THE PRIMITIVE AND THE CIVILISED: WHICH HAS BETTER CONSEQUENCES?
It is consequently hard to over-emphasise how large and consequential the change from hunter-gathering to becoming agriculturalists was and still is. Our world could simply not exist in every single one of its aspects unless this had happened. But it was not a turn for the better but very much for the worse. It was a completely different way of life. Hunter-gatherers could not, could never, have done what agricultural humanity went on to do in and through its “civilising”. There is a direct line from domesticating animals, farming fields and building settlements to nuclear power stations irradiating their surroundings, sewage in rivers and seas, and microplastics in everything. Hunter-gatherers, who refused
the drudgery of work for a life many anthropologists agree was largely leisure, could never have done any of that. They would never have needed or wanted to. Even today anthropologists observe of the few still remaining hunter-gatherer tribes that “No group on earth has more leisure time than hunters and gatherers, who spend it primarily on games, conversation and relaxing.” This is because their lives are, by our standards, terribly simple and with an almost complete lack of control over the environment. Their lives are 180 degrees from our own. This hunting and gathering lifestyle lasted among humans for tens of thousands of years, far longer than a recognisably agricultural age has so far existed, but without any of the latter’s obviously attendant problems (such as
impending mass extinction, implicit coercion of the masses to even make it work and a vast division between rich and poor). These problems could also never have occurred in a hunter-gathering world but are consequent upon an agricultural, domesticated one.
(taken from "Black Seeds")