Comments on "Plough and Now" and "Worst Mistakes"

           The article from The Economist is fairly reasonable, though in some ways simplifies the history and overly emphasizes the importance of plough. It brings quite revealing contemplations about the modern people are subconsciously guided by a stereotype created in a process of utilizing and changing tools. On the other hand, Diamond’s article makes less sense. It is indeed interesting to consider the lasting influence of the pre-historic era to the modern life. Nonetheless, although I agree that his arguments may raise some factors and concerns that we usually ignored (and thus become valuable) and admire his ability to touch history in a unique way, I have to point out that there’s indeed some logical flaws in his articles. 

           For instance, Diamond argues that the progressive view was unsubstantiated because the remaining gatherers in the current world are still able to sustain themselves. That is entirely a biased argument, since we all know that compared to the farmers, the surviving gatherers are much less. This drastic contrast in population can at least prove to you farming’s superiority. If not, why did people from different parts of the world invariably choose this way? The gatherers he mentioned are able to sustain themselves are and very possibly enjoy the environmental advantages that they obtained by sheer luck (i.e.happen to live in the right place) For most of the people in the other parts of the world, however, farming is definitely a much more preferable option. Besides, he quoted one gatherer’s response which does not have much value since the answerer never experienced what it is like in modern society and does not have the essential yardstick for comparison. Later, he himself uses the same argument to justify that “we do not know what happened in that society, so possibly we will be better off” and contradicts his own assumption. Moreover, he compares the diversity of food we eat with that of the gatherers, attempting to prove that they are healthier and thus we are not good. Nonetheless, the actual situation is that we “do have a choice but we choose not to”. Comparing to “we do not have a choice so we have to”, I personally think his argument does not stand. After all, modern civilization grants us more possibility, more autonomy to choose, and more bargain power when confronting the natural threats.