The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race Jared Diamond, Evolutionary Biologist, Discover Magazine, 1987 (adapted and abridged) …[R]ecent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't

emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?" One straight forward example of what paleopathologists (scientists who study ancient diseases) have learned from [ancient] skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for

men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors. Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of [Native American] skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys... that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize (corn) farming around A. D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly 50 per cent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia,… a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive." The evidence suggests that [these Native Americans] took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. "I don't think most hunter-gatherers farmed until they had to, and when they switched to farming they traded quality for quantity," says Mark Cohen of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh… There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition, (today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of

which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease… Epidemics (widespread diseases) couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp… Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the [United States], it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?

Hunter-Gatherers: Noble or Savage? The Economist, 2007 (adapted and abridged) About 12,000 years ago people embarked on an experiment called agriculture and some say that they, and their planet, have never recovered… The first farmers were less healthy than the hunter-gatherers had been in their heyday. Aside from their shorter stature, they had more skeletal wear and tear from the hard work, their teeth rotted more, they were short of protein and vitamins and they caught diseases from domesticated animals: measles from cattle, flu from ducks, plague from rats and worms from using their own excrement as fertiliser. They also got a bad attack of inequality for the first time. Hunter-gatherers' dependence on sharing each other's hunting and gathering luck makes them remarkably egalitarian. A successful farmer, however, can afford to buy the labour of others, and that makes him more successful still, until eventually—especially in an irrigated river valley, where he controls the water—he can become an emperor imposing his despotic whim upon subjects. Friedrich Engels was probably right to identify agriculture with a loss of political innocence. Agriculture also stands accused of exacerbating sexual inequality. In many peasant farming communities, men make women do much of the hard work. Among hunter-gathering folk, men usually bring fewer calories than women, and have a tiresome tendency to prefer catching big and infrequent prey so they can show off, rather than small and frequent catches that do not rot before they are eaten. But the men do at least contribute. Recently, though, anthropologists have subtly revised the view that the invention of agriculture was a fall from grace… Maybe it was not an 80,000-year camping holiday after all…

In 2006 two Indian fishermen, in a drunken sleep aboard their little boat, drifted over the reef and fetched up on the shore of North Sentinel Island. They were promptly killed by the inhabitants. Their bodies are still there: the helicopter that went to collect them was driven away by a hail of arrows and spears. The Sentinelese do not welcome trespassers. Only very occasionally have they been lured down to the beach of their tiny island home by gifts of coconuts and only once or twice have they taken these gifts without sending a shower of arrows in return. Several archaeologists and anthropologists now argue that violence was much more pervasive in hunter-gatherer society than in more recent eras.

From the !Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word

for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.

At first, anthropologists were inclined to think this a modern pathology. But it is increasingly looking as if it is the natural state. Richard Wrangham of Harvard University says that chimpanzees and human beings are the only animals in which males engage in co-operative and systematic homicidal raids. The death rate is similar in the two species. Steven LeBlanc, also of Harvard, says Rousseauian (philosophy that people are naturally good) wishful thinking has led academics to overlook evidence of constant violence. Not so many women as men die in warfare, it is true. But that is because they are often the object of the fighting. To be abducted as a sexual prize was almost certainly a common female fate in hunter-gatherer society.

Forget the Garden of Eden; think Mad Max.

Constant warfare was necessary to keep population density down to one person per square mile. Farmers can live at 100 times that density. Hunter-gatherers may have been so

lithe and healthy because the weak were dead. The invention of agriculture and the advent of settled society merely swapped high mortality for high morbidity, allowing people some relief

from chronic warfare so they could at least grind out an existence, rather than being ground out of existence altogether.

Notice a close parallel with the industrial revolution. When rural peasants swapped their hovels for the textile mills of Lancashire, did it feel like an improvement? The Dickensian view is that factories replaced a rural idyll with urban misery, poverty, pollution and illness. Factories were indeed miserable and the urban poor were overworked and underfed. But they had flocked to take the jobs in factories often to get away from the cold, muddy, starving rural hell of their birth…

Is Farming the Root of All Evil? The Telegraph, 2009 (adapted and abridged) Could it be that rather than being a boon to mankind, the invention of agriculture was, in the words of one academic, "the worst mistake in human history"? According to Prof Jared Diamond, agriculture evolved about 12,000 years ago, and since then humans have been malnourished and disease-ridden compared with their hunter-gatherer ancestors. Worse, because agriculture allows food to be stockpiled and enables some people to do things other than look for food, it led to the invention of more and better weapons, soldiers, warfare, class divisions between those who had access to food and those who did not, and inequality between the sexes. This idea has been picked up again in a recent book, An Edible History of Humanity, by Tom Standage, which argues that agriculture is a "profoundly unnatural activity". Dr Stock agrees that farming has played a powerful role in distorting human development. "The disparities we see today between those who are exploited and those who exploit are all based on those early origins of agriculture," he explains. Hunter-gatherers, for example, ate a wide variety of foods, around 60-70 kinds a year. But once humans switched to agriculture, we became dependent on a small number of crops. (Today, these are wheat, rice and corn, which provide the bulk of calories for the world's population.) The problem is that most of these staple foods do not have the nutrients essential for a healthy life and are vulnerable to disease and drought. Moreover, having a population based in one place led to poor hygiene, just as living in proximity with domesticated animals inevitably resulted in diseases being transferred between species, as today's outbreak of swine flu reminds us. To illustrate the malign impact of agriculture, Dr Stock and one of his students, Anne Starling, examined a unique set of skeletons. All 9,000 are from the Nile Valley in Egypt, but they span an extraordinary historical range, from Neolithic hunter-gatherers through to 1500 BCE. The researchers were looking for signs of malnutrition, which are reflected in a person's teeth. Just as tree-rings can indicate the health and age of a tree, so a defect in the layers of enamel called linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) can indicate whether a person has been ill, or deprived of food for several months. What Dr

Stock and Ms Starling discovered was that 40 per cent of hunter-gatherers who lived 13,000 years ago had LEH. Fast-forward 1,000 years, to when the Egyptians had become farmers, and the figure rose dramatically, to 70 per cent. Originally, the hunter-gatherers were about 5ft 8in, with robust skeletons. Yet once farming began, the average height decreased by four inches. Dr Stock showed me the bones of a man who lived 7,000 years ago, which are so thin and delicate they look as if they might snap. What caused this reduction in height? One possibility is disease.

A paper that Dr Stock is publishing with his Cambridge colleague Dr Andrea Migliano, in a forthcoming issue of Current Anthropology, demonstrates the link: the pair looked at pygmy skeletons from the Andaman Islands, whose body size shrank even more dramatically when they encountered Western colonialists, who brought with them diseases like influenza and syphilis. Hostile tribes who kept their distance from the newcomers actually grew taller during this period. But while the Leverhulme collection demonstrates the drawbacks of agriculture, both in terms of our physical condition and our social development, it also shows the ways in which the benefits eventually came to outweigh the costs. The Egyptian skeletons reveal that around 4,000 years ago, farmers suddenly started to grow bigger and become more healthy, perhaps through the more efficient use of resources. The average height returned to 5ft 8in, and only a fifth of the population showed signs of malnourishment. These results suggest that our ancestors struggled with poor health for 8,000 years before agriculture started to work in the favour of humanity, as opposed to benefiting the elites who controlled the food supply. "It's a case of whether the glass is half full or half empty," says Dr Stock. "Without the surplus of food you get through farming, we couldn't have the runaway technological innovation we see today. For instance, I can spend a lifetime in school, years doing a PhD, and then teach my students everything I know in a few months. They can then go on to become more expert than I am, pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Without agriculture, we wouldn't be able to stack innovation upon innovation." While many scientists now agree with Prof Diamond that agriculture did lead to an increase in malnutrition, inequality and warfare, some, like Dr Stock, are challenging such a cut-and-dried assertion. Life as a hunter-gatherer, for example, may not have been quite as idyllic as anthropologists initially portrayed. "Anthropologists in the Sixties and early Seventies described humans as 'Man the Hunter', bringing back meat for the women and children, and there was an academic backlash against this," explains Dr Stock. "Hunter-gatherers became the original flower children. There was a romanticised view of indigenous cultures who were egalitarian and in touch with nature." In fact, for many, life was probably "nasty, brutish and short", no matter how interesting the range of fruit and vegetables on offer. Dr Migliano has shown that the average life expectancy for a pygmy in the Philippines was 19. This meant that by the age of 14, most girls had already had at least one child. Other research has shown that, in hunter-gatherer societies, 15 per cent of young men are murdered: Prof Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, has calculated that in spite of two world wars, fewer people die violently today than before the advent of agriculture.

In any case, says Dr Stock, we are quite clearly at the point of no return. Agriculture has led to a surplus of food and this in turn allowed women to have more children (albeit initially unhealthy ones), leading to a global population of almost seven billion. "A lot of the problems we are facing today stem from the advent of agriculture," he says. "But we are ingenious enough to come up with technological solutions. "We are facing grave environmental and social issues. How we deal with them today will determine how impressed or dismayed the archaeologists and anthropologists of the future will be when they view our remains."

War & Human Nature John Green, Crash Course World History 2 (adapted and abridged) So today we're gonna focus on the question of why people fight and, more specifically, why human beings go to war. Like, to put it another way, we're gonna look at whether making war is part of "human nature." So, are human beings hard-wired to fight and kill each other? Well, that's a question that philosophers have been asking for a long time. Like, the philosopher Nietzsche summed it up this way: "I am by nature warlike; to attack is among my instincts." But he was Nietzsche. Now, among slightly less scary philosophers, the question of humans' warlike nature is often described as a debate between Hobbes, who saw humans as warlike and violent, and Rousseau, who thought that humanity was naturally peaceful until civilization came along. And we've heard echoes of this debate throughout our study of world history. Like, were we better off as foragers, when we had way more time for skoodilypooping (sexual intimacy)?

So, was Hobbes right that life in the so-called "state of nature" was nasty, brutish, and short, or was Rousseau right, that it was amazing? Well, without a time machine, which would settle a lot of vexing historical questions, our best guide to what people were like in the old state of nature comes from anthropology. Making guesses about the very distant past based on observations of modern hunter-gatherers is extremely problematic, but it's the best we have to go on. Well, that and archaeology. So, what do anthropologists tell us? Well, it doesn't look so good for Rousseau. Many anthropologists suggest that, in pre-civilization social orders, things were pretty violent. In

Australia, for example, killing and fighting was among the main causes of mortality (death), and archaeology has revealed evidence of warfare going back thousands of years. Now, some of these anthropological conclusions are controversial, but when combined with cave paintings and fossils of humans who pretty obviously were killed by other humans, it seems clear that we've been killing each other for a very, very long time. So Hobbes seems to be right, that life in the state of nature was probably violent and brief, but can it really be called war? Again, anthropologists can give us some guidance here. Some studies have reported relatively large-scale brute confrontations similar to battles, but these tend to be largely symbolic and they often don't result in much killing. Most of the actual violence that hunter-gatherers commit against each other takes place during raids, in which one group sneaks up upon another and attacks. So in the end, there may be, like, a very violent middle path between the individual killings of one person by another and the modern wars that we see today. But why are we seemingly so hard-wired toward violence? Well, it might be evolution. But I wanna be really clear about something: we may have aggression "in our genes," but you can't kill people! And also, you don't have to. Many of us, most of us, in fact, make it all the way through life without killing a single person. That said, there are a few ways that evolutionary imperatives could contribute to a warlike human nature. We'll start with the idea that it is a biological imperative to pass on genetic traits to successive generations. And here's where it's helpful to remember that for the vast majority of human history, war consisted of raiding. It was about taking stuff from other people's kin groups so that your kin group could have that stuff. For 99% of human history that's how we fought, not as organized states warring with each other. So let's stop even thinking about, like, groups of humans, or even individual humans, and think for a second about genes. Insofar as genes want anything they want to go on; life wishes to continue. And for those human genes to go on

Can you tell from their expressions which philosopher is which?

they needed humans to reproduce, and for that we need two resources: food and sex. Both of which could be quite scarce in the many millennia before we settled down into agricultural based societies.

So you can easily see how the competition for these two resources could become violent, and might provide an evolutionary explanation for war. Like skill at fighting meant more access to food in the form of better hunting grounds. It also meant more food because you were better at fighting the food too, also known as hunting. And there's a more horrifying aspect to this as well, which is that in many of these raids, women were the principle goal: they were to be acquired. Also, as we know from the Odyssey, fighting has a tendency to breed more fighting. Like, you kill my friend it makes it more

likely that I'm going to kill you. I'm not going to kill you, but seriously don't kill any of my friends. But at the same time, we need to be careful of explaining war merely as an outgrowth of evolutionary necessities, because such explanations can lead to a fatalistic conclusion that war is inevitable. But it's not; the cycle of violence that you see in the Odyssey gets broken all the time in human history. And yes it is much harder to end a war than it is to start one, but it is not impossible. When we get carried away by biological explanations we forget that while humans may not have evolved all that much in the past 1,000 years our institutions have. And that's happened because of human choices that go far beyond the desire for food or the need to reproduce.

How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Egalitarian Ways Peter Gray PhD, Psychology Today, 2011, text selection from full article Is it true that hunter-gatherers were peaceful egalitarians? The answer is yes. During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found--in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles--these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals. We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn't have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, "big man," or chief. If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren't really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story. There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same. One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation, and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied.