Do you agree with Jared Diamond when he suggests that the human race would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened?
Explain Why?
I will have to agree with Jared Diamond in saying that the human race and our environment would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened. I will begin by discussing some of the positives and negatives of the new found Agricultural Revolution. Despite the few positives, this revolution has had an impact on not only the environment but our human existence. My goal is to discuss the hardship that the Agricultural Revolution has brought to us.
To begin you have to consider the way life the hunter-gatherer lived. The people survived by hunting and living in caves or temporary shelters (John P.Mckay, A History of World Societies, Volume I, sixth edition, Boston, 2000, p.6).
Hunter gatherers were able to adapt to anything including any environmental situation. The amazing talent that they possessed was being able to use many resources, not having to depend on a few. The hunter gathers would move seasonally in order to use different sources of food (Hunter-Gathers.online.www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/lifeways/huntgather.html).
The good thing about their way of life had no impact on the environment.
They had a stable diet, and received 80% of their balance from gathering and the rest were provided by hunting (Jared Diamond Lecture.online.http:www.public.iastate.edu/~ccfford/342Worstmistake.htm).
The Essay on Cultural Deposits Human Environment Soil
Reconstruction of local area terrain, availability of water ground water, susceptibility to flooding. Conditions over different years. Loss of sits through erosion, inundation and burial under sediment. Glaciers can give us clue to possible resources of earlier ages Varies etc layers of sediment thickness explaining climate Rivers: important as settlement often nearby due to settle deposits, ...
They also established a division of labor allowing everything to be equal, which anthropologists call an egalitarian relationship. The hunter gathers way of living could not support many, because they had no wealth, but good knowledge. This knowledge was always shared, so they just seem to me as being very good people.
The Neolithic period brought forth the Agricultural Revolution, which is dated between 7000 and 3000 B.C.E. When they came they brought life that was to be based on agriculture (McKay.pg.6).
They felt this would bring a stable life. This changed everything, brought in towns and cities and the population raised. This population growth caused for even more food, which meant a heavy dependence on farmers. This was the beginning of the large scale exchange of goods. (McKay.pg6) With all this change came the inventions of tools for farmers to accommodate the growing populations need for food. A strong point made in the book was that agriculture made possible the division of labor (McKay.pg6).
This is an example of a change from the hunter gatherers, because they worked together and everyone had the same knowledge, this “division” would cause for people to not have the same knowledge(s), which is a conflict in itself. Laws were created , there was more of an “individual” feel in this time. But despite their vast change and good “looks” meaning how much easier life might be, this life brought a more wealthy and comfortable life (McKay.pg6).
Jared Diamonds felt that we were trapped in the Agriculture stage because farming can support more people than hunting. There were so many NEGATIVES regarding Agriculture such as social inequality, sexual inequality, constant growing of populations, the erosion of rich soils, crowding and high population which led to diseases and parasites, and it led to class division, with the elites getting the best of foods.(Jared Diamond Lecture.online.http:www.public.iastate.edu/~ccfford/342Worstmistake.htm) Some of the POSITIVES of the Hunter Gatherer life was that they had more leisure time, less of an emphasis on materials, meaning they had no concern for outside appearances, no “social status”, and the hunter-gatherers had a varied diet.
I would have to agree with Jared Diamond, our world would have been better off if the Agricultural Revolution never happened. It brought a form of division in the world, right under our nose. We just looked at the convenience that it brought. Also, the hunter gatherers were more of a small community. I think the fact of doing whatever in the agricultural stage brought the population at a very large number.
The Term Paper on Global 2000 World Population Life
Executive Summary The Resourceful Earth is a response to Global 2000 Report to the President, which is dead wrong in its frightening environmental and social predictions. They summarize the findings of Global 2000 using two paragraphs from its own summary: If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption ...
