Not so. A slightly dry summer is easily compensated for by a farmer. Grass, on the other hand is very un-adaptive and is quite unable to survive for more than a few weeks under such conditions.

Which questions? Just about every post I've made raises a question which you have managed to, and quite adeptly I might add, avoid.

Well as the head of the history and philosophy dept. at a prestigious university I wouldn't think you would need some hobo in his teens to answer any of your questions

why are you talking about grass

If agriculture completely fails which, by the way, it never will, barring an asteroid collision or mega-volcanic eruption, then humans would revert to hunting and gathering. But we have abandoned this lifestyle because it doesn't fulfill us. You spend all your time looking for food.

Sicarius, I'm sure you despise the idea of movies, but watch Pulse ("Kairo"). It's a 2001 film written, directed, and produced by Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Don't read anything about it, just watch it and write down your reaction. Also, use the subtitles--the dubbed version is just horrendous.

Technology and art are inexorably linked. Some of the best music in the world depends on modern technology. Each advance in science creates a wake on which art easily glides, and in this combination we see the wonderful potential of humanity. I think a lot of your views regarding technology stem from a lack of understanding of culture and people.

Even if you were able to get people back to a primitive state, there's no way you could prevent people from moving forward again. Humans will always yearn for progress. Denying people that yearning is inhumane and would take an extreme amount of control and indoctrination.

Can you tell me about the thrilling artistis scence present in pre-agricultural earth? Were there great gallery exhibitions and Michaelangelos pouring out of the academies?

I do not sincerely believe you when you say you like art. Art means artifice which is a reference to flexing of man's God-like muscle. To like art is to like the artificial, the constructed, but you turn your nose up on everything mankind has constructed since agriculture?? You can't cherry pick and say, "I'll take Bach but leave technology out of it." Or maybe you don't like Bach. What kind of art do you like, anyway?

I do like bach actually.
I like almost all kinds of art, even some movies beleive it or not
art to me, is something you create, simply because it's beautiful

I have an intimate knowledge of primitive culture, I've spent a total of a year living with american indians living traditionally, and about another year in the woods either alone or with pandora and a few friends

perhaps not that long, but I am 19

I do not need answers from you, but I think you need answers from you...

I would say something snide but I'll leave embarrassing you up to.. well you. you seem to have done a fine job so far

Does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Can't it just be provoking? Although, this is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I seriously doubt that humanity would have progressed into civilization without the boon of agriculture. It's the only known source of food that could support any kind of sedentary society and large population.

Your evidence is positively laughable. 70,000 years ago? Agriculture is generally agreed to have originated about 10-12 thousand years ago (though some have speculated up to 20,000. After the Ice Age (Wurm) ended. Perhaps you're referring to the Toba catastrophe? That was a supervolcanic event that reduced the world human population to between 2000 and 10000 people. Do you realize that this was when humans were hunter-gatherers?

I'll give you this. Agriculture resulted in a vast loss of biodiversity as humanity artificially selected crops and domesticated animals to maximize yield, and that they were initially quite vulnerable. The death rate in initial agricultural societies was much higher than in hunter-gatherer societes, but this was vastly offset by massive birth rate, brought on by the sedentary lifestyle. A mother could have more than one infant in short periods, because they didn't have to carry the infants in nomadic lifestyle which restricted their birth rate to perhaps 1 every 4 years.

But agriculture produced surplus food, and allowed people to specialize and develop talents in art, pottery, textiles, etc. Many of the things you value are products of this opportunity to specialize that stems of sedentary agricultural life. Hunter-gatherers had to spend the majority of their time simply procuring food. The hunters had an unreliable income, as the hunt was very liable to failure, and the simple changes of migratory patterns could leave a tribe without meat for years. The more reliable gathering created the bulk of their intake, but it was not as readily available, it didn't taste as good, and it was mostly low in nutritional values compared to the later agricultural stock as they'd been selected for yield, taste, and fill.

And gathering required long hours, simply to feed a tribe. Do you know how many berries and nuts you have to pick just to feed yourself for a day?

as for the 70,000 year agriculture thing, source was cnn. just goes to show eh?

there are many entire civilizations that have collapsed because of agriculture failure. like the incas for instance, or the anasazi

and it is generally accepted that hunter-gatherers spent only 4-5 hours a day getting food.

your figure is not correct. It took their entire day. In addition, the Inca Empire collapsed because two possible heirs to the throne were fighting it out when pizarro arrived.

4-5 hours. how many hours have you spent conversing with anthropology professors?

It's also generally accepted in some circles that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days. How many hours have you spent conversing with clergy?

actually, a good many, and at any rate, if they had any more time in their day they would have made things... which they didn't.