The Paradox between Ecological Adversity and Human Civilation

The emergence of agriculture was a major stepping stone in human history. During this birth of agriculture, also known as the Neolithic revolution, humans began inhabiting permanent settlements, grow their own crops, and domesticate both plants and animals for food (Weisdorf, 2005). Considering humans have been hunter-gatherers for the majority of their approximately 7 million years of existence, the emergence of agriculture in the Old World only occurring 10,000-5,000 years ago, marks a significant transformation in food sustenance techniques (Weisdorf, 2005). However, this turning point in history is associated with both positive and negative implications. There is much controversy over whether or not the introduction of

Human societies have also evolved from simple structures of early hunting-and-gathering communities to the more complex cosmopolitan cities of today. The hunting-and-gathering communities were fairly simple societies demanding the minimum of resources. Complexity grew with farming communities and more energy was necessary to sustain the larger populations and the demands of a stable, non-nomadic life. Early civilizations saw an increase in complexity with the introduction of specialization and trade. Which, again, required more energy to sustain even larger communities. Cultural evolution has evolved so much that cities today are only possible because of humans’ ability to control energy by the movement of food across large distances to easily accessible locations (McNeill 2003, 320-321).

The first example of human manipulation of changes within the biosphere is through expansion. The rapid growth of the population has led to expansion in development; the need for more space is causing strain on other living organisms such as plants and animals. Human procurement of forest, grass, and wetlands has weighed on the animal population heavily. As a result of this domination, animals have lost areas they use to thrive in, causing migration and in more serious cases extinction. Animals are a prevalent source of protein for humans, and when a species is threatened by extinction, it not only disrupts the balance of the ecosystem, but it also disrupts the food chain. The more resources that are required to sustain human life, the bigger the need to migrate to surrounding areas in a short period of time (Haines).

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.”

In “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals,” Michael Pollan examines American eating habits. The book is divided into three pieces. The first piece focuses on industrial farming, the second analyzes organic food, and the third discusses hunting and gathering of our own food.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, written by Michael Pollan, gives light to the question, “What should we have for dinner?” that he thinks Americans today cannot answer simply due to the fact that there are too many food options. This book serves as an eye-opener to challenge readers to be more aware and accountable of what is consumed daily. In order to understand fully where our food comes from, we must follow it back to the very beginning. Pollan goes on to discuss three different modern food chains in which we get our food: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer. By tracing our food back to the beginning, we can understand that most of the nutritional and health problems America is going through today can be found on the farms that make our food and the government that can decide what happens. America deals with many food related illness such as, heart disease, obesity, and type II diabetes. Majority of a human and animals diet consists of being corn-fed leading to a high cause of obesity in the United States these are just some of the many diseases that come with over processed foods and diets we are unaware of. In this study, we will highlight the environmental and health issues and impacts related with modern agriculture and how these systems can be made more sustainable.

Michael Pollan the author of Omnivore 's Dilemma discusses and asks, “what should we have for dinner?” He attempts to answer one of the pressing questions of sustainability in today 's society, to save money or to save the planet, and how? Pollan talks about how humans are omnivores and we have the choice to eat whatever we want, no matter the health and sustainability implications of our decisions. Pollan discusses three main food chains, industrial (corn), organic, and hunter/gatherer. He analyzes each food chain, learning eating industrial is basically eating corn, and goes into the complex issues

During the first week of class, we had to read the first few chapters of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. I had never realized as humans we always have to question what we are eating next, and that became apparent to me in the first few pages of the introduction. Animals never have to think about what to eat, they just know. Humans on the other hand have such a variety of foods to choose from that it is often hard to choose. We are always questioning ourselves if it is good to eat or if we should be eating it. The section that we read this week was about the industrialization of corn. I have worked at a fruit market selling around sixty dozen ears or so of corn a day for two years and did not know this

The transition to farming was a turning point in human history since people who remained hunter/gatherers couldn’t produce food as quickly as farmers, and couldn’t produce food that could be stored for a long period of time. Instead of roaming to search different locations for food, farming allowed them to drop seeds in soil that grow next to their

The food we eat and the quantity of it is what industries base their investments on; they use this to their advantage and produce more quantity than quality for us to consume, without taking into consideration the effect this might have on us or on the world as a whole. In the article “When a Crop Becomes King” written by Michael Pollan we see what the excessive use of a crop can do to our health and the environment. The vast production of products made with corn has made it the crop which is grown more than any other in the United States, but the process of adapting to the high consumption of corn came at a high cost. While corn is the easiest and cheapest substitute for sugar and animal food it is also linked to the cause of chronic diseases and serious, long-lasting damage to our ecosystems. The production of certain things is something we might not have control of but what we should have control of is our health and what better way than denying anything that we know might give us a hard time the power to do

In the book Omnivore's Dilemma, author Michael Pollan explains the many deficits that he perceives in the ways in which food is distributed in the United States of America. Pollan's harshest criticisms are aimed at the food production companies and the ways in which they have bastardized the natural system of food production and turned it into a system which is dependent on fossil fuels; specifically the way that processed corn has become a staple of food products including how it is used as a substitute for grass in the feeding of cattle and as corn syrup and similar derivatives to be used to unnaturally preserve packaged food products. Omnivore's Dilemma does make an interesting point about the denaturalization of the food industry, but Michael Pollan overlooks the many benefits of the current system of food production, which allows humans to produce more food on less land than in pre-industrial agriculture which in turn allows for greater sustenance to the human consumer. Additionally, the proposals that Pollan makes are simply not feasible. He believes that the United States should change from an industrialized food distribution system to a model which only uses local produce, a proposal which is not economically logical, particularly in this aggressively depressed economy.

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

Jared Diamond is a professor of Geography at UCLA and a world traveler. He believes that in the past 13,000 years of human history, agriculture has lead humans to conquer, develop and prosper and therefore cause the rise of civilizations. In 1972 he was in New Guinea when he met a local named Yali who asked him a simple question that took years for Diamond to answer. Yali said “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo [goods] and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own”. [Work cited 7] Diamond was profoundly puzzled and couldn’t answer right away. In fact it took him many years to come up with what he thinks is the right answer. ‘Yali’s question’ plays a central role in Professor Diamond’s enquiry into ‘a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years’, leading him into a wide-ranging discussion of the history of human evolution and diversity through a study of migration, socio-economic and cultural adaptation to environmental conditions, and technological diffusion. (Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, p. 22-23)

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.