The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Plethora Virgin 79

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,438 times Debate No: 5331
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places.

1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights.
2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism.
3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be.
4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged.
5. Agriculture was a mistake.
6. Anarchy could feasibly work.
7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind.
8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate.
9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election.
10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world.
11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot).
12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed.
13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate).
14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Choice is 5.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Agriculture arose pretty much because hunter gatherer societies were growing in population and wanted to feed more people. The alternate solution that I argue they should have taken is to simply have not made more babies. This would have been very beneficial. Hunter gatherers work less, about 3 hours a day on average(1). They also are healthier, as forensic analysis of their bones has shown. Also, height is indicative of nutrition. The average human height before agriculture was about a foot taller than the height after agriculture. The height of agricultural people did not pick up for a few thousand years, and still is slightly shorter than HG's, even in rich developed countries. Third, any modern problem one could think of, global warming, war, pollution, poverty, social inequality, persistent crime, et cetera arose from agriculture. If we were still hunter-gatherers, we would not have coal plants and oil cars that emit CO2, war would be much less deadly, and much less frequent. Pollution, also would not occur without our industrial factories. Poverty would not exist because HG's worked with each other and shared food. HG's were also very egalitarian, and had little sexism or social classes. Crime only happens on a large scale when there are large populations, 60000 years ago, when everyone was an HG, there were only 10000 people.

Sources:
1.http://www.environnement.ens.fr......
Read it, it's pretty short and it's interesting.
The world problems points I made are pretty much common knowledge, we all know that what I said is true, but I can find a source if you need me to.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"Agriculture arose pretty much because hunter gatherer societies were growing in population and wanted to feed more people."

And? Very few people existed back then. This is a problem, humans happen to receive great benefits from living with one another. An economy with enough division of labor for someone to create those computers you appear to like so much for example.

"Hunter gatherers work less, about 3 hours a day on average(1). "

This is not a benefit, they produce next to nothing. Everyone out there who demands a job can tell you you they have no wish to work less. Nor does is it likely to include the full amount of work, as hunter gatherers have to travel a lot, and since they do so on foot in pre-agricultural societies (I am excluding the so called "Hunter-gatherers" who rely on modern technology that would not be possible in a pre-agricultural society), that's a LOT of time spent walking, which is a form of work- a form of work with nothing to show for it. Productive work is not something to be avoided, every worthy human being is always on the lookout for oppurtunities for it.

By the way, I do not speak french, and your source does NOT contain the information you speak of, at least not on the page you linked to. :D

"They also are healthier, as forensic analysis of their bones has shown."
They might be more physically fit. This does not translate to healthier. The single most important criterion of health is whether you are ALIVE. It is a minority of people in a hunter-gatherer society that even live to age 30. http://johnhawks.net...

As for your bits about height... is that way taller people tend not to live as long as shorter people? :D

". Third, any modern problem one could think of, global warming, war, pollution, poverty, social inequality, persistent crime, et cetera arose from agriculture"
The cause of global warming has not been proven, and the science behind finding one is in a chronically poor state. War existed in hunter-gatherer societies, it was one of the common causes of death! Pollution, though perhaps unpleasant, is the product of the industrial revolution, which is what made our current long lifespans possible. Everyone who values their life ought to go kiss the nearest smokestack for removing several things that could have killed them (not literally, ew... blow a kiss or something). Poverty is certainly an absurdity, agriculture CREATES wealth. All the nonexistence of agriculture results is EVERYONE being in poverty. Social inequality is not a problem. Crime? Remember the violence in my source being a major cause of death?

"If we were still hunter-gatherers, we would not have coal plants and oil cars that emit CO2, war would be much less deadly, and much less frequent."
CO2 is not a proven problem. War MIGHT be somewhat less deadly... but since it's a more common cause of death back then than it is today, it's far more frequent. Which, by the way, is not hard to explain when one hears of the short work days you speak of... how boring! Gotta do something about that boredom... why not go kill that rival tribesman? :D

"Poverty would not exist because HG's worked with each other and shared food."
This is a misunderstanding of the term "Poverty." Perpetuated by economists, I know. Poverty does not mean your neighbor has more than you... it means you don't have much. Which is the ONLY possibility in a hunter-gatherer society.

"Crime only happens on a large scale when there are large populations, 60000 years ago, when everyone was an HG, there were only 10000 people."

Crime only gets REPORTED and DEALT WITH when there are large populations. In hunter gatherer societies, they have a word for the criminal who takes your stuff and makes you his slave. They call him "Chief." Criminals are the winners =/= no crime.

I should note, that hunter gatherer societies still exist to this day. It is very possible for you to go join one. In an environment where agriculture is not thought of, you don't have any choice about it :D.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"And? Very few people existed back then. This is a problem, humans happen to receive great benefits from living with one another. An economy with enough division of labor for someone to create those computers you appear to like so much for example."

Benefits, such as crime, disease, et cetera? Sure, if you like that stuff.

"This is not a benefit, they produce next to nothing. Everyone out there who demands a job can tell you you they have no wish to work less. Nor does is it likely to include the full amount of work, as hunter gatherers have to travel a lot, and since they do so on foot in pre-agricultural societies (I am excluding the so called "Hunter-gatherers" who rely on modern technology that would not be possible in a pre-agricultural society), that's a LOT of time spent walking, which is a form of work- a form of work with nothing to show for it. Productive work is not something to be avoided, every worthy human being is always on the lookout for oppurtunities (sic) for it."

If you asked the average worker if they would like to live a fairly easy, high quality life, and only work three hours a day, then I assure you, they would go for it. People were very happy with it for 90% of history. And furthermore, they don't walk all that much. Hunter-gatherers in the Amazon have to walk very little, as their resources are so abundant. Back then, resources were very abundant, so walking was not a huge burden, and for your information, walking is included in the three hour statistic.

"By the way, I do not speak french, and your source does NOT contain the information you speak of, at least not on the page you linked to. :D"

Whoops, I don't actually know how that happened, here's the real source. http://www.environnement.ens.fr... I forgot that part of the URL.

"They might be more physically fit. This does not translate to healthier. The single most important criterion of health is whether you are ALIVE. It is a minority of people in a hunter-gatherer society that even live to age 30. http://johnhawks.net...;
This statistic is inaccurate, because even with this information often being from pre-contact, the issue is agriculture had arisen, and had driven the groups together, and allowed disease and warfare to spread. When groups are spread out, as they would and could be without agriculture, they would live longer.

"As for your bits about height... is that way taller people tend not to live as long as shorter people? :D"

Funny. No, actually, Diamond's hypothesis is the opposite of that.

"The cause of global warming has not been proven, and the science behind finding one is in a chronically poor state. War existed in hunter-gatherer societies, it was one of the common causes of death! Pollution, though perhaps unpleasant, is the product of the industrial revolution, which is what made our current long lifespans possible. Everyone who values their life ought to go kiss the nearest smokestack for removing several things that could have killed them (not literally, ew... blow a kiss or something). Poverty is certainly an absurdity, agriculture CREATES wealth. All the nonexistence of agriculture results is EVERYONE being in poverty. Social inequality is not a problem. Crime? Remember the violence in my source being a major cause of death?"

Violence only occurs when groups are forced together by agriculture, if groups are spread out, they do not face this problem. Also, everyone is not in poverty without agriculture, a !Kung man once said "Why switch to agriculture when the world has so many juju nuts?" Maybe it wasn't juju, but it was some sort of nut. The hunter-gatherers are not rich, but they are not poor either. And if social inequality is okay, then you are fine with slavery and racism, which occurred because of agriculture?

"CO2 is not a proven problem. War MIGHT be somewhat less deadly... but since it's a more common cause of death back then than it is today, it's far more frequent. Which, by the way, is not hard to explain when one hears of the short work days you speak of... how boring! Gotta do something about that boredom... why not go kill that rival tribesman? :D"

I concede the global warming point, but the war point is wrong, as I have shown. People had large areas and did not need to have contact with other tribes.

"Poverty does not mean your neighbor has more than you... it means you don't have much. Which is the ONLY possibility in a hunter-gatherer society."

No, they have everything they need to survive. That's all they need. They are well-off.

"Crime only gets REPORTED and DEALT WITH when there are large populations. In hunter gatherer societies, they have a word for the criminal who takes your stuff and makes you his slave. They call him 'Chief'" Criminals are the winners =/= no crime."

There were no chiefs, they were egalitarians.

"I should note, that hunter gatherer societies still exist to this day. It is very possible for you to go join one. In an environment where agriculture is not thought of, you don't have any choice about it :D."

Now, with agriculture, HG sucks. The resources have been too depleted. I would not recommend switching back to it.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Benefits, such as crime, disease, et cetera? Sure, if you like that stuff.
"

Ignoratio elenchi. I was instead giving computers as an example of a benefit. If you do not believe it is a benefit, I invite you to trash it before the debate ends :D.

"

If you asked the average worker if they would like to live a fairly easy, high quality life, and only work three hours a day, then I assure you, they would go for it."

Not if you told them that the wage rates would cover food and... that's about it :D.
Besides which, the "Average worker" is a disgusting example of a human being, as indicated by how they regularly vote to steal from their neighbors. Agriculture was not invented by the average man. It was invented by a series of exceptional geniuses, and therefore whether it is to be deemed a mistake depends on the standards of exceptional geniuses, not average men.

"People were very happy with it for 90% of history."
Oh? Have you polled the miserable starving wretches? Asked them to tell you if they were happy?

"Hunter-gatherers in the Amazon have to walk very little, as their resources are so abundant."

And most hunter gatherers are not in the Amazon. Do you know what their ancestors had to do to get there? They had to cross much of Asia, then North America, just to be even close :D.

"
Whoops, I don't actually know how that happened, here's the real source. http://www.environnement.ens.fr...... I forgot that part of the URL."
And I note Monsieur Jared Diamond isn't leaving his beloved UCLA school of medicine out of his byline, which could not exist in the society describes, and isn't leaving for the Amazon. Obviously he knows something he isn't telling us.

"
This statistic is inaccurate, because even with this information often being from pre-contact, the issue is agriculture had arisen, and had driven the groups together, and allowed disease and warfare to spread. When groups are spread out, as they would and could be without agriculture, they would live longer."
The very source indicates that scientific estimates of the lives of Neanderthals had TRIPLE the annual mortality rate of the sample. So this is clearly nonsense.

"
Funny. No, actually, Diamond's hypothesis is the opposite of that."

Well, some actual studies indicate the opposite of that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

By the way, Diamond's work indicate that agriculture led to a SHORT TERM drop in life expectancy by about 7 years (from the life expectancy that hadn't grown for most of human history). In the long term though, we happen to know it's led to an increase in life expectancy by nearly 50, with the Industrial revolution, that is impossible without agriculture. And, personally, the geniuses who invented agriculture were not the ones whose life expectancies were shortened by agriculture- they were the "Elites." Rather, the tribe members who typically pushed around those geniuses (bullying of smart people is as old as time) were the ones whose life expectancy was shortened, as with superior numbers those who allied with the geniuses could now fight back.

Again, whether an action is to be considered beneficial depends upon the actor.

"Also, everyone is not in poverty without agriculture, a !Kung man once said "Why switch to agriculture when the world has so many juju nuts?""

In America, or any other country that's taken the change to agriculture to it's logical conclusion with the industrial revolution the "Poor" not only typically get enough to eat... they also get much more. Juju nuts alone pale in comparison :D.

"And if social inequality is okay, then you are fine with slavery and racism, which occurred because of agriculture?"

Slavery and racism are not wrong because they are "Social inequality," the former is wrong because it involves initiation of physical force against an innocent, and the latter is wrong because it is irrational to believe one's identity is based on race. Their status as social inequality is incidental. Another example of social inequality is the fact that some people, unlike you, know how to build these computers you clearly like so much (yes, I'll beat you with that stick all day :D).

"
I concede the global warming point, but the war point is wrong, as I have shown. People had large areas and did not need to have contact with other tribes."
Empirically you are wrong, as my source has shown. Deaths from violence accounted for far more deaths back then than today. And yes, some hunting grounds are better than others. If you hunt the same herd as another tribe, than, much like the predators you are imitating, that other tribe is a threat. A sufficient motive for war.
Heck, CHIMPANZEES have wars. They don't have agriculture, or even a language, but they have wars.
http://www.world-science.net...

"
No, they have everything they need to survive. That's all they need. They are well-off.
"

If they are good at hunting. And they don't survive very long, so that's not really true anyway. Modern "poor," in industrialized countries, who could not exist as they do without agriculture, typically have everything they need to survive if they are the modern equivalent of a "good hunter" (a minimally competent worker), survive MUCH longer than hunter gatherers, and, have many other things they don't need to survive on top of it.

"
There were no chiefs, they were egalitarians.
"
Uh, hello? Who enforces this communist notion of "egalitarianism" if not a chief? The chief might not be OFFICIALLY any different from other citizens... but he has bigger muscles, and you have to listen to him whether you like it or not.

"
Now, with agriculture, HG sucks. The resources have been too depleted. I would not recommend switching back to it.
"
According to your source, hunter gatherers do fine even with the land they've been relegated. :D
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

LR4N6FTW4EVA forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Computers are a benefit enjoyed only by a few people in the world. Most people are unable to do so."
Agriculture was invented by a few people. Most people would have been unable to invent it.

"
Agriculture was invented by a woman actually."

A. Source? B. Who cares? Females can be exceptional geniuses too, so that is not an objection.

"Anyways... The average worker works 16 hours a day in a factory making Adidas tennis shoes, and is paid 2$ a week for it."
A. That 2$ a week buys more value than any hunter gatherer could ever produce. B. That's a lie, average per capita GDP for this planet in today's dollars is roughly 5000 dollars http://www.j-bradford-delong.net..., your estimate would place it at just over a 100.

"
You mean the ones in Ethiopia, starving because their agricultural efforts failed?
"
Because they have a monarch who suppresses their economy?
And no, I mean the ones who were ALL PEOPLE other than a few exceptional hunters in preindustrial society.

"You know the industrial revolution occurred 9850 years after we adopted agriculture? 9850 years of suck doesn't sound all that nice."

Nevertheless, that "Suck" existed only for a specific class of - the person who would know how to hunt, but not how to farm. The person who invented farming however, clearly derived benefits :D.

"And in Ethiopia, the poor can't even afford dog poop. America got the nice end of the deal. Ethiopia, and much of Africa didn't."
Ethiopia, and much of Africa, always sucked. That's why early humans migrated north to Asia, and some to Europe- better environment for people to live in.

"
Slavery only occurred because of agriculture."

Excuse me. If I have to obey "Big muscle hunter gatherer"... I am enslaved. Slavery in one form or another has been largely the fact of human existence, for all existence, until recently. This applied before agriculture. It is only with agriculture that there is a chance for anyone other than chief to NOT be a slave, because you are no longer dependent on living as a herd animal.

"
Seeing as the population density was 1/600000 of its current level, I don't think land is all the big a deal. If both you and I want cookies, we may fight if there is only one, but if there are 600000 cookies, I think we'll be fine.
"
This ignores the fact sthat a. Most of the land in the world is uninhabitible without a specialized, i.e. an agricultural, society. B, land use is much less efficient under hunter gathering. C., hunter gatherers are almost exclusively mystics, so if they think x hunter disrespected the herd somehow, or disrespected them by hunting on their "Ancestral grounds," or whatever, they aren't going to be too terribly rational about how many cookies there are.

By the way do you like cookies? Cause those aren't possible without agriculture. :D.

"
Poor in INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES. What about the other 5 billion starving masses?
"
The other billions (I highly doubt you can complain "Five billion" legitimately considering how many huge countries are moving toward some semblance of industrialization) are as they were before iagriculture. Barely on the edge of survival. If x program (agriculture) results in benefit for some and no change for others) and y program results in no benefit, x program is superior.

"Tribes would do things like ridiculing someone who did well hunting so that they didn't get a big head.
"
Ridiculing? It's called physical torture. Anyone with a "Big head," i.e., anyone with a slightly human sense of self-esteem, anyone who is not just a hairless herd monkey, anyone who MATTERS would not give a damn about ridicule.

And besides that's bad evolution, to discourage the production of more food. Without opposing forces (like agriculture) any such species would quickly go extinct.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Read it from the bottom up.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"Uh, hello? Who enforces this communist notion of "egalitarianism" if not a chief? The chief might not be OFFICIALLY any different from other citizens... but he has bigger muscles, and you have to listen to him whether you like it or not."

Leveling mechanisms worked fine. Tribes would do things like ridiculing someone who did well hunting so that they didn't get a big head.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Continued...
"Slavery and racism are not wrong because they are "Social inequality," the former is wrong because it involves initiation of physical force against an innocent, and the latter is wrong because it is irrational to believe one's identity is based on race. Their status as social inequality is incidental. Another example of social inequality is the fact that some people, unlike you, know how to build these computers you clearly like so much (yes, I'll beat you with that stick all day :D)."

Slavery only occurred because of agriculture.

"Empirically you are wrong, as my source has shown. Deaths from violence accounted for far more deaths back then than today. And yes, some hunting grounds are better than others. If you hunt the same herd as another tribe, than, much like the predators you are imitating, that other tribe is a threat. A sufficient motive for war."

Seeing as the population density was 1/600000 of its current level, I don't think land is all the big a deal. If both you and I want cookies, we may fight if there is only one, but if there are 600000 cookies, I think we'll be fine.

""If they are good at hunting. And they don't survive very long, so that's not really true anyway. Modern "poor," in industrialized countries, who could not exist as they do without agriculture, typically have everything they need to survive if they are the modern equivalent of a "good hunter" (a minimally competent worker), survive MUCH longer than hunter gatherers, and, have many other things they don't need to survive on top of it."

Poor in INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES. What about the other 5 billion starving masses?
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Okay, here it is:
"Ignoratio elenchi. I was instead giving computers as an example of a benefit. If you do not believe it is a benefit, I invite you to trash it before the debate ends :D."

Computers are a benefit enjoyed only by a few people in the world. Most people are unable to do so.

"Agriculture was not invented by the average man. It was invented by a series of exceptional geniuses, and therefore whether it is to be deemed a mistake depends on the standards of exceptional geniuses, not average men."

Agriculture was invented by a woman actually. It was discovered by women who would drop seeds, and then notice they grew into plants. Anyways... The average worker works 16 hours a day in a factory making Adidas tennis shoes, and is paid 2$ a week for it.

"Oh? Have you polled the miserable starving wretches? Asked them to tell you if they were happy?"

You mean the ones in Ethiopia, starving because their agricultural efforts failed?

"By the way, Diamond's work indicate that agriculture led to a SHORT TERM drop in life expectancy by about 7 years (from the life expectancy that hadn't grown for most of human history). In the long term though, we happen to know it's led to an increase in life expectancy by nearly 50, with the Industrial revolution, that is impossible without agriculture."

You know the industrial revolution occurred 9850 years after we adopted agriculture? 9850 years of suck doesn't sound all that nice.

"In America, or any other country that's taken the change to agriculture to it's logical conclusion with the industrial revolution the "Poor" not only typically get enough to eat... they also get much more. Juju nuts alone pale in comparison :D."

And in Ethiopia, the poor can't even afford dog poop. America got the nice end of the deal. Ethiopia, and much of Africa didn't.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Do so.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Should I just put my argument in here?
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
How did I forfeit? I had 5 hours left!
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Yeah its just you need some more creative stuff. You're boring everybody.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I've provided 13 topics for debate. I don't know why everyone gravitates to the agriculture one. I guess I look like an idiot to say agriculture is bad or something.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Its t-t-t-t-t-t-time for some new topics!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
LR4N6FTW4EVARagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07