There would be less depression and more productive work being accomplished; not just for those directly affected but also their coworkers and colleagues awaiting the results of their work. Probably several inventions would have happened sooner or be more developed by now. Less profit in family law practice so perhaps more litigation in other areas such as personal injury. More kids would be well adjusted resulting in fewer juvenile delinquents, teen pregnancies, and drug usage. But that would mean more qualified workers in a given population so wages would be lower in the short term but the same wages would likely have more purchasing power.
Agriculture was not just invented in Mesopotamia. In fact, it was invented up to 9 separate independent times around the world. It seems like agriculture was bound to happen, rather than a fluke as you described it.
@Smile Guy If they "invented it" thousands of years after everyone else, they didn't "invent" it. They don't even get a participation trophy for that! Dead last!
@@andresolmos8639 no they didn't everyone in North America and south America new how to grow crops, some tribes would leave berry seeds for next year to come back and eat. Hunter gatherers on the great plains would just spread and move on, and whatever didn't die was eaten. You even can tell which tribes just decided not to do it, since they still practiced learning fruit, berry, and hardy vegetables behind to come back and eat. Why where there so many oaks, hickory, and beeche trees all over the new world forests some forest existing where they shouldn't. Some of these forests existed where hunter gatherers lived. Tribes had actual tribe and knowledge of basic metalwork some just valued copper and bronze as precious metals while silver and gold where viewed the same way we view quartz or feldspar, the city of gold was just Mojave and Sonora tribes using mud bricks and copper and bronze as tools and ornamentals to the Spanish it ticked them off enough to not notice them throwing out gold ore and vines to get more copper
@@nothuman3083 You just told me about the lifestiles of hunter gatherers and how the first steps towards agriculture, which good for you but it isn't even what we are talking about. And what does the Americans knowing agriculture has to do with this?
@Metsarebuff 22 It actually took a lot more time than hunting, a point made at length in the video. However, because of the surplus food it generated, it also allowed more specialist classes to exist, such as philosophers, priests, bureaucrats, and so on.
@@xXSCDTXx Better it may be, but that doesn't change it being counter-intuitive. The point of the very clever original comment here is that it would help "filter" the Fermi Paradox which asks, paraphrased: "If aliens exist, where the heck are they all?" By IceFire9yt's reasoning, aliens might be all over the place (as we suspect they should be'*') but another'^' filter to space travel like the unlikelihood of agriculture would certainly make a visit less likely. '*'Basically, even if life has a tiny one in a billion chance of happening, it should be freaking all over the place because "a billion" is nothing compared to the number of vaguely appropriate planets there are. '^'No expert, but other unlikely "filters" might include: life becoming multicellular; life becoming intelligent; life not being destroyed by a natural disaster; life not being destroyed by war; life actually deciding to go to space; interstellar travel being feasible; life being old enough to have travelled anywhere yet; Vogons.
@@clockworkkirlia7475 nah there's probably multiple layers of the filter one of which is farming or knowledge, access to metals, access high temperature smelting, access to fuel sources, and having tools and ability to use make more and pass on the knowledge. To be completely fair you have to be an idiot to start a Nuclear war but its survivable as you only really have to stay out of high radioactive areas, wash regularly with clean water, and or bunker down and have windmills at surface and just tunnel to other population zones. Wait 70-150 years before earth is back to normal radioactive levels or speed it up with sunflower farms spanning continents like how Russia is doing in their red zones that 50 years ago would kill you if you ate one tree seed. Though let me tell you why Nuclear war is not gonna be a thing, say the United states gets Nuked and every nation doesn't wipe out the nation that did. All Nukes would target buffer zones for allies and create dead zones to prevent the dead mans switch from affecteding them. The u.s remnants will fire every bioweapon into said country and they may not even notice and think it's just latent missiles missing their targets, until every blade of grass dies, the ground lakes and rivers turn slimy and blood red, the coastal areas will wash ashore every thing that lived 15-25 miles of coast dead and rotting filled with parasites, the ground itself will burn, no crops will ever grow again even before the dust storms take every each of usable soil and dump it into rad zones or the sea, then the seas turn blood red filled with jellyfish that will eat everything for 150 miles of your coastline collapsing your entire fishery system, what will be left is a hellscape of slime, pests, disease, and cannibalism. Mothers will eat their own babies, and fathers dying in agony as the water they drink sterilizes them or deforms their offspring. Your skin will rot, your bones will deform, you will still live until the rotting cannibal kills and eats you, you will crawl through muck and mire filled with worms burrowing to your skin and skies filled with flies that will lay maggots onto you. If Russia fires the nukes and China doesn't fire back then all of Asia will face it, if India fires the Nukes after china wiped us of the map then they'll be the only region spared in all of Asia. It is absolute hell and whatever is left of United states will evacuate to Antarctica or other places on the planet with Nukes left to spare for leverage, or will be dead and ash, but won't suffer the generations of misery our enemies will.
@@xXSCDTXx sure in the long run it's good but immediately? It would look pretty unappealing. Theres a reason for thousands of years hunter gatherers and farmers coexisted. Farmers like the benefits hunter gatherers just saw weak milk drinkers easily pillaged
What if doggerland still existed What if the gunpowder plot succeeded What if Japan never annexed Korea What if persia stayed zoroastrian What if the great purge never happened
One of the big problems with Alternate history is that the further you go back, the harder it is to figure out what would happen, and the more must be done. More changes the further you go back. At this point, you basically can write your own human history.
I think that's the case, even with recent events. Alternate history is writing your own history. Because small changes, even just 100 years back, would butterfly into unpredictable outcomes. With a minor change a hundred years ago, it's very likely that the vast majority of people that are alive today wouldn't exist. Because lots of people would find different partners to have children with. And the ones that don't, might conceive at a different time. Both mean that the same people won't be born.
@@niclas3672 I think a lot of major events don't require any certain person or a small group of people to fulfill a particular set of conditions. These kinds of changes happen when a certain criteria is fulfilled by a general population no matter how wildly the people in that population might deviate from our own. Take agriculture or developments in metallurgy for example.
@@niclas3672 True. Would have been a whole different planent if homo sapiens did not survive the Toba Super Eruption, but Neanderthals, Denisonavs and other hominid species did.
Native Australians actually did have fairly advanced agricultural systems quite early on compared to the rest of the world, farming fish, yams, wild rice and species of wild grass The book ’Dark Emu’ makes a very thorough assessment of this
In multiple journals written by Europeans exploring Australia mentioned things like "fields of yams" and other similar things, pointing towards a agricultural system that only wasn't counted as one due to the foods being farmed being much different to what the Europeans were used to.
@@malakaitremain3402 To be fair there were still pretty basic, they didn't have farms land comparable to what you would think, it more like that stage between real farming about 13,000 to 12,000 years ago when other places started what is considered farming. They were still stone age people, and the food was not very good, as in the food available to grow that's why a place like Ireland in Roman time's had a population about the same size as Australia before Western settlement, that is a place the size of Tasmania, and it only took the western society 70 years to get a population of over 1million. The aboriginal people are also credited with the huge grasslands Australia is about 70% grassland most of it is believed to have been forest befor they started burning to help hunt which was a common stone age hunting tactic across all cultures.
Australia would have changed a lot after the ice age,the dryer and hotter climate making agriculture in most parts much harder. Certainly 18th century Europeans found them living in the stone age. If you've ever go there and meet Aboriginal people you know they are a very very ancient race.
They would be invaded by a european power in the end of the 19th century and today probably be a third world country. Likely that country would be Russia.
In an alternate universe without Toba eruption: Some guy: Wars after Wars with different species against another, if only one species exist, the world would be a peaceful utopia Guy from this universe: Nah fam
These prehistoric alternate histories are incredibly interesting, maybe you could do one about the other human species or neanderthals surviving? Albeit, I can't imagine they'd change much, but even small changes in prehistory can add up once you get to the modern age.
I would beg to differ about there being "no crops to build a civilisation with in Australia" there's a lot of evidence to support the fact that Australian Aboriginals did indeed farm crops. The Aboriginals made Australia one big big fenceless farm, utilising practically every species thats around today. A book by the name of Dark Emu explores the Australia first discovered by the Europeans and how they described the fields of crops and other such things.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="324">5:24</a> interesting idea. There actually is a place in fiction called the Valyrian Freehold, based on the idea of commoners owning giant dragons and unite under a conquest hungry democracy.
The genetic bottleneck effect of the Toba eruption looks quite shaky by now. For one thing, the climate effect in the East African areas in question seems not to correlate with Toba (the climate change there started hundreds of years before Toba). And statistical genetics cannot establish any genetic bottleneck effect in the time of the Toba eruption. A genetic bottleneck seems to occur about 50,000 years ago which does not coincide with Toba but is more likely a founder effect bottle neck (i.e. resulting from limited genetic variety in the founder population) rather than resulting from climate-caused population reduction.
@@ronjayrose9706 Yeah, in the book I mentioned it was meant to be Homo Erectus. It's a series of short stories set from the initial colonization of the new world pretty much up to present day. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, but it was a pretty fun and entertaining quick read.
I have some issue with the "no agriculture" and remaining primitive bit, starting with the claim that the Hunter Gathers were better at art. You show some cave paintings and on the other side a supposedly much cruder statuette of a mother earth goddess; problem with that, is that the cave paintings didn't require the digging up and working and baking of clay, or cutting and shaping of rock, the latter construction methods seem a lot more labor intensive and requirement of higher artistry than the cave paintings. Further, the cave paintings by their very placing are protected from most of the elements, while the statuette remained out in the open, even after being buried organisms can get to them. It can easily be the case that much like how Greek and Roman buildings and statues were painted back in the day, the statuette was equally covered in pain and other artistic impressions that simply worn over the thousands of yeas since its creation. Also, Gobleki Tepe is at least 11,500 years old, and they were already building a great megalithic site, with beautifully carved pictures on it, very much defying the notion that those who had agriculture were worse off at art. Indeed, although hunter gatherers over all may have had more spear time, the increased population with agriculture means that some people do not have to work in the fields at all; and can spend ONLY their time on their art, which they traded for food, which should rapidly increase the quality of the artwork. The second thing is clues you gave yourself, the first is the less well fed under agriculture and the limits of growing just one crop; something the folks who developer agriculture in our history also had to deal with, even if they supplemented their diet with hunted animals and gathered herbs and fruits. The very notion that a people would decide to eat less well are less healthy, and go "let's continue with this" until they had too many people that they couldn't go back, doesn't make much sense, unless they were doing something more important to them, than how tall and seemingly healthy they were; they were building things; namely the Gobekli Tepes and its as yet undiscovered contempories. Everyone has assumed that people developed agriculture first, and then started building, but I think it is the other way around. Cave paintings weren't enough for whatever religion, culture or artistic needs they had, and they started building their own caves/art galleries/temples; at first very small, but it would soon increase in size and complexity. Too big, too complex, to fit a migratory, go with the prey animals herd, life stylle, both in construction, and actually wanting to gaze upon/worship at your new site. It would require that you settle in place, which would require a new form of food production: agriculture. If the mother goddess figures were indeed more crude than the cave paintings (and especially more crude than Gobekli Tepe, and they usually arrive after Gobekli Tepe), that crudeness is not a sign of the arrival of agriculture, it is the sign of a collapsed civilization, that took all their highest craftsmanship with them, leading to later people having to redevelop artistry, much like later collapsed civilization let to various lengths of much more primitive endeavors, or even complete removal of some for centuries if not millennia until it returns. If I'm right about this, and puzzle pieces seem to line up, than the moment humans developed great art on cave paintings, their artistic endeavors would sooner or later outgrown those cave walls, they will start constructing their own, and they must develop the agriculture the support it, even in this alternate history.
Forgive my likely ignorance, but was there more oxygen in the air during the time of the megafauna? More oxygen can make creatures grow larger than genetically-nutritionally normal.
Oxygen levels were (at times) much higher in the past, but not that recently. The size of mammals and other animals are not particularly affected by this, but insects are due to their limited capability to absorb oxygen.
Oxygen in the air most impacts insects. In the Carboniferous era (I think) there were insects much larger than today. The more oxygen in the atmosphere the larger they could get with their primitive respiratory systems still working.
Yes, although he's too trusting of recent theories about Megafauna, mostly coming from Australia, which tries to shift the blame for their demise on climate, rather than humans. Which is ridiculous, because even after the ice age, 3000 years ago, the natives introduced he Dingo, which killed all it's competitors, that now only live on Tasmania.
Agriculture has popped up in several regions around the planet and sometimes thousands of years apart. Seems its less of a fluke and more likely the younger dryas simply made it easier to succeed as an agricultural tribe.
This goes a little tangent to your point. you have been warned. It appears to me that, in the English speaking world, Britain and America are considered the front runners of democracy, as well as the freedom of the individual; and, as in this video, smaller regions, like Switzerland, sometimes receive an honorary mention. As a German living in the UK I can see where this believe comes from, historically, but I also feel that those countries are the worst at making this democracy work for their people today. Gun crime, austerity, two party politics and hereditary houses of parliament are things that I think of as outdated and contrary to democracy (in particular the "freedom" to have a vote that matters and not get shot on the street). It seems to me these problems are more readily accepted here as either unfortunate side effects of what created democracy ("a well armed militia") or institutions full of tradition that reminds us of the journey the country took on its transition to democracy (Queen, Lords etc.). As for the "[...] England, Scotland, [...] all had republics" statement, this might be overgeneralising, but compare their constitutional monarchy to the five republics of france or the Kaiser, Tsar etc. Still, in WWI France and Germany were known for large, quickly assembled forces because every capable man underwent regular training, but the UK and US had troubles training and equipping comparable numbers (relative to their populations). Who has the vast numbers of well armed peasents now? I apologise to all who I have offended with my over-generalised and simplified representation of English speaking people(s), my spelling or punctuation, made up words and also my tangenting.
The Guardian not necessarily, it could have easily gone wrong with a few battles going to the opposite direction. the us wasnt exactly a world power yet.
@@comradepolarbear6920 oh i absolutely agree, but during the time of the mexican american war there were some close calls. hell when it was all said and done we had nearly 2:1 casualties compared to mexico, desertion and attrition were huge problems for our forces in mexico. if the mexico city campaign went wrong or we lost at Monterrey we probably would have negotiated some form of peace not as favourable to us as it was IOTL.
Would be interested to hear your updates based on recent DNA findings about Native American time lines back 30Kya, australian elements in South American pre-Columbian populations and also evolving data about meteors impacts around the Young Dryas
fun fact, people in first world industrialized countries ALSO don't have to work forty hours a week. however it's much more profitable for the owner class if they work at least that many hours.
Why the hell they never teach this kind of stuff in school!? I mean this is fascinating and the events covered in this video had dictated the entirety of the modern world, yet it wasn’t until I saw this video that I ever heard of this events (well except the comet thing)
I am going to introduce a revolutionary idea : what if we still developed technology without agricolture , yeah it would have append way more slowly , but all the building blocks were there : they had more complex art which presumably had meanings ( kinda like words they are just very abstract representations of concepts) they had free time and they were good inventors ( try invent bow and arrow after seeing just sharp sticks and stone bowls for your entire life ) . They might start with better boats to travel from an island to another in the pacific then those might help them rafting around the world and I see someone might whant to rapresent what he saw and that story might be communicated trought the world with scolptures getting copied adapted and modified ( eskimos wouldn't use the same worlds as a Masai would to describe the same story ) then costal regions might develop similar colture and start innovating and spread this colture around to other hunter gatherers , and eventually we have pepole who live in a world were there are metals , in which pepole discover how coal works and how to crate steam , how to use steam to move boats around . Maybe , but this was all speculation
Davide Garuti we couldn’t stay in one place to develop permanent settlements long enough to develop technology. The problem is that foraging societies are very minimalist, and only carry around the bare necessities. This doesn’t lend well to thought on things, what it lends to is having much more time to make art. Agriculture lends to the permanent settlement of land and the development of surplus which allowed people to start doing other things than just forage. Foraging societies are doomed/blessed with ignorance. In my humble opinion, no matter the detriments of agriculture the benefits of comfort and technology really make up for it.
@@xXSCDTXx, but I think that is precisely why he used coastal settlements as a point of technology creation. Fishing allows for greater population density and a sedentary lifestyle without necessarily agriculture. Obviously it is improbable, so much so that it did not occur, but it is possible to create a credible scenario.
@@fmac6441 I guess the main problems would be -lack of population. The less people, less likely o apear geniuses. -scarce flow of knowledge: Hunter gatherers societys are often qite hostile to foreigners, knowledge doesnt flow easily.
As counterpoint the younger dryas being necessary for the development of agriculture, agriculture was development multiple times, generally assuming, independently of each other, some well after the acute climate effects of the younger dryas had passed, while the yellow river culture's development of it could be argued as related to the fertile crescents, it would be harder to argue the same was true about it's development in southwestern north America, or later development in the Yucatan peninsula. With that said that would simply means that the circumstances aren't unique, it says nothing about how common they are
What if the Mali Empire discovered the Americas? What if the Ashanti won the Battle of Atakpamé? What if the Bantu Expansion never happened? What if Aksum conquered Mecca in 568? What if the Arab Slave trade never happened? What if West Africa industrialized? What if the Sokoto Caliphate survived? What if the Mongols invaded North Africa?
What if China converted to Hinduism What is the Anglo Saxons assimilated to brythonic culture What if Ireland was conquered by Vikings What if Vinland never failed What if the Roman Republic simply collapses What if The Battle of the Milvian Bridge went differently and Constantine died
There is a chance there would be 2 species of human too, the other being the red deer cave people which went extinct around 9000BC partly due to there being less megafauna
Farming doesn't mean you can't hunt hunting doesn't mean you can't farm. If a farmer is weak and small he's being abused by Lord's or bosses. He should be the healthiest
Then France would have attacked right after Germani would have attacked Poland , the French tactic was to starve Germany of metal oil and supply in order to be better off in a war , the German sold technology to the Soviets that weren't informed about this plan and the French tactic failed before paying off, if they saw that this guy that treatened the Slav , the communist , the Jews and expecially the French , started to execute is plan on Poland , they would royally shit their pants and they would squash the Germans to the soviet border as quickly as possible .
Domestic production in 1939 was 3million barrels a year, by 1944 it was increased to 10million barrels crude oil. But it was never near Germany synthetic coal production 1939 had 10million barrels and increased it to over 44million barrels by 1944. Romania produced about 42million barrels a year but only suplyed Germany with 14million barrels every year from 1940 to 43 and then only managed to get 7million in 1944. Had they also found the oil fields in Austria that were discovered in 1949 things mite have been different.
Is nobody else weirded out by how much hotter it was during the Medieval warm period than it is now with Global Warming? Despite all the fear mongering, they weren't dying off in droves in Medieval times as a result of environmental disasters. They had a long way to get to where we are now obviously, but they were OK. I'm not saying Global Warming is bogus or anything, but we can all afford to chill out
The Aborigines farmed as an activity rather than a lifestyle. They grew crops of tubers such as yams, grain such as native millet, macadamia nuts, fruits and berries. People reared dingoes, possums, emus and cassowaries, moved caterpillars to new breeding areas and carried fish stock across country.
perhaps we are on our way to a massive change like how hunters over time switched to farmers. It happens every time something massive is created or discovered, perhaps the future will bring new kinds and ways of living. Humans are great at finding ways to adapt to change
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="345">5:45</a> Or said large monster-animals would become the pets of the nobility, atop which they will literally trample the peasantry. Nations with easy access to elephants aren't known for being very free.
The claim that without the Younger Dryas agriculture wouldn't have been invented is demonstrably wrong. Agriculture began in South America when the potato and beans were domesticated long after the Younger Dryas ended, as was maize in Central America. People in New Guinea, Africa, and India all started cultivation as well long after that period ended. By the times Europeans arrived in the Americas, agriculture-based empires in Mesoamerica and South America were already old ideas and had risen and fallen multiple times, farming of crops like maize was widespread up into Eastern North America and even the Amazon was extensively cultivated. The best guess right now is that agriculture was developed by humans independently at least 11 times in different places around the world. So the idea that no one would have invented it just because one place might not have is, well, silly.
Love the vid... ...but... too much script just flashed on the screen, while you’re talking. Having to pause and go back to get it all. Just add it to the script.
Why? not socially constructed? Domestic cats too are are very similar, betwen them, and they have races just by small diferences in colour and hair length.
The American bison never died out. In fact they thrived, and there were tens of millions of them as late as the mid 1800s. Surely the mega predators didn't die from lack of food.
White males who were 21 years of age or older and who owned 50 acres (20 ha) of unimproved land or half that with a house were eligible to vote in the Fifth District. Approximately 5,189 voters formed the district's electorate.[64] Per the 1790 census, there were 11,231 free white males age over 16 in the district, so about half of free white men were able to vote. The total population (including women, slaves and children) of the district was 91,007, so the electorate made up less than 6% of the total population, and perhaps 12-15% of those aged over 21.[65][66] There was no secret ballot in Virginia elections in 1789; voters entered the local courthouse and publicly declared their votes, to be recorded by a clerk. The elections were administered by county sheriffs, normally the senior justice of the peace who had not already served in that capacity. Due to the bitterly cold weather in the Fifth District, the sheriffs in some counties extended voting beyond February 2, allowing more voters to reach their county courthouse.[67] This was not authorized by Virginia law, but had also occurred in the voting for presidential electors the previous month.[68]
It’s inevitable that as humans gain knowledge that some guy is gonna be like “I’m gonna plant a shit ton of food and build a house” humans aren’t dumb and it is likely that someone is going to get tired of hunting and gathering and decide that stationary lifestyle is favorable, which will end up taking hold just like it did in our timeline, it could see a delay as environmental pressure wouldn’t force it upon us, but sedentary lifestyle is always favorable as society develops, and agriculture fuels this lifestyle.
Didnt you hear what he said? Farmers were smaller and with worse health. Would you change to a life style that requires far more hard boring work and makes you more unhealthy? And it isnt even safe, a flood or a drought and its ruined. I dont see why someone would be bored of hunting and replace it with hard farming, I dont see anyone plowing for fun.
I have to pause your vids more than those of any other channel I watch just to take it all in. Not a complaint, just an observation; I feel that if you don't pause, you miss 1/3 of the information and 1/2 of the humor.
Africa is practically the only continent where until the last 300 years had most its mega-fauna still surviving up today. The ancient megafauna africa that did went extinct during prehistoric time all occurred before the appearance of any hominid species that were realistically capable of hunting them.
there is no 'lack of human genetic diversity'. Comparing us to whoever doesn't make the difference in people groups go away. Compare dogs with any other animal with more genetic diversity, do they now suddenly lack genetic diversity?
Story one humans or our extinct cousins would have to have left Africa far earlier. The only continent where the megafauna survived was Africa where humans evolved, and the megafauna there learnt/adapted to survive our increasing lethality. 6 million years there. And to a lesser extent southern Asia. Homo Erectus moved there circa 2 million years ago. So tigers, lions and elephants etc survived there. Every other region, when modern humans went there suffered extinction of the megafauna. Europe, northern Asia, the Americas and Australia.
I though kept missing the bit where you say where in the next theory so I was wondering how big animals not dying out effected the eruption of a super volcano
There's still large genetic differences from animals in the Americas and Eurasia. Also, agriculture tends to spread slower in North-South oriented areas, as it's harder to copy agricultural techniques when climates change wherever farming technology goes.
Man, that's a bullshit Jared Diamond talkpoint. Potatos can grow in mulltiple latitudes with no problems. I can grow a potato on any place between the equator and Patagonia. They would take, maybe, a few generations to do that, but it's not fundamentally hard.
Pedro Batista Yeah, but not wheat, which can’t grow in the tropics. And really, the issue was as much lack of compatibility in terms of animals as it was plants. Also, this is exclusive to the America’s, but it’s hell to get from the North end to the South compared to from Europe to China, except by boat.
Literally nothing would change because in real life they would just be normal people but with different heights and physical characteristics, they would be comparable to a human race
You mentioned an an asteroid impact in Canada as the possible cause for the Younger Dryas. Have you seen the reports of an impact crater found under the ice in Greenland last year? This is another possible explanation. An impact of this magnitude could easily have triggered global floods as all of the vaporized ice was thrown up in the atmosphere and fell back down as rain. This too, may explain many of the "flood myths" found in many cultures all around the world, and may explain the sudden extinction of the megafauna.
There could have been multiple impacts on the ice sheet. That could account for such a rapid decline in temperatures. I agree about a global disaster.. Every society has traditions of a cataclysm/flood that almost wiped out humanity, just a few human survivors. I look at how far we have come in 6,000 years. Cro-magnons appeared some 35k? years ago. What sort if technologies and societies have resulted in the 20,000 years before the Younger Dryas disaster?
Yeah it's total crap. Peasants in Europe were no match for the aristocracy's professional soldier caste. Peasants formed the core of China's armies, and thus peasant rebellions in China were far more successful. So yeah, what a load of b.s. The guy's political bias is showing.
@@felixvanmears True. Islamic World translated and improved the thoughs of Ancient Greek and other nationalities philosophers. Unlike the Romans. Plus i think Islamic renaissance triggered the European renaissance. Greetings from Turkey.
Along the same vein and one I've been thinking about lately is What if the sizes of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were switched? The geography is all the same, but the only the scale is different.
The problem with hunter - gatherer communities is that if even a minor drought happens, they can really go to crap quick. Agriculture allows food surpluses for these disasters. Also, though spring and summer might be comparitivly easy for hunter - gatherers, since they don't have to work as hard as field workers, there is always a part of the year where getting food can be really hard
also, infantalcide was extremely common in hunter - gatherer societies. To be fair, it was also practiced in several agricultural societies like greece, but still.
