Using the secondary sources, post an answer to the above. Make sure to have a clear argument/thesis and you must reference at least THREE of the six documents. Your response should be at least one-two paragraphs-one of those paragraphs can be a counterargument (a "however" paragraph) modifying the argument. Think about categories in which it did improve them or didn't and make sure to give an adverb to address the "to what extent" part of the prompt. In the comment box include your name and period of the group. You must respond to at least two other groups-individually.
197 Comments
Period 5, Nicole Hill, Anna Fischer, Emily Lai, and Elisabeth Plum
8/23/2018 03:03:03 pm
Agriculture was not an improvement over hunting and gathering due to the extra leisure time, greater health benefits, and lack of poverty that was offered by hunter-gatherer societies. Jared Diamond, a professor of geology at UCLA, describes how some groups of hunter-gatherers, such as the Bushmen spend only “12-19 hours obtaining food,” and the Hadza nomads of Tanzania spend “14 hours or less.” Since hunter-gatherers did not have to work as hard nor spend as much time collecting food, this allowed for extra free time to do whatever they pleased. Furthermore, according to Canadian anthropologist, Richard Lee, there was a “rhythm of steady work and steady leisure... throughout the year” in the gathering portion of the community. This allows for an important schedule between the two pastimes to be cemented into society, which decreases stress in the community and leads to a better quality of life. Also, Lee states that “a woman gathers on one day enough food to feed her family for three days” so that the community doesn’t solely have to rely on the unpredictability of hunting. Because they had more leisure time, this allowed the hunter-gatherer societies to “sleep a good deal,” which also benefited their health. Hunter gatherers had better health than agriculturalists due to their more nutritional diets and the fact that they were less prone to certain diseases. Nathan Cohen, an American anthropologist and author of Health and the Rise of Civilization, says, “There is evidence that primitive populations suffer relatively low rates of many disease [and enjoy several nutritional advantages] compared to the more affluent modern societies.” He also says that diabetes, cancer, and poor bowel function appear "to be extremely rare in primitive groups.” Finally, hunter-gatherer societies did not have social hierarchies with distinct divisions between wealthy and poor. Kevin Reilly, a professor of humanities at Raritan Valley Community College and the first president of the World History Association, reveals that with the rise civilization, a “new ruling class of kings, nobles, priests, and their officials” advance to the top of the social ladder, demonstrating the social class structure that was not prevalent in the egalitarian societies before them. In addition, according to Marshall Sahlins, an American anthropologist, hunter-gathering societies “have few possessions, but they are not poor.” Poverty is a social status that was born with civilization, so it did not exist in hunter-gatherer societies. All of these historians have determined that the life of a hunting and gathering society was overall superior to that of an agriculturalist, as well as having many benefits such as less poverty, better health, and more leisure time.
Reply
Brayden Gwartzman
8/26/2018 01:15:19 pm
I agree that agriculture caused us to have less leisure time and a bad diet, but it allowed for civilizations to form. Civilizations were based on agriculture, expanding, and creating new technology. I think that the adoption of agriculture was an improvement because hunting and gathering would have never become technologically advanced.
Reply
Aria Ashoury
8/28/2018 05:59:56 pm
Agriculture may have allowed civilizations to form, but it only seems like a better choice because it's all we are left with. If humans had stuck with hunting and gathering, we wouldn't have to deal like issues like a lack of time and unhealthy diets. Furthermore, the potato famine of the Irish and many other deadly food shortages have left people dependent of agriculture vulnerable and defenseless to death. Agriculture allowed civilizations and large societies to form, but people would have eventually come together anyway, even if hunting and gathering was the preferred way to collect food. Instead of large farms, we could have had large storehouses filled with food that was obtained with hunting and gathering, permitting humanity to evolve with a healthier diet while still also permitting technological advancement and societal growth.
Camille Marsh
8/28/2018 07:27:34 pm
I disagree. I think that hunting and gathering made civilizations, not farming. When humans were hunter-gatherers, they could make much more intimate and meaningful relationships with others since they spent most of there day with them. And this is most likely how religions and other beliefs were formed.
Julia Luyten
8/26/2018 02:22:09 pm
I agree with the you that agriculture was not an improvement over hunter-gathering. But don't you think that there were some reasons why humans chose to switch? Even though overall it was damaging to health and society, the stability of having a steady surplus of food was what allowed humans to expand and make quick advancements.
Reply
Anna Fischer
8/27/2018 04:29:47 pm
You have a great point that there are probably reasons that humans switched from hunting and gathering societies. A surplus of food and the stability of life that civilization provides is nice, but I think the overall implications of civilization is still negative. The people who transitioned into civilizations obviously didn’t know all of the effects that it would bring and if they did, I think they would have stayed on their hunting-and-gathering societies. That being said, the technological advancements that civilization brought along are truly magnificent and I do enjoy living in a civilized society, but the overall benefits seen more in the hunter-gathered societies.
Samuel Cohen
8/30/2018 10:13:21 am
I also think that there are reasons that people did continue to switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture. For the time when population was low it was very beneficial to stay in one spot and be able to have children at a faster rate. Also there was a degree of stability to Agriculture that was not available with hunting and gathering. Continually, on the note of the downsides. Most of the downsides were only in the developmental stages of agriculture and recently.
Madeline Miller
8/30/2018 07:57:20 pm
I do think that there were reasons that people switched over to agriculture, but I think that, looking back, the advancements weren't worth the cost. People settled down, developed agriculture, and began to rapidly advance in technology and inventions. However, by the time people realized that all of these advancements may have caused more harm than good to them, they were already much to far past the paleolithic age, and had become reliant on new inventions.
miranda kawula
8/30/2018 09:15:00 pm
I agree with you. Although hunting and gathering was helpful to societies (longer/easier lives and working hours, elite class status, etc), without agriculture, people would've never really gotten the chance to settle down and create these great civilizations. The making of these civilizations wasn't always pretty, and sometimes it took this grueling hard work and ugly process before it turned into something great.
Milla Chunton
8/26/2018 04:57:05 pm
Your evidence of why the adoption of farming was bad was strong throughout your whole essay. I agree that the reduction of the variety of animals and plants in farmers' diets compared to the hunter-gatherers' diets was a drastic decrease; therefore, it was unhealthy and caused possible malnutrition. However, agriculture and farming did lay a strong foundation for the uprising of powerful civilizations and leaders. With more civilized societies came the advancement of technology such as irrigation systems and plumbing, which was a significant advancement. Overall, your essay was really strong and had key evidence that supported your thesis statement.
Reply
Briana Chen
8/26/2018 06:13:47 pm
All three points were touched on very nicely and supported with great evidence. I agree with them, and I especially liked the idea of classism and how poverty was born through civilization. Similarly to the other replies, there is a 'however' involved in that technology wouldn't have flourished to the point we see it today without civilization, and it's the reason the human race has advanced so far.
Reply
Will Cavo
8/27/2018 06:02:30 pm
While the hunters-gatherer societies had more leisure time and better nutrition, I believe that agriculture was an improvement over hunter-gather societies due to the technological advances and the influx of culture caused by the surplus of food. However, I agree with your statments that the switch to agriculture made social status a more profound influencer in the social aspects of life. When you state the quote by Richard Lee about women, that situation would never occur in an agricultural society because of the fact that women were seen as low citizens.
Reply
Addie Follett
8/29/2018 07:37:55 pm
I agree that technological advances seem like they were an improvement now, but were they really necessary? They did not need to better their technology if they were to keep up their hunter-gather society. I also believe that although it may have taken longer, hunter-gather societies could have created complex cultures due to the abundance of free time compared to agriculture. I think the of the nutritional and social benefits of a hunter-gather societies outweigh having new technologies and a more sophisticated culture.
Eva Maxey
8/28/2018 03:03:18 pm
I agree with your point about hunting/gathering being superior to agriculture because of Jared Diamond's points, and because of the fact that you touched on with a quote that women had a bigger role in gathering. They collected most of the society's food, while in agricultural societies, they were lesser than men due to the strong patriarchal system.
Reply
Bryne Knowles
8/28/2018 03:27:23 pm
I agree with you that hunter gathering had many benefits in comparison to agriculture, however it seems that an agricultural revolution was necessary. Agriculture led to specialization of jobs which allowed new technology to be built. Without agriculture humans would be stuck in a continuous cycle of hunting and gathering preventing advancement in art, language, culture, and technology. Agriculture allowed humans to advance at a rapid pace despite the benefits of a Paleolithic lifestyle.
Reply
Lucas Tipper
8/28/2018 04:43:42 pm
While hunter gathers may have more free time than farmers and people living in modern society they didn't devlop very much.They were using basically the same tools with minor improvements from thousands of years earlier.If it wasn't for the division of labor that agriculture created we would have none of the technilogical marvels we have today since no one would have time to make them since we would havebeen hunting or gathering instead.
Reply
Leah Abrahamsson
8/28/2018 06:38:17 pm
I agree, agriculture led to a ripple effect of everlasting change. If hunter gathering had continued as the main way to get food, the development of cultures and civilizations would have been stunted. Agriculture created trade, which in turn create communications with other societies. Furthermore, that communication evolved into changing languages and forms of expression. Again, if hunter gathering had continued, the world would be shaped very differently and most likely, not as advanced.
Pierre Bierman
8/28/2018 06:24:15 pm
I agree with your group that moving from hunting and gathering to agriculture wasn't all for the best, but do you think that there was a reason for people wanting to move away from a job where they only had to work 12-19 hours? On the other hand hunting and gathering would never change technologically speaking and the food resources would be rare over time because the hunter-gatherers didn't plant new food as they diminished the supply.
Reply
Peyton Russell
8/28/2018 07:31:46 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with the quality of the non social hierarchy aspect of the hunter gatherer's lives. The fact that people's daily tasks were equalized and not based on bodily strength truly helped the gender roles in a given society to stay equalized. Additionally, this aided in the process of social stabilization along with keeping these societies affluent. The fact that gender inequality didn't exist allowed for these societies to maintain an overall higher quality of life.
Reply
Sami Seiden
8/28/2018 07:57:22 pm
I completely agree with you that agriculture was not an improvement for humanity due to the fact that hunter gatherers had greater health benefits and more lesuire time. I think your point about the lack of poverty in hunter-gatherer society is very interesting and something I didn’t think of. Many of the negative effects of social status would never be present if it wasn’t for agriculture.
Reply
Juliette Leclercq
8/28/2018 08:22:59 pm
You had great points touching the subject of why agriculture caused problems in society, and created diseases. However I do believe that if we had not switched over to agriculture back then, thing would be very different today. Agriculture greatly helped civilizations to form and develop into bigger things, also creating a hierarchy. Having a lower and upper class, in my opinion helped society to develop, if we had stuck with hunting and gathering there would have never been a leader to help civilizations grow.
Reply
Andrew Jung
8/29/2018 05:39:13 pm
I agree with your group's argument that the adoption of agriculture was a mistake because of the resulting of worse health and a social class being created. However, I do believe that without agriculture, this system of living would not have allowed us to have the technology we have today. Also, isn't it true that with more leisure time, one wastes more time rather than being productive?
Reply
Braden Mayer
8/29/2018 06:54:50 pm
I agree that when agriculture began, it did take away from free time civilians had and it was extremely difficult at first. However, agriculture allowed civilizations to become what they are today. Agriculture eventually allowed for specialization of occupation in society and technological advancements that would have never been seen had hunting and gathering been the only strategy for civilizations to grow and improve.
Reply
Abby Jacobson
8/29/2018 08:13:27 pm
I completely agree with everything you said. There were by far more pros than cons to hunter-gathering than there were agriculture not only for people but also in societies. The fact that there was more leisure time allowed hunter-gatherers to obtain more goods than farmers and the health of people in society was also an issue for new cities that were forming. Due to the fact that nearly everyone was or would have been a farmer, new empires would have collapsed because all of these farmers were getting sick due to their lack of nutrients. Them dying would result in a collapse of certain societies. Hunter-gathering was by far the way to go.
Reply
Maverick Stansbury
8/29/2018 08:43:30 pm
I agree that hunters and gatherers had a better quality of life and were able to enjoy certain aspects of life such as the rarity of famine, disease, and worry. However, I believe that the advancements in human society have come from the idea of creating a civilization in which social classes existed. Without the social rankings, those who were educated would not have been able to make advancements in which case we could be living in a society where we rely solely on primitive instincts. The creation of civilization allowed further advancements of technology where the hunters and gatherers would continuously move and never advance to the point we are today.
Reply
Himanshu Sinha
8/30/2018 02:14:15 am
I somewhat agree. While hunting and gathering allowed for more leisure time and a more egalitarian society, you failed to mention that fact that agriculture is able to sustain a far larger populous. On hunting and gathering, humanity would never have been able to build great civilizations such as Persia or Egypt. They simply had to large of a population size. Overall, while I agree that hunting and gathering was a definite advantage over agriculture in someways, agriculture did prove useful over time.
Reply
Period 6 - Brandon Dong, Zach Barnes, Abby Barnes, Alex Yang, Ella Macilwain(?)
8/23/2018 07:43:59 pm
The adoption of agriculture was not beneficial to humans in comparison to hunter-gathering because hunter-gatherers had comparatively nutritious diets and in turn contracted fewer illnesses, worked much less often than farmers and had more leisure time to develop culturally, and above all, didn't suffer from inequality despite their fewer possessions.
Reply
BranDong
8/23/2018 07:52:36 pm
I didn't realize that I had made it so long that the end was cut off. Sorry. Here's the rest:
Reply
Brandon Dong
8/23/2018 08:03:16 pm
Oh, and source links:
Anjali Kurse
8/26/2018 12:46:59 pm
Was agriculture not an improvement over hunting and gathering because of the conditions of early agricultural societies? It could be considered, to an extent, an improvement in the present day due to new technologies. Sure, in the early agrarian societies, life wasn't great. But in current days, medical research to improve physical conditions is developing, people are pursuing passions and bettering lives, and revolutionary movements are taking place to attempt to end inequality. In the context of the present day, is agriculture really not any kind of improvement over hunting and gathering?
Brayden Gwartzman
8/26/2018 01:21:52 pm
The hunter and gathers did have great diets, free time, equality and much more, but is that an improvement over the adoption of agriculture? Agriculture allowed for societies to become more advanced and allow people to have surpluses. Even though this did cause some problems like inequality and diseases, societies became more advanced medically, socially, and politically. If you were to be a hunter and gather, and saw the possibilities that agriculture could bring, would you change your life style?
Eve Breese
8/28/2018 02:39:39 pm
I agree that it is quite a stretch to consider agricultural societies an improvement over hunter-gatherer ones. I really like your comparison about the Syrian refugee crisis because it does a really good job at disproving the argument that current societies provide more stability than primitive ways of life. However, have you considered the idea that agricultural society allowed for the advancements in knowledge and education of present day?
Julia Luyten
8/26/2018 02:24:39 pm
I agree that hunter-gatherers had more leisure time than farmers, but don't you think that they would have developed more culturally if they had a steady food surplus like the one that agriculture allowed them to have?
Reply
Akshati Vaishnav
8/26/2018 08:39:22 pm
I see where you are going, however, I think that humans today are sleep deprived and spend most of their time working. Also, women in the paleolithic era collected fruits that could last for three days, so I do not think that that was a huge problem.
Milla Chunton
8/26/2018 05:04:27 pm
I agree the decrease in health was a major consequence of a poor diet in the agricultural lifestyle. However, the constant close proximity with farm animals was probably more of an influence on harmful diseases than a poor diet. Malnutrition was a reality, but the close proximity with farm animals increased the potential of contacting diseases such as malaria or small pox. Both mutated animals, such as chickens, and humans became dependant on each other and the consequence of diseases was more influential on a farmer's health than ever. Strong development of your thesis and nice rhetorical questions.
Reply
Madeline Miller
8/30/2018 08:02:55 pm
Yes, I think it's important to acknowledge that animal-borne diseases were very common and harmful. However, I would say that one important distinction to make is between disease and general poor health. While, as you said, malaria and small pox were almost certainly caused by close proximity to domesticated animals, things like weaker teeth and bones and more difficult digestion of food were health issues wrought by diet deficiencies, not disease. So the argument that poor diet caused poorer health is a very strong argument, but claiming that poor diet caused diseases that caused poor health is less supported.
Andrew Jung
8/29/2018 05:46:59 pm
The points your group made are all very clear and very well supported. However, I disagree that the leisure time was a good thing because if the hunter-gatherers did not use all of their leisure time to develop their culture, they would have been able to become more sophisticated with their technology. However, the thesis that your group came up with is very well supported and clear.
Reply
Joe Fogler
8/29/2018 09:12:22 pm
You bring up a very interesting point about the class inequality, however, some could argue that agriculture and civilization was not a direct cause of inequality. Eventually, inequality might have appeared in hunter-gatherer societies.
Reply
P.5, Anjali Kurse, Melissa Chu, Katrina (Amelia) Russell, Madeline Miller
8/25/2018 04:51:09 pm
Imagine staying put or traveling to survive. Imagine working for only 12-19 hours a week for food (Diamond). Imagine having a singular role in your community, this role neither disrespected or discriminated against, but one of the vital factors that makes your community work. Although these ideals were likely just a way of life, they are aspects of life that have disappeared since the Agricultural Revolution occurred. Hunting and gathering in the Paleolithic Era is preferable to living after the Agricultural Revolution.Once farming began, social divisions between genders, race, and class arose. Men were seen as superior to women because men were better suited to the more intense agricultural labor. Women were expected to stay home and raise the family, while men were relied upon as the main heads and protectors of the household. In contrast, Paleolithic society did have gender roles, but not severe gender inequality. Women were the gatherers, men the hunters. Sometimes hunting would be sparse, so men would have to rely on the women to gather enough food and sustain the band of people (Lee). Farming also created class divisions, because with surplus of food came job specialization. Class divisions in early farming civilizations were created because not all people needed to farm in order to sustain the population. With control of the food surplus came power, as food was wealth in early societies. Another positive aspect of hunting and gathering life was the health of the hunter-gatherers themselves. Hunter-gatherers had a wider range of diet, because of their mobility and variety of nutrients. Not only was there an assorted selection of food, but there was no risk of famine due to being nomadic. There were many different species that could be hunted, providing an array of different vitamins and proteins. These diverse diets seemed to protect ancient hunter-gatherers from diabetes, heart problems, and all types of cancer, as skeletons show no sign of these (seemingly-modern) debilitating diseases (Cohen). Overall, hunter-gatherers had less social conflicts, dietary problems, and disease than early agriculturalists. Agriculture was not an improvement over hunting and gathering, by any means.
Reply
Briana Chen
8/26/2018 06:20:22 pm
I really liked how you connected the idea of the Paleolithic society to the modern society and related the piece to many of us. Adding onto the idea of security in civilization, there was also the advancement of technology and the quicker spreading of ideas as a cause. Maybe hunter-gatherers could have found a way to communicate globally, but it just wouldn't have seen the speed that civilization was enabled to do.
Reply
Akshati Vaishnav
8/26/2018 08:25:47 pm
I really like how you started off by making the readers imagine how it was like living in the paleolithic era. I agree that as farming emerged, social classes and gender classes emerged as well. I still think, however, that life was better in the paleolithic era. There was equality and people had a lot of leisure time.
Reply
Camille Marsh
8/28/2018 07:37:46 pm
I agree with you. I think that as farming started to be used more often, social classes were being formed which is not necessarily a good thing. Food equalled money during farming but as in the hunter and gatherer time period, they brought back their kill as a group which created no social classes.
Rachel Shin
8/26/2018 08:47:20 pm
The connection you made between the Paleolithic society and the modern society was really interesting. I actually disagree however because the agricultural way of life is what led us to this point in our lives. Agriculture allowed for larger populations and food surpluses while hunting and gathering was rather unstable. With agriculture, there was also a much more predictable future whereas hunter-gatherers always had worry about food.
Reply
Anjali Kurse (P.5)
8/28/2018 06:00:15 pm
Thanks for the feedback! I'd like to point out, hunting and gathering was fairly stable. Sometimes the men couldn't hunt, even for weeks, but they survived, both by being nomadic and by relying on gathering. I do agree that agriculture allows for comfort and a safe future. Agriculture has definitely basically paved a path for humans. Without a steady food supply and surplus, specialization and technology couldn't develop, cultures couldn't mingle, and our society wouldn't exist the way it does. But hunter gatherers did have a fairly reliable food supply. Thanks!
Adam Parish
8/27/2018 08:01:39 pm
I like how you guys tied in the modern aspect to this project. When making the argument that the agricultural revolution was in no way superior to hunting and gathering it is important to keep in mind that while at the time it didn't seem like a good idea, our lives today are drastically different and improved. The only thing missing from your argument is the difference in amount of leisure time. When comparing the differences of hunter-gatherers and farmers, this is a very key piece to overall well being. The amount of leisure time that was lost in the switch to farming was a huge key in comparing these two food production processes.
Reply
Quinn Roark
8/28/2018 04:10:53 pm
I like how you added in the aspect of giving up modern technologies and safety or living a more hunter gatherer life style. We may think that hunter-gatherer lifestyle would be better than this lifestyle of technology that we live in today. But the only true way to test this would be to get out and live like them. I think a lot of people would change their mind if they had to live without an iPhone, shower, or comfortable bed.
Reply
Madeline Miller
8/30/2018 08:05:32 pm
This is a really good point! I think it really comes down to whether people prioritize their overall health and happiness or their comfort and amenities.
Elisabeth Plum
8/28/2018 08:06:42 pm
The comparison made between Paleolithic societies and post-agricultural revolution is very interesting to me. Furthermore, I agree that agriculture definitely helped shape and stabilize the world today, and without it we wouldn't have many of the factors you mentioned; this includes city walls, armies, and a sense of security. However I disagree that Agriculture led to the development of laws, because many Hunter-gatherer societies had rules on food distribution, pride, and many other concepts. I also found it interesting that you mentioned how technology would effect a hunter-gatherer society if many were still in place today.
Reply
miranda kawula
8/30/2018 09:24:30 pm
Yes, it is true that the hunter-gatherer societies had their own rules too. However, in a way agriculture did lead to these laws. They are indirectly correlated through a long long line of evolving of society. Agriculture lead to settling down of humans>population increase>strong civilizations, etc. Agriculture was the first building block to these successful civilizations, and the only way these civilizations became successful was if they had laws to keep their people in check. I know this is a stretch, but they really did feed off of each other.
Laura Smith
8/28/2018 08:18:05 pm
Although there is a solid point to be made with hunter-gatherering life being more simplistic and better than an agriculturally based life, I disagree. Unfortunately, gender roles and social hierarchy did in fact come out of the agricultural revolution but I think the two concepts were inevitable within society. Men are biologically stronger than women and I think the "superiority" of man in that sense would have eventually been apparent even without the agricultural revolution being in place. On the other hand, in regards to social hierarchy, every group has a leader of some sort or someone who is seen as being more significant than others. Overall, a lot the issues due to agriculture would have occurred inevitably.
Reply
Juliette Leclercq
8/28/2018 08:34:32 pm
I loved that you related the Paleolithic society to the modern society, it helped me understand the situation even better. I do agree that it would be an impossible choice between a happy life or the start of technology; However I do think that, because the Paleolithic society did not know what technology would change, they would have preferred to keep hunting and gathering as it took less leisure time.
Reply
Ella McIlwaine
8/29/2018 06:26:26 pm
I absolutely agree that the worldwide implementation of agriculture had both negative and positive results. However, I do think that agriculture was necessary to continue to survival and spread of the human race. While hunter-gatherers had much more free time and great equality, the agrarians of the past created empires, established brilliant technologies, and enabled humanity to make unprecedented advancements. While I would love to live in a world without cancer and social inequality, I also couldn't imagine existing without the technology we have available today.
Reply
Peyton Russell
8/29/2018 07:53:26 pm
You argue that farming created class divisions, and while this is true, isn't it also true that this very division between classes is what allowed for the expansion of empires? The fact that there was inequality allowed the populations to be organized and ruled which subsequently allowed for the expansion and improvements of empires. This being said, isn't the creation of agriculture good in the sense that it brought about empires and technological innovations?
Reply
Preston Kilzer
8/29/2018 08:54:46 pm
Agriculture meant less leisure time and caused a health setback, but don't you think that some of the initial successes of agriculture were immediately or almost Immediately immanent? The Indus River civilizations was one of the first settlements of agricultural people and specialization of jobs made plumbing and huge luxuries possible. Also agriculture was only indirectly related to patriarchy, and had nations initially made that a part of their priorities, they could have eliminated that problem. However, it was human nature that led to Patriarchy because no laws were made and women at the time didn't push back. So agriculture is not the primary reason for discrimination and patriarchy.
Reply
Period 5 - Andrew Jung, Julia Luyten, James Xu
8/25/2018 08:29:00 pm
Agriculture was not a significant improvement on hunter-gathering because it eliminated the rhythm of steady work and leisure which hunter-gathering provided for Paleolithic people, established damaging social hierarchies and the concept of “poverty”, and disrupted the previously balanced and nutritious diets of humans. Despite popular belief that agriculture saved primitive people huge amounts of time and effort spent gathering and hunting, an article by Jared Diamond entitled “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”, suggests that the opposite may be true. According to the article, studies of a group of modern-day hunter-gatherers known as the Kalahari Bushmen have revealed that members of the group have significantly more leisure time and average hours of sleep, and only spend about 12-19 hours collecting food in a week. Additionally, according to Marshall Sahlins, along with the concept of agriculture came the desire for more goods than the bare minimum needed to survive. While those with few possessions in hunter-gatherer societies were more likely to survive due to their ability to move around quickly, those with few possessions in agricultural societies are “poor”. With a surplus of commodities needed to survive came the association of more material goods with power and wealth. Without agriculture, there would be no impoverished and suffering “lower class”. A third concept introduced by Mark Nathan Cohen in his novel Health and Rise of Civilization is that the major diseases plaguing mankind today would not have been widespread without the development of agriculture. Studies of primitive populations show significantly lower rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and even cancers. With the switch from a diet composed primarily of wild plants and animals to grains and other staple crops came a rise in nearly all of society’s primary causes of illness and death.
Reply
Sonya Zakarian
8/26/2018 10:04:25 pm
You made an interesting argument about the increased level of food security that agriculture brought. Although it may seem that food surpluses offer a stable and consistent source of food production for a society, I agree that agriculture is still unstable and unreliable due to natural catastrophe. I would argue that hunter gatherer societies had higher food security because as long as they maintained a nomadic lifestyle, it was less likely that there would be a shortage of food, whereas the settled lifestyle of agriculture constrained individuals to a certain area of land, which meant a higher chance of food shortage.
Reply
Eve Breese
8/28/2018 02:47:14 pm
I also agree that the creation of a surplus does not justify the negative affects of agriculture. I would argue that although this surplus may have provided a more comfortable relationship with food, the surplus also had negative effects on society. For example, while a surplus allows for job specialization, this leads to a social hierarchy. When people take on different jobs, the importance of those jobs effects how they are seen and treated by society. I think it could be said that although agriculture created positive effects on the human lifestyle, with each positive outcome came even more negative effects.
Bryne Knowles
8/28/2018 06:23:01 pm
I agree with Sonya that hunter gathering had more food security, however I also believe that agriculture had more security in general. While agriculture was more susceptible to natural disasters and food shortages agricultural societies had more security. Agricultural societies were easier to defend giving the people more security. Without safety of life food would not be necessary. In hunter gathering societies life was threatened easier even though they had a more reliable food source.
Sara Plomondon
8/28/2018 08:16:38 pm
I agree that hunter-gatherer lifestyles provided more leisure time and that farming has some damaging effects; however, you never address how agriculture brought the feeling of safety. Therefore you could argue that despite the many negative impacts agriculture had, the sense of refuge made humans much more comfortable and happier in the agriculture environment.
Reply
Addie Follett
8/29/2018 07:48:01 pm
I agree that agriculture made people feel more secure because they had a reliant food source, but agricultural lead to unequal societies where not everyone was well fed, despite having an abundance of food. Although it may have seemed safer initially, many groups were not safe in the societies that agriculture created. Many more people lived in poverty while others were very rich, instead of the egalitarian societies of hunter gather bands. The people of lower classes also weren't as privileged or protected in societies, making it more unsafe for them.
Elisabeth Plum
8/28/2018 08:20:35 pm
I found it very interesting how it was discussed that without the development of agriculture, diseases wouldn't have been as widespread. I most definitely agree with this, and along with greater health issues, disease was spread through trade, domesticated animals, and many other aspects. These of course were products of the Agricultural Revolution, and would be less prominent in a hunter-gatherer society.
Reply
Sara Mesko
8/29/2018 06:03:40 pm
I agree with you that agriculture was not an improvement to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle; however, agriculture was needed to allow population growth. Agriculture made it easier to sustain a growing population and to gather a food surplus to trade. Although agriculture caused some issues within empires, such as disease, it was important to the development and growth of mankind. Without the transition to agriculture, certain technological advancements would not have happened that continue to influence us today.
Reply
Melissa Chu
8/29/2018 06:24:27 pm
What you said about the steady rhythm of work and leisure was very interesting to consider. On one hand, I agree with you because hunting and gathering did leave more time for leisure activities and rest which helped balance their way of living. However, the pace of work and leisure might've been more irregular depending on the availability of food wherever a nomadic group of people had moved to. Farming could provide that consistent rhythm because of the sedentary lifestyle, however losing that leisure time and balance.
Reply
Emily Sands
8/29/2018 07:31:17 pm
I strongly agree with your main points of why agriculture was not a significant improvement over hunting and gathering. However, although these points are true, it is hard to ignore some of the major benefits of the adoption of agriculture. Think about the technological developments, population growth, and job specialization that resulted from the adoption of agriculture. Even though these benefits came with many drawbacks, they also shaped many aspects of our modern society today.
Reply
Maverick Stansbury
8/29/2018 08:53:06 pm
I agree with you in the sense that hunter and gatherers at the time had a better quality of life than agricultural civilizations but I disagree with you in other aspects. I also disagree that at the time of the first societies there was a greater security of food. This security of food was more favorable to the hunter and gatherers because they could continuously move until they could obtain food. However, with the creation of the society came advancements that changed the world forever. Certain technologies that came to be from new civilations permitted a continuous surplus of food to destroy the worry of famine. New fertilizers and other advancements created a steady source of food that would have never come without the creation of agricultural, stationery city states. These advancements further helped because people didn't have to work nearly as much as hunter and gathering people and necessities of life could be obtained much easier.
Reply
Period 6- Brayden Gwartzman, Preston Kilzer, Lucas Tipper, Santiago Castillo
8/26/2018 01:02:19 pm
Even though agriculture has greatly benefited ancient civilizations, there are a few drawbacks. Firstly, agriculture has greatly improved our lives today but when it had just started the drawbacks seemed to outweigh the beneficial aspect of a stable food source. Farming has many advantages, including large surpluses, protection from environmental hazards, and a more secure society. The surplus of food created a specialization of jobs, allowing humans to solve countless problems at the same time. In Kevin Reilly's excerpt, he mentions that a “civilized life is a secure life”. A civilized life is more secure because everyone is predictable, the chances of being killed environmentally is lower, and people could defend against invaders more easily. The first cities were able to obtain stability with walls that shield the inhabitants from nomads and armies. Another reason why agriculture was an improvement was because there was a lower rate of starvation. As Richard Lee states, “a women gathers on one day enough food to feed her family for three days.” With the invention of agriculture, families were able to have enough food for a week with sometimes an extra amount to trade for need goods. This decreased the likelihood of famine, allowing civilizations to grow in size.
Reply
Adam Parish
8/27/2018 08:11:04 pm
I like how you guys mentioned the modern relevance of the argument. I think when arguing this topic it is important to offer the side by side drawbacks and advantages. I would add to your argument that nomadic hunters had no security in their lifestyle. Document three offers a quote stating that hunters could go a month without killing an animal. While their diets were supplemented with food gathered by woman, this does pose a significant problem. Farmers are afforded that security, a notable advantage. I disagree however on your argument on famine. Your quote was in reference to hunter-gatherers, as opposed to farmers. In some cases, farmers faced more problems of famine if the crop failed. Hunter-gatherers had multiple options for food if one crop were to fail, including moving. While I agree with your argument on the security of agriculture, I disagree with the thought agriculture protects against famine better than hunting and gathering.
Reply
Eva Maxey
8/28/2018 03:32:01 pm
I agree with your statement that agriculture allowed us to achieve the impossible, but I disagree that it was better. You said that the chances of being kill environmentally became lower with agriculture, but if the climate changes the environment where crops are being grown, the crops will most likely die out and you will die of malnutrition eventually anyway. So I believe that either way, the risk of death by environment is equal with both options.
Reply
Pierre Bierman
8/28/2018 06:32:52 pm
I agree with your group about how agriculture changed our lives greatly; however when the people started changing from hunter-gathers,they started to get more diseases because of the domestication of animals and they also got a lot smaller compared to the hunter-gatherers, and the people didn't have a lot of leisure time because farming was a full time job.
Reply
Leah Abrahamsson
8/28/2018 07:09:34 pm
The quotation you mentioned, a “civilized life is a secure life”, can also be used in a different argument as well. Being in a "civilized" part of the world with agriculture does not necessarily mean everything is in order and more evolved than that of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. In many of societies that were considered "civilized" there were many issues such as an every growing patriarchy, and inequality through a social hierarchy. In hunter gather societies, which many people look at as uncivilized, were much more equal because there was no concern with wealth. Also, woman had a much more active role in the community.
Reply
Minyoung Chang
8/28/2018 07:13:15 pm
It's interesting that you said that agriculture decreased the risk of starvation because farmers could harvest more food to feed themselves for longer. I'd have to disagree, because hunter-gatherers were less prone to starving due to their constant movement and the well-balanced diet that wild plants and animals provided. You said that the generation of an agricultural surplus decreased the likelihood of famines as well, but famine caused by crop failures or natural disasters is almost impossible to prevent. Since foragers didn't depend on a certain restricted area for their food, they could easily look for new sources of food elsewhere if their previous source did not provide enough for their sustenance; this, I believe, was one of the greatest advantages of hunting-gathering over farming.
Reply
Eden Kinde
8/28/2018 07:32:48 pm
I agree with your analysis that agriculture improved quality of life in many ways, however there are also drawbacks. The surplus of food today is varied from country to country and is even detrimental to health today. America is one of the most overweight and obese countries in the world, and some could argue that it is because of a surplus of food and the need for hard work disappearing. Moreover, the surplus of food in America and other countries is limited to themselves and the producers of their food. Many third world countries are still starving and because the option to hunt and gather is no longer available, many people have died. If hunting and gathering were still a widespread technique used today, maybe third world countries would not be so impoverished and deadly. The sickness and disease that have also spread through third world countries are often discluded from the topic, as they are sometimes seen as not as civilized as other countries. The spread of agriculture and the disappearance of hunting and gathering has also led to the cultivation of disease ridden third world countries. because they are forced to stay in one place and are subjected to limited resources, disease is spread quickly. For example Ebola spread through much of Africa in 2014 and thee Zika virus in south America in 2015/16. Many qualities of life have been lost to third world countries and has been largely overlooked. Agriculture has not helped them in anyway.
Reply
Kyle Chiang
8/29/2018 09:41:26 pm
Your mention that health issues pertaining to obesity result from the food surplus and lower demand for hard work created by agriculture. For the use of this response, I interpret the use of the phrase "hard work" as physical, labor intensive work. Although the United States observes a large overweight and obese population, I do not believe this comes from agricultural food surplus and lack of physical labor. Developed nations relying on agriculture in other regions of the world, such as East Asia, do not experience the same issues to the extent of the United States. For example, Japan has an obesity rate of 3.5% as of 2014, which is ten times less than that of the United States, 35%. As with other agrarian societies, only a fraction of the population is needed for physical labor, and this allows for the specialization of jobs among the remaining population. Because of this, Japan, as well as other East Asian countries, presents astounding technological innovations.
Zoe Koch
8/28/2018 07:51:04 pm
While I agree that agriculture has improved our lives today, I also do believe that agriculture has negatively impacted our lives in the present. Many of the environmental effects of agriculture still affect our lives thousands of years later. One of these effects being deforestation. Many agriculturalists practice deforestation to not only grow their farms but also have more room and area for their animals. This negatively impacts our lives today because it is a practice that is still going on everyday. Deforestation hurts wildlife and can lead to climate change. This small part of agriculture not only hurts the environment but will soon hurt us. Agriculture has lead us to climate change which is also an effect of deforestation. Agriculture lead to deforestation which has lead to climate change which will in time, hurt the living populations unless something major is acted upon it. Inherently, we have hurt the world and are going to hurt ourselves because of agriculture.
Reply
Laura Smith
8/28/2018 08:32:29 pm
I agree with the concept that agriculture created a more stable life however, I disagree with the idea that agriculture protected civilization from being "killed environmentally". Even though agriculture did provide a steady food resource it didn't prevent civilians from being killed from things like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and more. In fact, even with fields and fields of nutritious crops with just one natural disaster a civilization can be wiped out entirely.
Reply
Abby Jacobson
8/29/2018 08:19:11 pm
I do agree with you when you said that the surplus of foods was helpful to societies, but disagree that agriculture was overall superior to hunter-gathering. Although lots of food was a good thing, many people were farmers and weren't receiving a lot of good nutrients therefore resulting in deadly diseases. Even if there was a large food surplus, no one would be left to eat it because much of the population would be sick or dead anyway.
Reply
Joe Fogler
8/29/2018 08:39:49 pm
While I agree with you in saying agriculture has allowed multiple technological advancements, the diets of agricultural people were much worse, and disease and starvation were much more common. The evidence you used, concerning a women's role in gathering food, is referring to hunter-gatherers, and shows the ease of acquiring food.
Reply
Himanshu Sinha
8/30/2018 02:19:57 am
While I agree with you for the most part, I think you could have expanded on the reasons why hunting and gathering had its advantages over farming. I did like how you talked about the extra leisure time, but some mention of egalitarian society would have been nice. Demonstrating how even though agriculture allowed us to achieve impossible things but came at the cost of a highly unlikely society, would have been a nice bump in your argument.
Reply
Samuel Cohen
8/30/2018 10:24:48 am
I do agree with the main statement about how agriculture helped, but had many drawbacks, but I think that agriculture was even better than what is portrayed. The downsides of agriculture usually were not long term. At the beginning of agriculture's development there was malnourishment and disease, however once the system was mostly perfected these problems started to go away. Also there have been so many great evolutions and new things that have come out of agriculture. One amazing example is what we are doing right now. This learning and interaction through technology would never have been possible without agriculture.
Reply
Gunhi Kim
8/30/2018 09:01:05 pm
Cool! I think that you guys did a good job explaining how the agricultural development led to the cause and affect of other advancements and conditions, proving that agriculture is the foundation of growing civilizations after all. I think next time you guys could strengthen the argument even more by adding examples of the agricultural state of these growing empires and how it affected the development of upcoming societies. Nice!
Reply
Bryne Knowles, Adam Parish, Eva Maxey, Michelle Kim, Roberto Berkowitz
8/26/2018 03:48:01 pm
Agriculture was seldom an improvement to hunter-gathering, hunter-gathering provided a more reliable food source, a healthier way of life, and more leisure time in comparison to agriculture according to experts. Jared Diamond argued the switch from hunting and gathering was the worst mistake of the human race. Diamond argued, when involved in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle humans were exposed to a varied diet. One band of people the “Bushmen, [would] eat 75 or so wild plants, [this varied diet made it harder for them to] die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s” (2). Additionally, Mark Nathan argued the varied diet of hunter-gatherers and the lack of intense manual labor contributed to the fact that: “primitive populations [suffered] relatively low rates of many diseases compared to the more affluent modern societies” (1). Furthermore, Richard Lee attested, hunter-gatherers worked less and had more leisure time. Evidence from the Bushman tribe in Africa suggests, “A woman gathers on one day enough food to feed her family for three days” and “hunters sometimes...stop hunting for a month or longer”(3). During free time, “visiting, entertaining, and especially dancing [were] the primary activities of men” (3). Hunter gathers woman and men were able to gather food in a much shorter time leaving more free time for activities of choice. A nomadic hunter-gathering lifestyle left plenty of leisure time for entertainment as opposed to the long and hard work days of farmers. The agricultural revolution was unnecessary; as hunter-gatherers “[had] plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and worked less hard than their farming neighbors” (2). After the introduction of farming, leisure time, varied diets, and low disease rates all but disappeared.
Reply
Bryne Knowles
8/26/2018 04:54:54 pm
Period 6 ^^^
Reply
Alex Yang
8/26/2018 06:46:55 pm
I do agree that agriculture was detrimental to human health and did cause stark socioeconomic divides, but I do not necessarily agree that the Agricultural Revolution was unnecessary. One important thing agriculture brought was food security for the people. Sure, on average there was more leisure time and a healthier diet in Paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribes than agricultural villages; but that comes at a higher risk of not having a reliable source of food. With agriculture came consistency and less risk. Another thing I also disagree with is how competition is negatively portrayed. Competition has been a key motivator for people to innovate to rise above their peers. While competition is not always a good thing, it isn’t always a bad thing and is one of the main reasons we enjoy our current standard of living right now.
Reply
Rachel Shin
8/26/2018 08:38:58 pm
While agriculture did have some negative impacts (social classes and such) I disagree that the Agricultural Revolution wasn't necessary. Agriculture allowed humans to have a surplus of food that hunter-gatherers unfortunately didn't have. The Agricultural Revolution also allowed larger populations of people to become a thing due to the extra food that was being produced. It was very necessary in forming the society we all live in today.
Reply
Anna Fischer
8/27/2018 04:38:30 pm
I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re using the word necessary too loosely. I can understand saying that the Agricultural Revolution was important in order to get society to where it is today, but I don’t think it was necessary to all of humanity. Hunter-gatherers lived in very satisfactory communities. In fact, they enjoyed less work and more leisure time than was seen in civilized societies. They did not have patriarchy and it was the time in history where equality was most prevalent. The hunting-and-gathering lifestyle was not one of starvation and stress, but rather one with a proper balance of work and play. Therefore, saying that the Agricultural Revolution was “necessary” for mankind isn’t necessarily true because the lifestyle that the hunting-and-gathering communities had were very liveable and did not need to be “improved” by the Agricultural Revolution.
Teal Wall
8/27/2018 06:26:25 pm
Even though agriculture allowed humans to form bigger societies and have a surplus of food, I disagree with agriculture being better for society in the big picture as social hierarchies and inequalities are much worse than occasionally having to travel to find more food. While I agree that the agricultural revolution was important for society to get to where it is now, hunter-gatherers had to work less and didn’t have inequalities and were stable the way that they were already living.
Eden Kinde
8/28/2018 07:44:26 pm
Although agriculture may have been necessary for today's societies, one must ask whether this society is best. Along with agriculture came inequality, racism and religious persecution. Agriculture divided the world as a whole. In addition, the persecution of all types of people came about when agriculture started. Although they were battles fought during the Paleolithic era, the global use of war only became normalized after agriculture.This directs our attention to the racism, sexism, religious persecution and what some could call meaningless deaths prominent in our current society.
Derrick Hsieh
8/28/2018 07:17:12 pm
It's interesting how humans decided to put all their effort on farming when all it did was giving them a somewhat stable food supply. I mean, hunters and gatherers seemed to have it better.
Reply
Arjun Batra - Period 5
8/28/2018 08:06:59 pm
I believe the reason for hunter gatherers not pursuing specialized occupations whereas agricultural villages and civilizations did was because of the lifestyle of hunter gatherers in contrast with the surplus of food associated with farming. Hunter gatherers still had to set aside time to foraging (whether hunting or gathering) for food, where some people could not devote their entire time to a specialized craft. Additionally, the hunter gatherers promoted the idea that no one would be considered superior to another in their abilities; hence, the societal norms prevented specialized labor (where some jobs would be considered superior to others) from arising. However, in agricultural villages and civilizations, farmers and their surplus of food were able to support others in dedicating their entire time to specific jobs and occupations, where not all people had to farm anymore, which led to specialized jobs.
Melissa Chu
8/29/2018 06:32:25 pm
I don't think farming only provided agriculturalists with a stable food supply. Along with its disadvantages, farming did help lead to a lot of innovations that would later shape modern society due to job specialization.
Brandon Dong
8/29/2018 09:16:22 pm
Hello there!
Reply
Period 3 - Aria Ashoury, Gunhi Kim, Jordan Ellis, Will Cavo
8/26/2018 03:55:22 pm
The adoption of agriculture by humanity was, to a very limited and minimum extent, an improvement over hunting and gathering. Agriculture led to the introduction of disease and health issues, inequality in societies, and more labor required for less yield. All of these problems were nonexistent in hunter-gatherer societies, which were constantly moving and didn't have time for such issues, the opposite of the settled agricultural counterpart. Unfortunately, these newfound problems poorly set the structure for the world and our civilization as we know it today. At the root of these mistakes is the deterioration of health and the introduction of disease in these settled agricultural societies. Mark Nathan Cohen, an American anthropologist and author of Health and the Rise of Civilization, explains in his book how primitive hunter-gatherers possessed a healthier lifestyle than the farmers who came after them. These primitive populations enjoyed many nutritional advantages over farmers, allowing them to obtain and keep better health. Small scale societies such as hunter-gatherers lacked health issues such as “circulatory problems, including high blood pressure, heart disease, and strokes”. In these societies, cases of “disorders associated with poor bowel function, such as appendicitis, hemorrhoids, and bowel cancers… (as well as) rates of many other types of cancer - particularly breast and lung” were very rare. However, these medical conditions are very present in farming societies and the world today, spawning from our ancestors choice to settle and leave the hunter-gather ways in the past. In addition to the poor medical reports that farmers possessed, they also ironically introduced a very “primitive” social structure in their new societies. As Richard Lee, a Canadian anthropologist, mentions in an excerpt from his work “What Hunters do for a Living”, a woman in a hunter-gatherer society gathered “on one day enough food to feed her family for three days, and spends the rest of her time resting in camp, doing embroidery, visiting other camps, or entertaining visitors from other camps”. Women in hunter-gatherer societies were mostly free to do as they pleased, working alongside the men of their village to provide for the youth and better the living conditions of the group. As farming and agriculture became popular, it became more of a man’s job to do the farming while women stayed home and took care of the children. This sexist view in societies saw men as superior to women, allowing them to order around their wives like slaves, disgusting incidents that didn’t occur in hunter-gatherer societies. Along with the inequality in these settled farming establishments, hunting and gathering reported more food per hour of labor than farming. Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at UCLA, wrote that the Kalahari Bushmen and Hadza nomads of Tanzania, modern hunting and gathering societies, only devote about “12 to 19 hours” and “14 hours or less” to gathering food each week in an excerpt from his work “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”. When one Bushman was asked why his society did not adopt the agricultural lifestyle of farming, he replied, “‘Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?’”. This statement may be humorous, but it is true. Constantly traveling hunter-gatherer societies worked less per week for more food than settled farming societies and also possessed healthier diets that provided a better chance of survival than early farmers, represented by the Irish and the potato famine of the 1840’s. All in all, the adoption of agriculture by humanity was, to a very limited and minimum extent, an improvement over hunting and gathering because it led to the introduction of disease and health issues, inequality in societies, and more labor required for less yield, issues that were not present in hunter-gatherer societies. However, as Professor Kevin Reilly of Raritan Valley Community College explained in an excerpt from his work The West and the World: A History of Civilization, the adoption of agriculture and society led to settlement and civilized life, the basis of the whole world as we know it today. The life in a settled city “offered considerably more performance and security than village life” and allowed new monuments to be built as a show of human achievement, such as “the pyramids, temples, palaces, statues, and treasures” of the ancients and their ruling class. In conclusion, for all its faults, the adoption of agriculture did do humanity some good as it shaped our world for what it is today, but all facts, statistics, and arguments present the case that hunting and gathering would have provided a healthier, more productive, and less conflict filled form of modern humanity than farming did.
Reply
Adarsh Kotlapati-Period 5
8/27/2018 09:15:52 pm
Wow, I think that you guys did a great job with your paragraph structure, and I think that you guys made a good argument at the beginning, and then you supported it with evidence and explained each piece thoroughly in detail so that readers would be able to easily understand how each piece of evidence connects to the argument and supports it. However, I don't agree with your point about agriculture bringing a "primitive" social structure because you only mention points about gender roles and the patriarchy, but you don't mention anything about the actual social classes, and you don't really consider the complex societies even though they were also agricultural(civilizations). Other than that, I think that this was a great post, and I think that you guys made a very good argument that the adoption of agriculture was not an improvement over hunter-gathering, and hunter-gathering is still better than agriculture.
Reply
Lucas Tipper
8/28/2018 04:49:03 pm
Hunting and gathering may provide health advantages and more free time you can't ignore the lack of technology.I would argue that developments in medcine such as defibulators and vacines outweigh the healthier lifestyle.We can restart someones heart today thats to developments created with specilization of labor that would never happen in a hunter gather society due to no specilization of labor.While agriculture may have been a poor choice in ancient times it has greatly improved our modern lives.
Reply
Derrick Hsieh
8/28/2018 07:23:47 pm
It's quite interesting that humans from that time would throw out anything for security. We gave up our natural diet that protected us from diseases and helped us grow stronger for a diet that only gave order and security. With this in mind, it starts to make sense how empires stood strong when they were able to provide a sense of security and power for it's inhabitants but collaspes as soon as a threat they aren't able to deal with occurs.
Reply
Santiago Castillo
8/29/2018 09:05:35 pm
Adding on to you comment Derrick, it shows how security was very important to these ancient civillians. They had to take drastic measures in order to cause the change they needed and they had to adapt to new circumstances. This idea of replacing individual communities with multicultural empires is a great example of how the Neolithic revolution was critical to societal development
Sam Silverman
8/28/2018 08:05:50 pm
Overall, your paragraph(s) were great. You concisely blended the articles with their respective points of view, and very efficiently came to your point. Since Mrs. Best allowed us some leeway with paragraphs, (I think she said we could do 2 or 3) I think a few indents wouldn't hurt. You have some clear, cut ideas and to distinguish them with new paragraphs would help contrast your various ideas much more efficiently. Content wise, everything was stitched together nicely. When highlighting the disadvantages fo agriculture, you could also mention how food surpluses led to job specialization, which in turn led to patriarchy and inequality, rather than just farming roles limiting women to the house. Great job!
Reply
Arjun Batra - Period 5
8/28/2018 08:30:12 pm
Your response to the prompt was very well written, where you supported your claims with evidence and analysis very effectively! I agree with your statement that the hunter gathering lifestyle was more favorable over farming in the aspects of more leisure time, a more varied and healthier diet, and less clash between people due to a lack of social stratification, as supported by Marshall Sahlins' claim that poverty has grown with civilizations, where the birth of civilizations has caused the inequality present today. However, I also believe that, from the technological and economic viewpoint, agriculture was an improvement over the lifestyle of foragers. Through the surplus of food, specialized jobs were created which in turn led to the development of technological innovations as people focused on a specific field. With the new products and technologies being manufactured, there developed a vast trade network that led to the distribution of ideas and the technological advancements of human society, where we reap the benefits of innovation today.
Reply
Kim Doak
8/26/2018 04:10:19 pm
Agriculture was not an improvement over hunting and gathering because agriculture introduced humans to an unhealthy diet and in turn to more diseases, as well as less leisure time. Jared Diamond, a professor at UCLA, compares the diet of a twentieth century hunter-gatherer group; the Kalahari Bushmen, to the diet of farmers. Farmers have a diet high in carbohydrates, while the Kalahari have a diet mixed with wild plants and animals. Mark Cohen, an anthropologist, is quick to point out the health benefits of a diet like this. Cohen points out that the diet of hunter-gatherers, which is typically rich in potassium and low in sodium as well as total fat, has made health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and other circulatory problems extremely rare.
Reply
(Kim Doak)
8/26/2018 04:11:48 pm
Period 3^
Reply
Aiden Bub
8/26/2018 09:36:45 pm
Although I agree that agriculture brought disease and took away from leisure time, you can't ignore the fact that the rise of agriculture helped society to develop in a way that was not previously possible. Job specialization gave way to invention and to a more efficient world.
Reply
Dahlia Rappaport
8/27/2018 04:32:08 pm
The fact that job specialization brought more technological influence that greatly effected the world is true; however, I think that with the influence of the agricultural revolution also came negative effects that, in my opinion, outweighed the new technology. With the revolution also came a new form of inequality among many people, social classes were formed. There was also less leisure time, and more time was devoted to work which effected the previous community like dynamic hunter- gatherers had. Also with the newly organized societies came bad disease that effected many heavily populated groups of people.
Sam Shoflick
8/28/2018 06:56:00 pm
I agree with Aiden in the sense that agriculture has lead humans to amazing developments such as technology, civilization, and economic systems. Many of the documents strongly sided with the pros of hunter gatherers societies such as leisure and few diseases but our generation would not be able to survive without the progress in agriculture.
Emily Lai
8/28/2018 09:32:45 pm
Agriculture did indeed bring new technology and inventions. However, hunter-gatherer societies did not need to rely on any modern technologies today so there was no need to have job specialization. The inventions we have today are all luxuries that came with agriculture, but are not necessary for survival.
Sophia Hashimoto
8/28/2018 07:53:18 pm
I agree that agriculture has brought less leisure time and more diseases to civilizations, but I believe that agriculture has been an improvement over hunting and gathering to a moderate extent, rather than not an improvement at all. As a result of the use of agriculture throughout beginning civilizations, it has built a foundation for a stable society to prosper and thrive through its ability to unify a society and continue to create new technologies that will further help a civilization.
Reply
Zoe Koch
8/28/2018 08:03:51 pm
I really like how you brought up the fact about agriculture impacting our diets and our physical body. Agriculture also brought up many other health risks such as certain vitamin deficiencies which are caused by a lack of variety in the diet. Hunter-Gatherers were much less susceptible to these diseases as their diets had many variations and were often not the same day-to-day. A loss of a certain crop that was contaminated also can lead to starvation and even death as shown through the potato famine in Ireland. Undoubtedly, we wouldn't be the society we are today without agriculture, but hunter-gatherers were healthier and had more free time in living their lives.
Reply
Preston Kilzer
8/29/2018 09:03:35 pm
Maybe hunter gathering wasn't the first couple hundred years, but look at where we are now! The first several hundred thousand years of human history, people made almost no population growth and no technological innovation. Maybe little, but for several hundred thousand years, not much. Then, a few thousand years after the invention of agriculture, we have an even more diverse diet, and all the benefits of technology. At the beginning it was a setback, but it was an investment. An investment that grew exponentially and extremely fast compared to hunter gathering.
Reply
Period 5- Minyoung Chang, Teal Wall
8/26/2018 04:16:51 pm
The adoption of agriculture was not an improvement over the previous ways of hunting and gathering because it led to less leisure time, poor nutrition, the frequent contraction of diseases, and social inequality; however, agriculture did improve the quality of human life in that it provided better security and permanence to a society as a whole. Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at UCLA, observes that hunter-gatherers enjoyed much more leisure time than their farmer counterparts because most groups of the like, such as the Kalahari Bushmen, only had to devote an average of 12 to 19 hours each week to obtain food. This provided the hunter-gatherers with more time for rest or entertainment for both men, who generally took on the role of hunting, and women, who were generally responsible for gathering and kitchen routines. Overall, a steady lifestyle was maintained throughout the year, says anthropologist Richard Lee. After the transformative agricultural revolution, farmers were challenged with the long hours of work in the fields to maintain their crops; this lack of leisure time has continued until today’s time, in which the average person works 40 hours a week compared to the 14 hours of the Hadza nomads of Tanzania described by Diamond. The hunting-gathering lifestyle also provided humans with a better diet to fulfill their nutritional needs. Agriculture and its genetic modification of plants over time eventually lessened the nutritional value of different foods. American anthropologist Mark Nathan states that the greater and natural occurring variety of plants and animals in a hunter-gatherers diet provided them with more nutrition to help fight against plagues and diseases. On the other hand, farmers were much more prone to contracting disease because of their frequent contact with animals. However, the hunting-gathering lifestyle lacked the security and permanence of urban complex agricultural societies. An agricultural society provided a secure life for humans, co-founder and president of the World History Association Kevin Reilly states, with laws, walls, enforcers of rules and “institutions that functioned beyond the lives of their particular members” to make city life more permanent than village life. Though this security provided forced order and regularity in agricultural communities, a better form of order and regularity can be seen in hunting-gathering lives. Humans such as the Bushmen created and maintained a stable lifestyle with a band of hunter-gatherers. While “civilized” agricultural societies sought stability, peace and justice by implementing laws, these were laws to protect the many privileges of a favored, affluent party that was created due to the unjust social division among the people, which was mainly developed because of the rise in power of those in control of the agricultural surplus. The stability that agricultural societies sought in creating laws was better achieved by the egalitarian hunting and gathering societies. Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins suggests that because of their egalitarian nature, hunter-gatherers had few material wants other than those necessary for their sustenance and were therefore able to maintain a stable and regular lifestyle. Although agriculture led to the permanence and security of urban complex societies, it was not an improvement over the hunting and gathering lifestyle in which humans had more leisure time, better nutrition, a significantly smaller risk of contracting diseases, and almost no social inequality.
Reply
Abigail Jeong
8/26/2018 04:18:37 pm
Period 5- Minyoung Chang, Teal Wall, Abigail Jeong*
Reply
Dahlia Rappaport
8/27/2018 04:20:14 pm
I agree with your statement that agriculture was not an improvement to the hunter-gatherer looking at lifestyle. You do bring up a good point about there being less security, it seems to me that all your other points outweigh this. Given that hunter-gatherers had little to none of the social inequality brought by the type of organized society talked about, and that there was less risk to other problems such as disease. I believe it can be concluded that yes, the industrial revolution did have some positive new benefits,but the hunter- gatherers lived an overall better and more stress free life.
Reply
Ella Yousaf
8/29/2018 08:44:48 pm
While I agree with the points you brought up, I also think its important to remember that the Agricultural Revolution was an inevitability. Our innate need for improvement is one of the driving forces of history, as it is omnipresent. So although the hunter-gatherer lifestyle appears to be particularly advantageous, especially compared to that of early agrarian societies, it was never sustainable.
Adarsh Kotlapati-Period 5
8/27/2018 09:25:25 pm
I think that you guys did a good job making a good argument and including the "however" piece and explaining both sides of the argument. All of your points were explained very well and in detail, and all of them were supported by evidence from the sources that were given to us in class. I do agree that both sides had good and bad aspects, and my group also made a very similar argument. However, I think that you guys might have transitioned too fast between each of your points of evidence because you guys jump from nutritional foods to diseases to the "however" point very quickly without explaining each one in a little bit more detail and giving a better transiton. I do think that these paragraphs answered the question given in a very clear and professional way, and they brought up a lot of evidence and support, so I think that it was a good paragraph overall.
Reply
Nicole Hill
8/28/2018 03:28:30 pm
I agree with everything you are saying. Hunter-gatherers did have better diets, more leisure time, were less prone to disease, and had better nutrition. In addition to all of this, hunter-gatherer societies' egalitarian way of life was superior. Everyone was equal and there were no social classes, unlike the unequal, patriarchal civilizations that arose after them. This all meant that the inequalities and poverty common in modern day society didn't exist. However, as you stated, civilizations did offer safety, and another example of this is the high murder rate prevalent in many hunter-gatherer societies. Although they tried to keep everyone from jealousy, fights still broke out between the members of the tribes, especially since there were no laws to stop them. In conclusion, there were more benefits to living in hunter-gatherer societies, but civilization did offer safety.
Reply
Emily Sands
8/29/2018 07:38:12 pm
I agree with your main argument that agriculture led to less leisure time, poor nutrition, disease, and social inequality. However, I disagree that agriculture improved human's quality of life. Agriculture was much harder work for humans, disease was more common due to a less varied diet, and inequalities developed and lessened the quality of life. Although I agree with your statement that it created more security and permanence for humans, I don't believe it significantly increased the quality of life.
Reply
8/26/2018 04:50:15 pm
Numerous anthropologists and professors have analyzed the various consequences and benefits of evolving from hunter-gatherers into farmers. The wide debate of whether or not it was a good idea for the fate of humanity has challenged many researchers. While the slow progression into farmers established a foundation for the uprisal of civilizations and development of advanced technology, it also increased malnutrition, exposure to harmful diseases, longer hours with less leisure time, and stunted physical growth such as height and tooth and bone decay; therefore, it could be considered “the worst mistake in the history of the human race”.
Reply
Abby Jacobson, Emily Sands, Braden Mayer, Miranda Kawula
8/26/2018 06:48:04 pm
The adoption of agriculture in early human societies was not a significant improvement over the early technique of hunting and gathering. In hunter-gatherer societies, humans had more leisure time, a more varied diet, a smaller chance of getting disease, and the inequalities that arose after the Agricultural Revolution were nonexistent. Hunter-gatherers spent less time gathering the same amount of food that farmers would produce in a greater amount of time. They on average only devoted 12 to 19 hours a week to obtaining food; therefore, hunter-gatherers had plenty of leisure time to do what they wanted (Diamond). In addition to more leisure time, hunter-gatherers consumed a variety of foods such as wild plants and animals which allowed them to maintain a more nutritious and balanced diet than early farmers (Diamond). This varied diet protected hunter-gatherers from diseases that affect humans today such as diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer (Cohen). Finally, before the revolution of farming, inequalities were not as prominent as they were after the Agricultural Revolution. The Agricultural Revolution created a food surplus, which led to the specialization of jobs, which then led to social hierarchy. In hunting and gathering times, there were no social divisions that separated wealthy from poor. Poverty grows with civilization and in hunter-gatherer societies everyone did the same job of obtaining food for their survival, so poverty or social classes didn’t exist. According to these historians, agriculture was not a great improvement over hunting and gathering, due to the greater leisure time, fewer diseases, and lack of inequalities hunter-gatherers had.
Reply
Marisa Lange
8/26/2018 10:19:34 pm
I agree with you. Even though agriculture brought us beneficial things such as technology, it also brought a lot of negative things such as inequality and diets that created higher risks for diseases.
Reply
Lauren Vives
8/27/2018 08:40:10 pm
I agree that during this time hunting and gathering might've been the healthier way to live. However, comparing the nutrition/disease differences in lifestyles during the early ages of agriculture and today can be a huge stretch. Today diseases may be more common because of the diets people have. For example, way back in the hunting gatherer age people did not have nearly the choices we have today. In fact, back then people ate whatever they could to fuel themselves, while today people can choose what they want to incorporate in their diet. If maintaining a steady unhealthy diet they are more likely to be prone to diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
Reply
Nicole Hill
8/28/2018 03:39:05 pm
I agree with everything you said about hunter-gathering being a superior way of life. It did offer better nutrition, better diets, more leisure time, and no social hierarchy. In addition to all of that, agriculturalists were much more prone to diseases because they were living in close proximity to animals, who had many diseases that humans had never experienced before and therefore didn't have immunity to. Also, the high population density meant that diseases spread much faster since there were so many people living so close together.
Reply
Sam Shoflick
8/28/2018 07:09:40 pm
I agree with your claim and find your evidence very strong. As many have mentioned Hunter-gatherers had more leisure time and fewer diseases because of their healthy diets. I find your idea of social hierarchy to be a new one and provides support to your claim. The food surplus lead to job specialization which shower and established civilizations ideas towards important works. The separation of classes is a problem our modern society constantly faces, and might have been solved if agriculture never existed.
Reply
Period 5-Joe Fogler
8/26/2018 07:23:28 pm
Although viewed as a “development,” agriculture is not an obvious improvement over hunting and gathering. This is because hunter-gatherers have more leisure time, better diets and no dependency on material possessions. Jared Diamond, professor of geography at UCLA, studied modern day hunter-gatherers, and found that hunters only had to spend “12-19 hours [each week] for one group of bushmen.” Similarly, the women only had to spend “[one day gathering food] to feed her family for three days” (Lee). This short work week allows hunter-gatherer societies to have more leisure time giving them more time to sleep, dance and reproduce, leading to low stress and a steady growth rate of populations. This freetime also allowed different societies to visit each other allowing the spread of ideas, inventions and even better DNA through evolution as tribes mixed with each other. Another advantage hunter-gatherers have is a better diet and better source of food. According to Jared Diamond, “the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutritions.” While farmers mostly focused on crops, hunter-gatherers could have the best of both worlds with meat and naturally grown crops. As well as a more balanced diet, hunter-gatherers also are at less of a risk of some diseases than farmers because, as Health and the Rise of Civilization author Mark Nathan Cohen states, “[many] cancers that we consider to be diseases of underdevelopment may be the historical product of changes in human behavior involving food storage…” Along with better nutrition in the food they eat, hunter-gatherers also have a more reliable source of food. Even if a hunter can’t find any animals for his family, the gatherer will almost always be able to find calories from some kind of plant or nut. Farmers, on the other hand, are at nature's mercy when it comes to proper conditions for growing crops. Jared Diamond presents this claim, stating “It’s almost impossible to imagine that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840’s.” As thousands of farmers watched their crops be destroyed by insects, the hunter-gatherers were doing just fine. Another advantage hunter-gatherers have is the needlessness for material possessions. As American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins put it “The world's most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor...Poverty is a social status.” Sahlins claims that without the need for goods beyond those necessary for survival leds to social classes and inequality. All of these reasons show why the invention of agriculture was the worst mistake in human history.
Reply
Teal Wall
8/27/2018 05:59:08 pm
I agree, even through agriculture created a more stable lifestyle, hunter-gatherers were healthier and had more leisure time. There was also no possibility of something like the potato famine. The point that you made in hunter-gatherers not being materialistic was very interesting.
Reply
Quinn Roark
8/28/2018 04:18:14 pm
I agree. The argument of agricultural communities being safer, I think isn't true. With the invention of agriculture came empires, which lead to many wars. These wars might push people out of their homes, just as fast as hunter-gatherers would. Also these communities weren't safe to natural disasters either. As the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers often flooded, killing Mesopotamians.
Reply
Ella McIlwaine
8/29/2018 08:59:13 pm
I absolutely agree that agriculture was one of the worst mistakes humanity ever made. With the worldwide spread of the practice, hunter-gatherer societies began to die out and humans became more susceptible to diseases and and things such as social classes became common and widespread. Without the implementation of agrarian societies, humanity would arguably be better off today.
Reply
Pd. 6 Eve Breese, Sonya Zakarian, Dahlia Rappaport, Leah Abrahamsson
8/26/2018 07:38:50 pm
The change from the hunter gatherer way of life to farming (agriculture) caused significant changes in every aspect of life. The time spent working, gender roles, overall health, and technology were all altered. However, those changes were not necessarily for the better. Based on the way the technology from the agricultural revolution helped shape the start of civilizations, but caused the quality of home life to go down hill, agriculture was an improvement over hunter gathering only to the extent of technology.
Reply
Faith Watkins
8/28/2018 07:01:46 pm
I agree with the point that you made about how the hunter-gatherer life was a freer and more comfortable life without the downside of social classes. But what's the point of improving yourself and improving your lifestyle if there's nowhere to go and no reason to get better? People could just do the absolute minimum to survive and then spend the rest of the day just killing time. Although it might seem to be a happier lifestyle, it would make life pretty boring.
Reply
Sara Plomondon
8/28/2018 08:43:35 pm
I think you make a very good point, but by saying agriculture is an improvement to hunter-gatherer societies only to the extent of technology isn't entirely true. In agriculture societies there was more stability when it came to nutrition because a majority of the time they always had access to food, where as hunter-gatherers moved around searching for food. Also farmers felt safer due to their ability to protect themselves with walls and create laws for security with eachother. Despite that I think you had a good argument and I agree with everything else you said.
Reply
Roberto Berkowitz
8/30/2018 09:22:25 pm
I agree with your point that the hunter gatherer society changed societies in many way. I also agree that it was not necessarily for the better. But if it wasn't for the change do you think something worse might've happen? Without agriculture and the adaption of civilization human civilization could've been wiped out.
Reply
Period 3: Peyton Russell, Sami Seiden, Sara Mesko, Sara Plomondon, Addie Follett
8/26/2018 07:39:35 pm
Reply
Autumn Silva, Lewin We, Ian Liaw-Period 3
8/26/2018 07:54:12 pm
In the given secondary source documents, four out of five agree that agriculture was not an improvement.Though the development of agriculture did provide stability and order, it is not a positive improvement because hunter-gatherers were healthier and had more leisure time than farmers.
Reply
Akshati Vaishnav
8/26/2018 08:36:42 pm
I completely agree that people were better off in the paleolithic era. The best part was that people were more relaxed and were more healthier. When farming emerged, it brought many diseases with it.
Reply
Sonya Zakarian
8/26/2018 09:47:39 pm
I agree with your point that the class division that followed agriculture was harmful to society, especially compared to the egalitarian lifestyle of hunter gatherers. An interesting piece of evidence that you brought up to support this was Marshall Sahlins's belief that the increased disparity between rich and poor led to a higher starvation rate.
Reply
Marisa Lange
8/26/2018 10:10:26 pm
I completely agree with you. Health problems have gotten worse over time due to humans' poor diets. Hunters-gatherers had a well balanced diet which protected them from many diseases.
Reply
Jordan Ellis
8/27/2018 11:51:34 am
I understand and agree with your claim. The chances of disease skyrockets when working in the fields, especially if your community has a famine, or a disease coming from the plants. Agriculturalists also domesticated animals, bringing new diseases brought on with them. The hunter-gatherers were way better off with a more varied diet, and more leisure time.
Reply
Ella Thompson
8/27/2018 07:16:52 pm
I agree that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was more relaxed and healthier for the people. However, agriculture also had many benefits. It allowed people to settle down and specialize in certain jobs. Not everyone had to go and retrieve food for the community. With agriculture, were able to support their families along with doing things they enjoyed to do, not feeling obligated to.
Reply
Lauren Vives
8/27/2018 08:49:06 pm
I agree that more people were able to live a happier and more stress-free lifestyle back then. However, for mankind to prosper and become what it is today people could not live this lifestyle.
Reply
Aria Ashoury
8/28/2018 06:09:04 pm
I disagree, because mankind could've still evolved to what it is today if our ancestors had embraced hunting and gathering and never taken up agriculture. Large farms made humans dependent on the seasons for our food supply, weather affecting farming as well as hunting. Hunting and gathering, however, could've been adapted so that humans would've stored food that was hunted or gathered in store houses, eliminating potential problems like famines. Furthermore, humans would have eventually formed civilizations anyway as they discovered other ethnic groups in new lands and realized that they would be stronger together. All in all, hunting and gathering would've trumped agriculture in terms of how humans have nutritionally and socially advanced, for humans would've done the same things anyway and advanced ourselves with technology, we just would've had more leisure time and better diets in the modern day.
Sophia Hashimoto
8/28/2018 08:05:40 pm
I respectfully disagree with Aria because mankind could not have evolved the same way in a hunting and gathering lifestyle. Agriculture formed the foundation for law, order, and social classes which the hunting and gathering lifestyle does not provide. If we were to not have adopted the agricultural ways of life, then there would be less of a possibility for new technologies and a civilized society. I agree that the farming lifestyle offered more leisure time and less diseases for man-kind, but agriculture founded order into a society that has continued into today's civilizations.
Autumn Silva per. 3
8/29/2018 05:33:03 pm
I respectfully disagree with Sophia. Though agriculture paved the way for societies and for technological advancements, it didn't exactly give way to the most stable and ordered societies. Take the U.S. for instance, sure our country is run through democracy, we have laws and a justice system for those who break them, but that doesn't exactly mean our society is in order. Crime thrives in our cities, rebellions and protests are a common occurance, our government is often corrupted, and our justice system is far from fair. Egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies don't have these issues. They live their lives in piece, gathering their food and enjoying their massive amounts of leisure time. Just because agriculture gave us technological breakthroughs such as the internet, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle seemed to be less chaotic, more stable, and as previously mentioned, healthier.
Kylie Garner
8/28/2018 05:12:43 pm
I agree with you're statement that hunter-gathers had a better life, which is due to their healthier life diets and extra leisure time. In addition, the concept that once agriculture developed it caused the population to increase which lead to more chances of crime and communities were not as safe. The combination of crime and disease left the agriculture to seem unsafe and people to worry for their life. Hunter-gathers were able to spend their their extensive free time in a small community with their friends and family without worry.
Reply
Period 3 - Marisa Lange, Sanya Bhartiya, Sam Cohen, and Kylie Garner
8/26/2018 08:30:59 pm
While the Neolithic Revolution allowed the vast development of technology in human society, agriculture’s inefficiency and inequity have created a societal structure that is overall not an improvement over hunter-gatherer communities. To begin, despite the common notion that agriculture created more time for leisure activities, the efficable hunter-gatherer lifestyle allowed humans to gain a higher amount of proper sustenance in a relatively minimal amount of time. The Kalahari Bushmen, a paleolithic society in the contemporary world, obtains a supply of food that exceeds an appropriate daily amount by foraging for only twelve to nineteen hours per week, a stark contrast to the extensively time-consuming labor of farming(Doc 2). In these bands in which members were not constantly forced to scour for food, dissimilar to agriculturalists whose life is engulfed by their occupation, resting, embroidery, socializing, and dancing were common activities, leisure abound for men and women alike(Doc 3). Although these groups were devoid of specialists, as the inability to maintain a surplus for nomadic groups prevented this, individuals were able to participate in a range of recreations in addition to survival, a concept foreign to many in modern nations. Additionally, this less toiling labor yielded far more nutritious results for hunter-gatherers, whose exposure to dietary variety opposed farmers’ exposure to diseases. Due to farmers plant-based diets, they neglected nutrients that the blend of meat, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables that hunter-gatherers’ diets provided, thus causing malnourished farmers to be shorter, more prone to cavities, and have a higher risk for diseases than their hunter-gatherer counterparts(Doc 1).
Reply
Jordan Ellis
8/27/2018 11:47:57 am
In addition to your claim, the Kalahari Bushman not only had a more varied nutritional diet, but physically had to bare less time working in the fields. Even if the Kalahari Bushman were to work the same amount of time as new agriculturalists, the less immense, easier work of foraging would have boosted life expectancy tremendously compared to agricultural life. Diet matters as shown in present day U.S. yet amount of work also matters.
Reply
Sanya Bhartiya
8/28/2018 09:41:59 pm
Yes, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was less time-consuming than the practice of agriculture, which has been seen throughout history to compose of strenuous toil, and which we referenced the hour comparison of in our paragraph. I think you introduce an astute point about the amount of work in the US today, as the US is often criticised for having a society based on stress rather than the relaxation encouraged in European nations. The American obsession with inducing a stressful culture, in addition to the poor diet attributed to the majority of Americans, can certainly be traced back to the adoption of agriculture.
Santiago Castillo
8/29/2018 07:16:19 pm
You bring up points about the negative effects that the switch to agriculture has brought to modern societies. And while it is true that there are fundamental problems like you mentioned, the Neolithic revolution's positive aspects significantly outweigh the negative. Using agriculture allowed societies to improve their way of life socially, economically, and culturally -- of course that is at the cost of stressful lives -- but in my opinion, it was worth it.
Period 6 - Sophia Hashimoto, Camille Marsh, Aiden Bub, Som G
8/26/2018 08:31:34 pm
Agriculture was an improvement over hunting and gathering as it created a food surplus and stability within civilizations; but it also brought disease and social stratification to the primitive world of humanity. Once farming became prevalent, it offered a sense of “regularity, stability, order, and even routine” that early communities never experienced (Doc 5). The surplus of food gave way to the creation of plans and expectations, which turned into an increase in overall security and productivity. Walls were built and rules were put in place as societies became more organized. Cities seemed enduring, offering “considerably more permanence and security” for the first time in history (Doc 5). A surplus of food also leads to job specialization. This proves vital in the overall development of man, as the many different professions create new technologies and improve upon the efficiency of society. With this, however, comes social stratification, patriarchy, and discrimination.
Reply
Faith Watkins
8/28/2018 07:07:57 pm
You guys had really strong evidence and you really seem like you understood the topic. I like how instead of talking about the happiness of each lifestyle, you talked about the more objective differences of life expectancy and health problems. And also how although there was more security in an agricultural society, there was no need for that among other things in a hunter-gatherer society.
Reply
Sanya Bhartiya
8/29/2018 05:33:38 am
Though I appreciate your acknowledgement of both sides concerning this issue, I don't think your claims about the stability of agriculture are entirely supported. As you mentioned, there was a certain security achieved in agricultural societies due to their sedentary nature and ability for specialization, specifically in terms of assembling a military. However, according to Richard Lee, hunter-gatherers had a "rhythm of steady work and steady leisure" despite being nomads(Doc 3). Additionally, I disagree with your perceieved notion that the development of food surplus allowed for expectations, as humanity has and will always be subject to nature. For example, Mesopotamian culture was one of fear and ruthlessness due to its inability to expect the flooding of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, which devastated their society. Hunter-gatherers, who emphasized the significance of coexisting with Earth rather than dominating it, were better emotionally and physically equipped to adapt to these natural disasters, as they could simply uproot themselves and flee from the area.
Reply
Period 3: Rachel S, Maria B, Eden K, Laura S, Zoe K
8/26/2018 08:33:01 pm
While hunter-gatherers have healthier diets according to Jared Diamond, agriculture was and still is far superior to hunter-gatherer societies. According to Kevin Reilly, an agricultural livelihood offers more permanence and security than the hunter-gatherer way of life. Since the period in history that people have decided to settle down and come together, there has been more stability in both the social and political aspects of life. Richard Lee argues that with agriculture, there is a more reliable food source than what is available in a hunting-gathering society. Even though Mark Nathan Cohen claims that hunter-gatherer diets cause fewer health problems, sustainable and permanent food sources that help the general population is well worth a few health issues. Since agriculturalists are able to control the growth of their crops, they don’t have to worry about traveling great distances in search of food. Unfortunately, hunter-gatherers are sometimes unsuccessful in their journeys to hunt for wild animals, leaving them without a source of meat. Furthermore, hunter-gatherers can only travel in small groups due to the lack of a surplus of food. In opposition to that, agriculturalists are able to have diverse and large populations of people. Kevin Reilly also states that agricultural civilizations have more of an ability to plan ahead for what might come in the future. Overall, agricultural societies are more secure, diverse, and have a safer future in comparison to hunter-gatherers who do not have that same stability, nor promising future.
Reply
Aiden Bub
8/26/2018 09:25:06 pm
Agriculture often doesn't create stability in regards to food. Drought and famine have wiped out entire food supplies several times in history and you have to acknowledge the risk that comes with putting all your eggs in one basket.
Reply
Rachel Shin
8/27/2018 04:28:20 pm
Of course there's a risk to only sticking with agriculture. However, hunter and gatherers have a bigger risk of starving because sometimes they're unable to be successful when they hunt. I definitely see your point but the pros to agriculture outweigh the negatives and it's sustained the human population up to this point.
Ella Thompson
8/27/2018 07:27:11 pm
I agree with you. Weather is very unpredictable and if farming is one's only source of food, it can be wiped out very quickly by a storm. Agriculture was dependent on good weather, and one bad day can destroy a whole field of crops.
Sanya Bhartiya
8/29/2018 05:38:06 am
I absolutely confer with this statement. Agriculture, particularly early agriculture, was entirely dependent on one food source in one area. Even if hunter-gatherers were unsuccessful in hunting, 70% of their diet was derived from plants, and their variation allowed a consistent supply of food even in disaster.
Ibrahim Mohammed
8/29/2018 06:24:30 pm
Although the weather and climate certainly is an essential factor in the agricultural industry, but it is not the only factor. There also comes in quantity, and quality.Hunter-gatherers probably didn't get a huge quantity of food, and although they didn't need it, they were at a severe risk of starvation at all times. Not everything is edible, so most hunter-gatherers probably stayed in or around an area in order to maintain their food surpluses, but if the moved on to a different location, say the Saharan desert or the Siberian tundra, these hunter -gatherers would be at a severe risk. In addition to this, agriculture isn't completely unstable. Although some years crops may flood, other years crops will flourish, allowing these communities to accumulate a huge food surplus, that once accumulated enough could last them a long time. The famines and other natural disasters that caused crops to die and food sources to close, weren't all that harmful, if the communities played it safe and moved to a different area. Also with the natural disasters such as drought affected the hunter-gatherers too, as they also depended on the climate for their food, and once a drought hit, they may have had to move too. There was probably a reason nomads stayed near areas where civilizations were flourishing, and that could be attributed to the fact that they knew that where there is a civilization, there is arable land and, most likely, a natural food source or a river they could use. All in all, both methods had their flaws, but I do agree that agriculture may have had more flaws in the earlier days, but as it developed it gained a lot of potential that hunting and gathering didn't have. It certainly would be interesting to see what would have happened if early humans stuck to hunting and gathering until today and what kind of people we would be. Once you start considering this idea, most of what we have would be thrown out, as I believe instead of civilizations forming, we would all have migratory tribes and eventually I think this would lead to severe over population. But that's just a theory. Maybe hunting and gathering would have jumped us ahead 10 years? Great post! It is a great one for discussion!
Lewin Wu
8/27/2018 02:49:12 pm
This response is interesting as almost every other one was about how good hunter-gatherers were and how bad agriculture is. Another reason that farming might be better than hunter-gatherer is that agriculture destroys land slower than hunter-gatherers do. An example of this is the desertification of Australia, caused by the native hunter-gatherers
Reply
Maria Barun
8/27/2018 10:03:45 pm
We choose to take the different point of view as to challenge ourselves in how we see these ancient civilizations. Though I can agree with both sides of the arguement.
Abigail Jeong
8/27/2018 06:23:37 pm
While you do make some valid points, I would have to disagree with your belief that agriculture is an improvement. One of your main points is how hunter gatherers did not have a sustainable food source, but you skipped over the whole lifestyle of hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers were not sedentary; instead, they moved around to make sure they had plenty of food,and so they wouldn't deplete the land they were living off of. Since they moved around, it was almost guaranteed that they would have food somewhere in their path of travel. They were able to escape starvation because of their constant moving around, and agricultural societies were actually in more danger of famine. The Irish potato famine exemplified how agricultural people were in more danger of lack of food because of how they dependent they were on their fickle crops. The hunter gatherers, on the other hand, were independent, stable, and their lifestyle was better.
Reply
Rachel Shin
8/28/2018 03:51:55 pm
I'm going to disagree with you saying that hunter-gatherers did not destroy the lands they lived on. Hunter-gatherers in Australia used slashing and burning techniques to destroy their surroundings and bring out different plants. This is, obviously, very bad for the environment and destructive as well. Agricultural societies did have some issues but having a surplus of food in other places allowed for the human population to stay alive. Agriculture is what has led us to where we are currently. Hunter-gatherers do have healthier diets (as stated in our paragraph) but agriculture allows for a surplus of food.
Kylie Garner
8/28/2018 05:28:20 pm
Hunter-gathers did not destroy land, because they lived off they land and cherished it for giving them the resources needed to thrive. When the hunter-gathers burned the land they were not harming the environment, and knew that it would promote growth rather than destroy it. It wasn't until agriculture came about that humans began to change and alter the land for their own needs. Therefore, I agree with your argument that the hunter-gathers life style was better and that their was a source of food a majority of the time.
Rui W.
8/28/2018 08:18:00 pm
While hunting-gathering was indeed well suited for individual satisfaction, I would really argue against your point that hunting-gathering was better, mainly because of the world we live in today. I won't avoid that fact that agriculture did bring about several tens of hundreds of diseases or that it also brought about the social injustices of today. However, the technological revolution and growth that the agricultural societies brought about are more important, at least, in my view. Due to job specialization, societal growth, and the effects of the surplus of food created by the agricultural revolution, metalworkers and artisans only came about because of agriculture. Eventually, due to only a percent of the population as farmers, the other percent could do as they please, eventually becoming songwriters, inventors, thinkers, and many other jobs that make everyone's life more enjoyable and unique. This is purely theoretical, but if hunting-gathering was indeed better and humans stuck to it, people such as Obama, Kanye, even you and me would only have the task of hunting and gathering in a more primitive society where we do not have the technology we possess today because we simply cannot settle down and dedicate time to create it. Hunting-gathering is amazing for its individual leisure time, plentiful food, and egalitarian society, but I would like to think farming helped everyone in the long term because it spurred on change and improvement that a constantly moving society could never achieve.
Ibrahim M.
8/29/2018 06:42:13 pm
Making a modern connection to the Irish Potato Famine was a great way to put things into perspective. By looking at causes and effects I think we can get to the heart of this debate. Now the surviving hunter gatherers live a happy life, and they are satisfied because they have their food, water, and shelter. But agriculture has allowed us to develop to a point beyond that. The difference between agriculture and hunting and gathering can be seen through the Irish Potato Famine, as a negative for agriculture, but there is also the other side to consider. The Irish Potato Famine didn't lead to the end of the Irish Civilization, or you could say the Irish country. It was because England decided to help out a little and contribute a lot of their food that Ireland survived. Now in a hunter-gatherer situation, starvation is the end. Tribe is gone, and there is a high likelihood no one will help you out. Why? A good analogy is that you may let someone borrow your phone for a quick phone call, but would you let them borrow your phone for life? These hunter-gatherers wouldn't want to give away their food sources, as it would deplete them until it was gone. Addressing the counter that the hunter-gatherers would just move around to another spot, this also wasn't a viable solution. What if they moved to an area where there was no food source, and plenty exist today. Without agriculture I feel humanity would not have advanced far.
Rui W.
8/28/2018 08:34:48 pm
This is something that I definetly agree with. While h/g-ers often had success in their hunting and gathering, having egalitarian society, and having plenty of time for singing, dancing, and whatever it is a hunter-gatherer does, I'd like to think that the risk of disease/starvation from agriculture was well worth the shift. The Agricultural Revolution also created job specializations which was a major part of why we have the world today. It is due to those jobs that we have technology and can (at least personally) live with relative convenience. It's like as John Green says (in his agricultural revolution video), that we can buy something for working 11 minutes at minimum wage that will fulfill our hunger. While H/G is a nice way to live if one doesn't mind being simplistic and following a process for their entire life, agriculture still (at least for me) wins out in the end by the sheer progress that humans have made in only the past 3000 years (which is only 3.75% of all the time they have gained 'sentience' (80,000 years ago the first tools were being made.)).
Reply
Sanya Bhartiya
8/29/2018 05:44:02 am
Perhaps we, being middle class Americans going to Cherry Creek High School, can enjoy these conveniences. But, much of the world, even a majority of the world, cannot do so. It's wonderful that we have inventions like indoor plumbing and, as you mentioned, fast food, and yet agriculture has created such a hierarchial human world that many civilians in developing countries have little to no access to these. Part of this is simply the overpopulation crisis, a direct result of the availability of food surplus. Human progress in technology is indubitably astounding, but humans have also devolved in a way because of our decrease in humanity.
Emily Lai
8/28/2018 09:28:49 pm
I would disagree that agriculturalists have a more permanent food source and are able to control the growth of their crops. Often times, it can be extremely hard to manage food and growing of crops. The soil could be unsuitable for growing, there could be flooding that destroys the crops, and many other factors. On the other hand, hunter-gatherers back then were very stable and had plenty of leisure time because gathering food did not take mass amounts of time or work.
Reply
Will Cavo
8/29/2018 03:46:25 pm
While I agree that the switch to agriculture was an important aspect in the world becoming urbanized, I disagree with you in the fact that agriculture was more beneficial than hunter-gatherer societies. I think that since hunter-gatherers had a more healthy diet, more leisure time, and the culture that comes with a nomadic people, hunter-gatherer societies were more beneficial to the whole of the human race. However, with the change from nomadic to agricultural, more culture and a diverse population was created due to the surplus of food. This leads me to the conclusion that Hunter-gatherering societies are the most beneficial of the two.
Reply
Autumn Silva per. 3
8/29/2018 05:43:44 pm
I respectfully disagree with your claim. Though agriculture led to numerous societies based on the production of food, many weren't stable like they said you were. Mesopotamia for instance had an unpredictable river, so maybe it would flood and provide nutrients for the crops, or maybe it won't and we have a food shortage and possible famine. They were also eventually conquered, and many of these societies slowly declined and fell, such as the Roman Empire, or the Persian Empire. One of the articles mentions the potato famine in Ireland. If the country wasn't so dependent of the growth of the crops, and were able to utilize their resources, as hunter-gatherers do, maybe so many people wouldn't have died from starvation.
Reply
Arjun Batra, Adarsh Kotlapati, Maverick Stansbury
8/26/2018 08:40:23 pm
Reflecting back on the Paleolithic Age and the Neolithic Revolution from the beginning of human history to around 600 B.C.E., historians consider the developments of complex political, economic, and technological systems as a result of agriculture an improvement over the hunter-gatherer lifestyle; however, with the upbringing of intensive labor, diseases, and social stratification accompanied by the advent of farming, hunter-gatherers in this aspect were better off than agriculturalists.
Reply
Arjun Batra, Adarsh Kotlapati, Maverick Stansbury
8/26/2018 08:42:43 pm
APWH Period 5
Reply
Minyoung Chang
8/27/2018 10:37:25 pm
You made an interesting point when you said that agricultural societies were able to achieve a "structured and harmonious community" because of the presence of a ruling power, and that the ruler could use his power to organize plans to construct monuments that "benefited the whole civilization". But the distinction you make between the ruling power and the labouring class (the members of which built the monuments) indicates in itself that there was a significant inequality of wealth and power between individuals. I would argue that egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies did much better in achieving harmony within the community because of the lack of a ruling class or government. The wealth inequality brought forth by agricultural societies was what created the concept of "poverty" - something that didn't exist in Paleolithic times, when there was no distinction between classes because all members of a hunting-gathering band shared ownership of all material goods. These forager societies were, as you mentioned, stable and prosperous, and the people within them were inferably quite content with the system. I think that a society better achieves harmony when all people take on similar roles than when there is a separation between the people doing the work and the people conducting it. I agree that complex agricultural societies had more structure, including a distinct political system and specialized labor as mentioned in your post, but does structure necessarily mean harmony? I would say not.
Reply
Brandon Dong
8/29/2018 08:56:05 pm
Hey, just a heads-up that the end of your 3rd paragraph got cut off.
Reply
Period 3: Himanshu S, Derrick H, Rahul H, Ibrahim M.
8/26/2018 08:49:05 pm
Farming and agriculture undoubtedly brought us to the point we are at today. Communication and transportation are as easy as the click of a button. But it also had its drawbacks, albeit ones we don’t see today. Switching to agriculture from hunting and gathering seemed to be the right decision but it wasn’t the smart one. Agriculture was a safe investment for the future but did very little to improve the lives of those in early agrarian societies because it led to a less varied diet, increased exposure to diseases, and reduced the amount of free time,
Reply
Period 6-Ibrahim M, Himanshu S, Derrick H, Rahul T
8/26/2018 08:52:58 pm
This is the rest:
Reply
Period 5 - Rui W., Akshati V., Brianna C.
8/26/2018 09:33:05 pm
Hunting/gathering was a generally better choice over agriculture due to better health and diet, increased leisure time, and their egalitarian style of living. However, without agriculture, society would’ve moved forward at a much slower pace.
Reply
RWAVBC
8/26/2018 09:33:54 pm
-e all those strengths and benefits, one key word remains - progress. Despite the agricultural society falling short on many of those key traits that would make a single individual’s life easier, it has brought about rapid development that in the span of only 3000 years has brought us to a time where the majority of civilization has come from using fire for warmth to using fire to launch self-landing rockets into space. Because of agricultural life, “plans can be made. Expectations can be realized.” Due to the surplus of food that caused social classes, job specialization was also created. This meant humans could dedicate their work to research and the advancement of society because they didn’t have to spend their whole life hunting and gathering. Only because of job specializations and their fields of work were we able to smelt and refine the metals that soon progressed society to the technological wonder that is today. And because agriculture required a more sedentary lifestyle, humans could start on large scale projects to “shield the inhabitants from nomads and armies” and develop themselves even further. True, perhaps a single individual/small group would benefit from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but massive civilizations have gotten much more out of an agricultural society - cities, technology, convenience and ideas. This is where an agricultural society is better than that of a hunter-gatherer - due to the sedentary lifestyle, agriculturalists can specialize in their jobs and develop and advance ideas and technology at a much faster rate, something that hunter-gatherers failed to do so.
Reply
RWAVBC
8/26/2018 09:36:41 pm
Sources:
Lewin Wu
8/27/2018 02:44:22 pm
I agree on the last part of this response as it is one of the rare ones that gave a counterargument. I would like to add that with agriculture and the early people's hard work, most people nowadays can enjoy a way better life than the paleolithic age and can get whatever food they want to get, ignoring the requirement for calories and proteins.
Rahul Thomas
8/29/2018 08:45:59 pm
You guys had a great point about the rise of civilizations and the consequent the rise of inequality. In our world today, there are certainly people who prey upon the weak to obtain fame, fortune and power, and these people would likely prefer an agricultural society because of their ability to hold a privileged status; they would not prefer hunter-gatherer society, though, lest they lose their sense of control over others. On the other hand, victims, such as the unemployed, ethnic and racial minorities, immigrants, and people in poverty (if you are born into such a cycle, it is extremely difficult to get out), might choose a hunter-gatherer society because of the consistent equality and security they would enjoy there. It is important to remember that civilizations do not always provide a lifestyle that is more secure and stable than h&g to their disadvantaged members; this is a major downfall.
Period 6 - Kyle Chiang
8/26/2018 11:01:03 pm
Though civilization originating from farming provides stability and security for humans, the adoption of agriculture in the Neolithic Revolution is an improvement over hunting and gathering to a minor extent because of the lack of balanced nutrition and vulnerability to related diseases present in modern societies.
Reply
Ella Thompson
8/27/2018 07:24:10 pm
I agree that hunting and gathering was a healthier lifestyle, but agriculture allowed civilizations and technology to become more advanced. As you said, hunting and gathering was a very unpredictable food source; however, the adoption of agriculture led to a more stable, secure life.
Reply
Maria Barun
8/27/2018 10:11:57 pm
Your argument brings up important facts on either side, but comes down to two main ideas. Civilization has more stability and security that allows for the development of newer technologies, but sacrifices the societies overall health. When it comes down to which one is truly better it is a personal opinion of what people value more. Tom Standage obviously values health and overall happiness more, while I personally believe that technology and new innovations are more important to mankind. Therefore these docs could have been interpreted either way depending on one's outlook.
Reply
Ella Yousaf
8/29/2018 08:18:54 pm
I agree with your views of the positve aspects of both hunter-gatherer societies and agrarian civilization. I don’t, however, think it’s all a matter of perspective. I think that we can provide objective opinions and perspectives on the development of society. I do agree that many historians do not remain objective on the topic, which reveals the values they believe to be of most importance.
Abigail Jeong
8/28/2018 06:54:06 pm
Your points promoting why agriculture was an improvement are quite interesting and good, but I feel like you left out a huge point that could change which side of the argument you agree with. Agriculture did give rise to a reliable food source, allowed sedentary living, and created new technology, agriculture created man equality problems that we have to this day. The social division created during the adoption of agriculture was quite different than the egalitarian lifestyle that many hunter gatherer bands had. The social stratification created by the rise of agriculture is a huge negative for agriculture.
Reply
Sam Silverman
8/28/2018 08:11:24 pm
Great job! The seperation of ideas through prargraphs was a great touch. I felt much more capable of distringuishng each part of your argument(s) through these seperations. I am very jealous of your brevity, I would take 3 sentences to say something you did in one. My only critique is very minor, and it's word choice. At one point you guys used establish twice in a sentence, and it kind of tripped me up. Minor, minor mistake though... great job!
Reply
Rahul Thomas
8/29/2018 08:13:02 pm
You did a great job with concisely analyzing both the pros and cons of the adoption of agriculture. I do think your arguments on the con side could be expanded even further. For instance, rather than just looking at the diets and how agriculture made humans more susceptible to disease, we could also examine the detrimental effects of agriculture on the level of equality. In the Paleolithic Era, evidence suggests that there was much more equality between the two genders; that equality has dramatically dropped throughout history after the adoption of agriculture, as this event shifted societies towards a primarily patriarchal role. Furthermore, the adoption of agriculture has also engendered slavery, or at least its widespread practice. The adoption of agriculture gave rise to civilizations and more frequent wars between these groups, which ultimately led to prisoners of war being forced into slavery even in areas like the Persian Empire (Persia was far less involved in slavery than other empires!).
Reply
Marisa Lange
8/29/2018 10:51:01 pm
I really like all of the evidence you provided to support your point. In addition to the nutritional issues agriculture brought, it also brought inequality problems such as slavery and injustice.
Reply
Michelle Kim
8/30/2018 07:13:38 am
I agree with your statements about how there were pros and cons to hunter-gatherer societies and the adoption of agriculture. The important thing to take from your statement is that the adoption of agriculture lead to the lose of some pro from hunter-gatherer societies, leading to new cons and new pros from a agricultural society. Your statement reveals the positives and the negatives to the evolving societies.
Reply
Sam Silverman
8/27/2018 05:19:53 pm
In certain aspects, farming was an improvement over hunting and gathering for the development of civilization; contrarily, the adoption of agriculture was detrimental to human nutrition and lifestyle, as farming was labor intensive and time consuming. Farming was harmful to the human body as solely consuming one type of food leads to the development of nutrient deficiencies and diseases. Hunting and gathering prevailed over farming in this aspect, as the Kalahari Bushmen, one of the last hunter-gatherer societies in modern times, had a “daily food intake… [of] 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein” (Jared Diamond). Diamond goes on to say that “this is...greater than the… daily allowance of people of their size [farmers]” demonstrating hunting and gatherings advantage as their broad diet decreased the chances of contracting diseases from malnourishment. Hunters and gatherers were a content people with a simple way of life. Stresses about survival were confined to the two days that non-agricultural societies hunted. After that, “hunter-gathering societies were… [happy]… because they had few material wants beyond those of survival” (Marshall Sahlins). Agricultural based societies toiled long and hard throughout the week, as crop yield was not as easy or instantaneous as gaining sustenance from hunting was. In addition, farmers had to worry about the aforementioned diseases from malnutrition. These belligerent burdens placed upon farmers made living a stable and carefree life difficult.
Reply
Ella Thompson
8/27/2018 07:20:05 pm
^Period 6- Ella Thompson, Lauren Vives, Sam Shoflick
Reply
Sam Silverman
8/28/2018 08:07:13 pm
my bad <3
Rui W.
8/28/2018 07:59:58 pm
Certainly, both sides had pros and cons, that much I agree with. It's also nice to see a post that compares both sides. I'd also like to tack on another beneficial point of agriculture too, how it allowed for progress to be made at a faster rate. Because of the stability and safety and food surplus mentioned in your post, the citizens in an agricultural society were able to specialize in their jobs so they wouldn't just be planting and farming. This in turn led to positions such as scholars, blacksmiths, and artists becoming prominent within society, where their experimentation and use of metals and other new ideas and inventions helped advance humankind as a whole. However, I could also add on how politically and socially stable hunter-gatherers are too, as they really were an egalitarian society. Because, as you guys have mentioned, they only need the minimum to survive, everyone has the same job and no one is that different from another. This allowed them to more easily see each other as equals, compared to the lower, middle, upper classes created by agriculture. All in all, a very thoughtful analysis of the topics, and one of the few compare-contrast posts (that have about equal text length on both sides) that I have seen! Nice work!
Reply
Roberto Berkowitz
8/30/2018 09:15:56 pm
I agree with you over the fact the agriculture helped build civilizations but was I disagree that they was a good thing. Civilization let in a long of bad nature of humans and exposed it. Civilization let in the patriarchy and social classes which did not work out. Also disagree that agriculture led to less work days. Agriculture made work days harder by forcing them to work all day. Newfound technology forced power and wealth into it causing social classes.
Reply
Sami Seiden
8/28/2018 08:08:37 pm
I see your point about why agriculture may have been beneficial for society, but disagree. Social classes arose with the rise of agriculture, which did nothing beneficial for society and is an issue many countries such as ours are still dealing with today. This early development of social classes led to women and minorities being oppressed and mistreated in a world of patriarchy. Also, since agricultural societies were dependent on their crop, they were not always very/incredibly reliable. If a natural disaster or disease destroyed a communitie’s crop, they had nothing to eat. They also did not have the skills hinter-gatherers did to pick up and hunt in these cases.
Reply
Kyle Chiang
8/29/2018 08:45:20 am
I fully recognize that social stratification has the implications of wrongful oppression against certain groups. However, social stratification also allowed for diversified labor systems and specializations that resulted in technological advances. Workers in more elite positions in ancient civilizations were able to craft new tools with new materials, helping these civilizations prosper.
Reply
Sara Mesko
8/29/2018 06:19:58 pm
I completely agree with you that agriculture led to social injustice and led to minorities being mistreated. I also agree that hunter-gathering was a much better diet than large civilizations had, and honestly a better lifestyle than agriculture. However, agriculture led to population growth and paved the way for new technological advancements. In addition to this, hunter-gathering was not as secure as farming; hunter-gatherers did not know whether they were in an abundant area of food, farming allowed for civilizations to collect a large food surplus and because empires were so large they still had somewhat of a food security and could trade.
Reply
Period 6-Ella Yousaf and Abby Barnes
8/29/2018 08:06:13 pm
The adoption of agriculture did not improve life significantly in the short term. It did, however lead to long-term improvements in technology. The immediate effect of the Agriculural Revolution was a significant decline of quality of life. First, the diet eaten in a hunter-gatherer society was “low in total fat...high in potassium and low in sodium” (Cohen). This protected the general population from numerous infections, disorders, and cancers. Not only were agrarian populations more susceptible to various diseases, they lived at the mercy of harvests and could face starvation suddenly, under the right conditions. Hunter-gatherers also had more free time, as they were able to obtain large amounts of food in a short period of time, due to its immediate availability. This gave them time for “visiting, entertaining, and especially dancing” (Lee). The adoption of agriculture also led to the abandonment of the egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherer peoples, and subsequently social stratification and the emergence of the patriarchy.
Reply
Michelle Kim
8/30/2018 07:08:14 am
I agree how agriculture affected humans on a long term scale compared to a short term scale. There are many pros and cons of the adoption of agriculture and it is good that you support and see both sides to the argument. However, while it is in human nature to seek improvement, thus an inevitability to adopt agriculture I disagree on the principals that without agriculture that there would be no technological advancement as hunter-gatherer societies had used and improved their use of technologies for food. Also, compared to hunter-gatherer societies, there is a larger, more noticeable view in the negative effects from agriculture in the long term as today there is an after effect of a patriarchy society and some states and countries are struggling in agriculture and advancement.
Reply
Gunhi Kim
8/30/2018 09:12:05 pm
Yes, I agree! I think that agricultural success was not valued in the short term as it didn't seem like much, however it later became one of the most important building blocks of a civilization. When it all boils down, yes, hunter-gatherers had the easy way out and had plenty of leisure time, but by no means should they not be considered not useful or productive as they make huge contributions to the improvement aswell, however those who chose the agricultural life were deemed of being successors who seek future improvement and growth more than hunter-gatherers.
Reply
10/11/2020 11:26:11 am
Hello, I came across your Webpage and MAN I would love to access to all of the content! I teach middle school social studies, I just started. This year is extremely tough with COVID so any help with amazing material like yours would be sooo helpful! Please let me know if you are willing to share your password so that I could have access to all of your material!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
ArchivesCategories |