Pt.1:
1. The benefits of subsistence for hunter-gathers is that they have their food right then and there and they don't have to wait for it to grow and for agriculturalist when their food is grown and ready they have it in abundance and can store it and regrow it easily.
2. A disadvantage for hunters is that they have to wait for the animals to come around and then once they do they have to have a plan on how to capture it because if they mess up then they waste time and energy. For agriculturalist the disadvantage for them is that the food is not immediately available and they have to spend a lot of time and resources growing the food and then in the end not always does it even produce enough.
3. I think that the hunters subsistence diet would provide a healthier life style because they are always chasing their food and with that in mind they would stay lean and in good shape. The only reason I don't think that the farmers diet is healthier is because it has happened multiple times throughout history where there was famine and the people depended on the crops but they obviously never made it.
4. I think that they made the transition into agriculture because they realized that they would have more options when it came to food and that they could also mix the hunting with the food growing and make more healthier dependable meals to survive.
Pt.2:
1. "There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade." I think what this means is that the more of one thing there is the more people are able to trade. So for example if a person has 30 ears of corn but they only need 10 they have a surplus and would be willing to trade however much corn they want for something someone else has that they need.
2. Two benefits of social trade would be a rise in living standards and a reduction in poverty. This would be because when people trade they are stimulating the economy and they are also increasing their populations and making more work for everyone.
3. Two negative social results of trade would be that disease would be more easily spread and cultural uniqueness can be lost due to the favor of a universal culture.
4. The relationship between the development of agriculture and development of trade is that they both have persevered and depended on each other. Back then society depended on the growing of crops and livestock to just survive but then when trading became involved they realized that they could make a living off of this too and have a stable living environment.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteOkay on benefits, but are there any others you can think of? Nutrition? Adaptability? Issues of surplus?
Actually, H/G followed the migratory patterns of animal herds, which during this time were massive herds, not like today where their populations have been greatly reduced due to the encroachment of human populations. H/G populations were also very successful hunters, having developed and perfected techniques over millions of years. Careful that you are working with facts and not on misconceptions.
Agriculturalists would rotate crops so something would always be coming in, but I agree that their less diverse diet would be less adaptable in the face of environmental disaster. Are there any nutritional disadvantages to agriculture?
Good conclusion on the issue of a healthier diet, but there are points beyond activity levels and adaptability. H/G diets are more diverse and actually have a greater range of nutrients provided to the human body than you find in an agricultural diet, which is subject to nutritional (and dental) disease.
For your final section, I wouldn't argue that it increased "options" as it actually reduces the diversity of their food intake, but it is easy to see how early humans might have seen the advantage of growing your food in one location instead of having to go look for it.
For Part 2:
Good explanation for the first part. To put it very simply, there is no trade without surplus, correct?
"Two benefits of social trade would be a rise in living standards and a reduction in poverty."
Interesting, because if you look at populations that trade vs. H/G populations, trade populations have a greater gap in wealth, including more poor, than do H/G who are egalitarian and have little difference in wealth. They work together to make sure all members are equally cared for. In a sense, trade *caused* poverty.
The benefits of trade include developing social networks and the spread of ideas and tools and information.
Good on this point on disease, but with regard to 'loss of cultural uniqueness', humans have been trading for 10,000 years. Have we become a "universal culture"? We may be closer to it in our country, but that is relative to the rest of the world. I don't see a loss of cultural diversity.
"The relationship between the development of agriculture and development of trade is that they both have persevered and depended on each other."
Now they are interdependent, but with regard to the rise of trade, there is a direct causal relationship between the rise of agriculture leading to the rise of trade. Think about the natural progression from food surplus, to trade of the excess food, to the rise of specialization, with some raising food while others develop other skills, such as creating tools, and then those who make food exchange that food with those who make tools. Presto! Trade!
Great post, very clear and easy to follow. I like how you involved the waiting process on the hunting part and also the farming part. Time is a valued prospect, and especially if it your dinner your waiting on.
ReplyDelete