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.