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. We might
only live to 30, but we would be closer to the earth and those around
us. 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). It is nice having a Vanagon,
though...

On Aug 15, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Joy Hecht wrote:

> This discussion is all very interesting.
>
> But there's a simpler explanation to the phenomena observed.
> Specialization
> of labor.  If no one specializes, everyone knows how to do
> everything that
> needs to be done.  Society is MUCH simpler.  Standard of living is
> much
> lower.  No doctors or medical care, after all, no one to figure out
> how to
> solve complex health problems.  Nothing to eat except what you can
> find or
> grow within a walking distance from your home.  And everyone spends
> all
> their time finding or growing food, basically.  Lots of people starve
> whenever there is a drought or a flood or anything else - after
> all, no one
> to specialize in transportation, and no way to buy food grown
> elsewhere.
>
> Joy
>

Oliver Mueller-Heubach
groundhogging@mac.com