Subsistence patterns of the hunter
gathers and agriculture have many benefits. Hunter gatherers have a nutritional
benefit; they have a balanced diet and have the ability to fight disease and
infections. Hunter gathers have more time to spend with their family and help
take care of the children. With the
discovery of agriculture it has made it possible to stay in a place longer than
before and provide food for many more people creating a rise in population.
The disadvantages of hunter gathers would be the lack of
abundance of food resulting in the inability to feed a large amount of people.
The hunter gathers are always on the move and can never stay in one place for
too long because they must go where the food is. As for the disadvantages in agriculture is
that they are more susceptible to disease and infection and they are at the
mercy of the seasons and weather. If there is a drought there will be no crops.
Like the potato famine in Ireland when the blight took over the potatoes many
people went hungry because they relied on the potato so much. Another
disadvantage for agriculture is the result of the evolution of smaller jaw
bones due to the lack of eating a substantial amount of meat in their diet unlike
the hunter gathers. Unfortunately we still have the same amount of teeth
resulting in overcrowding of the teeth in the mouth like my son who has
$5000.00 worth of orthodontia in his mouth!
The hunter gather provides a healthier diet because it is
more nutritionally balanced but with the technological advances and the
production of cereal grains and legumes the agriculture diet has become more nutritionally
balanced.
I believe some human populations made the transition into
agriculture because it was out of necessity due to the fact that their
population out grew the ability to sustain themselves with food foraging. With
agriculture people could not only feed more people but it made it possible to
have surplus crop providing for themselves and for other people who could not
provide for themselves and were they able to trade and sell their crops.
Part 2: Economics and Trade:
The availability of surplus and the
ability to trade means that you have to have enough surplus (food) to have the
ability to trade the food to other people.
Two social benefits of trade are building relationships with
other people and cultures by giving them something they need for something you
need. The other is the ability to show your wealth and status within your
community by your possessions.
Negative social results of trade would be in the two parties
resulting in conflict over the trade due to greed in which one or both parties
are trying to get the better deal. Another result would be globalization, when
people of other cultures get together to trade it could result in eventual native
language loss and disease.
With the development of agriculture and the ability to have
a surplus of food gave the opportunity for people to trade with other people
for things that they needed which resulted in the development of trade. It also
gave people without the ability to grow food the chance to trade for it. Agriculture
made it possible for people to settle down and create homes resulting in developing
an economy by making tools, clothing and pottery and trading it for food.
When it comes to the positive and negative outcomes of trade, you thought of things I didn't. First was the ability to show your wealth and status within your community. I found it interesting that you see this as a positive; I would rather wealth and status be more equal, believing that wealth and status has the ability to empower some people while disempowering others.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned conflict due to greed, which I agree with. And I also agree that it would be sad to see the loss of language and culture, while spreading disease (although I think we have a better handle on disease than we used to). I am for certain aspects of globalization (it's nice to find certain things I want from other countries when my own doesn't have them, like various types of food or products sold only in certain countries). But now I want to research globalization because as you've pointed out, there can also be negatives to it as well, which I hadn't stopped long enough to think about.
I liked how you used the potato famine to highlight the downsides of agriculture.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your argument with regard to the reasons for transitioning into agriculture, but with in addressing the issue of larger population sizes, do you think population increases came first, driving the need for food production techniques, or do you think humans started developing practices that resulted in food production which then allowed for larger population sizes? It's a chicken-or-the-egg question.
Good post.
I do think that humans started developing practices that resulted in food production which then allowed for larger population sizes. I am not sure if that is true but it makes since to me. It seems that the larger population would most likely go hungry waiting for the development of food techniques. But on the other hand it makes since that they would have to of developed the techniques do to the need to feed more people. It is a chicken-or-the-egg question :-)
DeleteWell-reasoned. I agree! Thank you for the response.
DeleteAs far as the ability to show your wealth and status within your community being a positive I think that for most people it is because people are proud of what they have and possess. I do understand what you are saying about wealth and status being more equal, and that wealth and status has the ability to empower some people while disempowering others.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I liked the part when you said that a social negative of trade could be the introduction of disease. Disease seems like a logical outcome. Disease is always a risk in the meeting of two peoples. Your post reminds me of the first encounter between Europeans and the natives of Latin America. There are estimates that millions of natives died due to the passing of disease.
ReplyDeleteI think another negative could be misunderstood social cues. In our language blogs some students were talking about body language being different in some cultures. I think there could be body language that could be misunderstood between people that could lead to conflict or mistrust. What do you think?