The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.
They’re even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.
The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.
They’re even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.
It was an update of Prometheus.
He gave fire to humans
Lucifer (the lightbringer) brought humans the knowledge of agriculture. And humanity left behind the “garden”. Which was an allegory for hunter/gather society.
Which led to the concept of land ownership, vasly increases how much personal property someone could accumulate, and was pretty shit for the average human.
Having them be naked was more to make people think of pre-agriculture as pre-human.
Can you imagine how hard it was to convince people to work 10-14 hours a day for someone else’s profit when for thousands of years their ancestors had a much easier life?
Being a hunter/gatherer was much easier than agriculture?
Somebody worked out that hunter/gatherers only averaged 4-5 hrs of work a day. I think I’m pulling this from a recent episode of ‘No Such Thing as a Fish’
Going off modern analogs and historic evidence, they had to work about 20 hours a week or even less…
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/for-95-percent-of-human-history-people-worked-15-hours-a-week-could-we-do-it-again.html
Look at pretty much any other animal, most of their time is hanging out resting while either being ready to run after food or run away so they’re not food
With a low population density, it wasn’t that hard for a tribe to get enough food for everyone.
Life was pretty sweet for everyone from what we can tell.
I think it may skew the numbers a bit if you count hiding / running away from predators as working.
Nah, how much time do you think your ancestors actually spent being chased by sabre-tooth tigers?
Do humans have enough predators for that to be relevant?
Does that count having to find or build shelter every time you had to relocate?
Why did a number of native American tribes settle and become agrarian? Seems unlikely it was forced by wealthy landowners.
…
Companies advertise their products, do you think the only people that buy them are ones who have seen the advertisements?
What does that have to do with my question?
I said Abrhamic religions were an advertisement for agriculture.
You asked my why anyone would move to agriculture if it hadn’t been advertised to them.
I was trying to help you realize that.
No you didn’t, and no they weren’t, and no I didn’t. Also I was talking before the arrival of the Spanish (though I only implied that part).
The adult life expectancy for hunter-gatherers was higher than that of adults for most of the modern era. Some developed nations with healthcare access returned to similar levels, but not until the mid 20th century. It is now on the downturn again in some of these countries.
Adult life expectancy does not measure how easy life is, but it is arguably a good proxy for quality of life as we know that people with hard lives statistically die younger.
Agriculture introduced a lot of health and social issues. It allowed humans to explode in number and territory, but that wasn’t because they were living better lives. They were sickly and stunted. Just like today, population expansion was likely enacted for the benefit of the top actors on the hierarchy chart (tribal leaders then, business leaders now). Strongly vertical hierarchies and the inequality associated with it do not appear to have regularly occurred prior to agriculture. Neither did widespread slavery. In 2023 there were still 50 million+ people enslaved in the world, even though slavery is now illegal virtually everywhere.
Another data point that backs up these trends is the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and Europe’s subsequent Dark Age. Migration patterns changed, hierarchies were flattened, average quality of life and adult life expectancy went up.
Again, the ease of a life is a hard thing to judge. But many things that ail the common person to this day, did not exist prior to agriculture. I would say “the case can be made” that hunter/gatherer life was easier than agriculture, but I’m not sure how that would be established objectively (except through imperfect proxies such as adult life expectancy).
Do you have a good source for the life expected claim? That sounds interesting.
I do see some articles/blogs that claim that we’re just getting back to the same adult life expectancy, but the majority of sources that look like they’re actual studies or point to read data I can find don’t seem to match. Seems more like it was not totally uncommon to live to 70 or 80, but if you survived to 30 or so (which was a much bigger if, even excluding infant mortality), you were probably going to make it more to about 50 or so.
Studies of relatively modern hunter gatherers seem to be similar. And of course how hostile the environment was made a difference.
But would be interested in reading more on it if you have some good sources
Oh gosh, it’s been years, probably a decade or more. It looks like this study analyzes modern hunter-gatherers and some other data. It shows the similar lifespans between groups. The data is old, though - it includes US data from 2002, before recent drops in expectancy. For hunter gatherers it shows that the mortality is highest for infants and reduces until around age 15, after which mortality remains low and stable. That’s probably a similar adult age cut-off as what I had read previously.
Do you have any sources to back this up? I’m genuinely curious.
On a surface level this is an interesting interpretation. However, agriculture predates Abrahamic religions in that part of the world by thousands of years. As far as I know agrarian societies (and the concept of land ownership) were already well established.
The story of Prometheus doesn’t even predate the earliest forms of Genesis by very much.
Also, if they meant Christianity conquered the Celts. No. That was mostly Julius Caesar, who slaughtered at least a quarter of them, enslaved another quarter and the remainder were tricked into shit land deals for wine and Roman weapons(just like their French, Spanish and British descendants would to most of the rest of the world ~1500-1700 years later.)
There was no such thing as an easy life pre-1900
No, it’s pretty arguable that the first nations of the “Pacific North West” had it ridiculously good for a hunter-gatherer society.
Which is why they didn’t progress into “more advanced” tools or housing; they didnt need to. For example, Western Red Cedar is very close to a perfect wood. Grows quickly, grows very straight, little to no knots, easily split and can be turned into fibers for clothing, but its also fairly strong and can be made into structural housing. And it’s naturally rot resistant.
Hell, they made ocean capable dugout canoes from them, as well as everything else from homes to totem poles, artwork, furniture and clothing. Then for food they had rudimentary agriculture for some items, but most of the coastal diet was Pacific Salmon, caught though spears or nets.
As far as I understand it, the only aggressive culture in the region was the Haida because they lived on relatively small chain of islands. Everyone else basically just lived and partied.
Any sources for this information? sounds like there may something interesting to read here.
Unfortunately its all in person knowledge from living in the area.
Coast Salish Agriculture: permanent exhibit at UBC Botanical Garden. Specifically how they cultivated groves of Garry Oak trees.
Searching Garry Oak or Garry Oak Tree turns up a fair bit of resources to read there.
In general, a bit to read about a non PNW native agriculture is a short excerpt in The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. He talks about what we consider the “natural state” of the island of Manhattan. To paraphrase: If you consider it plains or meadow, that’s not the natural state. That state was one created and managed by native people in the area when European explorers and settlers arrived.
As for their use of the western red cedar. Again, in person. For in person visits and information I would recommend:
• Grouse Mountain maintains a small collection, as well as some respectable Alpine-ish hiking in the summer.
• Sea To Sky Gondola in Squamish, BC: tourist attraction run by the local native band.
• The best would of course be the UBC Museum of Anthropology. Edit: which works with the native groups to display/restore/preserve artifacts. Its not just pilfered stuff.
Thanks!
I feel like between agriculture and hunter/gather, a garden makes a lot more sense as an allegory for agriculture.
Well, the whole “garden” thing is after a lot of translations…
Don’t focus on the name, focus on how it’s described.
It’s a pretty on the nose description of a hunter/gather lifestyle. Obviously idealistic, but all evidence of hunter gather lifestyles we have, is it was pretty chill the vast majority of the time. Especially compared to early agriculture which was basically slave labor.
People needed a reason not to dip out and go back to living in the forests until human population increased to the point that wasn’t possible.
The Abrahmic religions were a great tool for that, especially since it replaced earlier pagan religions.