Roots of Farming and Trade

Part 1
     Benefits of Hunter/Gatherer: I think the biggest benefit to this lifestyle if the nutritional benefit. Since foods are obtained on an almost daily basis, they are fresher and therefore have more nutrients. Also, most people in a horticultural society will eat whatever they can find so can have a more diverse diet. The movement involved in obtaining food this way is also less repetitive (usually), which is healthier and prevents injury. Walking, climbing, running, and carrying moderate loads is good for staying healthy. Societies like this are also more mobile, and are able to pick up and move if things in their environment become dangerous or inhospitable.
     Benefits of Agrarian Societies: One of the first benefits enjoyed by societies that farm for their food is stability (well, relative stability). If they can protect their crops and barring any drought or blight, there will be a steady food source. Problems are more predictable and easier to anticipate sine the food is coming from a controlled environment. Some examples of this would include storing bumper crops to insure against famine, building irrigation systems to make water more accessible, and special breeding of crops and livestock for desirable results. Another significant benefit is that the steady supply of food allows for more time to begin specialization. This allows people to dedicate time towards things that can extend lifespans, like medicine. Basically, agriculture covers the more immediate needs for survival.

     Disadvantages to Hunter/Gatherer: This kind of lifestyle relies on the day to day availability of food. People like this that are faced with a sudden shortage in food don't have anything to fall back on. They can try to move to another area but if the drought or famine is widespread and severe enough, then they may likely die. Since so much time is spent in just acquiring food, there may also be little opportunity to develop any other skills that may lengthen their lives such as medicine, tools, or clothing.
     Disadvantages to Agrarian Societies: While poor diet is a big problem that agricultural societies face, there are others that don't appear as obvious. When a family's (or entire settlement's) livelihood is based off of one type of crop, or livestock, they are taking a great risk. If anything at all goes wrong, such as poor weather, pestilence, or a blight, they are faced with a dire situation. There is also a dark side to trade specialization that develops in agrarian societies. People become very good at what their specific job/trade is but they lose other important skills and therefor become dependent on other people who do have experience with those skills. If they become cut off from the other people, they most likely won't survive.

     I think that hunting and gathering is the healthiest when it comes down to how well the human body is preserved. As mentioned earlier, the foods are richer in nutrients and are also well balanced. Eating in frequent, small amounts is also healthier. But, it's survival of the fittest. Weaker individuals, or those with less favorable traits, struggle to survive in if they lack all the necessary abilities and strength required for such a lifestyle. As humans, we are one of the few animals that have significantly overcome the natural selection process in that we care for those that would otherwise die off due to their genes. So, while hunting and gathering overall promotes better health, it only does for those who are able to do it. 

     I can see how humans would have jumped at the opportunity to switch to agriculture from hunting and gathering. Many people probably had lost children or weaker family members (the ones most likely to die during food shortages or harsh weather) and husbands and sons died in hunting expeditions. When they realized they had a way to control nature to produce they food that they were so dependent upon growing wildly, the chance to have stability would have been greatly appealing. Food could be stored for times when it would become scarce, safe protected settlements could be built, and the immediate threat of starvation would fade.

Part 2
     Surplus is the first hing required for trade. In order for two people to trade, they each need to have extra of one good to turn it into another. If I grew grain, and my neighbor had wool, I would need to have more than enough food to eat in order to trade it for their wool. Otherwise I would go hungry and the wool would be useless to me. Surplus means that the need that the good fills has been sufficiently met, which allows for it to be exchanged for another good that fills a different need.

How Trade Can Help    
     The first benefit of trade is that it allows for needs to be met in a more complete way. Just as specialization allows people to fill in each others' "gaps" by learning complementary jobs and occupations, trade also allows for people to fill in each others' "gaps" with complementary goods and ideas. What people know in one town could be knew to people in another, and discoveries and technological advances can be made faster due to the widespread exposure that trade can lead to. Another benefit to trade is that it can have a powerful unifying effect on the people involved. If two groups of people are dependent on one another through trade, they are less likely to fight because if one of them fails then the other suffers. Trading involves having an understanding of those that you are doing business with, so it can foster more peaceful relationships.
    
 How Trade Can Harm
     One downside to trade is that is can lead to one group of people forming a dependency on an outside group's goods. It an become tempting to get the majority of necessary goods from outside sources but if you lose the ability to produce the minimum of what you need yourself, then the people that you depend on for trade can be placed in a dangerous position of power. Cultures that this happens to often then assimilate into the dominant culture and are lost. Another downside is that trade can encourage bad practices for the long term economy and environment. Cash crops are a good example of this. A lot of rainforest in South America is being destroyed in order to make room for cash crop plantations. This is bad for the people that live there because they are destroying a hugely valuable resource for themselves, but they don't care because there is so much money to be made immediately through the trade of their crops. Also, if too much land is devoted to the production of cash crops, then the price of necessary food crops can increase and cause bad prices in the economy. 
   

      It is extremely difficult to have a  surplus of anything through a hunting and gathering lifestyle. There just isn't as much food and valuables around, and even if there was, there is no where to store it since most hunters and gatherers are nomadic. Agriculture allows for more than what is needed of a specific crop to be produced, which leads to an exchangeable surplus. The first people to farm probably didn't automatically apply the concept of planting and harvesting to every food they knew, some people probably realized they could grow corn while other groups of people realized they could capture and domesticate goats. People are people, and we want what we don't have, so when the people growing corn got lots of it, they were probably eager to exchange some of it for goat meat and milk when they saw the people with domesticated goats. And trade began. .