• mark213686123 [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    I dunno the being able to have enough food to store away and have specialised labour is pretty neat

    • p_sharikov [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Peasants were actually more food insecure than hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers had a lower population and a diverse variety of food sources. Peasants on the other hand had a relatively poor diet, were vulnerable to disease, and would die en masse if a single important crop failed like 2 or 3 years in a row.

        • ancom20 [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          that is true so far because we have largely been successful developing new technologies to expand agricultural production. thus its current state is more vulnerable for this reason. We have artificially increased the carrying capacity of the land. This increases its vulnerability if there is a "technological" disruption. Such as no access to petrochemical-derived fertilizer (during current RU/UA conflict), new GMO/GE seeds (because they are designed to require repurchasing), groundwater depletion due to overpumping (Ogallala comes to mind), plant disease and insects adapting to monocrop and GE/GMO agriculture (making pesticides ineffective).

        • p_sharikov [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          That's a very recent development and we're already having serious problems with soil deletion and climate. Those are solvable problems but we haven't actually solved them yet and a lot of people are going to die from food insecurity in the coming decades.

      • ancom20 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Also hunter gatherers had less gender inequality and less wealth inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism https://immortal.org/8977/sexual-equality-study/