Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of agriculture to hunting and gathering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Jared Diamond makes the argument that when humans decided 10,000 years ago to no longer be hunter-gatherers and made the decision to become sedentary and start domesticating their animals and crops, the result is that the human race has experienced a steady downfall. Diamond makes the point that “with agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism that curse our existence,” (Diamond). While the present system certainly is far from being perfected, Diamond’s various complaints and solutions certainly would not be of much use in the present time either. Diamond states that the reason hunter-gatherer groups became agriculturists was simply because it was easier to create more food for your individual group if it was grown, this statement does have validity. Everyone would be responsible for themselves and would be expected to help out. There wouldn’t be the constant grumbling that there are so many people being lazy and living off of handouts like there are in the modern world today. There is also a valid argument that sexism probably would not be as prevalent either. If everyone in the group is responsible for the exact same thing and everyone is always on the move, there certainly would not seem to be much time left for gender stratification like there is in the modern world where the woman is expected to provide child care, perform housework, as well as usually have an outside of the home place of employment. There also would not be as large of a population as based on Diamonds’ statement, “ nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four year intervals by infanticide and other means,” (Diamond). While certainly not advocating any form of infanticide, if a woman only has... ... middle of paper ... ...le Jared Diamond does make several valid points, there is no purpose or anything to be gained by living in the past or wondering what may have been. Humans have become quite accustomed to the conveniences that have developed over the centuries, even if they have to work harder for them. Humans work longer and harder to achieve these things, but humans have also become rather lazy as well. For example, the average American spends their day in an air-conditioned work-space then comes to an air-conditioned home to watch television and use various electronic devices after hitting the local fast-food place for dinner. The population of America alone would be quite drastically reduced if some catastrophic event forced them to once again become hunter-gatherers. Works Cited Diamond, J. (1987). The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover, 8(5), 64-66.
The Europeans lived nomadic lifestyles centered on sheer will to survive. Conquering the wild was dependent on simply finding food and shelter. Men were no longer controlled by civilization and had a sense of confusion when faced with the environment. “In addition civilized men faced the danger of succumbing to the wilderness of his surroundings and reverting to savagery himself” (Nash, 2014, p. 24). It was not until around ten thousand years ago when man began to realize that they were essentially at the top of the food chain and could control their environment to an extent instead of their environment controlling them. At this time, they began to settle into an agriculture society. Nash (2014) stated, “For the first time humans understood themselves to be distinct from and, they reasoned, better than the rest of nature” (p. xx) Control was an important concept when achieving
The article by Jared Diamond called “The End of The World as We Know Them” explains to us we have the chance to change our future from previous civilianization like Mayans. One alternative that we can infer is a stronger focus on benefiting the earth and not our self. For example instead of using war to gain more resources from other countries and cause more damage to other civilization, we should all live in peace and live natural energy from the sun like solar panels. If we keep the ground that we live on, we can keep our lives that we dwell on.
Jared Diamond Argues that the worst mistake in Human History is the invention and widespread introduction of agriculture, because it has created a plethora of social, economic, and health problems for the word. One example of this is when the article states, “Hunter-Gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition.” This illustrates that the author's main argument is that agriculture was the worst mistake in human history because it shows how agriculture has negatively impacted health of both early farmers and people today by creating mass produced bulk crops that are low in nutrition. Furthermore, another example
This Fleeting World: A Short History of Humanity, the author, David Christian provides a well-informed and a coherent thesis. Christian supported his historical interpretations with many factual details of three eras throughout history: Foraging, Agrarian, and the Modern era. For each section, Christian would explain and inform us with a variety of explanations he can do to give us a visual and knowledgeable understanding of history. He helps to bring our understanding of the past by enabling us to know how we existed today, why is present day different from the past, and what people did back then in order to
The environmental movement in politics is often overplayed causing people to loose interest in the issue, but Jarred Diamond makes it impossible to ignore the issue in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Jared Diamond hopes to catch as many peoples attention as he can; the name alone, “Collapse”, makes him appear to be an alarmist looking for attention. He has just cause though for blowing the whistle on society. He makes parallels to previous failed societies and to modern societies showing how the practices that we employ are similar to these failed societies. He is suggesting that America, as well as other countries, are headed down the path of ecocide more possible a global ecocide. Through his extensive research and numerous examples he makes it impossible to argue with his thesis. While all of examples seem redundant and like he is over emphasizing the point he does this to show his thoroughness. He also does it to show that he is correct. Diamond does not want to be wrong; he is a major author who gets a lot of attention when he releases a book. People look to discredit Diamond’s work. Due to this he gives ample resources to support this thesis.
People may say that mistakes just hold scientists back and provide obstacles. John Denker says, “scientists worked to avoid mistakes.” He says that scientists did not just make one mistake that led to a big discovery, but they invented their products little by little, trying to make it perfect. Mistakes may hold you back sometimes,
I completely disagree with Jared Diamond. I disagree with him because his view on hunting and gathering isn’t a for sure thing either. If you were a hunter and gatherer you couldn’t guarantee that you will catch or find anything on a certain day. “Also the berries hunters and gatherers catch can sometimes be bad or not meant for eating” (Worst Mistake Ever). If you were just hunting and gathering and something went wrong with what you find (or don’t find), you have nothing to fall back on. As oppose to farming, if a crop fails the people can fall back to hunting and gathering and still
John McNeill, in his informative book, Something New Under the Sun, he discusses how the twentieth century brought the world into a steady decline. Although the world has improved technology-wise, it has also had a decline that overshadows the improvement we have seen. McNeil goes on to prove that it is humans, with our new technology are the reason behind this fateful decline. The world’s population has positively and negatively affected the twentieth century world by bringing “ecological changes” that will forever change the world(4).
The blessing and curse of the Agricultural Revolution is advocated with its augmentation and dissemination. Taking the stipulative definition of “blessing” and “curse” from the original premise, one can only superimpose the layman’s terms of “negative” and “positive”. Upon examination of the two classifications within the Neolithic Period and ancient Mesopotamian civilization one can confirm the premise. Therefore, the agriculture revolution was a blessing and a curse for humanity. Human society began to emerge in the Neolithic Period or the New Stone Age. This new age began around 9,000 B.C.E. by the development of agriculture in the region surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and what is commonly referred to as “The Fertile Crescent” located in West Asia.1 The very development of agriculture had benefited humans by no longer having to move about in search of wild game and plants. Unencumbered by nomadic life humans found little need to limit family size and possessions and settled in a single location for many years. One negative aspect of this settling is that the population increased so much so that wild food sources were no longer sufficient to support large groups. Forced to survive by any means necessary they discovered using seeds of the most productive plants and clearing weeds enhanced their yield.2 This also lead humans to develop a wider array of tools far superior to the tools previously used in the Paleolithic Period or Old Stone Age. The spread of the Agricultural Revolution in the Neolithic Period also cultivated positive aspects by creating connections with other cultures and societies. Through these connections they exchanged knowledge, goods, and ideas on herding and farming.3 Another major positive aspec...
It is a known fact that the world population is increasing without bound; however, there is a debate if this increase is a good thing or if it will prove catastrophic. The article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin discusses how the ever-increasing world population will exhaust the world of its natural resources, and eliminate human’s capability for survival. On the other side of the argument is Julian L. Simon who wrote “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment.” This article proposes the theory that with an increase in population, humans’s quality of life is amplified. One particular issue that they both mention and have drastically different views on is the future of agriculture and human’s ability to sustain it.
This paper will thus first wonder why humanity always progresses. Is it simply an intrinsic feature of human beings, or is it a need to survive? Second, what is its goal in this process? Last, it will discuss the consequences of progress for humanity.
The choice to change to an agricultural society may have actually been the best choice available when considering the conditions that existed at the time of the dramatic change from a primarily hunter-gather society to an agricultural society, it may have been the ...
The development of agriculture allowed humans to focus on pursuits other than survival and support larger populations, both of which spurred social, technological, and intellectual advancements. Previous hunter-gatherer populations were limited by the parent’s ability to care for one child at a time while still focusing on their own survival and by the number of people that can be supported by the available amount of food. Once these barriers were crossed, crucial requirements to instigate and promote complex civilizations were met. Domestication of animals is an example of early feedback from this milestone. Daniel Webster, an influential political figure in the nineteenth century, proposed that “... cultivation of the earth is the most important
The culture of hunter/gatherer society was the least damaging to the environment in the long term before humans developed agriculture. There are several reasons for this. First, human population was much smaller in comparison to what it became during the agrarian age. Second, hunter/gatherer societies tended to be largely nomadic, which allowed the environment time to recover and regenerate whatever natural resources were used. Third, humans simply did not have the technologies to further exploit the environment. Human population was much smaller during the time of hunter/gatherer societies due to high rates of infant morality, infectious diseases, and social morality - infanticide, geronticide, and warfare (Southwick 128). Fewer people mean fewer demands on the environment. With growth in human population, the grasses and animal populations humans used for sustenance did not have time to recover, which turned into humans using the earth's natural resources in an unsustainable manner (class discussion 02.14.03). Humans living in agrarian society do not necessarily use the environment's resources in an unsustainable manner, but the greater the population density, the more land will be needed to support that population in a sustainable manner. As resources become more and more scarce, field owners will be less willing to let land lay fallow (class discussion 02.21.03). Humans then found a "tech fix" with the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals. Cipolla calls it the first great economic revolution (Cipolla 18). The development of agriculture lead to the development of communities, city-states, civilizations, and other settlements. The social structure that formed around agriculture brought about the possibility of specialization within a society, since not everyone had to hunt and gather all the time. Instead of living in an ecologically sustainable manner like the hunter/gatherers, people started living in an economic manner (Southwick 128). Specialization enabled the development of social institutions such as religion and government, and agriculture necessitated the development of irrigation.
Many people are needed to reap a field when the crops are ready. Therefore, many children must be born. The birth rates in third world cultures are very high as a result. Males are obviously preferred. Because of the...