Neolithic Revolution: a Mistake Or a Great Decision

Introduction

This essay analyzes two readings containing opposite positions about the Neolithic Revolution. In the reading “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” by Jared Diamond, he believes that transitioning from hunter-gathering to agriculture was a huge mistake. Diamond argues that hunter-gatherers had many advantages that agriculture does not offer. However, in the reading “Hunter-Gatherers: Noble or Savage” by the Economist, the authors contend that hunter-gatherers are violent and barbaric, and they argue that agriculture is an essential process necessary for human advancement. In my opinion, the reading “Hunter-Gatherers: Noble or Savage” presents a more compelling argument. Agriculture was a necessary and positive action taken towards the future.

Argument for Agriculture

While reading the passage “Hunter-Gatherers: Noble or Savage,” two major points stood out in favor of agriculture. First, violence is more common among hunter-gatherers than among people in modern eras. Hunter-gatherers are often depicted as barbaric and vicious, existing in a constant state of war between tribes. The passage states, “... nearly 90% go to war at least once a year” (The Economist). Additionally, the death rate, especially among men, is exceedingly high. The reason that men are usually the ones dying is because most of the time the warfare is caused to fight for women. The incessant warfare keeps the population low, and it is suggested that the reason hunter-gatherers are so healthy is that the weak members of the tribes perish. This seems irrational because converting to agriculture allows those weaker members to survive. With agriculture, there is enough food for everyone, eliminating the need for constant conflict. Agriculture facilitates the development of peaceful societies, offering stability and growth.

Impact of Agriculture on Population Growth

Furthermore, another significant point is that agriculture enabled population growth due to a surplus of food. Before the advent of agriculture, hunter-gatherers relied on slow-reproducing animals like horses and rhinos for sustenance. However, these animals didn’t provide enough food for the growing population of tribes. As a result, they began hunting faster-reproducing animals such as rabbits, tortoises, and hares (The Economist). According to the second reading, during the millennium-long dry periods, starvation began to rise. Hunter-gatherers turned to vegetarian diets, which did not provide sufficient proteins or nutrients. Consequently, some tribes transitioned to agriculture, which allowed for the domestication of crops and animals, producing a surplus of food. This transition led to population growth and a decrease in violence, as communities became more settled and organized.

Advantages of Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle

In contrast, hunter-gatherers also had some advantages. For instance, they were generally healthier than farmers. Farmers grew crops that contained a lot of carbohydrates, which can be detrimental to health. In contrast, hunter-gatherers maintained a varied diet of plants and animals, which helped balance protein and nutrient intake. Additionally, farmers faced uncertainty about crop yields each year, leading to constant worries about starvation. On the other hand, hunter-gatherers sourced their food from nature and rarely had to worry about hunger. Furthermore, agricultural societies, with their close-knit communities and trade practices, facilitated the spread of diseases. Additionally, agriculture contributed to gender inequality. In hunter-gatherer societies, women carried, cared for the children, and gathered plants and fruits, while men hunted. This division of labor allowed both genders to contribute equally, without one overpowering the other. However, in agricultural societies, men often relegated women to hard labor while they undertook easier tasks or none at all.

Conclusion

Despite some negative aspects of agriculture, it was ultimately the best decision. It allowed for population growth, helped people build immunities to diseases, and paved the way for greater gender equality today than would have existed in a hunter-gatherer society. Both readings contain valid points about the Neolithic Revolution, debating whether it was a mistake or a significant decision. I believe that agriculture was the perfect decision for humankind. It allowed for trial and error, fostering advancements in technology, farming, and settlements. As agriculture progressed, so did humans. They learned lessons about the world and how to treat one another in society. Agriculture brought job specialization and peace to previously warring tribes. Thus, agriculture wasn’t a mistake; it was a significant leap toward the future.

References

1. Diamond, J. (1987). The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover Magazine.
2. The Economist. (2021). Hunter-gatherers: Noble or savage. The Economist.