Part 1:
In regards to the patterns of hunter gatherers and agricultures the hunter gatherers benefited from the low levels of infectious diseases and the abundant amount of natural resources (animals). There was an emphasis on team work because of the closed nit group that the hinters belonged to, in a sense team work was indispensable so much that their lives depended on the full cooperation of all individuals. Now because of their life style the hunter/gatherers required a "on-the-go" mentality that inhibited them from laying roots in a specific area, they had to follow the large game given the fact that this was a major source of nutrition for them. Whereas the agriculture's were able to stay in one place and manipulate their resources to supply themselves with the necessary nutrition. Unfortunately for them this led to an increase in a population in a given sector, thus increasing the infectious disease count. Furthermore the agriculture's were governed by the seasons, an unforeseen increase in the populations size could easily lead to the peak population capacity where the crops were no longer enough to fulfill everyones nutritional needs. Where the hunters/gatherers relied on everyone carrying equal amounts of the workload the culture that focused on agriculture split into a certain hierarchy where everyone didn't "have" to carry their own weight, this was the first step in a split in social classes.
Side by side, in todays standards, agriculture provides a healthier diet because there was a certain security of food source. No longer was there a need to forage for food, instead there was a certainty that "x" amount of food would be available in "y" amount of days. Furthermore, this led to the domestication of certain animals that in turn provided certain types of meat and by products that the hunters/gatherers couldn't easily obtain because of the constant uprooting that they had to do.
Human populations most likely made the transition into agriculture because in many ways the workload could be spread among a few individuals and the group as a whole could benefit from the work of few. furthermore it provided ease of living in conditions or areas that previously were not feasible.
Part 2:
"There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade." defines the idea that one can only trade what one has at hand, many times in abundance. Furthermore this would allow for the ability to obtain any item that one is unable to produce for themselves.
Two social benefits of trade would be the expansion of knowledge and creativity no longer inhibited by lack of creativity, instead the individual as well as the society as a whole is able to "think outside of the box", they are able to see things from a different perspective. Further more because of trade we are able to obtain items that for whatever reason we are not able to produce ourselves. Trust is created between groups that previously would of not shared interest because of the vast range of difference individual parties sometimes have.
unfortunately because trade requires the involvement of two parties there is always the possibility that someone doesn't commit 100% to the trade, this could easily cause quarrels. Due to the nature of trading there will always be a high level of aggressive competitions that leads to the breakdown of teamwork, instead it pushes the "me" factor were a certain group will try and outdo other groups. This could easily lead to disputes among one societies infrastructure many times leading to the old saying….."A house divided against itself cannot stand".
The development of agriculture and the development of trade would go hand in hand given the fact that an individual could provide a certain product that someone else either lacked the knowledge of the ability to obtain, thus a trade that would potentially benefit both parties would take place. One can always count on the fact that as long as someone can provide a service for someone else that lacks the "know-how" a trade will take place.
When you define "healthy" are you defining it based upon total calorie input (in which case agriculture has the advantage) or upon a balanced nutritional diet (in which case foraging wins out)?
ReplyDeleteAfter the initial development of food production practices, yes, food was produced by fewer people, but this didn't happen immediately and so couldn't be attributed as the "first cause" of the development of agricultural practices. What might have encouraged early human populations to make the move away from foraging practices developed over millions of years to try something new?
Great discussion on the relationship between agriculture and trade. Overall, good post.