« The French wealth tax | Main | Marginal returns vs. average returns »
What caused the Agricultural Revolution?
I have long assumed (without much evidence) that mankind invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago because we suddenly, for some reason, became smarter. Now I see an alternative explanation:
It is no accident that no matter where agriculture sprouted on the globe, it always happened near rivers. You might assume, as many have, that this is because the plants needed the water or nutrients. Mostly this is not true. They needed the power of flooding, which scoured landscapes and stripped out competitors. Nor is it an accident, I think, that agriculture arose independently and simultaneously around the globe just as the last ice age ended, a time of enormous upheaval when glacial melt let loose sea-size lakes to create tidal waves of erosion. It was a time of catastrophe.
Here is the source. Should I take the author seriously? Most of the article is terrible.
His main kind of argument -- thinking about food in terms of energy costs -- is popping up more and more. No, I don't think a quick perusal of Debreu's Theory of Value refutes the resource pessimists, but a) the author rarely talks about the role of prices, and b) technological efficiency and economic efficiency are confused frequently.
Perhaps most disturbingly, a healthy, wealthy, and happy human life is considered a burden upon the earth. For instance we are told that if the entire world lived like the United States, fossil fuels would run out within seven year's time, or maybe ten. What a horror such a world would be. There is no talk of how much higher the rate of invention would be, or how much we would save by having better institutions.
By the way, here is my highly relevant post on the economics of mulch.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 20, 2006 at 01:16 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
"Should I take the author seriously?"
No. His history is selective where it is not simply mistaken. His analysis is simplistic where it is not mistaken. He doesn't understand his subject and makes a muddled mess. There's a pony in there, but there's too much horse shit to find it.
Posted by: back40 at Jul 20, 2006 1:49:24 AM
As an aside (for people who know more about archaeology than I do, which is practically everyone) if agriculture had been invented before the last ice age, how likely is it that we'd know about it? Clearly, if someone had been building pyramids back then, we'd notice some ruins. But if they were just beginning the agricultural revolution in a few places, and then the climate started getting colder and nastier, and then the crops failed because the climate wasn't right for them anymore, what evidence would be left behind?
Posted by: albatross at Jul 20, 2006 2:00:11 AM
" agriculture arose independently and simultaneously around the globe" ???
From what I have read, agriculture arose in the middle east 11000 bc, china 9000 bc, and in the america's about 5000 bc. There may be new research that changes these numbers.
Posted by: joan at Jul 20, 2006 2:08:31 AM
"For instance we are told that if the entire world lived like the United States, fossil fuels would run out within seven year's time, or maybe ten. What a horror such a world would be."
But this is true, invent or no! And other resources e.g. wood and probably arable land would run out even quicker. Point is, the whole world cannot be like USA is now, the system has to be substantially different in many ways, but this does not mean we have to live in dugouts and wear skins.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Jul 20, 2006 3:50:33 AM
"For instance we are told that if the entire world lived like the United States, fossil fuels would run out within seven year's time, or maybe ten. What a horror such a world would be. There is no talk of how much higher the rate of invention would be, or how much we would save by having better institutions."
Erm, it should be pointed out that the US uses rather alot of fossil fuels compared to other first world nations, and it's institutions and rates of inventions are not substansially different than those nations.
Posted by: Factory at Jul 20, 2006 4:08:18 AM
And Australian Aborigines were just starting before the white people arrived about 200 years ago.
Not very simultaneous if you ask me.
Posted by: Patrick at Jul 20, 2006 4:18:29 AM
Erm, it should be pointed out that the US uses rather alot of fossil fuels compared to other first world nations, and it's institutions and rates of inventions are not substansially different than those nations.I think the point is that if everyone used resources like we do, then prices would go through the roof, giving enormous incentives for investing in the development of alternatives (like algae biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, solar, nuclear) and conservation techniques (like hybrid cars).
Also, on measures like carbon dioxide emissions per unit GDP, the US is actually below lots of other countries. In other words, part of the reason we use more resources than anyone else is that we DO more than anyone else.
Posted by: mitch at Jul 20, 2006 4:47:58 AM
Being smart is not linked to agriculture, AFAIK. Early agricultural humans were smaller, had a shorter life span, and suffered from malnutrition when compared to hunter-gatherers. So early agriculture was a bad deal, possibly forced on people by an increase in population or by climate change. There are a number of people who maintain that the agricultural diet (high in carbohydrates, low in protein) is inappropriate for humans, and we should instead chose a diet closer to that of hunter-gatherers (roughly: more protein, less starchy cereals, more vegetables and fruit, more variety).
Posted by: Noel Welsh at Jul 20, 2006 6:12:10 AM
I typically enjoy Tyler Cowen's thoughtful posts, but I found his interpretation of this article and his thoughts on it short-sighted and ignorant.
"the author rarely talks about the role of prices"
Many economists use this argument, but it is inherently flawed. Wealth is subjective, thus everyone holds a different value to the same resource. In general, free-markets are incredibly accurate in determining the optimal price. But in the case of respecting finite resources, the market has failed miserably.
Since we are currently experiencing the largest mass-extinction in 65 million years, I would say that current economic models are unsustainable. Is the intrinsic value of a tree your great-grandfather planted accounted for by the timber market? I think we all value the safety and health of our families and the ecosystem more than a billion bottles of Coca-Cola. Does the market represent this?
A world without subsidies or tariffs and with accurately valued natural resources would allow for the optimal price in every product. Unfortunately, that is the idealistic economist's dream and reality must be accounted for before this downward spiral in modern economics goes too far.
Here is a quote from The Economist:
"The valuation of ecosystem services is not without its difficulties. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a growing consensus about how and where it is appropriate is an important step forward for economists and environmentalists. In 1817, David Ricardo, a pioneering economist, noted that abundance in nature was rarely rewarded: “where she is munificently beneficent she always works gratis.” But if nature pays, who then will pay for nature?"
Posted by: Brad Ewing at Jul 20, 2006 7:39:59 AM
I'm wondering if you have objections to David Pimentel's work (which seems to be driving this line of argument), or simply the uses it's been subjected to in popularized form.
Posted by: Chris at Jul 20, 2006 9:52:44 AM
New Guinea is, I understand, another place where agriculture is reckoned to have been invented independently. No relation to rivers, as far as I know.
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 20, 2006 10:07:52 AM
"Perhaps most disturbingly, a healthy, wealthy, and happy human life is considered a burden upon the earth."
The way you phrase this makes it sound like the author that you are criticizing is opposed to health, wealth, and happiness. Do you really believe that the author is opposed to these things? I suspect that you do not and just thought it would sound funny to insinuate that he is.
Taking this approach - treating the author as a crank - also allows you to avoid the very real concern which he raises: that at current population levels and standards of living the human species is changing the planet, causing mass extinctions and possibly eroding the capacity of the earth to support the kind of life that we enjoy.
Now it could be that you don't believe that human activity is having a huge and largely disastrous impact on the rest of the species with whom we share the planet - rats and pigeons aside. Or it could be that you do not believe that very roughly, this impact is proportional to the size of the human population and to the level of economic activity per capita.
Or it could be that you do believe all these things and simply don't care.
But I don't believe that this would be a fair reading of your position. My guess, based on what I've read on your blog, is that you would argue that when people are healthy and wealthy and happy they will try to find creative ways to minimize undesirable externalities, especially if well functioning markets are established to help them do so (whether they will suceed is another matter).
Which position, if it is yours, I largely agree with. What I don't agree with though is the attitude that we can pooh-pooh the large undeniable impacts that our species is having on the environment in its attempt to become healthy, wealthy, and happy (of which the second and third attribute in this trio are not, above a certain level, terribly well correlated, as you know.)
Posted by: Jeffrey Miller at Jul 20, 2006 10:24:21 AM
Why not read something worthwhile on the topic like:
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond ?
Posted by: jim at Jul 20, 2006 10:32:52 AM
Actually, Factory, the rate of invention in the US *is* higher than in other places. Roughly 40-50% of all new chemical compounds, medicines, medical procedures, and R&D investment is done by the same 5% of the world population that consumes 25% of the resources. The other 75% of the resources only goes to 50-60% of development by the other 95% of the people; you might say they are being squandered in comparison.
The recent Pimentel/Patzek article contains some hard-to-justify assumptions. For example, energy associated with 11 kg of stainless steel, 21 kg of steel, and 56 kg of cement is included "per 1,000 kg biodiesel oil from soybeans". I think if they are going through that much concrete and steel per batch, they are doing something wrong. An additional 160,000 kcal of "Cleanup water" (not my units) is charged for every 1,000 kg biodiesel, but no explanation is made of why this water can't be reused (or how water is measured in kcal - is that the energy to heat it? to pump it?).
Posted by: Eric H at Jul 20, 2006 10:36:09 AM
"Is the intrinsic value of a tree your great-grandfather planted accounted for by the timber market?"
You lost me here. As any economist will tell you (and happily PROVE to you) there is no such thing as intrinsic value.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Jul 20, 2006 10:58:20 AM
I always had a soft spot for Jane Jacobs explanation for the agricultural revolution in her book "Economy of Cities" (at least I think its that book, its been awhile since I read all of them).
Her hypothesis (as I crudely remember it) is that over time some hunter-gathers found it adventagous to settle down in villages at critical trade nodes between other clans. They in turn facilitated trade between the clans by acting as a trading post. As trade occurred, the villages become store houses for animals and/or seeds from far and wide. Many seeds naturally grew on their own--due to spillage--and cross-breed with one another. Observant (or is it "smart") folks noticed the benefits of the cross-breeding and starting cultivating them. As superior strains developed, agriculture grew more productive and the villages were able to grow into towns leading to more specialization . . . leading right into Adam Smith's pin factory.
I like this hypothesis because it is very evolutionary and similar to the hypothesis of the development of banking evolving from blacksmiths simply storing gold to eventually becoming Citibank. Both agriculture and banking grew as unintended by-products of other activities--which almost always seems to be the case with revolutionary technological change.
My only questions is that her review of anthropology at the time seems to confirm her hypothesis . . . but does any new evidence confirm or refute her?
Posted by: Scott at Jul 20, 2006 11:01:28 AM
My evaluation of Guns, Germs and Steel was retroactively lowered a great deal by reading Collapse. His account of the failure of the Greenlanders in Collapse is wholly wrong -- he claims that the Greenlanders refused to eat fish for cultural reasons, because fish bones are not found very often in Norse middens. This is simply untrue. The reason that fish bones are hard to find is that they are a favored food of scavengers, and decompose quickly in a watery, acidic environment (like a low tundra marsh or bog). The fact that archaeologists find any fish bones at all indicates that fish was a gigantic portion of their diet. And in fact, radiocarbon analysis of Norse bones from the 1300s indicates that fish was between 50-80% of their diet.
Since that was one of his star examples, and he got it totally wrong, Bayes's law tells me to increase the likelihood that there are other equally-serious blunders in his work.
Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Jul 20, 2006 11:12:03 AM
Rivers facilitate transportation, especially before the age of cars and trains.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Jul 20, 2006 11:16:41 AM
"As any economist will tell you (and happily PROVE to you) there is no such thing as intrinsic value."
Noah,
If you consider yourself an economist, I am waiting for your mathematical proof that "there is no such thing as intrinsic value."
My perceptions on intrinsic value come from "The Intelligent Investor" by Benjamin Graham and numerous interviews with Warren Buffett. Besides comments by these two influential investors, I believe common sense disagrees with your logic that "there is no such thing as intrinsic value."
Prove to me that a painting could be valued at $135 million without intrinsic value. Prove to me that fond memories of a particular product or property plays no role in the buyer or sellers valuation. Prove to me that, if all else is equal, intrinsic value plays no role in a person's valuation of a product.
Posted by: Brad Ewing at Jul 20, 2006 1:30:03 PM
Pimentel is a crank, and has been for as long as I've heard of him (several years). His type of work is very susceptible to slanted assumptions, and he makes them in abundance. The biggest one is that the "energy invested" of "EROEI" is not a fixed value.
Posted by: Jake at Jul 20, 2006 2:24:57 PM
Archaeologist chiming in here, although I am not even remotely an expert on the agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent. First, there are at least 7 major centers of independent agricultural “invention”: Fertile Crescent, China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, Andes, Mesoamerica, and Eastern North America (other experts may divide these a little differently or recognize others, but this is sufficiently well accepted to be found in most textbooks on the subject). They did not all happen at the same time. The Fertile Crescent domesticates started in around 10 kya, and the North American about 2-3 kya (the others in between). I can’t think of many reputable researchers that attribute the start of the revolution to a change in innate intelligence. People started doing relatively modern practices (music, art, religion) at least 50 kya. Many paleontologists would argue that anatomically modern humans emerged 100-150 kya, and that innate intelligence may have been similar since then. It is also important to recognize that almost all early domestications were likely “accidental” and humans merely had to replicate the processes of seed movement and selection that they were doing as hunter-gatherers. So I doubt simple domestication takes all that much smarts. However, maintaining it and improving on domestication (selection for even more advantageous phenotypes and cross-breeding) does take some about of effort and powers of observation.
There are several theories about why and when agriculture emerged and most researchers no longer accept a single one of them as primary. Not all agricultural “inventions” are riverine in nature (see the potato in the Andes). Most of them are simply extensions of the behaviors that hunters-and-gatherers were already doing. More than anything, you can’t domesticate something if there were no domesticatable plants or animals in the region. The Fertile Crescent had more than any other (the thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel) which made it a prime candidate for being first. It also takes a population that will consider becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary in order to really become a major part of the diet. This might happen as a result of population pressure, conflict, environmental degradation, or any number of other factors.
In Eastern North America, for example, the domestication of several starchy seed plants (goosefoot, marsh elder, etc.), increasing population, and changing social mores that allowed people to interact with each other with a semi-common rubric of ritual caused populations to concentrate in the river valleys and become sedentary for several hundred years (ca. 2000 ya). After the introduction of the bow-and-arrow (ca. 1500 ya) many people left the river valleys for the less sedentary lives in the uplands because the new technology allowed them to exploit small forest mammals better. A few hundred years later maize arrived and most were back to the river valleys again (ca. 1000 ya).
Posted by: Patrick at Jul 20, 2006 2:28:10 PM
Neel writes:
"Since that was one of his star examples, and he got it totally wrong, Bayes's law tells me to increase the likelihood that there are other equally-serious blunders in his work."
Apply Bayes's law using a sample of one error? If I apply this thinking to your reliance upon the use of a sample of one only I should .......... (fill in the blank)
Posted by: jim at Jul 20, 2006 4:47:08 PM
In the last 2 million years, there have been about 10 glacial-interglaical cycles. During each of them, some sort of hominids were around. But only during the last one were there "anatomically modern humans." "Getting smarter" was necessary but not sufficient.
Posted by: Roger Sweeny at Jul 20, 2006 5:39:13 PM
jim: I'm using Baye's law in the sense of belief revision -- to infer a posterior distribution from a prior. Of course even a single example should cause me to revise my beliefs; do you really think we should wait for a statistically-significant number of Katrina-level disasters before judging the competence of FEMA at handling flood relief?
Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Jul 20, 2006 6:31:19 PM
Roger: Actually there was an interglacial at 100 kya that lasted for about 10 kya. There were anatomically modern humans alive during that period. Archaeologists have documented a real flourescence in cultural practices (i.e. ritualized burials in Shanidar Cave in the Levant and dozens of other examples) that seemed to have faded once it got cold again. AMTs and warm weather were necessary for the agricultural revolution, but not sufficient.
Posted by: Patrick at Jul 20, 2006 7:29:14 PM
