Another great read, but I wonder if you fall into the same trap of mischaracterising "totalitarian agriculture". Most preindustrial settled agricultural systems relied on long fallow periods to restore fertility (usually tied in to rotational mixed livestock grazing). Annual plowing and cropping is only possible in most places with industrial fertility inputs. An exception might be paddy rice systems, but the most successful of these recycled human waste on a gargantuan scale (itself supplemented by input of seafood into the human diet).
I also wonder about the symbiosis between settled and swidden agriculture. The latter presumably couldnt maintain the social complexity to forge their own iron tools, so they relied on trade with the settled agriculturalists in order to use much more efficient tool kits. In many ways this system is reminiscent of the relationship between farmers (on the flat/rich land) and pastoralists (on the hilly/dry land) in many parts of the world. Perhaps if there were tropical adapted grazing livestock that could move around the rainforest hills they would replace the swidden farmers to some extent.
As for your first point: a valid objection - but, as a primitivist, I am inclined to criticize agri-culture and highlight its shortcomings and inherent ecological unsustainability over the long term. The Chinese managed to farm the same land over millennia, but that doesn't change the fact that their fields and meadows were less biodiverse and resilient than the natural ecosystems they replaced. From the perspective of all the wild plants and animals, it was still a disaster.
Moreover, it is important to point out that the term "totalitarian agriculture" – like so many other concepts Quinn explored in his writing (The Great Forgetting, Cultural Collapse, etc) – is *mythological* in character - and thus inevitably an oversimplification. But scientific or historic accuracy is not a requirement for a good & important myth. He tried to codify an important lesson, and in this (admittedly narrow) context it does make sense to demonize agriculture to make a definite statement about our place in this world (i.e. against anthropocentrism).
I definitely get your overall point, though. Traditional agriculture can be sustained for pretty long (if done right) – but I still don’t approve of the kind of societies and social organizations this enables. 😁
I’m not sure I’d use the term “symbiosis” to describe the interaction between valley states and hill cultures, but the non-state societies definitely made the best out of it. Both sides benefited, but at a high cost to virtually all the commoners. The scale and ubiquity of slavery here was simply astonishing.
Yeah, the thing with grazing in the tropics is that you have to fuck up the land pretty good to really inhibit the regrowth of forest on any meaningful scale. Even land that has been cleared repeatedly will become overgrown with pioneers (via wind- and animal-dispersed seeds over considerable distances) in to time if not tended to. So the fight against natural succession is generally much harder and more strenuous in the tropics, which makes it less cumbersome to try to work *with* the forest. And in a forest ecosystem there simply isn’t enough food for most herbivores. The gaur native to the Old World tropics might be an exception, and it has been successfully domesticated (mainly as a draft animal, not for large-scale protein production, if I understand it right). But I’m not sure if livestock farming in the tropics would have been rewarding enough before the Industrial Age.
But *if there was such an animal,* I deem it likely that, as you proposed, they would have replaced many of the swiddeners - and changed the landscape beyond recognition. Just think about what could have happened if people would have successfully domesticated Asian elephants in the same way cows were domesticated! 😄
Another great read, but I wonder if you fall into the same trap of mischaracterising "totalitarian agriculture". Most preindustrial settled agricultural systems relied on long fallow periods to restore fertility (usually tied in to rotational mixed livestock grazing). Annual plowing and cropping is only possible in most places with industrial fertility inputs. An exception might be paddy rice systems, but the most successful of these recycled human waste on a gargantuan scale (itself supplemented by input of seafood into the human diet).
I also wonder about the symbiosis between settled and swidden agriculture. The latter presumably couldnt maintain the social complexity to forge their own iron tools, so they relied on trade with the settled agriculturalists in order to use much more efficient tool kits. In many ways this system is reminiscent of the relationship between farmers (on the flat/rich land) and pastoralists (on the hilly/dry land) in many parts of the world. Perhaps if there were tropical adapted grazing livestock that could move around the rainforest hills they would replace the swidden farmers to some extent.
Looking forward to part III
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
As for your first point: a valid objection - but, as a primitivist, I am inclined to criticize agri-culture and highlight its shortcomings and inherent ecological unsustainability over the long term. The Chinese managed to farm the same land over millennia, but that doesn't change the fact that their fields and meadows were less biodiverse and resilient than the natural ecosystems they replaced. From the perspective of all the wild plants and animals, it was still a disaster.
Moreover, it is important to point out that the term "totalitarian agriculture" – like so many other concepts Quinn explored in his writing (The Great Forgetting, Cultural Collapse, etc) – is *mythological* in character - and thus inevitably an oversimplification. But scientific or historic accuracy is not a requirement for a good & important myth. He tried to codify an important lesson, and in this (admittedly narrow) context it does make sense to demonize agriculture to make a definite statement about our place in this world (i.e. against anthropocentrism).
I definitely get your overall point, though. Traditional agriculture can be sustained for pretty long (if done right) – but I still don’t approve of the kind of societies and social organizations this enables. 😁
I’m not sure I’d use the term “symbiosis” to describe the interaction between valley states and hill cultures, but the non-state societies definitely made the best out of it. Both sides benefited, but at a high cost to virtually all the commoners. The scale and ubiquity of slavery here was simply astonishing.
Yeah, the thing with grazing in the tropics is that you have to fuck up the land pretty good to really inhibit the regrowth of forest on any meaningful scale. Even land that has been cleared repeatedly will become overgrown with pioneers (via wind- and animal-dispersed seeds over considerable distances) in to time if not tended to. So the fight against natural succession is generally much harder and more strenuous in the tropics, which makes it less cumbersome to try to work *with* the forest. And in a forest ecosystem there simply isn’t enough food for most herbivores. The gaur native to the Old World tropics might be an exception, and it has been successfully domesticated (mainly as a draft animal, not for large-scale protein production, if I understand it right). But I’m not sure if livestock farming in the tropics would have been rewarding enough before the Industrial Age.
But *if there was such an animal,* I deem it likely that, as you proposed, they would have replaced many of the swiddeners - and changed the landscape beyond recognition. Just think about what could have happened if people would have successfully domesticated Asian elephants in the same way cows were domesticated! 😄