The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
- diegorojas41
- Jul 12
- 4 min read
Let´s start with this. Read it please:
For generations, we have been taught a simple story about human progress. Long ago, our ancestors lived as primitive hunter-gatherers, constantly struggling to survive. Then came agriculture. People settled down, grew crops, built villages, and eventually created cities, kingdoms, and modern civilization.
Agriculture, we are told, was humanity's great breakthrough. But what if that story is incomplete?
In his famous essay, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," physiologist, geographer, and author Jared Diamond argues something deeply provocative:
The adoption of agriculture may have been one of the most consequential mistakes our species ever made. Although it eventually gave us science, writing, and modern civilization, this transition also came with enormous costs that are often ignored.
The Great Agricultural Revolution
About 10,000 years ago, humans in different parts of the world began domesticating plants and animals. This change transformed history.
Farming produced food surpluses. Surpluses allowed populations to grow. Larger populations led to villages, cities, governments, armies, and complex societies.
On the surface, it seems like an obvious improvement. Yet Diamond asks a simple question: Were individual human beings actually better off after adopting agriculture?
His answer is surprising. For many early farmers, the answer appears to have been no.
Farmers Worked Harder
Hunter-gatherers often had diverse diets and, in many cases, spent fewer hours obtaining food. Early farmers, on the other hand, worked long, physically demanding days. Fields had to be cleared, planted, weeded, harvested, and protected. Crops could fail because of drought, floods, pests, or disease.
Instead of gathering from nature's pantry, humans became tied to the relentless rhythms of agriculture. Diamond argues that many people traded a relatively flexible lifestyle for one of greater labor and dependency.
Diets Actually Became Worse
One of Diamond's most fascinating observations comes from archaeology. Scientists have compared the skeletons of hunter-gatherers and early farmers. The results are surprising. Early agricultural populations often showed:
Shorter average heights
More evidence of malnutrition
Increased tooth decay
More signs of disease and physical stress
Why? Because many farming societies depended heavily on one or two staple crops such as wheat, rice, or corn.
Hunter-gatherers, by contrast, often ate a wider variety of foods, including fruits, nuts, fish, and wild game. In some cases, the transition to farming actually made people less healthy.
The Birth of Inequality
Agriculture created something that had rarely existed before on a large scale. Something called surplus.
When food can be stored, it can also be controlled. Some individuals accumulate more resources than others. Property emerges. Wealth differences appear. Social classes develop. Eventually, societies become divided between rulers and the ruled, the wealthy and the poor.
According to Diamond, agriculture laid the foundation for many of the inequalities that still shape our world today.
More People, More Problems
Agriculture also allowed populations to explode. At first, this seems like a success, but larger populations created new challenges. People began living close together and alongside domesticated animals. This environment became a breeding ground for infectious diseases. Diseases that were rare among scattered hunter-gatherer groups became far more common in agricultural societies.
Communities also became vulnerable in new ways. If a harvest failed, entire populations could face famine. Humanity had created abundance, but also new forms of risk.
So Why Did Agriculture Win?
If farming had so many disadvantages, why did it spread across the world?
Diamond's answer is both simple and tragic: Because it produced more food per acre and supported larger populations. Even if individual farmers were less healthy or worked harder, farming societies could sustain many more people than hunter-gatherer societies.
Over time, agricultural communities expanded and often displaced or absorbed neighboring hunter-gatherers. The system succeeded not necessarily because it improved quality of life, but because it increased numbers and power.
In evolutionary terms, quantity often beats comfort.
The Similarities Between Jared Diamond and Marshall Sahlins
This is where Diamond's ideas strongly resemble those of anthropologist Marshall Sahlins.
Although they come from different academic backgrounds, both thinkers challenge the traditional narrative of progress.
1. Both Question the Idea That Agriculture Was Pure Progress
Most history books present farming as an unquestioned advancement. Both Sahlins and Diamond argue that the story is far more complicated. Agriculture brought benefits, but it also introduced major social and personal costs.
2. Both Believe Hunter-Gatherers Were Better Off in Some Important Ways
Neither scholar romanticizes prehistoric life. However, both suggest that hunter-gatherers often enjoyed:
More leisure
Greater equality
Better diets
More personal freedom
This directly contradicts the stereotype of prehistoric humans as miserable and desperate.
3. Both See Inequality as a Product of Civilization
For Sahlins, poverty is largely a social invention. For Diamond, agriculture created the conditions for wealth accumulation and class divisions.
Both thinkers see inequality as something that grew alongside civilization rather than something that existed naturally from the beginning.
4. Both Force Us to Redefine Wealth
Sahlins argues that affluence can come from desiring little. Diamond argues that material progress does not automatically make people healthier or happier. Both challenge the modern assumption that more production and more possessions necessarily equal a better life.
A Different Way of Looking at Human History
Neither Jared Diamond nor Marshall Sahlins suggests that we should abandon modern civilization and return to hunting and gathering. Their message is more subtle. Progress always involves trade-offs. Every gain comes with costs.
The modern world has given us medicine, technology, and extraordinary comforts. Yet it has also produced inequality, stress, environmental degradation, and lifestyles that many people find exhausting.
Both thinkers ask us to reconsider an uncomfortable possibility: What if some of the things we lost along the road to civilization were as valuable as the things we gained?
That question does not require us to reject modernity, but it does encourage humility. Because perhaps the story of humanity is not a simple march from primitive misery to civilized abundance. Perhaps it is a much more complicated story. One in which our ancestors may have understood something that we are still trying to recover:
That a good life depends not only on what we produce, but on how we live, how much we need, and what we are willing to sacrifice in the name of progress.
Thanks for reading. Abrazos.
Diego Rojas
Comments