Part 1
1. Having small group size in a hunter gatherer environment can be
considered a benefit, there are less people to worry about and a less density
of people to land. Also, food sharing keeps people from starving. A hunter's
kill can feed others, and thus when the others have a kill, they can feed the
hunter. "Today you, tomorrow me" is a simple way to put it.
Domestication of plants and animals allows for transformed cultural systems
(cities and industry), social structures, and ideological patterns. Letting
people have food at their leisure allows for people to become more specific in
what they specialize in, leading to prosperity in a culture.
2. The downfall to agriculture is that if it did fail for some reason
and crops were not readily available, it would cause serious distress for
people who don't know how to gather and prepare their own food. Hunting and
gathering means you are moving from place to place, which proves to be
dangerous in colder climates or in times of acute ecological disaster.
3. Hunter-gatherers were not free to determine their diet, rather, it
was their predetermined biological requirements for particular nutrients that constrained
their evolution. At the same time, these dietary needs apparently allowed for
selection to favor increased brain size in the human lineage and the
development of technology, social, and other abilities directed at securing
these nutrients. However the proportions of the modern human gut appear to
reflect the fact that many foods are 'predigested' by technology in one way or
another before they ever enter the human digestive tract, but just because some
hunter-gatherer societies obtained most of their diet from wild animal fat and
protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans, nor does
it imply that modern humans have genetic adaptations to such diets. It does,
however, indicate that humans can thrive on extreme diets as long as these
diets contribute the full range of essential nutrients.
4. With the development of
agriculture, humans began to radically transform the environments in which they
lived. A growing portion of humans became sedentary cultivators who cleared the
lands around their settlements and controlled the plants that grew and the
animals that grazed on them. The greater presence of humans was also apparent
in the steadily growing size and numbers of settlements. These were found both
in areas that they had long inhabited and in new regions that farming allowed
them to settle. This great increase in the number of sedentary farmers is
primarily responsible for the leap in human population during the Neolithic
transition.
Part 2
1. This is known as the balance of trade. It is a nation's imports and
exports. A positive balance is known as a trade surplus if it consists of
exporting more than is imported; a negative balance is referred to as a trade
deficit or a trade gap. The balance of trade is sometimes divided into a goods
and a services balance.
2. Generalized reciprocity is a good practice, for it involves
exchange in which the value of what is given is not calculated, nor is the time
of repayment specified - such as gift giving, or giving to others in time of
need. Such exchanges will couch them explicitly in terms of family and
friendship social relations. Balanced reciprocity is also good because it has a
direct obligation to reciprocate promptly in equal value in order for the
relationship to continue. Events such as these are birthday parties or baby
showers, it is obligatory to give, and to then expect something in return it is
our turn, speaking simply.
3. The negative side to trade is when the two people trading do not
have any sentimental feelings for each other and only trying to get a deal.
This usually spawns hard bargaining, manipulation, or cheating. It may also
lead to taking something by force, while realizing that one's victim may seek
compensation or retribution for losses. Also sometimes elements of negative as
well as balanced reciprocity are present. These are often the case with
political fundraising in the US, where big contributors expect their generosity
will buy influence with a candidate, resulting in benefits of equal value. The
politician may do as little as possible in return, but not so little to not
receive future donations.
4. Like agriculture, trade began as an individual thing, with one
person trading with another, or one person sharing food with another. Then it
gained mass leverage and soon extremely large trades were happening between
nations. Agriculture also spawned due to people starting to group with each
other extremely larger than just small little tribes and demanding the need for
consistent flow of resources.
Great discussion on the health comparison of the two diets.
ReplyDeleteIn the section on the transition to agriculture, you mention a lot of changes that happened after the advent of agriculture, but what were some of the possible reasons for taking those first initial steps into agriculture? What led to the first food production techniques over foraging techniques?
Your Part 2 is fine, but you are thinking too modern. Think thousands of years ago with the advent of trade before the developments of markets and political candidates. Think Silk Road trade. What were the benefits and costs to these early cultures? We are trying to understand why these practices developed in the first place, not why they persist today. You hit on some of these points in your last paragraph.
Agricultural practices were gradually adopted and refined. There are several theories for why agriculture developed. One is the Oasis theory during the Neolithic transition that maintains that as the climate got drier due to the Atlantic depressions shifting northward, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals, which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. The intentionality theory views agriculture as an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, it led to specialization of location and then full-fledged domestication. It all really depends on the species locally available, and probably also influenced by local culture.
DeleteI guess the benefits of early trading is everything was simple. Know my values of my items, then find out yours, then trade or barter accordingly. As I said in my third paragraph one on one trading can spawn hard bargaining, manipulation, or cheating. No one wants to get a bad deal, so sometimes people will even trade something by force - without repercussions.
Thank you for the response.
DeleteRegarding the benefits of trade, it's more rudimentary than that. How about the transmission of new ideas? Or the sharing of new technology, new tools? The ability to acquire materials you wouldn't have access to on your own? All of these are direct benefits of the onset of a trade and barter system.
I think you brought up a good point about how trading could cause conflict because of disagreements. I think it makes sense that the more people are interacting with each other, the greater chance problems could arise, especially when trying to get an equal trade for the product you are trading.
ReplyDeleteWell hey I like this post.
ReplyDeleteJust in your first paragraph your "tomorrow you, today me" thing was really nice. I like how you were really getting at the feeling of needing to take care of other members of the group. I think that's really what it was about at the time as opposed to "to each, their own."
Also what is this?
"Hunter-gatherers were not free to determine their diet, rather, it was their predetermined biological requirements for particular nutrients that constrained their evolution." Are you the smartest person ever or something? Sweet sentence.
I also think it's true that the manipulation and stealing might take a turn for the worst once people start thinking in terms of themselves instead of the group.
Thanks for the read!