On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:18:52 -0700, jeremy bornstein <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Without agriculture, the development of civilization would have been very
>different--possibly we would still not have attained any technological
>societies to speak of.

That would have been great, IMO.

I think that the development of agriculture was a
>good thing even if it kills some people "prematurely".

I have a hard time seeing anything good about agriculture and
civilization.

Also, although
>vaccines cause problems, they've also been extremely useful and it would
>be rather silly to dismiss them entirely. (Well, I hit my thumb with a
>hammer--who invented these goddamn things?)

Vaccination maybe a good short-term solution to disease resistance for
a
population, but it is hardly a good long-term solution.  You are
essentially sacrificing health for "herd immunity".  For a population,
acquiring natural immunity is better long-term.

>
>The continuation of agriculturally-based civilization isn't causing the
>world to explode immediately.

Immediately, no.  Eventually, yes.

(Not to say that agriculture causes no
>negative effects anywhere at all.)  We as a species may move beyond
>agriculture per se, our bodies and the processes of agriculture may change
>so that agricultural products/production cause no problems anywhere ever,
>etc.

The real problem is that corporations love consumers.  More food means
more
consumers.  That is the primary reason that "industry experts" see
global
warming as a good thing.  Longer warm seasons mean more food.  More
food
means more people...it is a never ending cycle.  We are systematically
converting the biomass of the planet into human flesh and grain.

>
>Even if our agriculturally-based civilization does continue to have a
>downside (as if anything has no downside), who's to say that (e.g.) those
>negative effects aren't worth it?
>

IMO, the many negative effects of civilization (too many to be listed
here)
greatly outweigh any benefit of civilization.