4 ms·

From what I remember reading, agriculture was actually a downgrade from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Early crops were terribly hard to grow, had little nutrit

From what I remember reading, agriculture was actually a downgrade from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Early crops were terribly hard to grow, had little nutrition value and agricultural practices too were primitive. People started growing crops out of necessity. In terms of food security, hunting-gathering was far easier. The average hunter also worked far fewer hours than the average farmer in antiquity.

smallnamespace 9y ago
I wonder if agriculture caused societies to go through a population explosion just because it became economically much more worthwhile to have young children. I'd assume in hunter-gatherer societies, children would not be that useful for hunting until they are fully grown, or in gathering until they've spent many years learning where to go to gather what. Also not useful in making tools, since those would take a lifetime to learn. Whereas children are readily useful in traditional farming even at a younger age, because there are all sorts of places one can employ unskilled manual labor on a farm. Hunter-gatherer societies had very low rates of demographic growth. And industrial societies are also seeing much lower population growth, because children are an enormous economic burden.
- puranjay 9y ago
  Additionally, hunter-gatherer societies require both women and children to be mobile. Pregnant women are a liability, as are children who can't walk by themselves. This gives an impetus to at least wait 3-4 years between pregnancies. There is no such pressure on agrarian societies.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
posterboy 9y ago
> agricultural practices too were primitive. I imagine there was no(t much) fieldwork, crops were raised on the side, if hunting and gathering was indeed easier. What else would explain foregoing that? Still today I sometimes dismissively assume that sowing seeds and just waiting is the simplest thing ever. Maybe neolithic people didn't need to process the crops either, instead feeding animals and eating them then, which is less efficient, energetically speaking.

smallnamespace 9y ago

I wonder if agriculture caused societies to go through a population explosion just because it became economically much more worthwhile to have young children. I'd assume in hunter-gatherer societies, children would not be that useful for hunting until they are fully grown, or in gathering until they've spent many years learning where to go to gather what. Also not useful in making tools, since those would take a lifetime to learn. Whereas children are readily useful in traditional farming even at a younger age, because there are all sorts of places one can employ unskilled manual labor on a farm. Hunter-gatherer societies had very low rates of demographic growth. And industrial societies are also seeing much lower population growth, because children are an enormous economic burden.

puranjay 9y ago
Additionally, hunter-gatherer societies require both women and children to be mobile. Pregnant women are a liability, as are children who can't walk by themselves. This gives an impetus to at least wait 3-4 years between pregnancies. There is no such pressure on agrarian societies.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

posterboy 9y ago

> agricultural practices too were primitive. I imagine there was no(t much) fieldwork, crops were raised on the side, if hunting and gathering was indeed easier. What else would explain foregoing that? Still today I sometimes dismissively assume that sowing seeds and just waiting is the simplest thing ever. Maybe neolithic people didn't need to process the crops either, instead feeding animals and eating them then, which is less efficient, energetically speaking.