Compare And Contrast Hunter-Gatherer And Agriculturalism

He explains how farmers are highly susceptible to malnutrition, anemia, infectious diseases due to being crowded together, degenerative conditions due to hard physical labor, starvation, and sexual inequality due to women being released of their hunting duties and pressured to produce offspring to tend to the fields. Moreover, he supports his idea by explaining how hunter-gatherers have sufficient leisure time for painting and sculpting, sleep a good deal, work less hard than farmers, and have healthier diets due to the abundance of wild plants and animals available. The diet of hunter-gatherers contains high protein and well balance of proteins compared to farmers who can only consume one or a few foods from their

Hunter- gatherers was able to consume many variety of foods, such as animals meat, berries, nuts, roots etc which are high in proteins and fiber. Farmers can only consume the crops they grew, which is limited. Additionally, the main commonly crops are rice, corn, and wheat, which is high in carbs and lacked fiber, vitamins, and proteins. As a result, farmers’ diet consists of carbs and fats, but no vitamins or proteins. The second risk is limited crop production. Farmers are easily opened to risk of starvation if their crops fail to grow. The final risk to agriculture is epidemic diseases. Agricultural encouraged farmers to get together in crowded societies in order to trade their crops, which can easily lead to spread of contagious diseases and

The transition from the traditional hunter gatherer societies, in to an agriculture based living system, has allowed humans to increase their population size, putting strains on the Earth’s environment. Agriculture has also brought along with it a decrease in women’s roles in the community, while also bringing about a class system where the wealthy rule, and were the weak and poor obey. As humans began to domesticate more plants and animals, they settled in permanent areas. The Change from hunter gatherer benefited few, but had dire consequences for the earth and groups with in it. One such consequence was the population increase, which has lead to major issues throughout history, and one that has ties to current global issues.

From the early prehistoric society until now, we often heard the word “adaptation”, which means the process of changing something or changing our behavior to deal with new situations. The ways people adjust their natural environment varies according to time, place, and tribe. Foraging is common way of adaptation that people uses for most of human history; however because of the population pressure, some people adopt agriculture to fulfill their need. This essay, will discuss the positive and negative aspects of life in hunting and gathering societies compared to the agricultural societies based on Martin Harris’ article “Murders in Eden” and Jared Diamond’s article “The Worst Mistake in the History of Human Race.”

Pastoral societies differed from their agricultural because pastoral societies supported less people, since they had generally less productive economies, and the lived in scattered areas. They also generally offered women higher status, fewer restrictions, and a greater role in public life because they were needed, since people did not tend to specialize in things. Pastoral societies were also far more mobile, whereas in agricultural societies, people would have large populations because of their environment and their ability to grow food. They also lived in one area, and had had people who specialized in different things which brought down the status of women.

Compare and contrast life in foraging societies with life in agricultural societies after the Agricultural Revolution

Early agricultural societies differed from those of the Paleolithic era in many different ways. They were two similar and different things. The Paleolithic era was more towards not staying in one specific area. They wanted to follow where their food went. In the agricultural societies, many people leaned towards being a lot less nomadic. They stayed in one spot and decided to farm for food.

One reason why farming was the worst mistake in the history of the human race is because it led to the division of social classes. When people were hunter-gatherers, it required no special skill, they couldn’t store their own food, and “they live[d] off the wild plants and animals they obtained each day” (5). Therefore, there cannot be any social classes because everyone was

The more animals were killed, the lesser amount of animals exist, decreasing the amount of food available for people, especially settlements that rely on hunter-gathering. Through time a gradual change occurred with a switch to animal and plant domestication. More time needs to be put in to the development but once the plant and animal counts start to thrive, the end result flourishes. Domestication creates a larger food source, which can support larger populations. The food can be stored for a surplus amount creating more time for technological advancements. Diamond explains that one acre of domesticated food can feed 10-100 times more than hunter-gathers. Animal domestication can be used for pets, help with crops, and horses can contribute in battle. If a civilization didn’t switch to domestication over hunting, they probably didn’t last very

One of the greatest revolutions in the history of homo sapiens was the adoption of agriculture, which changed the face of communities at every level of class. Though this change was built upon new ideas and allowed us to provide more food for more people, was it in fact a positive change at the time? Today in 2017, we can all look around and see where the agricultural revolution has gotten us in the long run, but authors such as Yuval Noah Harari (2011) claim that during the infancy of the agricultural revolution, life for the average citizen was often a worse one than that of the common forager. A change in food production created many other changes, such as permanent human settlement, biologically unconventional labor, and a larger population density. This paper explores the pros and cons of the agricultural society and the hunter-gatherer society

(Hillel, 1992) This gave humans as a species an overall better chance at survival. One of the main issues that hunter-gatherers faced was the uncertainty of their food supply. This was undoubtedly one of the motivators

Human beings are social creatures. We organize ourselves in bands of efficiency to make our lives easier. From the tiniest village in the Amazon to the great cities of Ney York and Tokyo, everyone plays a role in which we work, entertain, reproduce, aid, build and provide. However, unlike other animals on this planet, our socialization affects our provisions, that is how and what we eat and drink. Consequently, the designs that fluctuate societal nature over periods of human history have changed the method and means by which we tackle agriculture.

Hunter gatherers have a small population. They want a small population because they can move around more easily. Agriculturalists can support

The revolutionizing transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture was a central shift in the way homo sapiens lived that occurred twelve thousand years ago. Consequently, several factors contributed to this astonishing modification of life including increasing population size, favorable environments such as the Nile River in Egypt and the Fertile Crescent in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture allowed for mass production of food in order for the sustainability of the increasing population size, but with agriculture also came specialization and the division of labor ultimately leading to moral inequality.

How did early civilizations effectively develop and utilize early plants and vegetables to move from hunter-gatherers to agriculturists, and what were the impacts socially, politically, and technically? “Agriculture did not emerge from an untapped resource base or randomly distributed family or tribal units of Homo sapiens sapiens. It emerged as the result of efforts by highly organized ecologically canny communities composed of skilled hunter-gatherers.” In the beginning of what is considered burgeoning civilization, humanities ancestors were what were called hunter-gatherers. They moved from place to place, following the source of their food in order to survive the brutal aspects of early life. If they could not find food, or not find it in sufficient amount, they would starve and eventually die off. Thus, the only decision facing them was to relocate their tribes in order to better take advantage of the available game. As the second portion of their name implied, they were also considered gatherers, in which they subsisted on whatever grains and green vegetables or fruits they could find to eat. It was this kind of lifestyle which led to a smaller, tribal mindset in which you ate what you could, when you could. Over time this began to change, with the establishment of agricultural practices which allowed for availability of much needed crops and the decision of tribes to establish permanent communities, as well as the increase in both number of members and life terms.