The curse of the potato • Hacker News Board

Re: The curse of the potato

#21

Post by rtpg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:18 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.

Was trying to find the section in a textbook I had read about this, but this article[0] on the Dojima Market goes into a good amount of detail about this, and is a fun read.

[0]: http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/69204/mod_reso...

Re: The curse of the potato

#22

Post by harigov » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #4

I'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 star…

Isn't that the point behind the article? That the kind of foods that you produce has a bearing on the progress of the society itself.

Re: The curse of the potato

#23

Post by azernik » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #4

I'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 star…

You're thinking on too small a scale. One of the most important commercial activities in the Roman Empire was the importation of grain from across the Mediterranean (especially from Egypt) to the capital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae

Re: The curse of the potato

#24

Post by harigov » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:25 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 :)

This article uses such a broad definition of pre-colonial times. When exactly is that? I don't believe India was almost empty around 1400 AD. Quite contrary, given that there were already well established empires at that time.

Re: The curse of the potato

#25

Post by tgflynn » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #19

jameshart wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Great article, I'm a little skeptical about the sourcing though. Most of the information seems to come from general literature (as opposed to something more objective, like say taxation records). What people choose to write about isn't necessarily what's most common in practice. For example a visitor from France would probably be more likely to write about some strange kind of cheese he's never seen before than the bread that looks more or less similar to what he's been eating everyday.

I don't doubt the importance of dairy but I doubt it accounted for the majority of people's calorie intake.

Re: The curse of the potato

#26

Post by benbreen » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

tgflynn wrote: post #25

barrkel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Great article, I'm a little skeptical about the sourcing though. Most of the information seems to come from general literature (as opposed to something more objective, like say taxation records). What people choose to write about isn't necessarily what's most common in practice. For example a visitor from France would probably be more likely to write about some strange kind of cheese he's never seen before than the b…

Agreed, fascinating thesis but these types of big picture analysis are always as weak as their least reliable source of data. And as others have pointed out, labeling "pre colonial" Ireland as reliant on tubers makes me question their sources. I have the same problem with Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature" which seems hugely convincing until you check the footnotes and realize he's relying substantially on historical data from a single out of date and non peer reviewed source.

Re: The curse of the potato

#27

Post by dunmalg » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #9

I 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.

When speaking in terms of populations, "better" is generally used in terms of outcome, i.e. the sense of "increasing odds of survival". Quality of life and survivability tend to align, but in the cases where they don't, evolution will obviously tend to select for the latter.

I think part of the overarching problem is that there's a tendency by some to frame the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture as some sort of choice, when really the move has been pretty solidly dictated by circumstance. Expanding population drove the development of farming and became a feedback loop with it. The only way to "choose" to remain a hunter-gatherer society would be to either forbid farming, or to impose an artificial limit on population, neither of which are really possible in a decentralized tribal society.

Re: The curse of the potato

#28

Post by eloff » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #15

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.

Probably because the societies that developed hierarchies, taxation, and military conquered their neighbors and grew stronger and more influential in the ancient world.

Re: The curse of the potato

#29

Post by wyager » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #9

I 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.

>Better for quality of life for the average person? Probably not so much.

Sure, if you don't think medicine, technology, or literacy contribute to quality of life. All evidence suggests that, back then at least, large, organized social structures were very important for developing technology.

Re: The curse of the potato

#30

Post by ethbro » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

dmckeon wrote: post #5

Grain 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.

Slavery / undervalued labor is an interesting twist, as I imagine it would factor heavily into the value calculations.

The "more work (but still net positive food production)" vs "storage / transport" calculus seems like it would be interesting as different variables are changed. (Side note: I am not oblivious to the social evil we're talking about, but it is historically relevant)