Comparative Analysis of The Two Types of Lifestyles: Hunting and Gathering Vs. Settlements and Agriculture

Introduction

Over the course of history, there have been many revolutions that initiated significant changes in human lives, among them are the cognitive revolution, agricultural revolution, and scientific revolution. Since the cognitive revolution occurred in nature and humans did not have a choice in it, the agricultural revolution is recognized as the root cause that led humans to live the way they are living now.

Comparative Analysis of The Two Types of Lifestyles: Hunting and Gathering Vs. Settlements and Agriculture

If we compare the choices we had 10,000 years ago between choosing settlements and agriculture with the Spartan way of living (hunting and gathering), can we really say that we had a choice? We can decide by comparing both lifestyles and looking at their flaws and gains.

The Hunting and Gathering Lifestyle

The life of hunting and gathering was both simple and harsh. A successful hunt could provide a week's worth of food supply, allowing for more leisure time than those living on agriculture. However, there were many issues with the hunting lifestyle: people had to constantly move around searching for food and shelter, and children were burdens for their mothers as they required care until they were four years old. They were content with what they had until their population began to grow and they could not provide everyone with food. Thus, they faced the dilemma of either maintaining a low birth rate or sacrificing their children to continue hunting. This prompted the search for alternative solutions to feed the growing population.

The Agricultural Lifestyle

The agricultural lifestyle was not easy either; working the fields and planting crops took a toll on people's backs, and they had to settle in one place to tend to their land and animals. Overpopulation led to food shortages and other issues, requiring people to work harder each day. However, the outcomes were far greater and more beneficial than those of the hunting and gathering lifestyle. Over 10,000 years, agriculture evolved to spur innovation, which was only possible in densely populated areas. This allowed for specialization, where groups took on specific tasks, such as watering crops or building irrigation canals to make the work easier.

The Lack of Choice

The big idea here is that we didn’t have much of a choice; the process of changing our lifestyles was meant to make our lives easier and solve larger problems like feeding an overpopulated society. The choices we made were trade-offs; we chose an easier life. We can distinguish between agriculture and hunting on three levels: macro-level (population), micro-level (individual), and cell level.

Macro-level Analysis

On the macro-level, agriculture is beneficial as it can provide food for a large population and create a stable environment with dense populations that could develop knowledge, experiment, and advance sciences, leading to the modern age. Hunters wouldn’t benefit from large populations, as their food sources were limited to specific areas.

Micro-level Analysis

On the micro-level, the agricultural revolution incurs a loss. Despite advancements in all aspects of life, humans still endure physical, emotional, and existential sufferings created by this modern, civilized world. Not just humans, but domesticated animals suffer as well. While their numbers have increased drastically, their lifespan has decreased, and they live under harsh conditions. For example, chickens are farmed after a couple of months from birth, and cows live in confined spaces, continuously bred for milk production before being sent for slaughter. In contrast, hunters did not experience the same existential knowledge, allowing them to gain from physical capabilities, with muscular bodies from daily physical activities, avoiding joint pains.

Cell-level Analysis

On the cell level, modern society has produced many chemicals and products to which our biological bodies are not adapted. The constant use of sugar in our diets causes obesity and health issues, while drugs and genetically modified foods lead to cellular anomalies like cancer. Hunters, on the other hand, had a nutritious diet of natural foods and meats, leading to healthier lives than the average population today.

Yuval Noah Harari's Perspective

Historian Yuval Noah Harari, known for his book "Sapiens," calls the Agricultural Revolution “History’s biggest fraud” and supports the hunting and gathering lifestyle. Harari questions every aspect of the agricultural revolution, suggesting that humans did not domesticate animals and plants; rather, they domesticated us. He implies that while humanity settled down, we began to take care of crops and animals. Harari suggests that animals and plants live off us, a notion that holds some truth.

Critique of Harari's View

While Harari indirectly mentions that the physical, emotional, and existential sufferings humans endure in this modern world may not be worth it, I disagree with his view that the agricultural revolution was a fraud. We had a choice between living a Spartan life of hunting and settling for agriculture, and we chose the latter. We should not dwell on the choices of our ancestors that led to civilization, globalization, and technological advancement. While the agricultural revolution brought famines and diseases, each obstacle led to new solutions, such as medicines to cure illnesses, housing solutions for overpopulation, and methods to address anxiety and sadness through social interactions and travel.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

When comparing post-agricultural life to the nomadic life of hunter-gatherers, one might question whether their needs were fulfilled. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, consisting of five layers from physiological to self-actualization, only the basic physiological needs were met in the hunting and gathering lifestyle, and even then, only to a limited extent. The revolution to agriculture was challenging, but it was not a mistake. Perhaps Harari prefers the nomadic lifestyle and views them as happier due to their contentment with what they had, unaware of their potential to achieve more.

Personal Preference

I personally prefer the modern world and find it more enticing than living in a cave or relying solely on hunting. If comparing the two lifestyles, I would choose the agricultural lifestyle because we have found ways to address its flaws. While it led to diseases, we developed medicine; it caused back and joint pains, so we developed machinery. But did our leisure time increase, and did people find happiness after 10,000 years of agricultural revolution?

Conclusion

The answer is probably no for most of the time, but I believe the trade-off is worth it. The means and technology we have today compensate for the small losses, allowing the majority of humanity to enjoy a stable life and good sleep compared to pre-agricultural human life.

References

• Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper.