384
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

If they’re able to support a larger population shouldn’t it average out to less work?

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, because agriculture isn't about minimising labor, it's about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.

It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn't as immediate.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I suppose, but since there's a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there's an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.

Agriculture doesn't have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that's still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
384 points (94.4% liked)

Memes

46042 readers
1438 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS