Do you think agriculture was the start of the downfall of mankind? Is it the root of mankind's biggest problems?
>>508189
Indeed, agricultural lead to a surplus of food, which in turn lead to protecting that surplus. This of course put humanity down a path towards civilization instead of hunter/gatherer.
But here is your problem OP. You are under some strange utopian assumption that Homo sapien sapiens living in a pre-agricultural age did not have their own "problems".
Would you OP, be so quick to thwart the plethora of inventions and ideas that have come out of civilizations (the computer you are typing from for example)?
Alternative history is a fun and dandy game we can all play together, but to assume if X didn't happen then there would be Utopia, is simply childish and silly.
>>508189
>root of mankind's biggest problem
wew lad
>>508189
>agriculture was the start of the downfall of mankind?
o i am laffin
>>508189
>Do you think agriculture was the start of the downfall of mankind? Is it the root of mankind's biggest problems?
Nah, think we fucked up once we decided to walk on two legs. Some will argue we had no business leaving the oceans.
pretty much yes
>>508489
fucking amphibians.
cell division was the downfall of the species, I say.
>>508506
How so?
>This should be good.
Anyone who thinks hunting and gathering as a way of existing is more than free to wander into the wilderness and never come out again.
>>508516
that's the point where the man started to breed like rabbits and eventually permanently damage their environment. before that we were just a medium-sized, omnivorous pack animal along many others and that's how it should still be.
>>508547
>that's how it should still be
Why? Do you have an ethical argument or are you just being edgy?
>>508513
Stupid bacteria scum
Diatom masterrace.
I believe the malfeasance and/or stupidity of most every human that has every lived has lead to most every problem.
>>508552
beacuse after that we've caused nothing but harm for ecosytem. a world should just run freely as it does, no one has right to even try to control it.
>>508189
>start of the downfall
Prove there will be a downfall. (in b4 a link to some 2 hour long youtube video or a wall of text about the illuminati)
>Is it the root of mankind's biggest problems?
What problems?
Skeletons of peasants were shorter but both the skeletons of hunter gatherers and agricultural laborers have similar levels of arthritis (except the men).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7148534.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1928312
In the medieval era diets changed from a mix of protein to mainly grains and they could store grain for years or trade for it, offsetting fluctuations in productivity and famines. Hunter gatherers could not do this, if their region was fully populated they would come into conflict with neighbors in a similar desperate situation. Levels of violence in hunter gatherer societies was objectively greater than the period of ww2.
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence
>>508547
>and that's how it should still be.
You know, I've always been extremely skeptical of people who say things like "that's just the way things are" or, "that's how it should still be."
I see a of clergy and politicians using this kind of jargon, as if they hold the deterministic answers for all of...
Could we look at it another way, perhaps? Given our that Homo sapien sapiens are social creatures working in tribes, that their ultimate discourse would be to utilize any advantages for their survival and exploit those advantages to their full potential?
I mean, you can say its "unnatural" or "that's not how it should be" but I argue that everything that takes its discourse is very natural, and only power, knowledge and authority have the means of changing human discourse.
In short, read some Michel Foucault.
>>508575
Not the same poster, but there is still no argument here
>>508238
Sure would, not OP though.
I would need to write a book in response though, but rest assured we have moved way too fast, too often, and too aggressively through the guise of Empire.
>>508238
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, GENTLEMAN.
alternative history may be fun, but it's flooding /his/. this very thread is fun and cleverly put, but I would prefer some more focused discussions
>>508528
>implying the hunter gathering life style is even possible in today's world
You're forgetting humans are pack animals dependent on big wild life populations and diverse ecosystems that simply don't exist in most habitable places nowadays. Living alone in a cottage isn't nearly the same thing.
I'm not a utopian anarcho primitivist, but I do believe most issues regarding humanity are directly caused by civilization. Especially when it comes behavioural problems.
Hunter gatherers had few other things than dangerous animals and unpredictable food shortages to worry about.
>>508575
>a world should just run freely as it does
I'm suspecting this is a troll but whatever...
You are again, under some predetermined assumption that human beings are not of the world, they are. Human beings grew out of the earth and lifes biological complexities. They are just as much apart of the earth as anything else, so why do you think humans are some unnatural entity? Or could it be that humans are simply fulfilling their natural roles, the way these process allow, for good or worse? Does it matter?
And indeed, if this current discourse doesn't work out, human beings tend to adapt to crucial moments, if they don't adapt, then they die. But in all honesty, what are we, but a tiny blink of an eye in the span of the universe? We could all die tomorrow, and the universe would still be doing its thing, with or without us.
>>508575
I believe the ecosystem is important because it contributes to the happiness of sapient beings, I believe there should be large nature reserves dotted around the planet and a sustainable economy.
Why do you believe it is important enough not to be altered in any way?
Man who spends his free time playing with a computer wonders if maybe life would be more interesting if we didn't have the stability and security in our food supply to make any of the developments towards the present day.
>Hunter gatherers had few other things than dangerous animals and unpredictable food shortages to worry about.
seriously dude? hey, you know what was really cool about living back then? PREDICTABLE food shortages! There was this thing every year called Winter and it was really fun to ask yourself every year if you'd be able to live through it!
Or hell, how about if you got injured or sick? Good luck with the ol hunty gather then, right? OK, maybe your family/tribe can cover for you! But every mouth to feed adds to the original problems...
But nah, totally. You just hung out and occasionally threw a spear at a mammoth or something, food for a month covered, tons of free time, really casual except for the occasional sabertooth tiger or sometimes you'd be a little hungrier for a week because the weather was weird, right?
why has anthropology made it a goal to continually shill for societies completely annihilated by industrial/agricultural/"modern" civilization?
I mean let's face it, these cultures were to a tee raped or forced to emulate foreign techniques. I guess the eventual massacre of the population never factors into these humanitarian quality of life equations
>>508659
It's easy to apply your utopian fantasies to a group that cannot say otherwise.
People love to talk about how enlightened and in tune with nature the Sioux were, yet because they've never spoken to a Sioux they are ignorant of their genocidal campaigns across the plains, their driving the buffalo close to extinction, their practices of mass slavery, and the hilarious levels of violence their society practiced.
>>508189
Rousseau pls
>>508644
>agricultural pleb detected
steps belong to me you little worm
>>508616
Vastly swathes of north America are unpopulated and teeming with wildlife.
>>508547
There is no SHOULD for anything on this planet especially if you believe in the random occurrence of the universe. There is no way evolution SHOULD have gone. There is no way the earth SHOULD have formed ( no one could say oxygen had to develop in large numbers or that it didn't. However, as a result of it other organism were able to live. There is now evidence that all the organisms on EARTH right SHOULD continue to exist and not die out/ be replaced. This is just shitty pipe dreams brought up by people who honestly believe they have all the answers. I for one, am content with the fact that I don't know everything.
>>508764
This is incorrect, all of the US was populated.
>>508583
>>508616
Everyone in this thread IS AWARE that were aren't really even 90% sure exactly how perhistoric humans lived since...idk there was no history written about it? At best, we make extrapolations from artifacts, remains, and random drawings people made when board. How can we be sure it means anything about how all or even most of our ancestors lived. desu we can't even truly know exactly how genderoles worked either because again we weren't there and their is no written documentation. All we can do is speculate and make theories based on artifacts.
>>508702
Wait, wasn't it the combination of them and the westward colonists who were shooting them mostly for fun/target practice that lead to the near extinction? I remember reading something about that.
>>510910
We're not even 10% sure.
>>508238
In his book Sapien, Yuval Harari makes the argument that the agricultural revolution was the greatest trap mankind has ever seen.
Hunter-gatherer lifestyles are surprisingly efficient. Spend a few hours hunting every day and spend the rest of it resting, you still have adequate food for yourself and your tribe.
Agriculture, however requires one to work for half the day, is very vulnerable to theft, causes all sorts of health problems from heavy work, spreads diseases from working with animals, hugely vulnerable to famine in a way a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not, and provides overall less of the vital nutrients that humans need.
The only people who would benefit from agriculture are the nobility and the monarchs, who would achieve such status from the creation of cities. For the vast majority of people, they were significantly worse off in agricultural societies than hunter-gatherers.
Only in the last few hundred years did this change. The industrial revolution is what made modern society better than hunter-gatherer societies. If there was no industrial revolution, unless you were nobility, there is literally no benefit to the agricultural lifestyle.
>>508189
You're right, agriculture is the ultimate degeneracy, i bet the Jews invented it to keep the Aryan man down. We were better off in caves
>>510952
A friend of mine who studies archaeology told me about this book. I find the idea fascinating, and must admit that looking at power struggle compared between pre and post agricultural revolution makes one think ( although the methodologies used in both contexts are very different of course ) that life is generally less shitty for a lower cast gatherer hunter tribe member than for a serf, in terms of access to ressources, privileges, etc.
interesting video in this thread btw
>>512162
>>508238
>Alternative history is a fun and dandy game we can all play together, but to assume if X didn't happen then there would be Utopia, is simply childish and silly.
I agree with that
>Would you OP, be so quick to thwart the plethora of inventions and ideas that have come out of civilizations (the computer you are typing from for example)?
assuming the gadgets are a good thing, just because a dictatorship updates the road network of a country doesn't make it any less of a dictatorship.
>>508189
Yes because we would be just like the blacks or native americans had we never found agriculture.
>>508659
>muh one with nature
Go live in the forest if you want to be one with nature you stupid animal.
>>508627
yes, but technological progress is making the planet uninhabitable for us.
>>510952
Agriculture is the reason our species number exceeded 100 million in total.
>>510941
yeah, they probably flew around in flying saucers or some shit and lived in atlantis
>>514460
In 10000 years everything we did to this planet will be gone
>>514448
>>514473
yeah, along with our species.
>>514480
Pff its only a matter of time before we ditch these flesh suits.
>>508189
DUDE ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM LMAO
>>514485
I don't share your cynicism.
I want to live a decent life.
"Progress" is a spook. I 'm not a primitivist, but every product since a certain point on was made to just sell, with no real value
Yes.
Unabomber was right.
We're made for hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Fuck everything.
Bring me back to the stone age.
No seriously if some aliens or deities are lurking here just bring me back to that age and put me in my tribe.
>>514523
We cant support large populations with a hunter gather lifestyle because the actual good sources of meat take a fuckload of time to breed naturally, and eventually we would eat everything and have to resort to cannibalism.
>>514536
Good. Let society hit the floor. Either I'll die or I'll thrive.
Meanwhile I will have forcey fun time with middle school girls. Sounds good to me,
>>508547
i agree with this. but who can deny man's tendency to master his environment? he is compelled to by the very nature of his mind. agriculture was inevitable. therefore we as a species capable of ethical thought should approach agriculture woth a different philsophy. one of sustainability and harmony with and in the environment, giving more than taking, to the earth and to other humans
>>514547
>man's tendency to master his environment?
you are confusing need with esoterical explanations
>>514545
Humans were made to innovate thats why we have these brains.
>middle school
There are no schools in hunter gatherer societies because everyone will be either hunting, screwing around or fucking.
>>508189
No, OP. Humans were morally decaying since the peak of the Ice Age, circa 20000 years ago.
>>514563
>Humans were made to innovate thats why we have these brains
may I suggest that it's totally the other way around?
>>514607
No our brain literally restricts the actual power of our muscles so we can handle things more tenderly and not break shit everything we grab it like a chimp. Not to mention our hands mutated to use tools.
>>514621
yes and I was pointing out that evolution works in the opposite direction of which you describe i.e. needs and environment shaped our bodies, our bodies adapted to what humans needed to do
>>514639
Yes anon I wish we could back to the old days of hunting for food then kidnapping teenage girls in the tribe and raping them in the forest then getting my share of food. Of course psychopaths like me are cancer in a hunter gatherer society because we will do everything we can to fuck everyone over.
>>514668
Did I mention anything related to any of that, first post in thread btw.
Compared to early agriculture, hunter gatherer was probably more comfy.
>From 1050-1175, Dickson Mounds underwent a transitional phase, moving towards a mixed economy of hunting and gathering combined with agriculture, particularly the cultivation of maize.[10] The population was also developing more permanent settlements and trade networks.[10] From 1175 onward to about 1350, the population size expanded significantly and developed complex permanent settlements.[10] These changes can be attributed to the increased reliance on agriculture and expansion of long-distance trade during this period.[10]
>The significant lifestyle changes from a small, nomadic, hunter-gatherer society to a large, sedentary, agrarian society resulted in major health changes among the population. After analyzing trends in bone growth, enamel development, lesions, and mortality, archaeologists determined that there was a major decline in health following the adoption and intensification of agriculture.[10] Compared to the hunter-gatherers before them, skeletons of farmers at Dickson Mounds indicate a significant increase in enamel defects, iron-deficiency anemia, bone lesions, and degenerative spinal conditions.
>>514731
Also this was a study had a sample size of 800 skeletons.
>"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."
>>514731
This is why we have technology, to avoid all of this shit.
>>514760
The crops were complete shit in the old world.
OP is retarded.
>>514799
he's actually making a valid question
if that is your contribution, maybe you don't need to be here.
>>514462
Why is that a good thing? What is actually positive about expanding our population? From an evolutionary perspective, yes, it is better, but look how well cows have thrived in terms of population since they have been domesticated, yet they live horrendous lives.
>>514815
If you think saying that have a surplus of food is the root of humanities problem is in anyway intelligent then you are retarded and should actually rope themselves
>>514798
>Until relatively recently, most good data on the effect of the transition to agriculture came from North American sites (Cohen, 1989; Larsen, 2002), and little was known about the consequences of the transition for much of Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. This is changing, as paleopathologists widen their geographic focus; several studies summarized in the Cohen and Crane-Kramer volume (2007) provide evidence from these neglected areas, much of which confirms the above pattern of declining skeletal health.
>>514826
>saying
he's asking a question
>>514798
Oh wait I though you said new world, that study is from pre columbian north america. so your just making shit up m8.
>>514826
Actually this, the OP of this thread should commit suicide at considering that agriculture was the downfall as agriculture is the reason we arent tribes in Europe right now.
>>514865
alright ted, we see you found the internet, loonie
>>514901
Not OP (he was obviously exaggerating, he is a faggot after all) but there are some legitimate negative consequence of agriculture.
One example is that our body (physiology etc) has adapted to the hunter gatherer lifestyle over 100's of thousands of years , and there are 'mismatch' diseases due to the difference between the conditions we are adapted to and the modern lifestyle, some issues which have accelerated include heart disease, certain cancers, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, alzheimer's, cavities, anxiety and depression.
I'm not advocating that we return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, or using a false dichotomy of saying one is 100% better than the other. I'm just saying that there are some negative impacts stemming from the transition to agriculture, and that it's worthwhile identifying and being aware of this.
>>514958
that wasn't OPs point though
historically, class societies appeared due to permanent settlements.
>>514958
Blame Evolution, we have been hunter gathers far longer than agriculturist so our bodies are still designed for it infact it might be impossible to lose it since we have had for such a long time just as how its impossible for us to develop new limbs since the design for limb number goes back 400 mya.
>>515020
Of course, I'd say it's almost certainly impossible to lose an important factor our body has been evolutionarily adapted to. Small changes sure, but over the past 10,000 years what do we have, decreased sensitivity to gluten, increased tolerance of lactose, and a greater tolerance to alcohol.
>>514997
>appeared due to permanent settlements.
I think you mean "social surplus"
>>508189
Instead of seeing it as objectively good or bad, I see it as this. On one hand, it was good on a survival standpoint. We need food and water to live, and it only makes sense to settle where it is abundant. We have to keep others from taking it and so it lead to the establishment of civs.
Course in doing so, we basically allowed for inevitable things like greed, gluttony, and a various other number of things, as well as inevitably running into situations where we may create unsustainable growth(Something that may soon become a problem).
But it is doubtful we would of developed as much had we stuck to the nomadic life style, which while would ensure the earth is largely unharmed by development and man would remain at one with nature would also mean we would not also develop to learn on how to interact and deal with people. Plus not being able to write shit down would be problematic(A thing usually associated with nomadic peoples).
Its literally a mix bag.
is there a mechanism for having a retarded OP deleted? This isn't even sensible. The people who developed agriculture were the people who had to subsist on scavenging, of course agriculture is better, it was an improvement and that is why they stopped scavenging.
>>508189
Well someone's been reading Ishmael.
>>515330
Prior to agriculture the number of hours required per person to socially reproduce human society was fairly limited, 2-3 hours a day. Agriculture, by producing class society and surplus, increased this to between 8 and 16 hours.
Protein down, disease up, war up, slavery invented.
>>515330
>delete things I don't want to discuss
Fuck off faggot
Also scavenging, really... people used to build houses out of mammoth bones ffs
>>515402
what the fuck am i even reading?
prior to ag. once you found your berries you laid in the dirt for several hours. awesome.
>>515408
>prior to ag. once you found your berries you laid in the dirt for several hours. awesome.
Your normative claims about the utility of lying in the dirt are exactly the same as your opinion: worthless.
As you'd know utilities are incommensurable between subjects. Thousands of generations of people have enjoyed lying in the dirt, eating starch products and small animals that women have gathered, talking about shit, watching the fire, and occasionally fucking.
What is with the extremes?
There is no blunt cut off between forger and farmer. In fact as we have seen throughout the world from the Pacific Northwest to California to Melanesian and Southeast Asia and Australia peoples who had altered their environment to better facilitate the growth of desirable staples.
They didn't stick to tiny vegetable gardens, they altered their entire landscape in massive patchworks.
It's based brah
That being said regardless of agriculture or not but enough food and too much food both leader to the same things regardless of agriculture or not.
>>515402
>the number of hours required per person to socially reproduce human society
what's this
>>515505
>what's this
You'd know it from class society as "work." Gatherers did a lot less "work" than any member of a class society other than the ruling elite.
>>515489
It's a given you autistic faggot, obviously you knew what I meant.
>>515489
Also you clearly don't know about the populations I am talking about because they did have staples and no corn is a term specifically meant for the most important grain crop and that is not the kind of plant I am talking about.
>>515540
Or you know you could refuse to improve your English expression and be a closeted retard.
>>514462
it's also the reason countless other species dropped to 0. your point?
>>515546
Australian Aboriginal peoples didn't have staples you horrible, horrible fuckwit.
>>515388
>ctrl f
>Ishmael
>1 of 1
Really?
The entire book is basically about this and sets a really good case for it.
>>515557
be nice
>>515547
The fact that you're focusing on what two autocorrect errors is all you, it's 4chan not a dissertation for my PhD
>>515557
....all people have staple foods, how stupid can you be? Do you not know what that means?
If you like, I can give you a PDF of Guns, Germs and Steel given that your understanding of food is almost at his level :-)
>>508189
Civilization is an end in itself and is something to be cherished.
In other words, shut your whore mouth.
>>508238
>>Would you OP, be so quick to thwart the plethora of inventions and ideas that have come out of civilizations (the computer you are typing from for example)?
>le computer meme that the hedonist cannot live without
every time
>>510952
>The industrial revolution is what made modern society better than hunter-gatherer societies. If there was no industrial revolution, unless you were nobility, there is literally no benefit to the agricultural lifestyle.
>>513481
>that life is generally less shitty for a lower cast gatherer hunter tribe member than for a serf, in terms of access to ressources, privileges, etc.
yes, because taking seriously your pains, pleasures, aversion towards pains, avidity towards pleasures, which means living through them, makes for a wonderful life. It is nice to be a hedonist, but mundane hedonism comes with boredom which makes the hedonist anxious since he cannot beat boredom.
>>515707
>....all people have staple foods, how stupid can you be? Do you not know what that means?
Looks like you don't. Staples are dependent food sources, the predominant source of calories.
Gatherer/hunter societies don't have these in general outside of limited resource extraction societies.
>>515786
Wow you are stupid aren't you?
>>515923
nice reductionism there pal.
If they're staples, then why have most gatherer groups been nomadic?
>>515758
How about every other goddamn thing you have up to and including the food you eat?
>>515932
I specifically stated specific groups >>515454 secondly agriculturalists were not necessarily sedentary and having a territory in which each particular zone has particular foods for a specific time of the year does not invalidate a "staple food" status to their subsistence patterns. It shows how different plants prefer different climates or soils and come into harvest at different times.
Maximizing a given range for all ecological niches on an annual basis is different than this mindless wandering you're insinuating.
>>515956
Australian Aboriginal people did not have staples.
>>515994
Incorrect.
Murnong (Victoria), Tree Fern (Tasmania), Millet (New South Wales), bush sweet potato (Western Australia) and these are just some of many more plants that were reliable staples throughout the continent. Beyond that Acacia seeds which are found throughout the continent and are feeding Sahelians as a staple food after it was introduced a couple decades ago.
All people have traditional staples, staple foods do not have to be plants fyi I just want to humor your ignorance :3
>>516102
So 60% of diet?
Nice1
>>516125
There is no exact arbitrary number for a staple!
If you don't like the term I suggest you take it up with the anthropological community :3
>>516156
>There is no exact arbitrary number for a staple!
So basically what you're saying is that you're unwilling to make an argument from number or reason, but from the conclusion of a 700 page book you think that a single sentence is evidence.
Thanks for reminding me why I've never sought to collaborate with anthropologists, and never will.
>>508616
>it was so nice and peaceful
Otzi the iceman had an arrow in his back and another person's blood on his knife.
>>516159
Your own idea of a staple food and the reality of the actual meaning behind that term are two different things.
There are seasonal staples, there are year round staples, there are staples that are farmed or tended, there are staples stored for later use or harvested at will.
You trying to make a broad term into your own definition doesn't change the agreed definition and you having a temper tantrum that anthropologists don't align with you doesn't change anything.
Picking up your toys and walking away when you don't like expert opinion is not appropriate on /his/, if you want an echo chamber/hugbox go to /pol/ so you won't be easily triggered
>>510952
>People choose to do less efficient things, that's why they went to agriculture
>>516198
Otzi wasn't a hunter-gatherer
Indivually, agriculture made us weaker (pre-industrial times) but as a species it made us stronger. Just look at the population numbers before and after. Nothing beats producing your own food.
>>508189
No. That's retarded.
>>514436
What point? OP is either downright retarded or probably 14 with some romanticised anarchist bullshit on his mind
>>516786
Well it is some kind of romanticised bullshit, but it passes muster for a first year tutorial.
>>515106
which was feasible in agrarian settlements
>>516927
Social surplus doesn't really exist in most pre-agricultural societies because the total "production" is "consumed."
>>516786
>What point? OP is either downright retarded or probably 14 with some romanticised anarchist bullshit on his mind
go back to your women study class :^)
Non-dogmatic Paleo with some grains and some dairy is the best diet.
>>515418
>As you'd know utilities are incommensurable between subjects
great so now why am I wrong and you right? We can only know from our point of view, which says comfort of shelter and plenty of food is better than not knowing if you'll get enough food / worrying about getting eaten or killed by a tribe.
>Your normative claims about the utility of lying in the dirt are exactly the same as your opinion: worthless.
So again, from the perspective of the people who actually lived this, agriculture was the better option. You don't have to take my 'normative' position, take theirs.
also pic related is you.
>>515511
>You'd know it from class society as "work." Gatherers did a lot less "work" than any member of a class society other than the ruling elite.
modern people do less work than gatherers. Not sure how you would compare being an accountant to having to search for food, fight animals, fight other tribes and shit. I'd rather be comfy and using my brain.
>>514639
Search 'Quaternary extinction event' and human overkill.
>>510952
or maybe people are inherently lazy and would rather have peaceful slavery over efficient but hard freedom
except americans, who somehow manage to have the worst of both industrial society (elite control over everything) and hunter gatherer society (total chaos, need to own guns just to survive, etc)
>>508189
Absolutely not. Invention of the language and writing system is.
>>517894
>We can only know from our point of view
>We
>utilities are incommensurable between subjects
>We
>utilities are incommensurable between subjects
>We
>utilities are incommensurable between subjects
>We
You don't get incommensurability.
Except most gatherer societies spent a lot of effort, to the point of death, refusing integration into agricultural economies.
>>518512
I know a lot about the mega fauna extinctions, I still don't see how that is 'moral decay' rather than ignorance about over hunting, combined with climate change leading to extinction. (I do see these extinctions as a bad thing, but applying modern morality to people of the past, nigga pls).
>>519094
that's my point. your relativism is not an argument.
most scavenger societies were inferior, good observation.
>>518939
haha fuck you are stupid as fuck
>>521311
Utilities being incommensurable isn't a relativist argument, it is a demonstration that EVERY UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT IS RELATIVIST.
>>521311
> scavenger
>>515550
>caring about the poor extinction
Get over it, that's how the it works. Some thrive others die out. Why would you not be happy YOUR species turned out well?
