Part 1:
There are many advantages and disadvantages to the subsistence patterns of hunter gatherers and agriculture. One of the first advantages of hunter gatherers is that when there was not as much structure and industry on the earth, they were able to have their choice of the environment they wanted to hunt and gather in. They were able to pick areas that were heavily populated with game, growing plants, fresh water, etc. Although this was once an advantage, over time the growth of agriculture has brought disadvantages to hunter gatherers. As chapter 7 of the text says, " areas with rich soils and ample supplies of water were appropriated by farming societies..." (Page 166). As agriculture spread and gained ownership over more areas, that narrowed down habitats hunter gatherers could choose from. Another advantage of hunter gatherers is that they (foragers) have ample and balanced diets. This is because hunter gatherer communities tend to be small so they can all be provided for and with the regrowth and population of edible wild plant food and animals, people are fed well consistently. They also learn to adjust to seasonal resources. On the other hand, agriculture provides people with the comfort of knowing that there will always be a surplus of crops. It is essentially the job of the farmer to guarantee it. Although this form of subsistence is more intensive with the involvement of tools, tending to land, heavy machinery, irrigation and more, it produces crops at a faster and more consistent rate. This subsistence pattern provides a healthier diet because not all hunter gatherer environments are populated with "vitally important animal proteins" (Page 176), and agriculturalists have developed a mixed strategy that can not only cultivate crops that already contain nutrients beneficial to one's health, but also breed and raise animals for food that provides that vital animal protein. For the reason that the advantages of agriculture outweigh the advantages of hunter gatherers, human populations made the transition into agriculture. It is more reliable, convenient for consumers, healthier and simply easier.
Part 2:
1. There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade. This means that the ability to trade completely depends on how much there is available to trade. When a something is available in bulk to trade, then it will be traded and when it is not, little to no trade occurs.
2. One social benefit of trade is that it is a way for people to make money and a living for themselves. Through trade, people are able to get what they need in exchange for what they already have and are able to get rid of. It is a win-win. Another social benefit of trade is that it allows for healthy interaction between trading partners. It makes way for other business ventures and meeting other potential traders. Everyone has something to offer the other and gain.
3. One social negative result of the development of trade is that there is so much competition that people get left behind and lose money when they are beat out by other traders who invest in the same product. Companies go out of business because they are not making enough to sustain it's life on the market. Another social negative result of the development of trade is that one trader may take advantage of the other if they knew that what they had to trade was of high demand such. For example, bottled water at Disneyland would normally cost a dollar anywhere else but they know that because people get very thirsty when walking around the park so much, they can charge up to four dollars a bottle and still sell a lot.
4. The development of agriculture directly influences the development of trade. One relies on the other. For example, a farmer grows pomegranate which is only available seasonally. During pomegranate season, there is a surplus of pomegranate and it can be traded and sold to consumers everywhere. However in the off season, you are less likely to find fresh pomegranate and have to wait until it is available. There is a direct connection between the two.
I enjoyed reading your post specially your transition into modern day trade. I do see how trade would likely take place when there is a surplus of items but instead of pigeonholing that concept we can borrow from economics the "supply and demand" idea were in the off-season of pomegranates because of the lack of supply a much higher value or trade can take place. The demand will always be present if theres any type of quantity to be traded, instead a trade could easily become aggressive due to the lack of surplus.
ReplyDeleteGood discussion on costs and benefits of foraging and food production techniques.
ReplyDeleteWhen you compare the nutritional health of hunter-gather populations and agricultural populations, which group has less disease, fewer dental caries, fewer nutritional deficiencies and greater variety in nutritional intake?
In the question about why humans transitioned to agriculture, you talk about the advantages to developed agriculture, but this doesn't mean those benefits existed initially while techniques were still being developed. Hunter-gatherer techniques had been practiced and perfected over millions of years. Why change? What caused early humans to take those first steps toward food production?
Your emphasis on money in the trade and economy section is a common assumption to make, but remember that for most of our history since the advent of agriculture, trade did not involve a monetary system at all. The advantages you discuss are modern advantages. What were some of the early advantages of trade?
Good post. I like how you explained how a social negative of trade is that some people could be left behind during the competition of trade. I think that early trade is the roots of capitalism. It is interesting how our country's roots in capitalism started so long ago.
ReplyDeleteThe beginnings of agriculture also reminds me of the first european settlers in America. They had trouble growing crops in the new land, but with help from the natives they were able to grow a surplus which allowed them to trade with their neighbors.
I think its interesting you considered the fact that hunting gathers having the ability to move around a benefit of hunting. While, I considered it to be a downfall. I do see your point though, they got to pick and choose where they would live and hunt. I agree, agriculture is so much more advanced, easier, and healthier.
ReplyDelete