People usually think of the fall of ancient kingdoms as big tragedies, like losing something very valuable. But Scott suggests we should think differently about these events. What we call a "collapse" can just be a large kingdom breaking into smaller communities, which isn't always bad. It could be more like these places were just changing the way they were organized, rather than totally falling apart. This idea makes us question whether centralized states are always better, and reminds us that history isn't just a straight path of increasing complexity; it can go in cycles, with states forming together and breaking apart over time.

The development of farming and creation of states may not have been good for everyone. Scott compares collecting taxes, which we usually see as a normal part of running a state, to raiding, which we think of as a violent act. This makes one question whether early states were really that different or better than groups that raided. The following sentence "Raiding is our agriculture," shows that different cultures have their own ways of getting what they need, and raiding was just as valid as farming for some people. This idea challenges the usual story that farming was always a step forward.

Scott questions the common belief that the start of farming and the creation of states were purely positive developments. He suggests these developments brought diseases and social inequalities as more people started living closely together under state control. This challenges the assumption that moving from a nomadic lifestyle to settled farming was entirely beneficial. Instead he points out that these changes also brought issues like disease and inequality, complicating the idea of progress.