The Pros And Cons Of The Neolithic Revolution

Words: 418
Pages: 2

It is my belief that humanity as a whole would have been better off if we had continued a nomadic, hunter-gatherer existence. The first red flag in favor of my view is the Neolithic Revolution and its irreversible nature: "...food production spread rapidly, partly because subsequent population growth prevented people from reverting to hunting and gathering" (Fagan 344). As a result, regardless of the potentially catastrophic consequences the adoption of agriculture could wreak, humans were unable to once again become hunters and gatherers because there would not be enough material to support the rising populations.
The comic that we have presented as a humorous prompt, seems to largely support the idea that the Neolithic Revolution was a good thing – an inevitable progress. In the bottom right portion of the comic, however, we see a small aside labeled as a disclaimer that briefly lists potential drawbacks. This list includes,
…show more content…
How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results...failed to support the progressivist view" (Diamond). One such test proved to be in favor of my view instead. This test examined groups of twentieth-century hunter-gatherers and the amount of time that was required for them to subsist "...the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way [hunting and gathering]. It turns out that these people...work less hard than their farming neighbors...the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours..." (Diamond). If humans had remained hunter-gatherers, we would be eating healthier, our environment would not be in the dire situation it is in, and to top it off, we would "...have plenty of leisure time...and work less hard than [our] farming neighbors"