The curse of the potato
washingtonpost.com
The curse of the potato
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: The curse of the potato
#2Showing Ireland as being dependent on roots and tubers in pre-colonial times is just plain wrong. It was the colonisers who brought the potato to Ireland.
This makes me suspect that the data is being made to fit the theory here and that they didn't want to leave out Ireland because, well, people would expect it to be there in any article about the impact of the potato :)
Re: The curse of the potato
#3Showing Ireland as being dependent on roots and tubers in pre-colonial times is just plain wrong. It was the colonisers who brought the potato to Ireland. This makes me suspect that the data is being made to fit the theory here and that they didn't want to leave out Ireland because, well, people would expect it to be there in any article about the impact of the potato :)
Turnips and beets are roots too.
Re: The curse of the potato
#4I'm not convinced by "complex hierarchies and taxation schemes". It sounds just as plausible that grain was one of the first really tradeable forms of food, so people became able to trade non-food-related skills for food, with people from further away. Your ability to do this is badly limited if you're using wet foods like potatoes, because you are only able to trade with people fairly nearby before the potatoes start sprouting; but with grain you can send your son off to the market three hours' wagon-ride away with a month's worth of crop, for instance.
Re: The curse of the potato
#5Grain crops can be burned in the field by attackers,
as well as stolen. The WP article seems to overlook the
possibility of slavery in early cultures, which would
put social choices about crops into a vastly different
dynamic.
Re: The curse of the potato
#6It's an interesting theory, but as with all of these kind of theories, mostly conjecture.
Crops are a cornerstone of human society, so it stands to reason that different crop types would after societies differently. I think this theory might be a factor in human development, but I think it would be a small one.
Re: The curse of the potato
#7Showing Ireland as being dependent on roots and tubers in pre-colonial times is just plain wrong. It was the colonisers who brought the potato to Ireland. This makes me suspect that the data is being made to fit the theory here and that they didn't want to leave out Ireland because, well, people would expect it to be there in any article about the impact of the potato :)
And why is most of Europe except Ireland and Spain left out of the maps ? That alone suggests they could be cherry-picking the data.
Re: The curse of the potato
#8 By the early 18th century, Japan had developed full-on derivatives markets (not just futures but CDS-style bets) for its rice crops.
I like the "portability/storability" hypothesis this article is proposing for societal development. If only because it becomes a proxy for financial systems. And you don't have to "convince" people that your money is useful: You can always eat it!
Re: The curse of the potato
#9I loved the starting premise that it was so much better to develop large, hierarchical, societies.
Better for whom?
Better for surviving contact with other societies, sure.
Better for quality of life for the average person? Probably not so much.
Re: The curse of the potato
#10I love subjects like this. But, I have a hard time believing its conclusions because it reveals more of our modern modes and assumptions than the prehistoric ones.