On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Oliver Mueller-Heubach <
groundhogging@mac.com> wrote:

> Depends on what classifies as a good standard of living. Without
> agriculture, we might be considerably better off in some ways, with more
> free time and better health within a certain age range.
>

Huh?  Without agriculture, what are you going to eat?  Either someone else
grows it and you buy it, or you spend all your time growing crops.
Agriculture is a VERY risky business, takes a lot of time.  I don't know any
farmers, but what I've read about being one emphasizes CONSTANT work and you
can't ever take a break.

> We might only live to 30, but we would be closer to the earth and those
> around us.
>

I'll take another 60 years over that, any day!

> At least the 1/10 of a percent of the current population that could
> sustained without surpluses, etc. I'm not sure we're any better off than
> most pre-industrial civilizations (even with states, organized religions,
> and agriculture).
>

I work in non-industrial civilizations.  Life is damned hard.  A huge amount
of work, and nothing to do when you aren't working except maybe talk to your
neighbors or get drunk or have sex.  No books, no communications, no
electricity, no transportation.  Little or nothing in the way of
schools, medical care, sewage, clean drinking water.  Sex leads to yet more
children, which makes life even harder, especially when it comes to what
land they will inherit to live on - land doesn't multiply the way children
do.  No privacy whatsoever living in a small village.  Basically no
choices.  But yeah, you are close to the earth, that's for sure.

I'll take specialization of labor and longer life over that any day!  And
for those who want to work on their own cars, why that's an option as well,
in the world we live in.  Choice is a good thing.  If young folks don't
choose to work on cars, let's cheer the fact that they can do what they want
either way, instead of bemoaning that they don't choose what some on this
list prefer.

Joy