The curse of the potato • Hacker News Board

Re: The curse of the potato

#11

Post by tgflynn » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #3

barking wrote: post #2

Showing 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.

Do we have good information on what the crop distributions were in Ireland prior to 1492 (I assume that's how they define "pre-colonial") ? I wonder how this could really be determined anywhere. I wouldn't think there would be enough archaeological evidence to determine this with much accuracy and it seems unlikely written records from that period would have given sufficient detail either.

Re: The curse of the potato

#12

Post by paganel » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #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!

> Japan had developed full-on derivatives markets (not just futures but CDS-style bets) for its rice crops.

Any English-written resources for that? It sounds really interesting.

Re: The curse of the potato

#13

Post by vinceguidry » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

I can't take an article discussing the New World's technological inferiority seriously if it doesn't mention horses.

Re: The curse of the potato

#14

Post by dagaro » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

Mmm interesting

Re: The curse of the potato

#15

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:43 PM UTC

From the article:

> But the fact that grains posed a security risk may have been a blessing in disguise. The economists believe that societies cultivating crops like wheat and barley may have experienced extra pressure to protect their harvests, galvanizing the creation of warrior classes and the development of complex hierarchies and taxation schemes.

How is that a blessing? Sounds more like a curse.

Re: The curse of the potato

#16

Post by mcguire » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

barking wrote: post #2

Showing 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 :)

What about China? Most of it looks like "large chiefdoms".

Re: The curse of the potato

#17

Post by mcguire » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

The article fails to mention the other downside to roots: a bumper crop last year and a drought this means you still starve.

Re: The curse of the potato

#18

Post by nrgg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:03 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #12

rtpg wrote: post #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!

> Japan had developed full-on derivatives markets (not just futures but CDS-style bets) for its rice crops. Any English-written resources for that? It sounds really interesting.

Check out Wikipedia on the Dōjima Rice Exchange and the references therein.

Re: The curse of the potato

#19

Post by barrkel » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #3

barking wrote: post #2

Showing 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.

Ireland's myths and legends all revolve around cattle, and cattle - milk, specifically - was the primary source of food before potatoes, along with some grain and vegetables:

http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-...

Re: The curse of the potato

#20

Post by dunmalg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

tgflynn wrote: post #11

jameshart wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turnips and beets are roots too.

Do we have good information on what the crop distributions were in Ireland prior to 1492 (I assume that's how they define "pre-colonial") ? I wonder how this could really be determined anywhere. I wouldn't think there would be enough archaeological evidence to determine this with much accuracy and it seems unlikely written records from that period would have given sufficient detail either.

They actually have a pretty good idea of what they ate. Interesting article on it here:

http://www.ravensgard.org/prdunham/irishfood.html

The TLDR of their diet is "mostly pottage and soups, heavy on meat and dairy. Some oats and barley were grown, but a lot of that ended up being made into alcoholic beverages."