Both subsistence patterns have
advantages and disadvantages. Hunter gatherers benefit in many ways. One of
those is a shorter work day which allows them to focus on the social aspects of
life as well as religion. Foragers are also less susceptible to famine since they
live well within the means of the land. On the other hand using agriculture supports
a greater sized population. Agriculture also enables a culture to live a sedentary
lifestyle. Agriculture (most of the time) produces enough surplus food so that
people are able to become specialized in areas other than hunting or gathering.
As a Hunter gatherer I feel the greatest
disadvantage you would have is depending on Mother Nature for your food and water.
The population has to be mobile and close to a water source. This limits your possessions
to what you or your pack can transport. Agriculture “progress” has led to the
modern day peasant where a ruling class has forced laws and taxes upon farmers that
were once allowed to trade their surplus freely. Agriculture results in a
greater population density. An increase in density can result in the spread of
disease, food shortages, and increased social unrest.
Hunter gatherers had limited
resources however, due to a lack of variation in food, cultures that have taken
up agriculture may lack certain nutrients. This is evident in some African
cultures where children have Kwashiorkor,
a lack in protein that causes the stomach to become bloated.
I think populations gradually made the transition to
agriculture for a number of reasons. Greed-as mentioned above farmers were
turned to peasants. As technological “advances” were made and populations the
reliance on agriculture also grew.
Part 2: Economics and Trade:
Trade is known to be based on supply and demand. Trading “surplus” or something that has a lesser value because it is easily available may be traded for something that is not as easily available with a greater value, respectively.
People benefit from trade socially
when in the traditional market place by experiencing the smells and colors of
the market. They might see friends or neighbors all while purchasing needed
goods supporting their local economy. These open air markets (farmers markets)
where human interaction happens I feel are of great value to society. People
may also benefit from trade by experiencing new things. Things that may have
been invented or developed in far away places.
People may hear news or may find something that they themselves could
not produce.
Negative results of trade include exploitation
of indigenous people, small farm workers, and others by corporations after large
profits.
The development of agriculture
created a surplus in food. Because farmers had a surplus they were able to then
trade for commodities, services, or labors. The surplus in food also enabled
people to become specialist. The specialist need food and the farmers having surplus
made for a good trade.
You gave a very imaginative description to the social gains of trade. And I definitely agree that human contact offered in the market place is very much need in society.
ReplyDeleteSo early hunter gatherer's were "greedy" and therefore developed food production techniques? I'm not sure if I buy that. Think in terms of early human populations some 10,000 years ago, not more modern populations.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying about the negatives to trade, but you are still thinking too modern. What about other downsides such as the spread of disease? Unequal distribution of resources? The development of trade centers, leading to city centers, leading to competition between cities leading to war and violence? :-) We are really talking about the rise of trade following the rise of agriculture and the costs and benefits these early human populations experienced as a result.
Otherwise, very interesting post.