Kracus wrote:Yeah that's basicly what I said you fucking idiot.
How is it not more efficient if 10 people can provide for a thousand, and don't even bother telling me a farm can't cause I know better k? I may not have a piece of paper but I fucking worked on a farm and no piece of paper is going to tell me a decent sized farm can't provide food for a thousand people for a year.
Not if those guys only have a hoe between them. You can't see the wood for the infrastructure.
It's not even important what you think aboot the issue: the energy expenditure has already been worked out by people who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself, giving the figures Jackal quoted.
Kracus wrote:Yeah that's basicly what I said you fucking idiot.
How is it not more efficient if 10 people can provide for a thousand, and don't even bother telling me a farm can't cause I know better k? I may not have a piece of paper but I fucking worked on a farm and no piece of paper is going to tell me a decent sized farm can't provide food for a thousand people for a year.
Not if those guys only have a hoe between them. You can't see the wood for the infrastructure.
It's not even important what you think aboot the issue: the energy expenditure has already been worked out by people who are infinitely more intelligent than yourself, giving the figures Jackal quoted.
What guys are you talking about? Sure you expend a lot less energy if a human does it by himself. Perhaps not in terms of personal energy but overall energy used yeah I'd agree with that but hey, why stop there if you want to argue semantics? I mean hell, that hunter that ate the food that gave him the energy he used must have come from somewhere, so why not count that in too?
So now you have a chain cause energy was used to create the beings that hunter ate, him eating took energy as well as his growing to that state to be able to throw a spear that killed a deer that fed a small family for a month.
You can warp calculations as much as you want, the end result though is that a farm produces much more food than any hunter/gatherer tribe will in the same period of time. The personal energy used by a modern farmer is much less than the personal energy of a hunter and a gatherer.
Kracus, just fucking stop it. You keep saying the same thing over and over and only end up looking dumber and dumber. It's over. You were/are wrong. We have academia on our side and you have nothing more than a phone and a lead pipe. Go to bed.
Jackal wrote:Kracus, just fucking stop it. You keep saying the same thing over and over and only end up looking dumber and dumber. It's over. You were/are wrong. We have academia on our side and you have nothing more than a phone and a lead pipe. Go to bed.
You've yet to post any links or proof the contrary to what I'm saying.
Oi...I read most of that and my brain is now foggy. Here's a point I don't think has been made yet:
In H/G societies, everyone is responsible for themselves for basically everything they need. There are some differences in who can do what, but typically you have to find your own food. That changed with agriculture, which led to specialization of people's jobs. That is, if you no longer had to be responsible for your own food, you could focus on something else. This led to the emergence of artisans, artists, philosophers, etc. You always needed to have something to trade for goods/services, so it eventually led to people working for money by exchanging their own services to those people who demanded it.
Fast forward to today, where most people work because they have to, performing uneeded services that are available only because society has evolved into a place where such services are demanded. The people who govern how much money you need, how much you should work, etc, are those with MORE money (power) than you. Before society became specialized, there weren't class systems where someone could demand that you work more than someone else.
I think Jackal's original point was that you're working 40 hours because some rich fucker says you have to, so you can do something that has no important function in the advancement of the world. Instead, you could just grow your own food, build your own hut, and sleep the rest of the day away. Thus, a more efficient lifestyle (read: a society less full of useless shit)
I wouldn't be all he's doing is refusing to acknowledge my point. I've aknowledged his points about energy being used, but he refuses to admit a farm can produce more food than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.
And while we're there, what about the use of the word 'efficient'? If there's more energy being expended, isn't energy the unit of measure for efficiency?
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
Kracus wrote:I wouldn't be all he's doing is refusing to acknowledge my point. I've aknowledged his points about energy being used, but he refuses to admit a farm can produce more food than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.
A farm with only 10 people working it will never be able to feed 1000 people year round. You're entire argument is flawed.
You say you've worked on a farm, but if you believe that, then I don't really think you have -- at least not for long enough to understand how it really works.
I mean that if you have 10 people running a farm they'll produce more food for more people than 10 hunters and 10 gatherers can forage and hunt in the same ammount of time.
Cause he's saying they are more efficient. Well if he calls foraging and hunting for food efficient then obviously we would still be doing it.
Sure a person may expend less overall energy to gather and hunt food in terms of an individual but that individual is only providing food for a very small number of people wheras a large farm operated by modern machines can easily produce food for thousands with the same number of individuals working there as there would be hunting or gathering in a tribe.
Yes obviously a modern farm uses more energy via fuel use and other things but they provide for many more people.
However, say you have one hunter and one gatherer, a family vs a family of farmers who do you think will make out better?
If both are in the same enviroment the farming family should do better. The farmer and his wife would have to work half the year roughly 8 hours a day to support themselves and a lot less the rest of the year.
The hunter/gatherer family has to go out and hunt for food every other day all year round. Depending on how good the hunting is that time of year of course. Throw in a cold climate and our hunter gatherer begins to get seriously fucked.
I dunno what statistics he's talking about but overall in terms of producing food it's way more efficient to use a farm vs hunting/gathering and it's more reliable.
Kracus wrote:I wouldn't be all he's doing is refusing to acknowledge my point. I've aknowledged his points about energy being used, but he refuses to admit a farm can produce more food than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.
A farm with only 10 people working it will never be able to feed 1000 people year round. You're entire argument is flawed.
You say you've worked on a farm, but if you believe that, then I don't really think you have -- at least not for long enough to understand how it really works.
:icon27: Why the hell not? Fuck a slaughterhouse can slaughter at LEAST 50 cow's a day. Say it takes 12 people to eat a whole cow, that's like 600 people right there in one day.
werldhed wrote:Oi...I read most of that and my brain is now foggy. Here's a point I don't think has been made yet:
In H/G societies, everyone is responsible for themselves for basically everything they need. There are some differences in who can do what, but typically you have to find your own food. That changed with agriculture, which led to specialization of people's jobs. That is, if you no longer had to be responsible for your own food, you could focus on something else. This led to the emergence of artisans, artists, philosophers, etc. You always needed to have something to trade for goods/services, so it eventually led to people working for money by exchanging their own services to those people who demanded it.
Fast forward to today, where most people work because they have to, performing uneeded services that are available only because society has evolved into a place where such services are demanded. The people who govern how much money you need, how much you should work, etc, are those with MORE money (power) than you. Before society became specialized, there weren't class systems where someone could demand that you work more than someone else.
I think Jackal's original point was that you're working 40 hours because some rich fucker says you have to, so you can do something that has no important function in the advancement of the world. Instead, you could just grow your own food, build your own hut, and sleep the rest of the day away. Thus, a more efficient lifestyle (read: a society less full of useless shit)
I appreciate what you're saying, and it does have some merit but your point about people looking out for their own needs is a little off. Sharing is a fundamental aspect of hunter/gatherer societies; really it's what makes it work. If somebody was hoarding food for themselves it wouldn't last long in these types of societies. They'd either be kicked out or killed.
Jackal wrote:I appreciate what you're saying, and it does have some merit but your point about people looking out for their own needs is a little off. Sharing is a fundamental aspect of hunter/gatherer societies; really it's what makes it work. If somebody was hoarding food for themselves it wouldn't last long in these types of societies. They'd either be kicked out or killed.
Yeah, I oversimplified that part. What I wanted to get at was that most of the 40 hours we spend working is done for other people, doing useless services. The reason hunter/gatherer societies are more efficient is because there isn't a demand for such services (call centers, for example). The demand is on necessity, and when that demand is met, you don't need to work anymore.
@Kracus: keep in mind that the 40 hours we work these days doesn't cover the time we work for ourselves. Cooking, cleaning, home repairs, etc. So although 10 people might be able to raise food for 1000 people, they still have to go home and build their hut.
So? Many tribes are nomadic, (I think that's the correct term) and they have to move from area to area to follow the herds that are able to sustain them. I'd say that's pretty time consuming too.
All in all I'd even say that statistic of hunter/gatheres working 20 hours a week is probably oversimplified too.
Kracus wrote:So? Many tribes are nomadic, (I think that's the correct term) and they have to move from area to area to follow the herds that are able to sustain them. I'd say that's pretty time consuming too.
All in all I'd even say that statistic of hunter/gatheres working 20 hours a week is probably oversimplified too.
Kletus still hasn't figured out that tractors run on gas. Actually researching and adding up a bunch of figures to get a valid answer is obviously less efficient than pulling a bunch of "facts" out of your arse.
Kracus wrote:I wouldn't be all he's doing is refusing to acknowledge my point. I've aknowledged his points about energy being used, but he refuses to admit a farm can produce more food than a tribe of hunter/gatherers.
A farm with only 10 people working it will never be able to feed 1000 people year round. You're entire argument is flawed.
You say you've worked on a farm, but if you believe that, then I don't really think you have -- at least not for long enough to understand how it really works.
:icon27: Why the hell not? Fuck a slaughterhouse can slaughter at LEAST 50 cow's a day. Say it takes 12 people to eat a whole cow, that's like 600 people right there in one day.
LOL, how are you going to get 50 cows a day without depending on modern society? You're missing the point.
Kracus wrote:Cause he's saying they are more efficient. Well if he calls foraging and hunting for food efficient then obviously we would still be doing it.
You seem to be using this as a large part of the basis of your argument, but it's inaccurate.
We switched to massive automated farms and such not because it's the more efficient way to feed people, but because it's the ONLY way we can feed the huge number of people we have. We have to mass-produce food to feed everybody, turning oil energy into a human energy source.
