Did Bread or Beer Create Civilization?

submitted by ruperttaylor from delishably.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Right, so, if you give some bread or beer to chimps, they become civilized!

But seriously, of course not.

This is materialist (Marxist-like) nonsense.

The brilliance of some people, who also happened to drink wine not beer, created civilization.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think it's more the processes you have to go through to harvest wheat and brew beer which causes people to civilise.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Only that the civilizers, the Hellenes and Romans, happened to drink wine ... so beer has nothing to do with it.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Greece wasn't a great civiliser.

They were great because they were a small nation who achieved a lot within their nation. Persia thought they were a minor nuisance.

But both existed many hundreds of years after the original civilisations.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Writing, which is an essential aspect of civilization, was indeed invented by the Sumerians well before 5th century BC Greece.

However, in terms of governance, the Persians and everybody else used the same system (government by some 'Alpha male', with perhaps some subservient allies) most commonly used in apes, including non-human ones, like chimps and gorillas.

Most peoples' instincts draw them to this so strongly that they'll invent some imaginary eternal alpha-male dictator/emperor/king/warlord/lord-deity to worship, lest, god forbid, they should find themselves without one.

What the Greek miracle achieved is to invent (besides philosophy/science, the Logos/logic, reason over superstition, medicine, etc.) politics, Democracy and everything else we consider truly civilized.

Basically, that you're not, today, the subservient bitch of some warlord or rabbinate (claiming to speak for some invisible supreme warlord in the sky) is thanks to some great thinkers in 5th century BC Greece.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is materialist (Maxist-like) nonsense. Serious question, did you mean Marxist-like? And materialist? Not sure what that has to do with any of this even the article.

I guess that both are nutritional in similar ways (carbs), and both bring people together. Do we really need to know which was first in this scenario? They both come from a move from hunter/gatherer to agrarian. Both have their part to play. I do prefer beer though.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

did you mean Marxist-like?

yes.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's a tendency to dismiss the creative brilliance of a group of people and to instead assign their brilliance to economic factors:

Materialist conception of history

Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers, especially Condorcet, the utopian socialist Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) formulated his own materialist interpretation of history, similar to those later used in Marxism, analyzing historical epochs based on their level of technology and organization and dividing them between eras of slavery, serfdom, and finally wage labor. According to the socialist leader Jean Jaurès, the French writer Antoine Barnave was the first to develop the theory that economic forces were the driving factors in history.

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

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks. I still don't think that's what's going on here. I don't think the author was attributing any one person with brilliance due to bread or beer, just making the case as to which one really lead the charge to societal evolution. I'd say simply moving from hunter-gatherer to an agrarian society was the biggest factor. Being able to grow and store crops allowed humanity to have more time for other pursuits like education, technology, economics, etc. If we were still tromping around the woods for our next meal every day, there's not much room to ponder anything or even plan for much else but the next empty stomach.

I like Jarod Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. Just considering what was the biggest factor in holding back the Papua New Guineans from evolving past the stone age we can see that it's the lack of arable land and staple crops. I don't think it's really about bread or bear, but agriculture in general that pushed us to a new level.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, agriculture was certainly a factor, a necessary, but (and here's the thing) not a sufficient factor on the path to civilization.

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. By that logic, beer and bread are even less of a factor.