Posted on 04/06/2019 11:55:47 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
At first look, I thought it said “farting”
no real mystery that they would notice new plants would spring up near the old plants, that they could dig up small plants and put them next to their homes.....
humans have always had the ability to learn.....
Perhaps a little bit of research upon the author is merited here.
https://www.upr.org/post/feast-or-famine-why-did-hunter-gatherers-start-farming-anyway
Read his prior thoughts there and then read the linked crap article again:
One term jumps out immediately to explain the asinine question (I can’t believe I’m the only one to catch it):
Grants which meet the ‘climate change’ narrative.
At its core, it’s a real dumb-assed question: Humans began cultivating to combat starvation as populations grew. It’s as academic as 1-2-3. The warming climate was obviously a catalyst. Humans are good observers and figuring out how seeds germinate is not a very complicated matter (why does a dog owner’s yard generate taller and greener grass in some spots and not others? C’mon, people). One only needs look no farther than Native Americans to understand why a nomadic people bothered to plant crops:
http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html
“Eventually the productivity of maize cultivation was great enough to make it possible and worthwhile for a family to produce food for the bulk of their diet for an entire year from a small area. Although maize agriculture permitted a family to live in one place for an extended period of time, the commitment to agriculture involved demands on human time and labor and often restricted human mobility. The genetic alterations in teosinte changed its value as a food resource and at the same time affected the human scheduling necessary for its effective procurement.”
Cultivation FREED UP humans’ time to develop other skills and abilities. Society was one result. Unfortunately the better question is how cultivation has resulted in the decline of western society burdened by bloated bureaucracy, but that won’t generate a grant, now will it?
In this era of so-called ‘science’ it’s getting harder & harder for these sycophants to find anything worthwhile to study that generates funds to justify their salaries. He’s obviously run out of good questions so he’s dipped into the ‘climate change’ pool out of desperation to modify his prior hypotheses with questions which are pretty well already established with sound research.
Elic Weitzel is no scientist: He’s a disgrace.
It could have been a matter of “I like this and I want even more of it”.
More than likely, it was done to keep the old people, women and children busy during a time when you couldn’t move around.
“humans have always had the ability to learn.....”
You may have want to question that, considering the debate that we’re having on another thread as to whether allowing millions of ex-cons to vote (80% Democrat) will somehow help the Republican Party. Many people don’t seem to be able to learn that this push is NOT intended to help our side, considering it is being led by Bernie:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3740268/posts
This happened after a hunt where several were injured. While the rest went on a small group was left to recover or die.
When they got back they found they had not only lived but thrived. They got in the habit of leaving the older people, young children, the injured and pregnant women there in a "winter camp" while the rest went and hunted.
This would have allowed the old to teach the young tool making and allowed greater time for experimentation.
They might have even come back a couple of times during hunting season to drop off dried meat, untanned hides and other raw materials to be processed. They could also pick up new weapons that were now being made with greater care and precision.
Some of the people that stayed decided to move some berry bushes closer to where they were living so as to harvest them more easily.
From there the ideas grew as bushes, trees and then tubers were moved and planted. I think that grain and veggies were probably the last things cultivated.
So you ended up with the best of all worlds. That would have lasted until people began to raise animals. But in most cultures outside of cities you still had hunters who would go out and get game and gatherers who would collect wild plants.
That only really changed in the past hundred or so years.
The exception was in Feudal Europe where all game belonged to the landlord. Even there though the gathering and fishing continued.
The British archaeological TV series “Time Team” did several digs of stone and bronze age sites, wherein one of the questions was “why did the early (several thousand BC) people living in the British Isles change from nomadic to farming cultures. Here is a link to BBC4 that lists all of the 20 years of the show totaling 230 episodes.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/episode-guide/series-16
One can view many/most of them on Youtube.
I’d posit that nomads who grazed on whatever food grew wild had to follow animals in order to find new sources of water.
That in turn meant humans had to compete with the animals, both for the water and for the food that grew naturally.
Seems logical that, when abundant water sources were found that could support both animals & people for more than a few days, irrigation & agriculture became possible, as well as the domestication of pack animals.
Yhis in turn led to communalism & villages sprang up.
One has to wonder if quietly observing animals from cover led to the discovery of new plant food sources as well. Wholeheartedly agree about water supply, most of the human population still lives within about 700 feet of sealevel.
Thanks!
Sure, it makes sense that animals would not eat poisonous plants. I’ve noticed my dog occasionally chews on certain plants, while pointedly ignoring the surrounding grasses.
As a prepper & forager, I’ve tried the plants my dog likes, and found them delicious, often having medicinal value.
The rule being, approach with caution, in small quantities.
I don't know if it would make sense or not, but even if the animal ate something and got sick (when our cats would have a bellyache, they'd eat grass, which made them throw up and feel better) and/or died, the human observer would learn something from that too. There are some plants that are tricky -- parts are poisonous, parts are good; some are only bad at certain times of the year.
No one is going to turn down a goblet of mead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.