Comments by "" (@kellygreenii) on "" video.

Patriarchy wasn’t done to women, it was done FOR them.
1
@ Yep….and starvation and war when those resources were inadequate or were compromised. People have this over romanticized notion of what living as a hunter-gatherer is like. If you are unsuccessful, you don’t eat.
1
@ Which are just cultural variants of agrarian society.
1
@ I don’t see the world in us and them terms. The issue is food DENSITY. A wild forest can only support a few people per acre. While a cultivated field can support hundreds. So you are criticizing a system while at the same time reaping (pun intended) the benefits and food security that system created….
1
@ Not hunter-gatherers in the Neolithic sense. But you are clearly talking about a combination of hunter-horticultural society. Which is simply not capable of sustaining a modern society. Because it simply doesn’t produce enough food. Let’s be real. The reason you are able to sit at your keyboard and criticize modern agriculture is because it produces enough food that you don’t have to spend most of your waking hours trying to find yourself enough calories to eat. You can simply work, and then exchange that money for food others have produced. “…after hours there is nothing to eat, and don’t even mess around trying to ask anybody either.” —Richard Pryor.
1
@ Sorry, studied ecology. It is true. The Sun and rain—depending on climate and arability—-can only support a set amount of LIFE per acre. In a forest, the trees are consuming most of those resources and produce little of food value to humans. An acre of soybeans directly consumed can feed between 40-60 people for a year. Managed forest can—at best—fed 1 or 2 people for a year. Which is why most pre-agrarian societies were nomadic. Because it took large expanses of land to produce enough calories to either feed themselves or their domesticated food animals.
1