Is agriculture really a harm to society? The controversial Jared Diamond seems to believe so. Is this ‘enthusiastic’ man correct in his lack of faith in the culture of farming, or has agriculture helped the progression of humanity? Is the sickness and suffering of our modern world caused by the creation of a stable food source? Diamond’s extreme opposition towards the progressivist point of view is evident in his writing because he portrays the supporters as an indulgent party, unwilling to work hard for their food, though his overall sarcastic tone and overbearing language makes it hard to take him seriously.
Diamond seems to define the “progressivist view” as a party that somewhat worships agricultural revolution, generally contains lazy …show more content…
Diamond, being a revisionist, seems to think that others (specifically progressivists) see his party as anti-technology, which may or may not be the case. He reduces progressivism to a large, undying, yet unjust party. I wouldn’t consider his definition of progressivism to be the actual definition. But, Diamond’s implied definition is all we have to analyze. This is because we don’t have the facts. We have an opinion, which we can’t say is wrong or right, but we can only agree or disagree. Diamond does not defend his opinion well. Not only with his angry tone and sarcastic language, but with blaming agriculture for everything bad. For instance, he blames agriculture for diseases resulting in societies clumping people together. Instead of blaming agriculture as the direct result of disease, why doesn’t he blame lack of evenly distributed resources, or maybe the lack of medical advancements? He even states, “(Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg …show more content…
The real intentions of progressivism were changes for the good, so that people would live better lives and reduce violence and racism. The idea of progressivism arose as a result of industrialization in America. Its leaders wanted to address the problems that occurred within society that industrialization introduced to America. A well-known leader was Theodore Roosevelt, who had the same beliefs. Diamond doesn’t mention any of this in his article. He didn’t acknowledge the positive aspects of progressivism, or make the “negative” aspects of progressivism clear. The reason for the ultimate bias is this: The active movement of progressivism ended with World War 1. People began to associate progressivism with violence and hatred (which progressivism represented the exact opposite). It didn’t help that President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the war, implying it was for the good of the nation and the democracy (reflecting the progressivists’ views on changes for the good). Diamond grew up around World War 2, and it’s safe to infer that the corrupted idea of progressivism from the past might have presented itself for him at that time. This might explain his hatred toward the idea. He did attempt to blame the agricultural revolution (an impactful period of change that was meant to be positive) for occurring negative aspects in society, after
Diamond seems to define the “progressivist view” as a party that somewhat worships agricultural revolution, generally contains lazy …show more content…
Diamond, being a revisionist, seems to think that others (specifically progressivists) see his party as anti-technology, which may or may not be the case. He reduces progressivism to a large, undying, yet unjust party. I wouldn’t consider his definition of progressivism to be the actual definition. But, Diamond’s implied definition is all we have to analyze. This is because we don’t have the facts. We have an opinion, which we can’t say is wrong or right, but we can only agree or disagree. Diamond does not defend his opinion well. Not only with his angry tone and sarcastic language, but with blaming agriculture for everything bad. For instance, he blames agriculture for diseases resulting in societies clumping people together. Instead of blaming agriculture as the direct result of disease, why doesn’t he blame lack of evenly distributed resources, or maybe the lack of medical advancements? He even states, “(Some archaeologists think it was the crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg …show more content…
The real intentions of progressivism were changes for the good, so that people would live better lives and reduce violence and racism. The idea of progressivism arose as a result of industrialization in America. Its leaders wanted to address the problems that occurred within society that industrialization introduced to America. A well-known leader was Theodore Roosevelt, who had the same beliefs. Diamond doesn’t mention any of this in his article. He didn’t acknowledge the positive aspects of progressivism, or make the “negative” aspects of progressivism clear. The reason for the ultimate bias is this: The active movement of progressivism ended with World War 1. People began to associate progressivism with violence and hatred (which progressivism represented the exact opposite). It didn’t help that President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the war, implying it was for the good of the nation and the democracy (reflecting the progressivists’ views on changes for the good). Diamond grew up around World War 2, and it’s safe to infer that the corrupted idea of progressivism from the past might have presented itself for him at that time. This might explain his hatred toward the idea. He did attempt to blame the agricultural revolution (an impactful period of change that was meant to be positive) for occurring negative aspects in society, after