From Guy Cox
Economist Samuel Bowles’s study of the calorific costs of early ways of producing food (30 July, p 26) adds a valuable extra dimension to the debate on the emergence of agriculture.
The decrease in physical stature and health in the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture is well documented, so we must believe it. But present-day evidence contradicts it: compare Indigenous Australians, who were until recently Stone Age-style hunter-gatherers, with nearby Papua New Guinea highlanders, who are still Stone Age-style agriculturists, albeit now with metal tools. The latter have a more powerful build and healthier appearance.
There are other factors that affect the survival prospects of the two groups, though. Agriculturists typically store food; hunter-gatherers do not. So even if their diet and health is worse, the agriculturists are better able to survive bad times.
Another factor is the carrying capacity of the land. Agriculture can support more people per hectare, so in the end greater population density may make it the only option.
Advertisement
Sydney, Australia
