Life was far better before agriculture, and still better than it is now, on the whole, for humanity

No I stand by the title thank you. It says that life was better 'on the whole': in 2008, 43% of people lived on less than one dollar a day, and today about 805 million people in the world are chronically hungry. So on the whole, humanity is worse of. For agricultural societies did not face famine like we do today, contrary to belief, and this is fact it can be looked up easily-here is one source: (YouTube-crash course world history, agriculture). So on the whole, far more people are suffering today so it could be argued that 'on the whole' humanity is worse off. You say I conceded to people like us being better off, not quite. I will state my arguments for this. Yes we have Medicare, technology, saftey, warmth and abundance. All great. All our most primitive needs are met. However, we also have other, 'tribal' needs. These needs we perceive as our desire to have people like us, to belong into our social community, and too be respected for our role and autonomy. All these needs have been shaped by our evolution, which I remind you has been in tribal society for millions of years, and so doesn't quite fit the modern world. How does it show itself to not fit, you might ask. Well racism, tyrants, greed, materialistic wealth acquisition, drug addiction, addiction in general, sugar and fat addictions-all these things are within all creatures but nature provides a climate whereby each of these needs are in check. For instance people still would be addicted to sugar, but they couldn't abuse that because they couldn't eat enough fruits. But in the modern world, we have the means to totally abuse these natural urge and kill ourselves with them. Another example could be the prison study done by Zimbardo. This demonstrates how 'faulty wiring' can result in severe abuse, as modern humans became abusive when the situation led it to happen. However, I got side-tracked I apologise. Like I was saying, we have all our bodily needs met, our most primitive needs, but we have other needs. These 'tribal' needs are not met by our society sufficiently. We do not feel the community values that once held us together. The majority of people in the modern world are not sufficiently fulfilled. The capitalist climate, resulting in most people working 5 days a week in a low-fulfilment job until they are 65, is not exactly a utopia. Also, in that job, none of them needs are met. Another example of evidence suggesting we are not fulfilled, comes from the office of national statistics, stating that within one year, 1 in 4 adults suffer from a mental health problem. Have you ever herd of those tests suggesting that the trible people in Mexico where far happier than their western counterparts? Or soldiers saying that, once they have a taste of that comradary and tribal-like lifestyle, they want nothing else? Life isn't just about comfort, otherwise people wouldn't climb Everest. Humans get there joy from society, and being with people and doing things together as a team. It's not a surprise though, like I say, we have evolved to do that for millions of years. Like the change in behaviour of a dog when it sees a rabbit, we succumb to our trible instincts when are put in the situation. So trible life was not necessarily that much worse, possibly even better than modern life in many ways, because our tribal needs where met. But either way more people are hungry now and suffering in the rest of the world, so even if you where arguing that then I would argue you where wrong-and that humanity was worse off now. I will go through your arguments piece by piece. Your first argument is that agriculture is more efficient. I know it is, that's what agriculture is. I argue that it's effects have actually been detrimental on the whole, though it must be said, we on this site are eating the sweetest fruit. However I dont believe the well-being of humans can be measured in production. It should be measured in happiness. You say agriculture brings a wider availability of things to eat. No it does the opposite again. All most people eat in agricultural societies is the remains of what crop they produce for the rich people. Thus people where far more unhealthy. I would argue that, a pre agricultural human had a more varied diet than even an modern human. You say that over population may cause a problem. Well agriculture is the only thing that causes overpopulation. There is plenty of room on earth for about the 5 million hunter-gatherers that existed. Because of agriculture, that number is now 7 billion. So in summary: Psychological health better - because more natural, social environment Far, far less starvation than today and the last 6000 years No genocide, war or discrimination Women's equality No hierarchies No inequality Less disease Better, healthier food Healthier body More time for music and art than almost everybody afterwards On the flip side.. Tiny proportion of the world, in very recent times, has got basic needs met, however still live in an unnatural world that doesn't wholly fill our needs. Thank you, sorry for I had to rush last half of argument.