World Peace In Prehistory (5)

Everything you posted in your argument can be attributed more towards human nature then the actual "consequences" of agriculture. Man has a duel nature, as pointed out by Niccolo Machiavelli, man has the ability to reason and to logical however he also has the ability to be savage and beast like in his actions. The idea of ownership would not be a problem if it was not in human nature to be jealous. Thus ambitious men will always find a way to deprive others of their possessions, whether it is by physical force or by intellectual wit. It is also reasonable to believe that even before the idea of ownership was established, that territories that were of high value would have been disputed, such as but not limited to hunting grounds, sources of water and places where edible vegetation were plentiful. If life was difficult and food not plentiful, it would be extremely likely that conflicts between clans would arise in order to compete for resources. For as history has told us that even natives who were ethereal with senses of nature, could be as cruel and savage as those of even the most brutal figures of history. Man is still man and if you strip him down to his most primal state, that is when he is the most dangerous and reckless. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that man's conflicts with each other were always brutal, and since the population of men was relativity low during the time of hunter and gathers, that a small conflict between two kin or clans would be the equivalent of a conflict with a high casualty rate if the two populations were proportionally assessed. For example, if you had a population of fifty and you lost ten of your clan members to a rival clan's raid, it would be equally as devastating if a city state had a population of one million and they lost two hundred thousand citizen soldiers in a war against a rival city state. However it would be easier for the city state to replenish their population as they have more potential mating partners and a better mortality rate then the clan. I would like to address the point of which you made, stating that it was the wealth that came from agriculture was the cause the deterioration of relations between groups of people. One can argue this as much as they want, however the fact is that wealth was just a tool for developing injustices, and without somebody operating the tools the tool itself would be useless. Men often seek for advantages over their fellowman and once the basic needs for survival has been satisfied then the ability to seek such advantages may be pursued. As Machiavelli said wealth alone can not establish a firm rule over other men. Men who establish their rule by wealth alone can be overthrown with relative ease if they don't lay down the foundations of their rule shortly after maintaining power, for allies who are bought by coins (or the fortune of others) rather then loyalty to the person can not be trusted. Men who obtain power by that of skill and ambition find it harder to obtain power, but once power is obtain their new reign is more secure then that one of bought by the coin. Thus it is reasonable to believe that wealth alone did not contribute to imbalance social system, rather the ambition and nature of man that caused for such deterioration to occur. Thus peace can be only achieved if man was governed in a totalitarian state (an example would be japan's long peace when the period of warring clans came to an end when it was united under the rule of a single clan through efforts of men such as Oda Nobunaga) or if the world reverted to a state where clans were isolated from each other and had to struggle to satisfy the basic needs to survive (and even then struggles within clans for dominance and leadership the clan would be inevitable). To address the issue of population pressure, biology has demonstrated that each ecosystem has a population limit based on the amount of biomass the ecosystem can support, and even then there are cycles of overpopulation and starvation within each ecosystem (refer to references [1][2]). However agriculture allows for for the expansion of the existing population limit by increasing the ecosystem's ability to maintain a larger amount of biomass. It is true that when there is a surplus, populations increase and thus the surplus dwindles until it is gone and there becomes a shortage. However advances in agricultural sciences and genetic engineering allows for greater and more reliable yields in a shorter time, thus keeping it's ability to keep up with the demands of the growing population. I would like to take this time to address the benefits that agriculture has brought man. "Where tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers therefore are the founders of human civilization." --Daniel Webster Before agriculture it was impossible for arts to flourish, thus man was ignorant of the universe and the world around them. The establishment of agriculture allowed for the expansion of arts in a way which would have been impossible in hunting gathering communities. People could purse arts, science and religion in a manner that would benefit the entire human race. Advances in medicine, science and other studies which has increased the lifespan of a person would not have been possible. Fatality rates would be extremely high from minor injuries such as cuts, broken bones or illnesses, because there was always the risk of infections that would almost certainly kill a person. In pre agriculture life, the lifespan of a person was very short by today's standard (people had to reproduce at a early age, hints why kid's have the ability to reproduce in their early teen years). So agriculture and currency (the representation of a good or service) allowed for man to peruse self enlightenment and new technological wonders. For if currency never existed then the blacksmith or the healer would starve and abandon their career. Thus if it were not for agriculture and a surplus of food which can trade or sell to his fellow man then men would spend his life living like a beast, blissfully ignorant of the world to be discovered and conquered by him and his fellow homosapien. One may argue that our ability to reason and logic separates us from animal, this is true however animals have some sense of reason themselves. They've learned to adapt and evolved to ensure the survival of their species, this is no different from when man developed tools and developed hunting skills. I argue that the thing that separates us from the beast is our ambition to go on to do greater things, to learn the unknown, achieving the unthinkable and exploring new bold frontiers. So i conclude that it was not agriculture that was the great evil on the contrary it allowed for breakthroughs that benefited all of mankind. Rather it was man's greatest asset and biggest liability, ambition. For if a man who seeks self advancement in society in expense of others will almost always bring some form of misery vice versa, when a man is bent on helping those around him or in the name of the greater good by means of medicine or education or in any direct or indirect manner, he was almost always uncertainly bring good fortune upon those whom he seeks to help. [1]http://scienceray.com... [2]http://www.etap.org...