RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Neolithic Revolution

Neolithic Revolution | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Such a gigantic hit piece that verges so close to going "agriculture evil", only a full burn might fix it "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Presents one fringy side of an alleged debate as fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) The fact that the invention of agriculture led to a huge increase in the scope of inequality in human society and had an adverse impact on human health is mainstream archeology. This relates to just about everything from global warming to "patriarchy".  It does give the lie to the meta-narrative of Progress and the notion that technology improves the human condition, but that can't be helped. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I vote for keep. The neolithic revolution is important for so many reasons. First of all, it occurs before the low end of the young earth timeframe. It is an example of how adaptability and technology drives change, not deities. It is the beginning of us genetically modifying animals and plants around us en masse via artificial selection. It also marks the beginning of evolutionary selection for cross-species pathogens (intelligent design, indeed). It marks the birth of the temple cultures, in which there was more food being produced than being eaten, leading to the invention of the "ordained minister", able to manipulate those around him for his and their mutal reward. It also marks a point in time where heaven arguably had enough of a civilization to work with somewhere on earth that waiting another 5-8000 years to communicate its lessons via human sacrifice looks even crueler still. It is also a period brought up revisionistically by various cranks, from stone age diet pushers to global warming denialists. And so on. It needs work right now, yes, but this is a clear keeper to me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd like the article to say things more like "here's what experts say about this" and less "this is how it happened", but overall I agree with much of it. Agricultural civilizations obviously have their advantages&mdash;How else would we ever have gotten to modern levels of technological advancement? &mdash;but they have notable downsides too and I think pointing those out is relevant to our mission. Though perhaps the article could say a bit more about the positive effects. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 4) Could be improved, but not shitty enough to delete. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * I must say, this article failed to convince me of its thesis that all this was a terrible idea. Essayspace? - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Essayspace. 21:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a shit essay, not a shit article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The denialism is strong with this one, I think. It is quite mainstream anthropology and archeology that the adoption of agriculture during the Neolithic led to the rise of very different societies, much more divided by wealth, rank, and class.  It is mainstream science that these societies produced a class of priests and a different kind of god.  It is mainstream science that these much more hierarchical societies gave rise to a caste whose profession is violence.  They expanded male social prominence at the expense of women.  They gave rise to our first second  (First was the collapse of the big game hunting cultures such as the European Cro-Magnons and the North American Clovis culture after the mass extinctions they caused) crisis of ecological sustainability, and historically we've never handled those really well.  These bits of mainstream science all strongly implicate core concerns of the website's mission.  Unfortunately, they also paint an unflattering portrait of human nature, and I suspect that's the actual problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)