Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Hunter-gatherer and Agriculture/ Economic and Trade


Part 1:
            Even through hunter-gatherers has been around for millions years, they have been very successful in all these years, with being so good with hunting. They drove most pray species to extinction. Not only great hunting skills, but also they survived through dramatic climate change, for example: The Ice Age. Agriculture became very helpful, by giving people a chance, to settle in one area. This was great because now the people could give up the nomadic life.  That’s not all though, it gave of a train reaction, of learning hands on labor on how to grow crops, build homes, and a new lifestyle. With this new lifestyle the cultures population grew larger. A hunter-gather seemed tough with all there hunting experience, but they hunted more than they grew crops, and by putting most animal species extinct, it became harder to find food, which results into moving place to place. The Agriculture in away is good but also has their downfalls. When agriculture finally settled down in one location, to be able to grow crops, they needed more room. By moving, or taking down the forest
Tress, bushes etc., this has caused erosions. The agriculture would have the best diet, because not only did they have meats such as (small mammals, deer, box turtle, elk etc.) but also had crops such as (corn, beans, and squash). The hunter-gatherer had mostly meat, not much of crops. Well about 12,000 years ago when agriculture took place was because the climate changed dramatically. When settling in a more livable environment and the population starting growing, that’s when agriculture was used more because people liked that environment, and they wanted to stay within that area. After the population was so big, moving around many people would become more of a problem.


Part 2:
            This consists of exporting and importing goods. Surplus and trade are a team organization, if surplus is positive then there exporting more than importing, but if they were trading then this would be negative, which is usually called “trade gap.” The goal in this organization is to have goods and services balance, by making sure they were divided. Two social benefits of trade would be (1) communication, and (2) Technology, just with these two so much has the trading organization grown and accomplished. Asia’s growing demand with the U.S., because major trading drivers were using communication, and computers (technology) goods, to me, to be brought productions up for the better, not just Asia but the U.S. also. Two negative social benefits would be: (1) cheaper labor, and (2) lower standards. Negative impacts of trade can encourage production in areas with cheap labor and or lower standards. For example: child labor and sweatshops in China and India. The agriculture has developed in so many ways like the replacement of human labor, from when hunting and growing crops, unlike now meat is killed for us and soled to us in stores and the same goes for crops. The development of trade has changed so dramatically since 12,000 years ago exceptionally exporting and importing their goods. Their goods had to be transported by animal and people walking to their distance.

SOURCES:
Part1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/Documents/Motes%20-%20Modern%20Agriculture%20and%20Its%20Benefits.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180099700579X

Part 2:
http://www.surplustrading.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade
http://jobs.utah.gov/ui/jobseeker/tradeact.asp
http://yourknowledge.hubpages.com/hub/Globalization-The-Benefits-of-Trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_and_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture




5 comments:

  1. I have to say you have provided great information in your part 1. Hunter-gatherer are tough people, and very creative in my eyes. If you had the choice of being ONE, which one would you be and why: HUNTER-GATHERER or AGRICULTURE? If I had a choice a would want a Agriculture, because there more of a settle down culture and not always on the move, I guess you could say calmer. You did really well on your post; I did very well enjoy reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your benefits and costs of trade are really good and true, especially in the modern world. I have to disagree with your statement that people of an agricultural culture have better diets than people of hunter-gatherer communities. Farming involves growing a whole lot of a few foods, and those communities generally wouldn't have any deer or small mammals because their diets would only consist of foods they grow and animals they raise. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, actually have a lot of plants in their diet. The men go out and hunt, but women gather a variety of plants to eat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again, Luna, I do not know who you are. Please identify yourself if you are a student in this class and are mistakenly using an incorrect id from an alternate google account. If you are not from this class, you need to stop posting on the student account.

      Delete
  3. I agree with the positive and negative effects of trade. I think communication is a very important social skill to have and with trade it is much better across the world. Also the negatives are also very true. Cheap labor is caused by trade because there is less of a need for only one country to master all the skills. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, hunter gatherer populations were large enough to drive any prey into extinction, so this is not one of the costs of a HG lifestyle. That happened much later as human populations grew in size. The rest of your discussion on costs and benefits are fine.

    For clarity, HG subsistence grew NO crops at all. They gathered naturally growing plants, berries and seeds. The HG subsistence actually produced a healthier diet than agriculture. Evidence from current populations and from fossil evidence supports the fact that HG diets result in fewer nutritional deficiencies, fewer dental caries, and greater nutritional diversity. The greater supply of agriculture doesn't mean better quality.

    The climate might have been changing 12,000 years ago, but this would have happened too slowly to cause such a significant behavioral change in humans. Additionally, increases in population size wouldn't have happened until after agriculture developed, so this wouldn't have been a causal factor. More than likely, it was simply the ability to produce a more reliable source of nutrition without moving.

    Many of your costs and benefits of trade are valid for 12,000 years ago but keep in mind that we are talking about the start of trade, not modern trade. During the time we are discussing, there was no import/export, no India, no China, no sweatshops, no labor standards. Try thinking about these issues again but in terms of 12,000 years ago when trade was first developing.

    ReplyDelete