1) The benefits of agriculture would be having a food source local and close where you know exactly what it is. They can grow enough things for the size of their tribe (assuming that everything actually gros. I don't have a green thumb by any means so I am not sure what the ratio of things planted to things that actually sprout is). The benefit of a hunter gatherers is that you if you kill a moose or an elephant - you can feed your entire village or tribe.
2) Hunter and gatherers don't really have a "sure thing" sort to speak. If you go out and find it and kill it - then you're in luck. But if you have a less than perfect hunting day- you might arrive back at your village with nothing. The same applies to agriculture. If your crop freezes, or is destroyed by a ton of bugs or some other kind of weird nature thing...you're also out of luck
3) I think they could be equally as healthy. A lot of people do the raw vegan thing where they only eat raw fruits and veggies. But on the other hand - you do need protein.
4) I think that some human populations moved into agriculture because of extinction of animals or lack of animals in the area to hunt. If you've killed all the cows, you need to find a new food source.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteGood outline of costs and benefits to the subsistence methods.
You can't get meat from agriculture? What about poultry, beef, pork, mutton, etc? That is all part of agriculture.
I don't follow the extinction argument for the transition to agriculture. If they were originally mobile hunter-gatherers, couldn't they migrate to another area?
Part 2 missing.
Good job, i also would have to agree with you that the way of hunting is all equal from a health stand point because protein is needed exspecially for their strength.
ReplyDeleteI think you didn't think of the aspect of agriculture that involves domesticating animals. It's not just farming. Both agriculture and hunting and gathering bring animal protein to a people's diet. I feel that you hit the metaphorical nail on the head when you pointed out that both subsistence patterns have their own risks that can lead to people going hungry or succumbing to starvation. Neither hunting and gathering nor agriculture are guaranteed sources of food for people, but I feel that agriculture was the better option because it allowed for people to grow surpluses to store for times of bad yields.
ReplyDeleteIn your first section I feel that both can have problems adjusting the amount of people they provide for. Which also involves part 2. Weather can easily help or disrupt both hunting and gatherers as it can attract animals and drive them away as well as interrupt or help grow any plant farming.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, hunters and gathers don't have a "sure thing" so to speak. They never know when exactly it is they will be eating; unlike with agriculture, you determine when you will eat, and what you will be eating. I do see where hunting could be healthy, but it could also be dangerous. It seems to me it is easier to get sick that way.
ReplyDelete