Scarfleece

There are plenty of talented, productive people who aren't self-starters. Your company will be missing out on them. You can easily say they're the wrong people, but you could also say you're the wrong leader.

Rant: Not everyone is an isolation-loving codemonkey. Some people need the feelings of team involvement, urgency and repercussions. If I'm just left to sit in the corner all day, and no one knows what I'm doing, and no one gives a shit if I do nothing... guess what? I'm going to end up doing nothing. Perhaps people like me are flawed, but we're still very talented and capable -- and not every company can afford to pass over the extroverted developers.

You probably think you're doing women a favour with this nitpicky attitude, but it only trivializes the focus of the issues to the wording choice of a single fucking person. Let the little things slide.

If you're an alcoholic, you don't work as a wine taste tester, and you certainly don't keep an infinitely-replenishing liquor cabinet at home.

"Wanting enough food" is not the same as "always wanting more".

Just because someone changed their means of obtaining food doesn't mean they did it out of an unquenchable thirst for more. It's that simple.

Same irrational presumption as the other guy, see my response.

I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".

You're making the presumption that people adopted agriculture because it "gave them more", when there could be a vast number of other reasons for adopting it.

More than likely, the first tribes that started becoming farmers did so because the area they lived in become bad for obtaining food (whether due to the extinction of big game events, or moving to a naturally inhospitable area). Because of the nature of agriculture, this gave them a lot more power, and they started conquering tribes.

When your choice is between "get slaughtered by the farmers", "have your food supply diminished by the farmers", or "become a farmer", guess which choice you pick?

This is all speculation, though. I'm merely trying to get you to realize that there are many reasons for technological progress (esp. the adoption of agriculture), the least of all being that "it's human nature to want more".

  It's human nature to want more.

You pulled this out of your ass, and it's nonsense. Any anthropological study will tell you that hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get. Anecdotally, there are vast amounts of people around the world who don't "want more".

Why is there a push for crickets, grinded-up-bug-meatballs and insect flour when there's one that people aren't actually disgusted by -- escargot?