships that took place after the adoption of agriculture but before modernity. If you happened to be born say 200-10,000 years ago you might regard agriculture as a mistake.

 

[fossilhound]

Agriculture arguably permitted less warfare, because by being able to feed more people, there was less of a reason to go to war.

Arguably the opposite is true. Agriculture led to a settled group of "haves" who became victim to marauding "have nots," either unsuccesful agriculturalists, pastoralists who followed their flocks, or hunter-gatherers who wanted the abundant food stores for their own.

 

[PixyMisa]

I first ran into that essay years after I'd read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I felt that while interesting, in GGS Diamond had pushed his premise rather further than the facts would stretch. When I read Mistake, I finally realised that he is in fact a lunatic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Since much of western europe has fertility rates below 2.1 no one needs to decide.

Indeed, fertility is low enough in some countries now that it's turning into a demographic disaster. Japan, for example, is extremely worried about this.

 

[PixyMisa]

But at heart, Diamond is an old school Rousseauian "noble savage" believer. He feels that the uncorrupt primitives of the world are better suited to life than we ignorant evil civilized louts; that the advance of Western civilization was nothing more than luck--the premise of his book "Guns, Germs and Steel"--and doomed to fail soon due to our hubris (the premise of "Collapse"). Having staked out his thesis on philosophic preference, he does a good job of selecting evidence that backs his position; but you will not find in either book examples of praise for the "Western" mindset or condemnation for the "primitive" worldview. He completely ignores the role of ideas, because any sophisticated thinking is, from his corner, inherently bad.

Yes. Mistake is basically saying: The common view of the history of agriculture is wildly inaccurate - and all the while Diamond is propping up his own absurd revisionism.

I enjoy reading his work, because he is very thoughtful and finds lots of cool evidence; you just have to remember that he's not necessarily going to examine that evidence with an openness to complex society or especially, any form of wealth or technology being a Good Thing. Thus, the distribution of domesticable plants and animals and their role in developing civilization is carefully noted; the idea that lots of people had the same plants and animals around them, but did not use them to develop does not enter his dissertations. That intellectual piece is left out of it, because he deeply feels that that human urge to change and make better is somehow evil, unnatural.

The mindset that a beaver dam is good, but a fishing weir is bad, is a sort of inverse form of special pleading, and Diamond is a most eloquent exponent of it. Note that he is saying that it is far, far better to have most of your children die, and the few remaining be Noble Hunter Gatherers, than to have most of your children live but be smaller. What an easy decision to make, for everyone else's kids...

If anyone wants me to justify calling Diamond a lunatic, assume that I meant exactly what Miss Kit says above.

 

[HansMustermann]

Jared Diamond is spewing sensationalist BS that is basically what a certain audience wants to hear. As usual.

I've already addressed agriculture before, but here goes again.

When you analyze bone densities you get this: http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mchenry/ajpa29.pdf

Short story: in periods of manutrition, you get bands of different bone densities, but they tend to even out back again when you get enough food for a few years. The bones from hunter-gatherer tribes are the worst cases by far. It shows not only that malnutrition did happen, but it was more regular and more severe than what you get even in bones from the saxon dark ages.

Analysis of tooth enamel, ditto, shows that a lot of those tribesmen grew up severely starved.

Warfare and violence, well, short version is: he's an idiot.

Long version: warfare in tribal societies is permanent and endemic, with attrition rates going up to two thirds. Yes, of all people born there, up to that many can die in tribal warfare. More median cases like the Yanomamö had over a third attrition, which is to say, over a third die in endemic warfare.

We also know that the most peaceful American Indian tribes "only" attacked their neighbours once a year, the least, well, let's just say they were right bloodthirsty.

And while warfare in agriculture age became better documented and more organized, and more clearly for resources, violence in tribal societies tends to be for just about any reason whatsoever, from accusations of sorcery to basically just for lulz. E.g., for the aforementioned Yanomamö, the chief reason for warfare seems to be accusations of sorcery.

Tribal mind set often was basically: If your shaman says he summoned more animals for you to hunt, but your tribe still starves, it must be because the evil shaman of another tribe is driving the animals away from your hunters. (It can't be that your shaman is full of it.) Time to teach that evil tribe a lesson.

And they often had codes of violence escalation for it. Starting from premeditated murder of someone from the other tribe, and at least theoretically going all the way to complete genocide. Yes, genocide too is one thing that agricultors didn't invent.

And so on, and so forth. Basically there's a name for the whole idea: the noble savage myth. You know, oh, life was so much better, and happier, and everyone so equal, and caring, and bla, bla, bla. BS.

 

[ingoa]

Before drawing to many conclusions one should read the essay.
It is here. Five pages of quick and easy read.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, yes, I had. He's an idiot.

In addition to what I already said, I like it how he handwaves the problems of women as agriculture-only. Let's forget that in tribal societies women are routinely kindapped and raped, and that warfare to get pussy was a staple of human history that would last all the way to the end of classical era.

Or how he could find exactly _one_ population which supports his idea that people lived shorter lives after agriculture. Completely missing closer-to-home examples like ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia, which actually easily exceeded his average for pre-agriculture life expectancy.

Or how he uses the Bushmen as poster children for staying hunter-gatherer... when actually most Bushmen are at the moment becoming increasingly into agriculture and animal husbandry.

But yeah, if you don't mind cherry picking a couple of anecdotes instead of systematic historical data, yeah, it may sound like he has a point.

 

[ThermionicScott]

Heh, I read this thread title and figured you had buyer's remorse over a jewelry purchase.

- Scott

 

[Wowbagger]

Funny, he didn't paint agriculture as a "mistake" in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, published ten years later.

 

[Dunstan]

Funny, he didn't paint agriculture as a "mistake" in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, published ten years later.

That's my impression, too, which is why I was surprised to read this 1987 essay. My recollection is that GGS seemed to dismiss a lot of the "noble savage" notions that the essay seems to praise. And there seems to be a little tension between the essay's claims that agriculture didn't really do much for art and GGS's repeated point that agriculture permitted the existence of "specialists" who didn't spend their time gathering food. (Although even the essay seems conflicted on this point: it acknowledges that agriculture allows for a specialist class of kings and other leaders, but seems to indulge in some special pleading with respect to art.)

A couple of possibilities:
(1) His views have changed.
(2) The 1987 essay was tinged with more than a hint of devil's advocacy or contrarianism; he may not have meant that agriculture was truly the world's worst mistake, merely that there is a case to be made for it.
(3) He kept those views out of GGS because that work was intended to be descriptive rather than normative.

 

[geni]

That's my impression, too, which is why I was surprised to read this 1987 essay. My recollection is that GGS seemed to dismiss a lot of the "noble savage" notions that the essay seems to praise. And there seems to be a little tension between the essay's claims that agriculture didn't really do much for art and GGS's repeated point that agriculture permitted the existence of "specialists" who didn't spend their time gathering food. (Although even the essay seems conflicted on this point: it acknowledges that agriculture allows for a specialist class of kings and other leaders, but seems to indulge in some special pleading with respect to art.)

A couple of possibilities:
(1) His views have changed.
(2) The 1987 essay was tinged with more than a hint of devil's advocacy or contrarianism; he may not have meant that agriculture was truly the world's worst mistake, merely that there is a case to be made for it.
(3) He kept those views out of GGS because that work was intended to be descriptive rather than normative.

From what I recall GGS does state that the farmers didn't beat out non farmers by being in better shape but by shear weight of numbers.

If you look at the genocide in tasmania even with the europeans having guns it was the weight of numbers factor that finaly settled matters.

 

[sackett]

My late father-in-law, Dr. Charles Hockett, Emeritus Goldwin Professor of Anthropology at Cornell, opined that before agriculture people were probably happier, but of course they mostly didn't live as long to enjoy it.

That doesn't mean that I'd care to live the life of a !Kung San in the Kalahari -- but then, they didn't always live in that god-forgotten desert. If I could inhabit a well-watered and temperate part of the world, e.g., France during a warm interglacial, I might be able to do without agriculture very well.

I have lived -- hell, I grew up -- in a cold-temperate environment with a mixed economy: hunting, fishing, gathering, gardening, some barter, and cash. It's called northern Wyoming, and that way of life exists today. When was I happiest? When I was felling large and small game, catching delicious trout by hand (yes, by hand; I ain't lyin'), and eating wild plums off the bush. The sense of the plenitude of nature was gratifying and comforting beyond any satisfaction that any other activity could provide.

Was mine the old happiness of the cave? Yes, I think it was. My father-in-law didn't disagree.

 

[HansMustermann]

Except that that overpopulation that he mentions was the problem all along.

It's not like people went "damn, we kinda filled the world, it's time to either use condoms or start agriculture. Any of you guys want condoms? Thought so. Better start ploughing then."

More and more people just happened. And even the Bushmen's birth control still would only go so far to deal with that.

At some point humanity just started killing each other. That was about 20,000 years before agriculture. And it was really either that or starve.

And I don't mean starve as in maybe skip a meal or two to stay in shape. The Neanderthals are an example of a very close relative which literally overhunted until it starved into extinction. You know, as in, dead.

Because that's another thing that hunting can do: wipe out the species it hunts. It's actually possible to make yourself extinct if you rely mainly on that. I don't see how anything can be a bigger mistake than that.