Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History of American gun culture and history
History of American gun culture and history
To what extent the role of food has been in world history essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History of American gun culture and history
chapter 11 is the first in Part 3, which is entitled "From food to guns, germs, and steel". Earlier chapters traced how food production rose up is a few areas and spread, at different rates, to other places. This Part begins to show how this change in food production led to the Eurasians getting the guns, germs and steel, which, in turn, led to the answer to Yali's question about why they had all the 'stuff'. When farmers meet hunter gatherers, Diamond points out, the farmers "tend to breathe nastier germs, to own better weapons and aror, to own more powerful technology in general, and to live under (controlled by one central place) governments with able to read and write rich, powerful people better able to wage wars of victorious capture/romantic relationship". Chapter 11 is …show more content…
about why farmers tend to have nastier germs. Diamond first goes briefly over some of the ways germs spread themselves, illustrating with sicknesses such as trichonosis (which has to be ate), to those transmitted by insects ((dangerous disease), disease, (disease spread by insects), sleeping sickness), to those which change the host to make spread easier (syphillis), to those which cause the host to help spread the disease (flu, cold, (dangerous disease with cough), disease (that causes diarrhea)).
He also notes that bacteria change (and get better) more quickly than do the hosts, since they have shorter lifespans. He then explains why many sicknesses happen as widespread diseases; such sicknesses tend to have (more than two, but not a lot of) (features/ qualities/ traits) in common: 1) They spread effectively from an infected person to a healthy one. 2) They are sudden and short-term rather than long-lasting - you either recover or die. 3) Those who recover become unable to be harmed and 4) They are mostly restricted to humans. This makes these sicknesses "crowd sicknesses". A disease cannot spread from person to person if people aren't in close contact on a regular basis. How does all this relate to the central idea? Here's
how: First, because farming and raising farm animals allows denser (groups of people/animals/things), it allows the spread of disease in ways that hunting and gathering does not. But the (groups of people/animals/things) then become unable to be harmed (either in whole or part) to the illness. When they meet up with peoples who do not share that (not able to be harmed/not able to get a disease), the last thing just mentioned group is destroyed. Second, farming-based (communities of people) are not short-lived, so they live in the middle of their own sewage. In fact, many use that sewage as fertilizer. Third, in farming-based (communities of people) many people live close to animals, and we get a lot of sicknesses from animals.
It can because the disease known as spreads very quickly. And when there is so many people it has more people to spread to and affect. Also when you live in the heart of New York there is a lot of people near you at all times. The author Caroline B Cooney was very effective in providing details for the setting. And she gave the reader a whole lot of sensory details to make us see the setting. For all of these reasons shown above is how the setting affected the
The narrator meets with Ishmael many times to better understand the cultural history of humans. According to Ishmael there are two groups of humans the “Takers” and the “Leavers”. Takers are the majority people in society and see themselves as the rulers of the worlds. The Takers feel their destiny is to dominate with the aid of advances in technology and expansed exponentially. The culture of the Takers is in a downward spiral destined to crash now it has gained all of the natural resources the plant has to offer. Ishmael feels that the culture of Takers took off with the Agricultural Revolution. Where as the Leavers choose to live life simply and follow the Nature’s populatio...
Thomas disccuseed thr “paranoid delusions on a societal scale,” that we have against human diseases or our “enemies.” The book contiuniuously uses anaphora by saying that diseases result from “inconclusive negoitions for symbiosis” and misinterpretation of biology” The fact that bacteria can only be harmful from practiacally harming themselves is an interesting point to point out. That shows the reader that the only way they could be harmed from bacteria, wouls be if the bacteria had gotten itself “sick” first. Thomas talks about certain microorganisms that have “advantages in their ability to affect himan beinhg, but that there is nothing to be gained, in an evolutionary sense, by the capacity to caue illness or death.” Another reassuraing statement for readers is when he says, pathogenicy is a disadvantage for most microbes because they are carrying
Wendell Berry writes in his book, “What are people for?” a thesis that modern culture is destroying the agricultural culture. He feels that technology is seen and used as the easy way to produce food faster and more efficiently. With this modern way of farming comes the idea that we need to work smarter not harder which is not always true. The goal is comfort and leisure and Berry feels that this is the reason for the down fall of the agricultural culture. He believes that hard work and pride in workmanship is more important than material goods and money. This was by no means a perfect society. The people had often been violent wand wasteful in the use of land of each other. Its present ills have already taken root in it. Even with these faults, this society appreciated the hard work of farming compared to the easy way of living today.
Why did certain early civilizations thrive and some fail? Jared Diamond, a famous author and scientist, explains in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel. He believes civilizations like the ones in Europe thrived because of geographical luck. Geographic luck is the idea that people in some areas got luckier than others. For example, the Fertile Crescent had a warm, moist climate, and fertile soil to grow wheat and barley, while people that lived in places like Papua New Guinea had to hunt, and forage for their food. Geographic luck aided the European empire, and was the reason they became so powerful. One of the key reasons Europe did so well was farming. Another reason they were able to conquer so much of the world was their well-placed civilization. Finally, Europe’s weapons, made from steel, were much more advanced than the weapons possessed by the rest of the world, and they came from their good geographic placement. Understanding geography’s role in Europe’s technological advancement is important, and to do so you must look at how they became powerful in the first place, which is because of farming, and domestication.
Hunting and gathering is probably a preferable lifestyle compared to a farmer, but it seems a bit over the top to blame absolutely every problem in our society on agriculture. It’s a common argument, but Jared Diamond's theory does seem to be quite an over-simplification. For example, he argues that inequality between sexes could be caused by agricultural because women were made beasts of burden and given greater pressure to work on the fields. However, the root cause of that isn’t agriculture, it’s sexism and stereotyping, because without an outdated sexist mindset no one would treat women differently in the agricultural department, and it is an oversimplification to ignore this. Furthermore, because of farming and globalization people now are given even more opportunity for a diverse diet. Although early farmers had access to only one or a few crops versus hunter-gatherers who had an entire forest of varied food, people nowadays have many more options than both hunter-gatherers and early farmers combined. A grocery store has ten times as many diverse and varying food items as a forest does, providing food from all corners of the world not just a single location or country, allowing people to create a perfectly balanced diet if they so choose. In conclusion, I agree with Jared Diamond's thesis on certain grounds, but I mostly disagree that the introduction of agriculture was the “worst mistake in human
Farming is the main supply for a country back then. The crops that farmers produce basically was the only food supply. That makes famers a very important part of society. Farmers back t...
I first read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel in the Fall 2003 based on a recommendation from a friend. Many chapters of the book are truly fascinating, but I had criticisms of the book back then and hold even more now. Chief among these is the preponderance of analysis devoted to Papua New Guinea, as opposed to, say, an explanation of the greatly disparate levels of wealth and development among Eurasian nations. I will therefore attempt to confine this review on the "meat and potatoes" of his book: the dramatic Spanish conquest of the Incas; the impact of continental geography on food production; and finally, the origins of the Eurasian development of guns, germs, and steel. In terms of structure, I will first summarize the book's arguments, then critically assess the book's evidentiary base, and conclude with an analysis of how Guns, Germs, and Steel ultimately helps to address the wealth question.
Farmers were once known for being able to do everything themselves. They grew their own food and sewed their own clothes. People often yearn for the old days and complain about so many people living in cities. Many farmers had to give up their farms and move to the cities, because of something that happened in the late nineteenth century.
The outburst spread of diseases in a population causes people to panic and become hopeless. The main reason diseases spread is due to unsanitary living styles. Also when a disease first begins, it is really hard to find a cure right away. A very deadly, infectious disease known as Typhus spread during the Holocaust. Typhus is caused by rickettsia and is spread by lice and flees.
In short, he answers the basic questions that are often asked in concern to the Black Death. These topics include the transmission of the plague, the different varieties of the plague, and the different theories over the course of history that have tried to explain the origins of the Black Death. Gottfried successfully supports the thesis with his main arguments being the death toll that resulted from the Black Death, the development of modern medicine, and the effects and transformation the Black death had on Europe. These arguments support the thesis of the Black Death being the greatest biological and environmental event in European history. Many people tend to misunderstand the word, ‘great’ as being synonymous with the idea of something that is positive. The circumstances surrounding the Black Death are very much negative and in this context, ‘great’ means impactful, poignant, and staggering. Gottfried does an excellent job of textually illustrating the greatness of the Black Death while still maintaining an unbiased, onlookers point of view to give the reader a chance to make his/her own analysis of the cons and benefits of the Black Death. To analyze, the following paragraphs will go over Gottfried’s writing and the use of his
Since Plagues and Peoples covers several subjects of knowledge, he helps the reader understand key concepts by fully explaining parasitism and its dependence on humans and animals. People in the field of history, which make up a majority of this books audience, would need more insight into epidemiology to grasp its key concepts. It would not be likely for a historian to be knowledgeable in a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in populations.
Farmers are essentially the back-bone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production, (CSS statistics). Without farmers, there would be no food for us to consume. Big business picked up on this right away and began to control the farmers profits and products. When farmers buy their land, they take out a loan in order to pay for their land and farm house and for the livestock, crops, and machinery that are involved in the farming process. Today, the loans are paid off through contracts with big business corporations. Since big business has such a hold over the farmers, they take advantage of this and capitalize on their crops, commodities, and profits. Farmers are life-long slaves to these b...
... middle of paper ... ... Through it all, farmers are a tight-knit group of men and women who have a mutual respect for nature and each other regardless of what type of farming they choose. Works Cited Cheung, Matt.
Every time a person goes to the store and buys some food that food was grown by a farmer or contain ingredients from the farmer’s crops. A farmer is a good job because the work they do helps to provide the world with food. Without farmers many people would go hungry not knowing how to grow their own food. Without farmers many other products other than food would be gone. Farmers work hard long days and often go unnoticed; however, without them life would be much different.