• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Since there’s no written record, it’s hard to know for sure but I believe it was because agricultural communities were able to reproduce much faster and live at much higher densities, so they tended to win conflicts and displace societies based on foraging—even though foragers had better quality of life and didn’t normally experience the food shortages people imagine.

    That said, modern foraging societies have largely converted to agriculture after being subjugated and not because they were hungry. So there is some evidence to support this hypothesis.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I don’t know how suitable this is, but I instantly thought of it as sort of comparable to bacteria in the wild, compared to the same bacteria moved to a sterile environment and being fed growth medium. The latter can grow to vastly larger quantities in a comparable area, maybe even in a giant vat. But if there’s enough of a problem with the single source of growth medium, some kind of contamination or just no more supply, the whole colony dies. It’s a more successful colony, but in a potentially far less stable state unless the conditions can continue to be kept that good.

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Also the foraging people might end up living on the periphery of a settlement, foraging and then trading what they foraged with the settlement to make thier lives easier.