Why did humans take up agriculture?

[wolveraptor]

Well, it is true that nearly every major civilization started near a body of water. So it may have been fishing that encouraged people to settle down, and then they began to farm, when they missed them good ole' strawberries...or something.

[Lusankya]

I find permanent settlements an interesting development because on the one hand they were detrimental for the individual human (because living in a permanent settlement with no plumbing is not healthy), but good for the group.

One of the advantages of herding/agriculture is that you can devote less of your human resources to making food, and use more of them for arts&crafts, bureucracy, war etc.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except his point was about agriculture and the permanance of settlements. Diamond focus on geography stated that while Europe and Asia was on the same latitudes, thus allowing for the spread of ideas and societies from Asia to Europe because of the ability to spread their foodstocks, this didn't happen in America because North American societies were incompatible with South American societies, due to the difference in climate.

Which still doesn't explain why the British were in India and not the Indians in Britain. There was a distinctly European advantage--primarily the result of economic prosperity--which can be chased to the favourability of European geography for large-scale trade.

IIRC, Diamond took note of that and pointed out that the difference between China and Europe, which both could easily rely on water transport was that unlike Europe, China didn't have moutaineous terrain to hinder the spread of civilisation. He also noted that his work at that point in time couldn't and chose to ignore the differences between unity and division.

Mountainous terrain in Europe is irrelevant because of that sea transport. That's what I'm asserting--there are fewer barriers to unity in Europe than in China, because water based transport is more efficient and able to reach more points, on average, in Europe, which allows a generally greater economic efficiency and larger and more prosperous empires. The failure of Europe to reunify after the fall of the Roman Empire may be more ascribed to the fact that its unity simply shifted to a religious form of international unity which actively worked against a corresponding secular unity.

Its also worth noting that with his focus on climate taken into account, that could also explain for certain divisions in Europe. Generally, climate was vastly difference in the Mediterran than from Northern Europe, and two distinct cultural centres did emerge, the Greek and Roman empires of the Med as opposed to the Goths and other civilisations in the wintry north.

The Teutonic civilizations of Europe are universally influenced by Rome, however, which succeeded in penetrating into the heart of most of modern Europe--Roman culture had a massive influence on Germany, and politically controlled parts of it for a long time, and traded as far north as the Baltics, and Romania, for that matter, still speaks a Latin-based language to this day despite being ruled by the Romans for only a century.

[Master of Ossus]

At least in the Andes, agriculture seems to have developed for industrial materials before it was able to support anyone with crops. Reeds for making boats seem to have been the first plants that were actively grown by the inhabitants of high-elevation lakes, and only later did maize and potatoes emerge as reasonable for producing food-stuffs. While it's unclear what the first true agricultural products were in the Middle East, flax and papyrus were both cultivated fairly early, and were potentially the first plants grown in the Fertile Crescent and Egypt, respectively. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that the move towards fully agricultural societies was spurred not by a desire for greater population density, but rather out of a need for industrial materials and luxory foods (societies today that are not fully hunter-gatherer or agrarian tend to focus their efforts on luxory foods--bananas and pigs in Southeast Asia, berries drier climates).

[wolveraptor]

When and why would the Church have worked against secular unity in Europe? Hell, the constant feudal warfare annoyed it, because they were caught in the middle. Isn't that why the Church had this whole "Truce of God" thing?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

When and why would the Church have worked against secular unity in Europe? Hell, the constant feudal warfare annoyed it, because they were caught in the middle. Isn't that why the Church had this whole "Truce of God" thing?

What did the Church do to the Holy Roman Emperor at Canossa, again? Who was the greatest enemy of Frederick II? The Church, of course.

It fought the consolidation of secular power because if secular power had been consolidated than its own position in Europe would be destroyed. Look at how quickly Napoleon made short work of the Vatican when he had briefly succeeded in concentrating secular power in Europe into his hands. The Church knew that any central authority over all of Europe would reduce it to a branch of government, and didn't want that to happen for rather obvious reasons, so it actively worked against it--and in fact tried to become the dominant secular authority itself. That's what the "peace of God" and so on was about--not about peace persay, but about the Church ending warfare between Christian powers because the Church would arbitrate all disputes between them, essentially a theocratic EU.

[wolveraptor]

So it was because they'd lose their power if secular authorities arose? I get it. And it only took me twenty minutes!

that was sarcasm

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So it was because they'd lose their power if secular authorities arose? I get it. And it only took me twenty minutes!

that was sarcasm

Sarcasm it may be, but the point, supported by the relevant evidence, stands. It is either to be accepted, or else a proper counterargument is highly recommended.

[General Brock]

Zero 132132 wrote:

Because there's never anything on... lol. I don't know, I just told myself to stop for a week, for the sake of some damned thing or other.. and I just didn't pick it up again. Now it seems pretty dull and stupid most of the time...

Probably discovered computers and the internet...

I would agree with the Dutchess; after a certain point population pressures would force settlement and agriculture. Staking out prime turf from other wandering tribes, places for the young, infirm, or elderly to layover, important gathering areas for migrating groups might develop full-time residents. When competition escalated to primitive warfare, sheer numbers and a secure food supply would count more so than hunting skills.

Hunter-gathering survived only in areas inhospitable to sustainable agriculture, or if the hunter gatherers had an overwhelming force advantage, such as the horse-tribes of the steppes. Even the horse cultures depended exacting tribute and trade with agricultural settlements.