This really is food for thought (pun semi-intended)…
Jared Diamond: The Worst Mistake
in the History of the Human Race
(Originally published in the May 1987 issue of Discover magazine, found at Iowa State University Agronomy 342 course materials, Ricardo J. Salvador, Associate Professor.)
To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught us that our earth isn’t the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly bodies. From biology we learned that we weren’t specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent 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. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.
At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth century Americans as irrefutable. We’re better off in almost every respect than people of the Middle Ages, who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval peasant, a caveman, or an ape?
For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It’s a life that philosophers have traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000 years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and animals. The agricultural revolution spread until today it’s nearly universal and few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.
From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought up, to ask “Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt agriculture?” is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild animals, suddenly grazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?
The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored, and since it takes less time to pick food from a garden than to find it in the wild, agriculture gave us free time that hunter-gatherers never had. Thus it was agriculture that enabled us to build the Parthenon and compose the B-minor Mass.
While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it’s hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. 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?”
While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen’s average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.
So the lives of at least the surviving hunter-gatherers aren’t nasty and brutish, even though farmers have pushed them into some of the world’s worst real estate. But modern hunter-gatherer societies that have rubbed shoulders with farming societies for thousands of years don’t tell us about conditions before the agricultural revolution. The progressivist view is really making a claim about the distant past: that the lives of primitive people improved when they switched from gathering to farming. Archaeologists can date that switch by distinguishing remains of wild plants and animals from those of domesticated ones in prehistoric garbage dumps.
How can one deduce the health of the prehistoric garbage makers, and thereby directly test the progressivist view? That question has become answerable only in recent years, in part through the newly emerging techniques of paleopathology, the study of signs of disease in the remains of ancient peoples.
In some lucky situations, the paleopathologist has almost as much material to study as a pathologist today. For example, archaeologists in the Chilean deserts found well preserved mummies whose medical conditions at time of death could be determined by autopsy. And feces of long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain sufficiently well preserved to be examined for hookworm and other parasites.
Usually the only human remains available for study are skeletons, but they permit a surprising number of deductions. To begin with, a skeleton reveals its owner’s sex, weight, and approximate age. In the few cases where there are many skeletons, one can construct mortality tables like the ones life insurance companies use to calculate expected life span and risk of death at any given age. Paleopathologists can also calculate growth rates by measuring bones of people of different ages, examine teeth for enamel defects (signs of childhood malnutrition), and recognize scars left on bones by anemia, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases.
One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-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 Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the Illinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and Illinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize 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 percent increase in [tooth] enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), 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 about 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 the Indians at Dickson Mounds, like many other primitive peoples, took up farming not by choice but from necessity in order to feed their constantly growing numbers. “I don’t think most hunger-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, co-editor with Armelagos, of one of the seminal books in the field, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. “When I first started making that argument ten years ago, not many people agreed with me. Now it’s become a respectable, albeit controversial, side of the debate.”
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. (Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn’t take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities.
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. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae circa 1500 B.C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from circa A.D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U.S., 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?
Farming may have encouraged inequality between the sexes, as well. Freed from the need to transport their babies during a nomadic existence, and under pressure to produce more hands to till the fields, farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts – with consequent drains on their health. Among the Chilean mummies for example, more women than men had bone lesions from infectious disease.
Women in agricultural societies were sometimes made beasts of burden. In New Guinea farming communities today I often see women staggering under loads of vegetables and firewood while the men walk empty-handed. Once while on a field trip there studying birds, I offered to pay some villagers to carry supplies from an airstrip to my mountain camp. The heaviest item was a 110-pound bag of rice, which I lashed to a pole and assigned to a team of four men to shoulder together. When I eventually caught up with the villagers, the men were carrying light loads, while one small woman weighing less than the bag of rice was bent under it, supporting its weight by a cord across her temples.
As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.
Thus with the advent of agriculture an elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage, “Might makes right.” Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over one person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that. Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it’s because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it’s old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don’t have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It’s not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn’t want.
At this point it’s instructive to recall the common complaint that archaeology is a luxury, concerned with the remote past and offering no lessons for the present. Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny. Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it.
Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture’s glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?
In my work with indigenous peoples in both North and South America, I have heard the same story over and over again; pre-colonialization, the people ate less, but better… and were comparatively healthy. Things changed once the mercantile Europeans took hold. Here in the Pacific Northwest, hunting for food amongst peoples like the coastal Salish was replaced by hunting for furs to trade. Food was changed to flour bannocks fried in oil, a diet which left the tribes with no resistance to smallpox blankets that were brought, at first inadvertently, then perhaps less inadvertently, by the traders. Their way of life was gutted, and a huge percentage of their peoples died of disease.
I notice that this study steps rather delicately around one other glaring evil brought by agriculture, one that has also decimated human health and society; alcohol. Without those huge crops of grain, one wonders if the urge to ferment the excess would have been present.
To apply this to the example above, alcohol provided by the traders in exchange for furs created widespread addiction and health problems still extent today. There is clear documentation of some tribes even pressing other tribes into slavery to hunt furs for their use; so they could buy more liquor.
Conversations with indigenous peoples from Guatemala and el Salvador show surprising parallels.
Do i believe the hunter-gatherers had a better lifestyle? Oh, absolutely. It placed humans in the their proper context, as part of an expanding web of life that they had no absolute control over. It was only with the advent of agriculture that man somehow considered himself a supreme manipulator of nature, a concept which, played out to its last card, could lead to widespread extinction.
Once I read this I just HAD to forward it to my father, a now-retired professor of Ancient & Medeval History to get his take. Here is what he said, which mirrors my general viewpoint (although he expresses it much better than I ever could!)
“To label the discovery of agriculture as ‘the worst mistake in history’ is a mis-nomer–‘the most consequential discovery in human history’ would be better. Sure, it brought class differences, epidemic diseases, slavery, and a host of other things, but the economic security it provided, and the confidence it provided that man could manipulate the environment to his advantage rather than simply accept whatever came his way, made adopting agriculture irresistable. That poor choices have been made along the way is both true and unfortunate, but no noble-savage was going to erect the Parthenon or sculpt the Winged Victory of Samothrace, or invent the lightbulb!. Also, we have now ‘progressed’ to the point where a modern grocery story offers more food choices than any Kalihari bushman ever had; the trick is always to make the right choices.
The anti-progressive arguement in the article sounds partly like one some rabid environmentalist would make–man is the enemy!–or like of some throwback to the 18th century cult of the noble savage. Even if one points out all the unpleasant consequences of the Neolithic Revolution (the domestication of plants and animals), there remains the question so what should one do about that now?
As for me, I’m glad I was able to reach 68 years and see my children grow and prosper rather than expire at an age appropriate for a hunter-gatherer.
“To label the discovery of agriculture as ‘the worst mistake in history’ is a mis-nomer–’the most consequential discovery in human history’ would be better. Sure, it brought class differences, epidemic diseases, slavery, and a host of other things, but the economic security it provided, and the confidence it provided that man could manipulate the environment to his advantage rather than simply accept whatever came his way, made adopting agriculture irresistable. That poor choices have been made along the way is both true and unfortunate, but no noble-savage was going to erect the Parthenon or sculpt the Winged Victory of Samothrace, or invent the lightbulb!. ”
Just because agriculture benefits SOME people doesn’t mean it benefits all. The fact that your father was a professor says a lot more about his quality of life than the fact he lives in an agricultural society. The problem with what your dad said is that agriculture INEVITABLY brings epidemic diseases, inequality, etc. As for the racist term “noble savage,” no, indigenous people probably wouldn’t have invented the light bulb because there’s no use for it. The sun is out most of the time and without industrialism, what’s the point of lighting at night? And championing the art of civilization is just yucky self-congratulations; indigenous cultures also had art, whether or not highbrow civilized people can be excited about them is inconsequential.
And I would like to offer one thought of my own.
I am not a particularly reglious person yet, for some reason, reading this article brought the Old Testament story of Joseph deciphering Pharaoh’s dream about the cows to mind. For those not familiar with it, the long and the short of that tale was that Egypt was in for seven years of bumper crops, followed by seven years of near famine UNLESS they took advantage of the good years to stock up in preparation.
An agricultural society (at least one that has progressed to the point of knowing how to mill grains and otherwise preserve various produce) can accomplish this feat largely because, being “stationary’ in nature, they can build storage stuctures to keep their stash.
How many years worth of goods (provided that they know how to preseve them in the first place), can a hunter-gatherer society carry on their backs everywhere that they travel?
You’ve made me get infomation to do my assignment.God bless you.Ghana,West Africa
am so hapi 4dis have gotten more knowledge on dis aiticle am so bless wit it.tanks 4 it has rily help me in so many way.once more i say tanks.i luv u.
I Ahmed Mohammed was born 09 03 1970 in Sharjah of U.A.E. had the passport when I have ended remained without work, with me 4 wives and 6 children, our government promises to give out many years the passport and consequently my children suffer, I remained without habitation without honey of the insurance, children in school don’t accept without the passport, it is necessary to treat children at me there are no such possibilities, ask the help for my children, I as the person born in an island а.э remained in the street with the family. You represent how many years I could so to live, day to eat than eat week without meal, asked the help from people all promise wait we will call, I can’t wait so much years for 12 years to children and there is no school for them if a situation concerned 1 person it was possible to suffer, and at me 11 persons suffer, ask that have paid attention to my request, and the help for my family. It is my contact number 0503402083
I was wondering if permaculture would be a way back to the hunter-gatherer society for modern man. Done correctly it would support a much greater population than ancient gatherer societies, while improving the land as well for future production.
I was also wondering where food storage fits in. Is it a hunter-gathering activity or an agricultural activity? Killing a deer, feasting, then creating jerky or biltong, or salting it, or perhaps picking berries and dehydrating them for later, would address some of the concerns regarding hunter-gathering.
As for the claim that agriculture has lead to greater variety in our eating, I would strongly disagree as most cultures still eat only traditional foods, and ignore the strange food on the shelves of their local store. American diets in particular tend to consist mostly of corn and oil.
The best Jared Diamond quote is:
“In 1849, hungry gold miners crossing the Nevada desert noticed some glistening balls of a candy-like substance on a cliff, licked or ate the balls, and discovered them to be sweet-tasting, but then they developed nausea. Eventually it was realized that the balls were hardened deposits made by small rodents, called packrats … Not being toilet trained, the rats urinate in their nests, and sugar and other substances crystallize from their urine as it dries out … In effect, the hungry gold miners were eating dried rat urine laced with rat feces and rat garbage.”
– Collapse by Jared Diamond
May I just say what a comfort to uncover a person
that genuinely knows what they are discussing on the
web. You actually realize how to bring an issue to light and make it important.
A lot more people have to read this and understand this side of your story.
I can’t believe you are not more popular given that you most certainly have the gift.