They're going to be 100% every few years due to flooding destroying the crops!

So if you spend months preparing a harvest, you'd be cool with someone turning up in the night and taking the crops after you've done all the hard work? After all the land wouldn't being to you.

I think most of the things you say are true, but small local farming isn't going to solve world hunger. The bigger a farm gets the more efficient it can operate. The progress we made as a species boils down to how much more efficient we can do stuff.

I do sure wish I had a balcony. I grew peppers and cherry tomatoes on my windowsill a few years in a row but the effort isn't worth it for an apartment...

Thank you for referring this community. Its the first time I see it and it was very inspirational. Cheers

I grow tomatoes in my balcony. Constructive and fulfilling activity, love it.

But I can't imagine eating like 15 tomatoes per year lol

One theory is that hunting and gathering stopped because the human population exceeded what could be supported by mega fauna, and early peoples had no choice but to settle down and defend what resources they could gather.

It likely started with semi permanent settlements, simple fortifications that could be returned to year over year, and when it became too difficult to leave again, or when they found themselves unable to return to a location they were expecting to, they settled down permanently.

But you really can't go out and hunt when you can't leave. So they started to depend on agriculture, and what livestock they'd been able to keep with them.

It invented having a relatively reliable food surplus.

I wish I could make all these neoprimitives actually live the life for a week so they shut up forever about it.

Right, because hunting and gathering isn't work. People just got food into their mouths doing nothing - like wild animals.

Some people believe technological advancement only has one single path. Innovation can only occur as a fixed formula where defined conditions must be met. For example, industrialization can only occur if coal and oil exists.

It's a very arrogant stance which assumes we know everything about the nature of the universe and what is, is all there could ever be.

I would argue the opposite; that semi-agricultural societies --pre-columbian California is a good example-- had no way of knowing where an increasing reliance on predictable harvests would eventually take them.

Only works in one direction though.