The plethora, Version 2

I am sorry for not posting the last round, I got caught up in something and forgot about it completely. It's fine if you (voters) vote con because of it, however, I still intend to debate the topic. the resolution is: Agriculture was a mistake. first I will make my case, then I will respond to my opponent's arguments. definitions: Agriculture-the production of food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic growing/harvesting of plants, animals and other life forms. Mistake- a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention because we have no way to tell what is a good/bad judgement, I supply the following: Value: Utility Utility is the principle which approves or disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Along with this, a criteria of Mill's separation of pleasure allows one to clearly show what actions would and wouldn't be good. utility is the best way to weigh judgements in this round because it very clearly defines what a good and bad judgement would be. I. Agriculture maximized utility and therefore was a good (albeit possibly unconscious) judgement. Before agriculture, we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. These groups, would move with the herds of animals, and hunt or pick fruits and vegetables to survive. These groups could not include more than a couple hundred people at a maximum since, the income of food was not large enough to support any more. Finally, these societies had an average life expectancy of no more than 30 years. These people would grow up, breed and die, like many other animals. Agriculture changed all that. With the discovery/invention of agriculture, groups could stay in one place and have a stable income of food. Populations could also support more people since they no longer needed to hunt for their food. For these same reasons, the life expectancy rose considerably with the use of agriculture. Agriculture also allowed people to specialize in other area's since not everyone was required to get food. this lead to stronger/better buildings, tools and, in general, a better lifestyle. Because agriculture allowed populations to no longer have to migrate with the herds, to have more people in any given population, and allowed specialization, which lead to advances in technology that made life longer and easier, I truly believe that Agriculture maximized Utility and therefore was a good judgment. on to my opponent's case: 1.) they work less-this may be true, but, even so, the desk jobs that so many of us have are much more pleasant, and therefore provide more utility. Also, working less does not automatically mean more happiness. Unlike our jobs, the lives of the populations survived on the work that they did. Because of this, they're job would have been much more stressful and unpleasant then most jobs today. 2.) Healthier- Even if they were healthier, the fact that today, we live more than twice as long as them kind of negates this argument. Health, does not necessarily equal more utility, while, longer life does. Because we live longer, even if we are less healthy utility is maximized by agriculture, without which we would still only live to be 30 or 40 if we were lucky. 3.) Height- being tall is nice, but again, a doubled lifespan is worth much more than a foot of stature. 4.) World problems- There's alot included here so I'll break it down: a. Global Warming- global warming IS a cycle. The debate whether or not we are causing a spike is pointless to this round because, although the earth is very slowly warming, the increase in temperature does not significantly effect very many people, and overall due to the cycle the earth will eventually cool again. b. war- this is simply not true. If you look at the Inca, or any native tribe you will see that they DID war against each other. Even if their killing technology was not as advanced as ours, wars were, and still would be fought over food and other resources. c. Poverty- I don't really understand this one since, all hunter gatherer societies were essentially impoverished. These societies, due to the fact that they did not always have food, and never had a permanent shelter makes them almost no different from today's impoverished people, except in today's society, these people are often looked after and given the things required to sustain life. d. Pollution- this goes in with the global warming and healthier arguments. Basically, even though pollution in unhealthy, the fact that people who live in highly polluted area's still live longer than the HG societies means that utility is maximized by the neg. e. Social Inequality- this is simply not true. HG societies, if you look to native populations, were often MUCH MORE socially unequal than today's societies. Women in HG societies existed solely to wait on their husbands and to make babies. Not only that, but, if, for example if a baby was born disformed, it was seen as a curse and often said child was either killed or left in the wild to be killed. Today's society is unequal, but women can have jobs, join the military ect. People who are crippled in some way have laws that require certain things in order to better their lives. In general, HG societies were actually much more socially unequal, and this actually is a reason why agriculture was a good idea. f. Crime- With more people in one area, comes more people who think they can get away with things that would otherwise cause problems. The reason HG societies had less crime was because they were small, and required everyone to be able to work together in order to survive. Today, we have the luxury of not having to rely on others in order to live and this increases utility, which in turn provides more support to my thesis, that agriculture was, in face a very good idea. In conclusion, because of agriculture, humans now live longer and better. We have more freedom and in general a better lifestyle. because all these things increase utility, I urge you to vote neg, that agriculture was an amazing idea that would have halted the advance of humans if it had not happened.