Unless I misread things, the article is about a hypothesis, that before the current era, many tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure.
My own conjecture, is that the material/scientific/intellectual process that seems to have started around the time of agriculture, and which has been accelerating ever since until we're all sucked into this global mechanical survival process, is driven mostly by the number of people able to sit around and think about surviving in this runaway process (i.e. they face Malthusian pressure, they want and need more), and also their ease of communicating with each other. People pondering how to feed themselves more in large forums come up with ways to transform the world physically through their collective labour. Such a runaway process would not likely occur in a small stable population without the pressure to do so in the first place.
> tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans were in a stable population state ("pre-Malthusian"), and so most humans were mostly free of substantial food pressure.
Yes, but you left out an important bit of context:
"The obvious reason why the Yanomamö didn't reach a Malthusian condition was their high level of violence. The Yanomamö simply killed each other efficiently enough to keep populations down. In practice they ran into violent neighbors long before they ran out of land to farm och game to hunt. For security reasons they had to leave large swathes of land as buffers between villages. These buffer lands made excellent hunting and foraging grounds, which helped feed the population, but any tribe that settled these lands more permanently would most probably be raided and killed by neighboring villages."
So "being free of food pressure" != "living in a utopian paradise".
We've decided violence is only good when carried out by the state, but if you take a look around, it's quite popular. Our entertainments dwell on subjects of human violence, and many of our recreations are forms of simulated violence. It is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds.
> [Violence] is second only to sex amongst things that occupy our minds.
This might be a hyperactive, coked-up view of humanity. Ultimately, we're mammals. And, have you ever kept a mammal as a pet? Their favorite things are basically eating and finding cozy places to sleep, whether that's in a pool of sunlight or in someone's lap. Indeed, getting a good meal and a comfortable night's sleep are among my highest priorities. If I had to worry about jungle-tribes attacking me, I'd probably start walking until I'd crossed the Bering Strait -- or I'd build a raft and go set out for Austronesia. A sunny island and some coconut trees, that's all I need. A honey too? Sure, that'd be nice, but I'm not going to swing war-clubs around over it. I'd have to reach an extremely high level of annoyance before anything came to that. I'd much prefer to slowly carve giant stone heads.
Some mammals are warm and cuddly but far from all of them are. Wolverines are mammals but I wouldn't want to have one as a pet. Chimps will quite literally rip your arms out of their sockets if you get on their wrong side. Lions, tigers, bears, hippos, orcas... all mammals, but none of them are good pet material.
Even many (larger) dogs aren't good pets: just like chimps, they'll viciously attack you (or your child) on a whim. I'm not sure why anyone wants a "pet" capable of such destructive power. Even cats can turn violent, but they're so small that they can't hurt people much if they go berserk. Same goes for the "toy" size dogs.
The advantage off agriculture is not quite so clear. Early farming was barely more efficient, one farmer barely producing more than they themselves consumed. And the decrease in diversity of foodstuffs made them each individually less nourished compared to the variety of berries and nuts the foragers would eat. Hunter gatherer societies actually had lots of free time. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle. What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership.
>Hunter gatherer societies actually had lots of free time. Finding food wasn't a constant struggle.
If hunter gathers had so much free time, they must have had a lot of sex. And yet despite this, their populations never reached that of agrarian societies. This means that either they didn't live such abundant lives or they did for certain period and either starved or killed each other when their environment reached carrying capacity.
>What farming societies had is organization of force and a concept of land ownership
What farming society had was organization and numbers. It's odd to claim that people who grew up with a hoe or parchment end up more violent than those that grew up with a bow. Until the invention of firearms, hunter gatherers tended to be the better fighters. The way that kings and emperors defeated them was my pitting them against each other, but if they managed to unite, they were unstoppable, like Atila the Hun or Genghis Khan.
The huns and mongols were pastoralists, not hunter gatherers. A hunter gatherer society can’t maintain a large enough population in a given geographic area to compete with agrarian or pastoralist cultures, in terrain suitable to those lifestyles.
Also above a fairly low threshold how many children a woman has isn’t proportional to how much sex she has. One man can have sufficient sex with several dozen women to keep them at a maximal rate of child production.
Many, many animals do also. Tigers inform each other of their whereabouts through complex scent markings that contain pheromones, and they violently defend their territory. The American black bear does so similarly. Male mice are territorial and do not tolerate unfamiliar males within their home range. Many lizards are territorial. Fish territories are generally ruled by a single individual or breeding pairs. Active root segregation and the defence of space by plants indicates that plants are probably also territorial. So "the concept" of land ownership is not remotely a uniquely human trait.
Even many agricultural societies still had seasonal nomadic tendencies during which they hunted and gathered. Many sedentary societies lived and worked communally without much social stratification. The reason we associate agriculture with centralization is that centralized agricultural societies conquered the others, not that centralization is inherent to agriculture.
To elaborate on this point: without agriculture centralization wasn't advantageous (or possible) but with agriculture centralization is advantageous--so centralized societies outcompete and are "selected for" over non-centralized societies and we end up with a "genotype" of societies having the trait of centralization.
If anything, farming made societies more susceptible to famine. Specialization of labor and dependence on a specific plot of land made it much harder to simply move somewhere else when food was scarce. Hunter-gatherers and herders were almost always nomadic and moved to wherever food was available.
