Farming fed more people.
More people = more warriors.
So the hunter-gatherers were conquered by the farmers.
Farming was the nuclear bomb of the bronze age.
Either you had it, or you were ruled by those who did.Not Bronze Age, late Neolithic age.
And then they killed 95% of men.
Depends on the area, really.
I suggest you read The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow. Suffice to say, the actual history of the invention of farming was anything but this nuclear explosion type event. This model was created as a hypothetical, scholars trying to imagine how it actually happened. The real archaeological and ethnographic record paints a very, very different picture.
According to The Dawn of Everything, there is evidence of multiple instances where societies developed agriculture and then discarded it.
Well yeah, because it really sucked. Early agrarians were much less healthy, suffering from malnutrition and diseases that hunter-gatherers did not.
People persisted though. And over ten thousand years they eventually won out. Turns out that being able to store enough food to last all winter is a huge long term advantage. Specialization was an even greater advantage (that also took millennia to develop).
And the issue with trying to put the genie back in the bottle is that if one group left that money on the table another group would come along and pick it up.
There was also this whole “too cold to grow” age.
I mean agriculture is what enabled humans to take over the earth and then destroy it. Before that we were actually part of the food chain. At this point we would have to abandon it to save the human race otherwise mother nature will clean us up and forget about us.
And penicillin. I’ll gladly take the microplastics and credit scores if that’s the price to pay.
Modern dental care isn’t half bad either
Fun fact, the take up of agriculture actually made people’s oral getting significantly worse than that of hunter/gatherers.
My oral is on point, pal.
Getting, not giving
Bruh, I’m eating pussy while I’m typing this reply.
Idk I find it pretty barbaric we still use drills to cut out issues then stick metal or clay to it. Tooth regrowth is on the horizon though!
Unless you are American
Even in America we have novacaine
Ironically we don’t see much evidence of infectious disease in hunter gatherers. Now of course this only talks about those diseases we see evidence of in bones, but until we started keeping livestock and living in large close groups there doesn’t seem to have been much.
Obviously there still was disease. You’re never going to be able to find evidence of an infected wound or pneumonia in the skeletal remains, but the big killers like smallpox, measels, leprosy, etc. don’t develop until later.
Of course for those humans in environments that supported mosquitos malaria was still a huge problem.
We just need to stop them finding out how to create plastic
But seriously, thinking about a species-appropriate lifestyle for humans, since we can’t seem to keep societies stable, resulting in environment destruction, death and suffering.
Considering that we have a background in 100 - 150 people communities, maybe the ting/ding of ancient germans is the most ideal we can get.
And Twitter. Can’t forget Twitter.
Credit scores are objectively beneficial for everyone except people who don’t pay their debts.
Downvoting doesn’t make it not true.
There is a subsection of people in those that “don’t pay their debts” that can be described as “can’t pay their debts,” usually facilitated by the system.
That’s not relevant.
Whether you don’t pay your debts by choice or not, the fact remains that not paying them demonstrates that you are risky to lend to. It makes perfect sense for people to not want to lend you more money if you didn’t pay back what you borrowed before.
Downvote all you like, but that’s the fact of the matter. Getting rid of credit scores will change nothing for people who don’t repay their debts, but it will harm those who do, because good borrowers won’t be able to prove that they have a history of repaying their debts, and will therefore be treated as greater risks than they actually are.
