Stone Age Economics

All throughout history, humans have come up with innovations that have brought both positive and negative changes to the way people live. This all started around 10,000 BCE, when people developed agriculture. The first nomads started off by moving from place to place, hunting and gathering food… but as people developed agriculture, they saved a lot more time. After agriculture developed, the humans learned many things such as farming and taming wild animals for their own use. This time in history was called the Neolithic Revolution… which lasted about 6,000 years, until 4,000 BCE. The big change in the way people got their food and how they lived, resulted to positive and negative changes of human innovations of the Neolithic Revolution. So,

* The fundamentals of animal economics are how big is a home range at various seasons, what food and cover must it include, when and how is it defended against trespassing and whether ownership in an individual, family, or group affair. (December, pg. 86)

Poverty began by the oppressing powerful inhabitants creating trades in which the non-powerful inhabitants could not benefit. Even before currency, when barter was the main median of exchange, those who could hunt or gather better than others were the ones who survived. Their mentality of obtaining the most and buying the most stuck. They became the ones with the most currency and eventually their descendants obtained this “gene” of always wanting more. Scientists have debated if poverty is genetic and if there is some sort of characteristic that a person has that could influence their want for riches or desire to accumulate more currency. According to the University of Chicago Press, “ there is a causal effect of genetic diversity on economic success, positing that too much or too little genetic diversity constrains development.” They believe that “the level of genetic diversity (heterozygosity) present in a population causes long-lasting effects on economic development.” They argue that if there is more genetic diversity in a population, there can be uneven distribution of economic development.

6. "the original affluent society": Is a term used to describe the Paleolithic societies. This society of hunters and gatherers worked fewer hours because they didn't need that much to

The Indians and English’s definition of wealth often differed due to the way their respective societies functioned. While both groups understood the concept of wealth, their definitions were far from the same. For Indians, wealth is not defined by the property that one possesses or the amount of money in a bank account. Rather, their definition of wealth has a greater dependence on a social power than financial success. This definition was derived by the way they functioned within their society. The lifestyle they led was that of a mobile one. This lifestyle did not support the owning of multiple goods because of the burden it placed on traveling (Cronon 53). As a result, they typically only own goods that would benefit them in some aspect of life, such as tools for farming or hunting, or they would dispose of their belongings was deemed useless (Cronon, 61). The English, on the other hand, viewed wealth as less of a social aspect and more of a financial

Hunting has always been argued in being beneficial or critical to the environment. Especially, in recent world topics as well as the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell. Mr. Sanger Rainsford in “The Most Dangerous Game” changes his opinion on hunting. The short story states, “The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees.” This quote illustrates that Rainsford is expressing his philosophy on what he believes hunting is, and not having a problem with it. As you can see, it is my position that hunting is beneficial to the environment because it balances out the ecosystem, and teaches humans the value of nature.

However, what truly defines poverty? Is it a lack of money, or lack of food or even lack of proper hygiene? Although these characteristics alone or combined can often define people living in poverty, the truth is that these are only perceptions. To live in poverty means that your income falls below the official poverty line for a given family size. In a broader sense, the living conditions of the poor are difficult to measure, both because annual cash income is only one factor related to living conditions, and because the poor are quite heterogeneous (Federman, Garner & Short, 1997). The perceptions or "myths" that the population has about poverty are distinguished by a "high degree of constancy" across generations and by an "equally pronounced capacity for evolution", adapting to changes in knowledge and social circumstance (Blumenburg, 1995 pp.34). Society buying into these myths and some impoverished adhering to the myths feed the fuel for society's beliefs and perceptions.

“The Facts About Hunting.” Friends of Animals And Their Benefits. Friends of Animals And Their Benefits, Web. 8 November 2013

Hunting is the world’s oldest and most productive means of food, yet it has begun to take a turn from its originality. Most “hunters” do hunt for food, but the select few that specifically hunt for the sport and nothing else have begun to sway organizations to the concept of “Anti-hunting.” These institutions have concluded some very critical, and factual, evidence in their opposing arguments on the matter, but in some ways the argumentation presents weakness that has been overlooked; these flaws are menial, but need to be surfaced. These little defects within the following arguments justify the hunter’s right to hunt and harvest game, and Anti- Hunting organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have stated multiple facts about the way hunting has turned against its inventiveness such as: sport hunting as an unnecessary form of cruelty, fair chase of animals, and hunters as conservatives.

Before agriculture became the prevailing source of food for humanity, people had to move around constantly in order to survive. Thus, they were only able to keep the most basic items on them, meaning everyone was viewed as largely equal to one another; a concept like wealth did not exist. By the time villages and cities began to sprout up

There is little information to support claims regarding individuals in the Neolithic period, but it is only safe to assume that by looking at certain artifacts and cultures that followed them one is probable to come across important information. Agricultural cultures were a more advanced version of the Neolithic man, as they emerged during the last years of the era. Most tribes used to focus primarily on fields like hunting, gathering, and herding before experiencing reform and starting to concentrate on agriculture. While earlier cultures were Apollonian in character, later communities were Dionysian.

This paper discusses a hunter’s demand for hunting products and the factors that play a role in determining these demands. Demand theory and the demand curve are analyzed along with the forces that determine hunters demand. External factors such as political, social, and technological factors are examined and how they shift the demand curve. Income effect, elasticity of demand, and the hunter’s indifference curve are also necessary when performing due diligence in determining the demand for a product.

Proponents of these ranches, and the ranchers themselves, see there is an economic good derived from allowing captive animal hunts. For many cultures, hunting has been an honored tradition and was a necessary means for food and supplies. In modern times, most people no longer have to kill animals for subsistence; instead, it is more of a recreation (Institutionalizing harm). As a means of generating income, these private captive ranches charge a sizeable fee for the opportunity to hunt highly prized animals. The cost of a trophy animal can range anywhere from hundreds

First, I would like to discuss the strategy of hunting and gathering, the sole strategy until twelve thousand years ago. Hunting and gathering is a form of subsistence dependent upon wild plants and animals for the majority of the calories of the diet. While its name underscores the importance of hunting in this lifestyle, this is misleading as the majority of caloric needs in societies practicing this strategy are met by gathering wild edible plants and berries.

To start things off, hunting is a major contribution to society. Hunters put so much money into the economy that one could not believe. In fact, in a year, hunters spend upwards of 1 billion dollars a year on tags (“25 Reasons”). Though a lot of that goes back into conservation, a good amount still goes into the economy (“25 Reasons”) About half a million goes back into the conservation(“25 Reasons”) Hunter actually requested an 11% tax on guns, for conservation