Part of the reason why the transition to agriculture was so difficult, is because that is true. Agriculture is a lot of work, and requires a lot more labor time than the hunter-gatherer mode of production.
Of course in the long run, agricultural societies end up overcoming hunter-gatherer ones, because they’re able to support a much larger population.
No, because agriculture isn’t about minimising labor, it’s about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.
It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.
If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn’t as immediate.
I suppose, but since there’s a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there’s an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.
Agriculture doesn’t have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that’s still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.
Harari claims something similar in his book Sapiens, so it might not be so far fetched. However, even then people would have to pay for being alive with their work, even if it’s less.
Fight Club told that when man were hunter/gatherers we spend twenty hours a week working so it must be true.
You know there are still hunter-gatherer societies. You don’t have to take Palahniuk’s word for it.
I’m a freegan so I’m basically an urban hunter/gatherer.
Part of the reason why the transition to agriculture was so difficult, is because that is true. Agriculture is a lot of work, and requires a lot more labor time than the hunter-gatherer mode of production.
Of course in the long run, agricultural societies end up overcoming hunter-gatherer ones, because they’re able to support a much larger population.
If they’re able to support a larger population shouldn’t it average out to less work?
No, because agriculture isn’t about minimising labor, it’s about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.
It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.
If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn’t as immediate.
I suppose, but since there’s a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there’s an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.
Agriculture doesn’t have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that’s still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.
Harari claims something similar in his book Sapiens, so it might not be so far fetched. However, even then people would have to pay for being alive with their work, even if it’s less.