Academicians once claimed that the Agrarian Revolution was a big step forward for humanity. They tell a story of progress through human intelligence. Evolution has gradually created more and more intelligent people. As a result, people are so clever that they have solved the mysteries of nature and have tame the sheep and planted wheat. And soon afterwards, somehow, the merciless, dangerous and warrior hunter-gatherers are left to welcome their lives and pass on to the pleasant and serene farmer life.
This story is totally fantastic. There is no evidence that people are smarter in time. Hunter collectors knew the secrets of nature long before the Agrarian Revolution, because their survival depended on having detailed knowledge of the plants they had collected and the animals they had hunted. The Agricultural Revolution has created a new and easy way of life, far more difficult and less satisfying for farmers than for hunter collectors. The hunter gatherers spent much of their time in activities that stimulate various people and mental stimuli, and are less likely to suffer from hunger and disease. The Agrarian Revolution has certainly increased the total amount of food in the hands of man, but it has not created better nutrition or more enjoyable time. It has created spoiled elites by leading to a population explosion. The average farmer worked worse than the average hunter picker and had worse nutrients.
Is this responsible now? Not the kingdoms, but the priests and merchants. Criminals were a handful of plant species, including wheat, rice and potatoes. Homo sapiens was the opposite of this, which would domesticate these plants.
I will also evaluate the Agricultural Revolution over the wheat. Ten thousand years ago, wheat was only a wild ottu stuck in some parts of the Middle East. Suddenly the individual began to grow throughout the world in a few thousand years. According to the most basic evolutionary survival and breeding criteria, it was one of the most successful plants in the history of the world. You can walk in hundreds of miles of wheat fields today and you will not encounter any other plant in areas like the large plains of North America where a single wheat head has not grown for 10 thousand years. Worldwide, wheat covers an area of 2.25 million square kilometers, almost ten times that of Britain. How did such a trivial grass become a plant found everywhere?
Wheat made this by directing Homo sapiens in his own direction
Within a few thousand years, people all over the world would have done almost nothing except to take care of wheat from dawn to sunset. It was not an easy job. Wheat is a plant that needs a lot of labor, does not like rocky and pebbly peaks, so Sapiens worked until it cracked to cleanse the fields. Wheat does not like to share its field, water and nutrients with other plants, so men and women worked long hours under the scorching sun and weed roads. Wheat could also sick, so Sapiens was also attacked against mold and wolves. In addition, since wheat is vulnerable to other organisms that want to eat it, farmers have tried to protect the plant by taking precautions against grasshoppers and rabbits, transporting water from the sources and from the waters for much water, or even harvesting the land they have grown by collecting thorns.
Homo sapiens' body did not evolve for such work. Not to run behind deers, to climb on apple trees, not to carry rocks or carry water pans. People paid for it with their backbone, knee, neck and back pain. When the old skeletons are examined, it is seen that the passage of agriculture returns to people as belly, arthritis and other hernias in joints. Moreover, these new agricultural jobs took so much time that people had to build permanent settlements near the fields of wheat. This changed their lives completely. We did not tame the wheat, the wheat tame us. Domestication (domestication) derives from the domestics of the Latin language. Households are not wheat, but Sapiens.
How could the wheat convince Homo sapiens to change a life that was not so bad, a life in misery? What did he offer for this? She did not offer better nutrition. Remember, people are living things that grow up by eating a wide range of food sources. Before the Agricultural Revolution, grains were only a small part of human nutrition. A diet based on grains is weak due to minerals and vitamins, difficult to digest, and harmful to teeth and gums.
Wheat did not provide people with economic security either. The village's life is more insecure than the hunter-gatherer's. Hunter collectors consumed dozens of foods to survive, and on this account, they could survive even if they had not stored food in difficult years. When one of the species fell, they could collect and hunt others. Farmers' societies have been able to consume a large portion of their calorie intake until very recently, from a small number of domesticated plants, even in most areas, fed with a single plant such as wheat, potatoes or rice. If the rains were insufficient, or locusts and fungi discovered how to harvest these plants, thousands or even millions of peasants could die.
Wheat was not something that offered assurance against violence from people. The first farmers were at least as hunter-gatherer ancestors, and probably even brutal to them. The farmers needed more material and seed to plant seeds. The attack of neighboring tribes on agriculture fields could determine the difference between tummy and hunger, so there was no room for reconciliation. A group of hunter-gatherers could usually rescue themselves when exposed to pressure by another group. It was difficult and dangerous, but possible. When a strong enemy threatened an agricultural village, retreating meant leaving the fields, houses and food depots to go. In most cases, the fugitives were starving. So the farmers would stay in the place they were and choose to fight as much as they can.
What did he give to the wheat farmers?
He did not give people anything as an individual. On the other hand, Homo sapiens as a species has made a very important contribution. Growing wheat gave people the chance to produce far more food than the amount of soil, and this allowed Homo sapiens to multiply exponentially.
The passage of evolution is neither hunger nor suffering, only the copying of DNA strands. If a company's success is not measured by the happiness of its employees, but by the banking lira, a fossil evolutionary success is measured by the number of copies of DNA. If there is no DNA copy anywhere, the species will disappear, just like a company that does not have a lot of money goes bankrupt. If you have a large number of copies of DNA, it is a success and the species evolves. From this perspective, a thousand copies are always better than a hundred copies. This is the essence of the Agrarian Revolution: to keep more people alive, even under worse conditions.
Why do individuals take this evolutionary account into consideration? Which lunatic individual reduces his or her own standard of living so that the number of Homo sapiens genders increases? Nobody has ever approved it: the Agricultural Revolution was a trap.
Yuval Noah Harari – Gods of the Gods Sapiens