What is the thesis (main point) of Diamond’s article? The main point of the article is that agricultural advances hurt the human race in many ways, as opposed to hunter-gatherers. He lists off "malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases" as impacts of agriculture, and throughout the article, tries to convince the reader that farmers and agriculture constitute many more harms than hunter-gatherers (Diamond 15).
When and how did humans “escape” from the hunting and gathering lifestyle? Humans escaped from the hunter-gathering lifestyle when the population of the tribe increased to a point where they could not scavenge or hunt for reliable food. The passage, "As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth" goes to support this empirically because in the ice ages people needed to choose agriculture, or limiting the population due to the greater needs of reliable food (Diamond 22).
What is the fundamental difference between the progressivist view and the revisionist interpretation? The fundamental difference between the 2 points of view is the work involved in agriculture versus hunting and gathering. A revisionist would think that hunter-gatherers would spend approximately the same as the farmer, while a progressivist would think that agriculture made food more efficient, and allowed for innovation. This is shown when Diamond talks about the progressivist's view on why people adopted agriculture. "Of course they adopted it because agriculture is an efficient way to get more food for less work." (Diamond 3). This shows the generic progressivist view that agriculture is more efficient, which then creates many more pros in their eyes. When Diamond describes the view of a revisionist, "hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers.", he shows us the key difference is time and efficiency (Diamond 19). This is a fundamental difference because all other differences stem from this one disagreement, saying that free time led to extra innovations of art and technology among other things.
How did the development of agriculture affect people’s health? The development of agriculture caused population density to increase due to an increase in reproduction and settling. As Diamond says, "the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease." (Diamon 14). This shows that because of the crowded areas of high population density, diseases more easily cultivated, and then also spread due to the trade as an effect of agriculture.
Why did, according to the article, farming cause deep class and gender divisions? Farming created class and gender divisions because some people had to work to make food, and others didn't. This allowed "a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses." (Diamond 15). With that, the first buds of classes and divisions occurred. Since royals and the elite could eat without work, it created a divide, which expanded into classes, etc. Gender divisions also occurred because "farming women tended to have more frequent pregnancies than their hunter-gatherer counterparts -- with consequent drains on their health." (Diamond 17). These drains on their health lead to seeming inferiority to men, which inevitably led to the gender divisions we see in history, and sometime today.
Why did farming communities win the struggle for survival against hunters and gathers? This happened because, even with the decrease in quality of life, the sharp population increase caused this type of living to be extremely popular. In Darwinian evolution and survival, the "winner" of history is the one that can reproduce and spread the fastest, which agriculture did best. This is supported factually by Diamond when he states, "Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over on person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that." (Diamond 21). What it means is that since farmers can reproduce faster, and can create higher population densities, they won the fight of survival, albeit again, with a lower quality of life.
Verdict
Overall I feel like I would not agree with Dr. Diamond because I believe that agriculture has helped the human race as a whole. Though it may have brought about a boom in population and along with it, disease, classes, and discrimination, it also improved technologies, developed the fundamentals for large civilizations, and helped with collaboration. First, the way it has inherently improved technology is by being able to settle, we are able to spend less time moving. This allows for innovation, which wouldn't be possible if we were nomads that could only bring what we could carry. We wouldn't be able to create factories or even create nuanced mathematics that would require lots of thought. Along with that, though with many tries, we have found ways for large civilizations to coexist with each other, and maintain fair relations with people. Without being able to settle, or a constant source of food, people wouldn't come together, and we would all be at conflict without learning how to interact with other tribes. Lastly, with these large civilizations, people were able to collaborate and debate topics. This allows for new theories to form, and for people to work together to create modern things like philosophy and the liberal arts, which wouldn't have a place in a nomadic tribe. Taking everything into account, I feel the pros greatly outweigh the cons of agriculture.