this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
512 points (94.4% liked)

Funny

13560 readers
1453 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] remon@ani.social 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think that has mostly been debunked. Even the hunter gatherers were much more gathering than hunting, in the big picture. And fishing is probably more relevant than meat (if we're making that distinction). And later it was really agriculture that made our species what it is and it's very much the grains (and rice) that made the big difference.

Not a vegan btw.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] remon@ani.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

I agree. Still, the distinction is a very cultural one. So many cultures, even civilisations can trace their beginning back to a coastline or river. Hunting things like mammoths was actually quite rare, but it makes for better stories. Taxonomically there isn't even such a thing as a "fish".

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you are giving a very eurocentric description of early humanity

[–] remon@ani.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You think? Most of the great fishing civilisations I think of are (South East) Asian, Indian, Japanese etc.

(Some of that might be based on Age of Empires info)

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm mostly referencing your allusion to agriculture as a developmental milestone