Reference no: EM133281395

Question: When most folks consider the process that led us from hunting and gathering to horticulture to agriculture, it seems they take it for granted, as if this is the natural course of events and that agriculture was far better than hunting and gathering. Yet when anthropologists study hunter-gatherers they seem uniquely happy in their situations. They spend 12-15 hours per week getting their food and the rest of the time they hang out. Without the ability to store extra resources, there's no need to acquire more than what is needed which means nobody has more than anyone else, in fact the idea of personal property is foreign to most hunter-gatherers. They live in a way that promotes equality and cooperation. This all begins to change with horticulture. People start settling down into villages. With a permanent location the ability to store extra resources becomes possible, so people now work much harder to acquire more.

Soon classes begin to emerge as some are able to acquire more than others. Instead of cooperating, individuals and groups are now competing with each other. Is this really a better way to live? Why do we like to assume so?