I don't think this is a good analogy. Farming is in fact more difficult than foraging. You need all kinds of technologies to actually make it work (you need to

I don't think this is a good analogy. Farming is in fact more difficult than foraging. You need all kinds of technologies to actually make it work (you need to seed, you need to take care of it, you need to harvest, you need to store, you need to process it properly). And on top of that, some of the activities are really back-breaking. Farming has now won because it was easier, but because it allows for bigger populations and bigger population means safety against other groups. Foragers are limited by the current amount of calories in the nature, which is not that high. This forces them to migrate, but migration limits the amount of young kids that you can have. A pair of hunter-gatherers would usually have kids every 4-5 years to that the youngest one can be carried and all the older ones can walk on their own. Farmers don't have to migrate so they can have a new kid every year (even though higher infant mortality will even this to some extent). In the end there is a hard limit on hunter-gatherer group size (tens of people), while farmers can scale their society to millions (as has happened in China fairly early on). When there is a conflict between these two groups (e.g. about who should use some land), it is easy to see who will win eventually.