http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

This is an article from 1987 - I've just discovered this writer, apologies if you've all already read his stuff. He has also written books on human evolution, sexuality and society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

We could never have been as successful as a species (population) without agriculture. This has come at a cost to the individual through the damage we see grain does to individual health.

Agriculture is the biggest success of the species, not the worst mistake. To look at it any other way is extremely short sighted and too much concerned with the individual rather than the species.

I think it's a matter of opinion as to what makes a species "successful".  Personally, I don't think population numbers measure a species' success any more than weight numbers measure an individual's success.

Then how would you measure the success of a species? The only other metric that would have any broad importance would be longevity of the species, and that is a tricky one until after the fact. Agriculture could go either way with regards to the longevity of the species.

You are right though in that it is a discussion in itself.

Then how would you measure the success of a species? The only other metric that would have any broad importance would be longevity of the species, and that is a tricky one until after the fact. Agriculture could go either way with regards to the longevity of the species.

You are right though in that it is a discussion in itself.

It might be an interesting discussion.

I personally do include longevity of a species, but I also include other factors like geographic distribution:  In my opinion, the fact that humans occupy a variety of econiches worldwide makes us more successful than gorillas, which occupy one or two econiches in a localized area, for example.  Contrariwise, I don't think the fact that there are more wildebeest than lions makes the wildebeest more successful, as the lions have a broader range.

In addition, whether a species goes extinct by changing into other specieses or goes extinct by dying out counts for me.  By my measure, Australopithecus africanus, which led to us, is more successful than Paranthropus boisei, which is believed to have just died out, for this reason.

I do think the jury is out on agriculture.  I strongly question whether we can survive on agriculture for the millions of years needed to fully adapt to an agricultural diet.  On the other hand, it could serve as a bridge to something more sustainable - maybe something based on ranching.  What would normally happen with a species using a new paradigm - in this case very large brains - and reaching a broad distribution would be differentiation into multiple species, but if anything, humans today are homogenizing rather than differentiating.

Quote

I think excess population forced us to resort to agriculture over more healthy ways of living. 

I disagree, I think it's the other way around: that agriculture led to increased population. Population would have been controlled by, among other things, the amount of food available.

I'd say it is almost certainly a mix of the two. A diminishing food source forced us to explore other foods which led to agriculture which then led to a population boom.