Part 1:
1. Identify the benefits of both types of subsistence patterns.
Hunter gatherers live in an egalitarian society in which food resources are equally distributed and shared among members of the foraging group. As nomadic people, instead of lugging around luxuries or material possessions, hunter gatherers carry the barest necessities for subsistence. Since the food foragers are highly mobile and cannot afford to preserve surplus goods, differences in status are not dictated by one’s accumulation or wealth of resources. Moreover, hunter gatherers have a great deal of leisure time, in which close and intimate family, social, and spiritual/religious relations are significant. Because small group size is an important factor in mobility, cooperative social organization is a benefit among the food foraging cultures. On the other hand, the introduction of agriculture paved the way for a more sedentary lifestyle. With the advent of technologies to bolster food production with increased efficiency, surplus crop cultivation became possible. Therefore, food production is not only intended to meet the carrying capacity of the land, but could also create a surplus that could in turn be traded or sold for money (profitability). Industrial food production allowed for better control and manipulation of the environment to produce the crops they favor, as well as improved efficiency and conservation of human labor.
2. Identify the costs (or disadvantages) of both subsistence patterns.
A disadvantage of food foraging societies is their mobility. They have to travel across different environments and climates throughout the year, and this is related to the level of energy expenditure. For example, in scorching weather, it is possible that the amount of food obtained from hunting could not be enough to compensate for the energy spent. Furthermore, food foragers have to constantly accommodate the carrying capacity in response to the instability and unpredictability of such seasonal or ecological changes. Agricultural societies suffer from the centralization of power. With the growth of cities, urbanization resulted in political and economic control over rural populations in regards to their surplus. With limited independence on how to manage their surplus, farmers were exploited and forced into peasantry. Moreover, although industrial food production enhanced productivity, technologies replaced human labor thereby driving down wages and people out of jobs.
3. Which subsistence pattern provides a healthier diet? Explain.
I don’t think I can truly provide an answer as to which subsistence pattern provides a healthier diet. Both subsistence patterns have advantages to maintaining a well-balanced diet. Food foragers could obtain organic foods that are naturally rich in nutrients, while agriculturalists maintain control over the plants and animals they domesticate depending on their subsistence needs.
4. Discuss why you think those early human populations 12,000 years ago made the transition into agriculture? Think like an early human, not a modern one! Your answer should not mention “machines” at all.
The transition into agriculture was made possible with a more permanent settlement. Crop cultivators could remain close to their cultivated fields and produce more food on large plots of land (maximum agricultural production with increased efficiency). Agriculture also generated changes in social organization/division of labor - since it didn’t require as many people to manage the crops, others could focus their time to developing tools in order to further productivity.
Part 2:
1. There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade. Explain the meaning of this statement.
The availability of surplus allows for the ability to trade because goods aren’t merely being produced to meet the carrying capacity. The amount of food production is not limited to fulfilling a group’s subsistence needs, but involves an excess that could be traded or sold for profit.
2. Identify and describe two (2) social benefits of trade.
A social benefit of trade is the proliferation of communication. Through trade, different communities could interact, share, and exchange various forms of culture, and thus goods, knowledge, and ideas across borders. Another social benefit of trade is the increased diversity and choices for consumers. With the arrival of goods and resources from various parts of the world, individuals can enjoy products from cultures other than their own.
3. Identify and describe two (2) negative social results of the development of trade.
The development of trade has a negative consequence in producing an unequal distribution of power. For example, agribusinesses have territorial power and control over rural populations and have driven away smaller family-owned farms. And while the exchange of culture can be regarded as a social benefit, at the same time, it can also be seen as a detrimental result, if manipulated. Specifically, the imposition of culture by “developed” countries onto those that are considered “underdeveloped” could be dangerous, offensive, and ethnocentric. A developed country could take the leading role and attempt a cultural invasion.
4. Given your answer in the question #1, explain the relationship between the development of agriculture and the development of trade. Again, think like humans 12,000 years ago.
The development of agriculture eventually led to the development of trade because of the availability of surplus. Humans were capable of producing enough food for subsistence and had excess. However, in order to compensate for goods that they were not able to directly produce or easily obtain themselves, they acquired through the process of trading.
Margaret, your post was really well done. I agree with everything you said. I especially like your answer to #3 (Which subsistence pattern provides a healthier diet?). I couldn't really come up with an answer either because I felt that I didn't really have enough knowledge to answer it. But i did put that I thought hunter gathers had healthier diets. Mainly because their food is more organic. Although, I didn't have real facts to back my answer up, so I like that you didn't just guess to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post. And I liked your answer for part 1 #3, instead of guessing you flat out said you didn't know. While I was sort of with you on that I felt that the hunter gatherers had a bit of an edge over agriculture. I also liked your responses to the negative side effects to trading, there can be territorial problems. Good job
ReplyDeleteI was enjoying your discussion of the benefits/costs of HG and agriculture subsistence right up until you started talking about peasants having limited resources. This wasn't the case 12,000 years ago! No peasants or cities just yet. Remember that this discussion is referring to the onset of agriculture, not its effects thousands of years later.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the healthier diet, what does the evidence suggest? Fossil evidence and comparison of modern populations actually suggest that HG populations have greater diversity in their diet and have less disease and nutritional deficiencies than do agricultural populations.
Which came first, agriculture or permanent settlements. Your answer suggests the latter, but how could that be possible without agriculture in the first place? More than likely, agriculture was adopted for other reasons and settlements occurred afterward.
Good final discussion on trade. There were occasions where I suspected you were referring to more modern populations, but most of your costs/benefits also applied to early trade as well.