Coming across this sentence
The more intensive the agricultural system, the more work required for a unit of food.
in Charles Maisel’s The Emergence of Civilization (1990, p. 35) made me think for a while and make a list:
- Hunting: Easy.
- Agriculture: Hard. In agriculture you have to start from scratch in a way you don’t when hunting.
- Self-Experimentation: Easy.
- Ordinary Science: Hard. It is much harder to discover something useful via ordinary science than via self-experimentation.
- Fermentation: Easy. It is easy to make yogurt or kombucha, for example.
- Medical Drugs: Hard. Hard to invent, hard to make, hard to sell, hard to get, hard to afford, not to mention dangerous. It is much easier to cure/prevent problems by eating fermented foods, such as yogurt.
What’s interesting is the starkness of the differences. Hunting and agriculture are two answers to the same question. I suppose we backed into agriculture because we over-hunted. In the other two pairs, I think the basic Veblenian dynamic was/is at work: The more useless, the more high status. Scientists must be elaborately theoretical and high-techy and wasteful to be high-status. Likewise with home remedies (such as fermented food) versus medical drugs: To be high-status, doctors had to promote elaborate, obscure, hard-to-get remedies.