Re: Why Python When There Is Perl?

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:22:07 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2024-04-05, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

Thank goodness for that. Because you realize that the transition to
agriculture improved the life spans of those societies, compared to
the older nomadic way of life.

>
But did it improve the quality of life?

 
I think a lot of the Indian tribes grew more successful after getting
horses and becoming nomadic, rather than farmers. You can almost
certainly say the same for the Mongolians.

Horses were an improvement but I think many were more or less nomadic in
the plains states and Rockies. Eastern tribes like the Iroquois were
agricultural and did better than the tribes further north where the
climate made agriculture iffy.

At times agriculture was self defeating. The Hohokam around Phoenix had a
large scale network of irrigation ditches. The theory is irrigation
increased the salinity of the soil to the point where it wouldn't support
agriculture.  Casa Grande may have lasted longer but the course of the
river changed and for whatever reason it was abandoned.

The Pima had an interesting setup. The riverine Pima were settled and had
agriculture. The desert Pima were nomadic, although they did have places
where they built dams in the washes. If it rained, the catchment was
enough to grow a crop. If it didn't rain they were out of luck. In that
case they would go visit their riverine cousins, put on shows and dances,
and work for them until the next cycle. It was sort of a welfare program.