Do we keep our knowledge of the world as it is right now? - Johnny

I dunno. You can specify parameters as you see fit. - Lo

I'm interested because I recently realized what I would do, and was a little disturbed by it. - Lo

The problem is there isn't a single point at which you can change something that big. Something like agriculture was a multi stage thing over many regions. It's like throwing a pebble in the river... It only slows the progression. So in this case, no I wouldn't cause all I would be doing is regressing human existence back to a point where we would find ourselfs eventually - Johnny

No. - Micah

Actually, life expectancy wouldn't change as much as you think, according to what I've read. The average lifespan was shorter in the stone age due to infant mortality, but those who survived to adulthood probably had lifespans similar to westerners today (so lifespan for most of humanity is still shorter now than in the stone age). Infectious disease became much, much more prevalent with civilization (because people didn't live in small, static groups). As for predators, do you really think the risk of predation was higher than car accidents etc? - Lo

Before agriculture, women weren't seen as possessions. People didn't live in weird artificial conditions that made them crazy. Diet was more diverse and much healthier, in a way that it is impossible to replicate today. There was more leisure time. - Lo

No. There is no easy way ouf of this. It takes getting better and working hard. Every path must solve that problem repeatedly and successfully. - Todd Hoff

On a recent trip to Utah, we saw these beautiful but very inhospitable canyons. We learned about an Indian tribe, contemporaneous to the Anasazi, that actually rejected agriculture and went back to a hunter-gatherer society. They stayed in these canyons while drought forced the Anasazi elsewhere, and they actually lived there free of external influence for a long time, I think until the 1930s. I was really intrigued by them, and wanted to go to their powwow in the spring, but it turns out that being forced into modern life (they turned the canyons into federal parkland) completely destroyed their culture in a very short time. It breaks my heart. - Lo

Todd, by "solve that problem," to which problem do you refer? - Lo

Cant type on an ipad. Sorry. The problem of solving problems. - Todd Hoff

"due to infant mortality" - yeah, but how would this post-unwinding society deal with infant mortality? - Andrew C (see frenf.it)

"probably had lifespans similar to westerners today" -- well, if by that you mean 60s ish. I'm fairly sure American life expectancy at 18 (how long people who made it to 18 could expect to live in total) has risen by over a decade in just the last century. Can't find figures right now, best I can do is that life expectancy at 50 has risen 3.9 years in just the 26 years between 1980 and 2006. http://news.discovery.com/human... - Andrew C (see frenf.it)

I'm dubious about life expectancy data from the stone age. Seems the ones that got fossilised to be tested were just the ones that didn't get eaten then pooped out by WILD RAVERNOUS ANIMALS... - Johnny

do we get to keep diet cola? - Jeff (Team マクダジ )

I'm really surprised by the responses to this. Usually people defend civilization on the basis of art, science, and the like. When did FF turn anti-science? - Lo

No, I wouldn't. Despite all the problems it may have led to, the start of modern agriculture has allowed us to radiate and thrive around the world. If we were all hunter gatherer today and had never stumbled upon modern agricultural, things might be just as bad or worse. There is no way of knowing. And the people in that imagined civilization would still be subject to natural disasters, disease, starvation, climate change, etc. I'm not sure there is a perfect method of survival, but I am positive we should try to improve on our current system. Basing those improvements on, you know, science. ;) - Jenny H.

My issues aren't with agriculture, it might have been a cause, but it's not the issue that bothers me. I have a bigger issue with urbanization and overpopulation (density > 1000 people per sq. mi.) of tiny areas, which is a side effect. There is efficiency at such a scale, as well as inefficiency created by it, and it increases the costs related to risk. It is one thing allowed by agricultural development, but they are separate issues. So no, I wouldn't undo all of civilization. - OCoG of FF, Jimminy

Well said, Kelli, although it's possible that climate change might not be an issue were it not for humanity's thing. I'm pretty anti-agriculture, but only because I was so astonished to learn how bad its development was for people. I had the impression that people had continually grown healthier (greater height, longer life) as time has passed. The reality is that human health, height, and lifespan all went down dramatically when we started living in one place, and have slowly returned to where we were before -- except the many people living in poverty, who are still screwed. That's not to mention the vast increase in disease and exploitation of others that go hand-in-hand with high population density. They didn't teach me any of that in school. In the end, there's nothing I can do about it, and that's clearly a good thing. If it were up to me we'd all be writing this on cave walls :P - Lo