Part 1
The benefits of hunting and gathering was that the groups would hunt the large animals for there meat and skin and gather a smaller selection of foods like wild fruits and vegetables. This was devided intto two groups, the men would go out and hunt while the women go out and gather wild fruts and vegetables. The benefit of agriculture was that it has played a major role in society’s economic change, which still goes on today. Some of the hunter –gatherers, who were mobile, were either permanent, temporary and sometimes even both. They would make there shelters out of building materials they had or sometimes use rock shelters but only if that was available to them. for agriculture, it only ranged among the available resources and constraints around them to the farmers, such as, the climate, government, economy and more. Hunter-gatherers would either live in arid regions or tropical forests, so there diet would be healthy because of the fruits and vegetables they were able to have for them. Agriculture used animals to help with the production of food and also would raise and breed the animals for meat and to harvest animal products like, milk, eggs and even wool from sheep. The agriculture had more protein than the hunter-gatherers did. I think that humans switched to agriculture because it was easier to have your own crops, your own food right in front of you rather than looking around for food to eat. It was in your own control on whether how much crop or animals you would want to have, not limited by anything.
Part 2
I think the meaning of the statement is basically that in order to trade something it has to be available between the two in order to get what both sides are looking for. You have to have something available to someone so they can come and get it, or trade for it. The social benefits of trade is that when your trading from different countries or cities you get to see a broad range of other things out there, basically get to see something new especially when the trade is far out of your own country. You also get to meet new people and learn about the surroundings while you’re out in this new country or city for trade. A negative result of trade is that sometimes things can go wrong when trading. It can lead to a social dispute between the two, and you can also be robbed of what your trading whether it be something really rare or something the other person really wants and will get on there own. The relationship between the development of agriculture and trade are some what similar. Agriculture is your own crops and animals that you tend to on your own and grow daily. Trade is just like that except your looking for things to make your part better than before so you look for other things that will help you with that.
I tend to agree that it was likely the issue of control over resources that may have encouraged humans to transition to agriculture. It's important to understand it my not have been a conscious decision and populations likely practiced both to some degree for a long time before some transitioned over entirely to agriculture/horticulture.
ReplyDeleteThe final question actually looks at the idea that the rise of agriculture was the impetus for the rise of trade. Could trade have developed to the level it did if humans retained the foraging practices alone? If there was no surplus produced?
Overall, good post.
I’m ecstatic I discovered your website and blogs.
ReplyDeletecash advances for bad credit
I Bed your articles guys have it up.
ReplyDeleterx program