Subsistance and Economy

Part 1

The lifestyles of a hunter-gatherer and of agriculture subsistence patterns are different. First, Hunter-gatherers have the advantage of having a close nit group and avoid diseases more effectively. Hunter-gatherers move constantly and because of the nature of their lifestyle of highly depending on each other for food, team building within groups are created. Also, because they move around a lot they eat food that are fresh and so, in that way, it helps avoid disease.

They don’t need to worry about spoiled food or contaminated food. On the other hand, their subsistence pattern while keeping them healthy and close to one another also has its risks. One of them being that because they do move around a lot food is never a guarantee. They are always on the move because they need to find new sources of food once they exhaust an areas resources. In effect, this group although close does not leave room for other improvements such as technological ones or complex forms of permanent institutions.

An agriculture subsistence pattern on the other hand provides a more reliable and sustainable food source. They have more of a guarantee of food and as food worries go away the group can focus and thrive on what the hunter-gatherer could not. They can establish cities because they don’t need to always be constantly on the move. Different areas of study can be further developed.Their population would grow in size as food supply grows to accommodate them while hunter gatherers need to stay as small groups to survive. Their disadvantage though is that as the population grows they are also more susceptible to disease. They need more food so storage for it is used and this can cause food to spoil when not done properly. Also, if the population grows at a rate faster then their advancements then they can eventually have problems with food and waste.

I would have to think that the hunter-gatherer had a healthier diet because they moved around a lot so they had a more well rounded diet of available foods while the agriculture people stuck to what they already had. The hunter-gatherer would have had more nutrient.

The move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture could have come because agriculture provided a security hunting and gathering couldn’t. They can plant for food and expect it while the other alternative didn’t always guarantee food. 

Part 2

There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade. Because people had surplus of things they could afford to let it go and trade it for something else with others. Whereas if they did not have a lot of something or had just enough of it then they would not be willing to trade what little they had. But because they had a surplus then trading was made possible. They could barter for other things they needed or were in low supply of.

A social benefit of trading is that groups become open to one another. Peace can be attained when open trade is established and in effect trust is obtained. Another is that as trade prospers so does sharing. They can learn and develop tools from each other. They can make advancements  due to another groups openness to share what they know.

A negative aspect of trading between groups is that hostilities between groups can arise  when a group wants more than another or have what another has. In this case, people will cheat or fight to have what they want. A second disadvantage is that people can go from sharing for the benefit of everyone to taking for the benefit of self. So you have people taking advantage and exploiting others for their benefit even if it means another’s worst nightmare.

Without the development of agriculture the development of trade wouldn’t be possible. The hunter-gatherer had just enough for survival so trade for them wouldn’t be as huge as it is as it was with the agriculture group. What the hunter-gatherer had they would have kept and surplus for them would have been a rarity or not as consistent as it would have been for agriculture. Agriculture made it possible to have surplus and with surplus people were able to trade what they didn’t need for what they did or wanted.