IP Blog

After reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, I can now conclude that the contributory element that guaranteed the rise and spread of domesticables enabling food production was location.  One key point is that there was only a minimal amount of edible plants for the humans there.  Even the plants that were there and that were edible the humans later found out that a good part of the edible plants were useless. The plants were low in nutritional value and were not able to be digested.  Only with a large variety of food are people able to settle in villages.  This later allows food production to become an option, Diamond states, “ It should come as no surprise that food production never arose in large areas of the globe, for ecological reasons that still make it difficult or impossible there today (93).  This quote makes the point that is makes no sense to start food production if there was no nutritional value, or if it was hard to make or consume.  Thus, the availability of consumable food was needed to being food production.

“In all parts of the world there is evidence that archeologists found, that give evidence of the rising in densities along with the start of food production (Diamond, 111).  The location determines how suitable the conditions for growing crops are.  An example of this is, the climate in a more northern region is colder and the growing periods are shorter.  This results in a lesser range of agriculture.  However, in a more southern region it is warmer, more sunshine; therefore, there is more diversity in the plants that are grown.  Where there is a larger variety in plants there is food production.  The proper location makes a larger impact on the agriculture and food production available.  Diamond proves this in his quote that location is based on suitable growing conditions. 

Diamond proves that location had a large impact on whether or not food production came available.  Location also determined the amount of animals; that in turn established domesticable animals.  Domesticated animals allowed the farmers of the time and still today to consume a healthy amount of animal protein. This allowed the society to stay put instead of moving to another food source.  Another way that domesticables helped the farmers was that certain animals provided more that just meet.  For instance, chickens laid eggs, and milk came from cows.  Thus, the location means everything in the means of domesticables and most importantly food production. 

As I read Guns, Germs, and Steel, I discovered that the most important contributory element that guarantees the rise and spread of domesticates enabling food production are animals. Animals provide fertilizer, food, and protection for animals, plants and humans alike. Fertilizer helps plants grow and flourish so they are able to eat by animals and humans. Food is provided by animals, such as meat and milk. Hides from animals provide people with warmth. Both hunter-gatherers and farmer-herders seem to be somewhat successful, but farmer-herder came out on top. Although “in a one-on-one fight, a naked farmer would have no advantage over a naked hunter-gatherer” (195). In the chapter Lethal Gift of Livestock, it suggests only the strong survive (195).  What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

People do need germs to live. Although some may hurt or even kill you, germs are needed to live. http://http://www.kidspoint.org/columns2.asp?column_id=849&column_type=homework.” title="good and bad">Germs. They provide immunity, antibodies, antigens, and resistance. Even though we want to kill all germs out in the world, we have to research them and comprehend what they are all about before killing them (198). Germs are also good for animals for all the same reasons as they are for humans. The animal’s natural fertilizer is a wonderful source for plants to grow. By having plants thrive off of it, it makes life a little easier for farmers. Fertilizer. “Domesticated animals differ in various ways from their wild ancestors. These differences result from two processes: human selection of those individual animals more useful to humans than other individuals of the same species, and automatic evolutionary responses of animals to the altered forces of natural selection…” (159).

Animals provide people with food such as milk and meat.  From those products people are allowed to make different sorts of food.  Therefore giving the food industry tons of business, because people need to food to survive.  If you would like to raise a 1,000 pound cow, you would need to feed it 10,000 pounds of corn (169).  A farmer would need to grow more corn than he/she might think. animal health.  Over times the meat we eat has been changing over the years, “breeds of dogs were developed and raised for food in Aztec Mexico, Polynesia, and ancient China” (169).  Animals also provide protection.  They provide protection for humans.  Animal’s fur and skin provide humans with protection from the weather by making clothing and shoes out of it.  Domesticated animals enable food production.  domesticated animals

Out of the several proximate causes ultimately responsible for the rise and spread of food production, the single most important is the domestication of wild plants and animals. Society relied on animals for food such as meat and milk for survival. If the population is fed, the population can grow (calories=creation, no calories=malnutrition). Not only did some animals provide nourishment, but they also offered easier, faster travel and labor. Their natural fertilizer was extremely crucial for the domestication of wild plants. The ways of the hunter-gatherers died out after a period of time, and the lifestyle of farmer-herders took over. Diamond suggests that hunter-gatherers relied on hunting wild animals and gathering wild plants whereas farmer-herders relied on domesticating wild animals and plants and eating the resulting livestock and crops (86). By comparing the two, the lifestyle of farmer-herders proves to be a more successful and reliable existence. Diamond says, “Today most people on Earth consume food that they produced themselves or that someone else produced for them” (86).

Among the many species of wild plants and animals, a small minority is edible or worth obtaining; most species are useless to society for many reasons--they are “indigestible, poisonous, low in nutritional value, tedious to prepare, difficult to gather, or dangerous to hunt” (Diamond, 88). Once the farmer-herders established domesticating certain animals and plants useful to humans, it ensured them a sedentary, yet reliable existence. Unlike farmer-herders, hunter-gatherers live day by day, eating what they can find in the wilderness. Their nomadic ways disintegrated and proved to be extremely unreliable. Diamond argues, “In human societies possessing domestic animals, livestock fed more people in four distinct ways: by furnishing meat, milk, and fertilizer and by pulling plows” (88). These four ways benefited farmer-herders more than hunter-gatherers. Today, farmers have technological equipment in order to improve their work, but they have to avoid many negative setbacks such as water pollution, soil erosion, pesticide residues, etc. 

Overall, the domestication of wild plants and animals directly increased population rates and life expectancy considering the simple concept, calories=creation. More and more farmer-herders settlements were established over time. Americans today tend to get most of their protein, an essential nutrient for human growth and development, from cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens. Domestic milked mammals such as the cow, sheep, goat, horse, etc, provide milk products such as butter, cheese, and yogurt (Diamond, 88). The fact that hunter-gatherers are constantly traveling poses a major disadvantage. A hunter-gatherer mother can only carry one child and few possessions; they space their children about four years apart. This restriction hindered their ability to obtain a densely populated society. Due to farmer-herders sedentary lifestyle, they were able to establish this type of society. Diamond says, “Sedentary people, unconstrained by problems of carrying young children on treks, can bear and raise as many children as they can feed” (89). As the farmer-herders continued to grow in population, their ways of food production was spread throughout the world.

Location is the most important contributory element that guarantees the rise and spread of domesticables enabling food production.  Only a certain amount of edible plants grow in certain locations.  This then limits the society’s amount of available consumable calories.  Most locations have edible plants that are few and far between which makes it virtually impossible to become a stratified society.  Diamond explains, “Among wild plant and animal species, only a small minority are edible to humans or worth hunting or gathering.  Most biomass (living biological matter) on land is in the form of wood and leaves, most of which we cannot digest.” (88) This then means that a location with a suitable amount of edible plants is important to evolve from hunter gather to farmer herder.  Let’s take the Fertile Crescent for instance.  This area appears to have been the first sight of well, civilization, but why?  One advantage they had was that it lies within a zone of Mediterranean climate.  A Mediterranean climate has mild, wet winters and long hot dry summers.  This environment is great for annuals a small plant that lives during the rains, dries up and dies in the dry season and comes back annually.  The Fertile Crescent also happens to have many annual cereals and pulses which are edible to humans (Diamond, 136).  These edible plants then raise the amount of consumable calories a society is exposed to, which then leads to a denser population.  Location is a major factor in not only consumable calories it also plays a large role in demesticable animals.

Location had a huge impact on domesticated animals.  Let’s begin with the definition of a candidate for domestication.  Diamond defines it as “a species of terrestrial, herbivorous or omnivorous, wild mammal on the average over 100 pounds.” (162) Eurasia happens to have most candidates with 72 species while sub-Saharan Africa comes in second with 51.  This seems to be common sense though because Eurasia is the world’s largest landmass after all and has many diverse habitats.  Sub-Saharan Africa being a smaller landmass with fewer habitats obviously will have fewer species of candidates.  The interesting information comes when we look at percentages of candidates domesticated.  Eurasia domesticated 13 (18%) species while Sub-Saharan Africa domesticated none (0%).  Not only did Eurasia domesticate 13 species they domesticated thirteen of “The Ancient Fourteen Species of Big Herbivorous Domestic Mammals” (160-163).  So why did Eurasia domesticate so many species, were they just lucky?  Luck may have played a small factor but I believe it was because their location allowed them to inhabit diverse places that had many suitable species with all the right characteristics.  Location determines things like crops and domesticables but its nothing without and east/ west axis. 

Part of a good location is an east/ west axis.  This is important because once a society has established farming and domesticables it must grow and spread.  To successfully spread your crops and domesticables to other herds and tribes a society must do it in a latitudinal manor (176).  This is because “Day length is constant throughout the year at the equator, but at temperature latitudes it increases as the months advance from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and it then declines again through the next half of the year.”(184) East/ west axes are also beneficial it will pass through many diverse habitats.  It also promises similar temperatures, day lengths and growing seasons.  Location determines a socities edible plants, domesticable animals, and ability to grow and flourish.  That is why location is most important contributory element that guarantees the rise and spread of domesticables enabling food production.

Extra Credit Polls

Location was most obviously the key factor as to whether or not a society in prehistory was able to obtain food production.  Jared Diamond clearly points this out in his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.  He analyzes why many societies had to rely on outside sources for their “founder package” and what effect this had on their development.  Why was location important?  Well, unlike the common belief that some humans are simply superior to others, “axis orientations affected the rate of spread of crops and livestock, and possibly also of writing, wheels, and other inventions” (176).  When examined this theory makes much sense.  The axis orientation, or simply put the direction in which most of the continent is laid, changed factors such as climate and typography variations in the continent.  The difference between how fast crops and inventions spread in places with a largely north-south axis and in places with an east-west axis is immense (178).

Diamond divides the continents into four main pieces: the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and Australia/New Guinea.  In this chapter of his book, however, Australia/New Guinea doesn’t really come into play.  Therefore, we are left with three landmasses, two of which have north-south axes (the Americas and Africa) and one of which has an east-west axis (Eurasia).  The difference in progression of the societies occurs mainly here.  Eurasia was able to acquire the Fertile Crescent’s “founder package”.  This consisted of several domesticated crops and a few domesticated animals.  This package quickly spread through the continent because the climate and growing seasons were similar, as well as diseases.  Because the crops had already adapted to these factors once they had to make only a few small alterations to be able to survive in the slightly different locations throughout Eurasia (185).  In the Americas and Africa, this ease of increased food production was made more difficult and slower because the crops and animals had to change to fit the various climates, which sometimes was impossible, causing societies to need to start over again.  The evidence of “frequent multiple domestications in the Americas, might thus provide more subtle evidence that crops spread more easily out of Southwest Asia than in the Americas” (179).

Because Eurasia had a head start on food production, they gained a head start to becoming “civilized”.  The acquirement of these domesticates allowed Eurasia to develop several sedimentary, stratified societies as opposed to their previous hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  These states, if large enough, would have had a centralized government with laws and organization.  Eventually, the large sedentary societies (states) would become many of the countries initially in place in Europe and Asia.  The larger societies created by domesticated food production helped to create writing as a way of recording what was stored where, law and punishment, and other critical information to a society.  The spread of wheels and other inventions may have been affected because many were devised as ways to make aspects of food production easier (190).  Diamond states the blunt truth and shows that he thinks history may have had a different outcome if the tables were turned by saying, “Around those axes turned the fortunes of history” (191).

Related Links:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/10/3715.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm
http://imperium.lenin.ru/~kaledin/tmp/agricltr.txt
http://www.edge.org/discourse/diamond_evolution.html

Until this day, society as a whole enjoys to eat and eat, and then eat again. Our ancestors and predecessors were no different from us. This one factor proves to be the most important proximate cause that led to food production, a lack of food. Jared Diamond relays this fact to us throughout his enticing book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.  “All these considerations make it clear that we should not suppose that the decision to adopt farming was made in a vacuum, as if the people had previously had no means to feed themselves”(109). With this statement, Diamond implies that an underlying cause of food production happens to be a lack of food. Hunter-gatherers could not sustain themselves or their families with the amount of food they were collecting which drove an abundance of them to become farmers. Food production tends to lead to increased population densities because it yields more edible calories per acre than does hunter-gathering cites a perfect in-between the lines example Diamond provides(111). The subject at hand is food production, but when the text is read in-between the lines, Diamond implies the lack of food for a set population drove them into food production.

Diamond believes that there are five proximate causes for the development of food production; they are a decrease in wild foods, an increase in domesticable plants, the introduction of new technology, a rise in population density, and the spread of food production from other areas (109-112). Does something jump out at you? because it hit me in the stomach, no pun intended. People need food in order to survive, and if there wasn’t a lack of food, food production wouldn’t have happened at all because hunter gatherers would have been self sufficient and never thought of living a life as a farmer. “The lifestyle of hunter-gatherers has become increasingly less rewarding over the past 13,000 years, as resources on which they depended have become less abundant or even disappeared”(110). Diamond hits the nail on the coffin with this statement. Hunter-gatherers goes a little in depth about the extent of what kinds of tools they used and how they lived, and when I begin to realize how primitive they were, it puzzles me how even thousands of years ago they weren’t looked at as primitive people. Farming, yet when I look at this, even the most basic farming topples hunter-gathers’ primitive technology.  Just looking at the facts, farming was the way to go, and food production sky rocketed because these people made that profound decision.

With my last words, I plan to exemplify that a lack of wild foods was the one most important proximate cause. People have to be driven to do something that is not in their normal lifestyles. When people cannot survive because they do not have enough to eat, they are forced to produce food. “From those precursors of food production already practiced by hunter-gatherers, it developed stepwise” shows that gathering food was not sufficient enough to begin with, and hence again, lack of food prevailed as a main cause (109). Looking at the other proximate causes, they all scaffold onto the main cause, lack of food. Depletion of wild game fits under lack of food because they are basically stating the same concept but instead involve animals as the lack of food. Development of technology would not even be a factor if the population never evolved into a farming society. Human population density is another cause, but is just a branch of lack of food. Isn’t it obvious that the more people the more food you need? The last proximate cause is the spread of food production, but this seems pointless as a proximate cause because it is just a restatement of what has already happened. How can you use a word to define itself? This leaves a lack of wild foods to be the number one reason of the rise and spread of domesticables. Diamond tells us that the few that remained hunter-gatherers only did so because it was unsuitable for them to farm on the harsh lands they resided on (113). Closing my blog, I firmly believe lack of wild foods was the key proximate factor in the spread and rise of food production.

Take a look at these ground breaking polls:
http://quimble.com/poll/view/5853
http://quimble.com/poll/view/5854
http://quimble.com/poll/view/5855
http://quimble.com/poll/view/5856
http://quimble.com/poll/view/5857

The proximate cause that is the most important contributory element to the rise and spread of domesticables is an east-west axis.  According to Jared Diamond’s book, Guns, Germs, & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, an east-west axis is widely responsible for the development of food production among certain peoples and the lack thereof among others.  When faced with a question regarding the rapid spread of crops from the Fertile Crescent, Diamond replied, “The answer depends partly on that east-west axis of Eurasia” (183).  Diamond goes further in explaining this by mentioning that different regions thousands of miles apart, but with the same latitude, are closer in climate to each other than regions a thousand miles north or south (183).  This would naturally enable a domesticable capable of living or growing in a certain climate to be able to thrive in a region thousands of miles away, if the axis of the landmass allowed.  An east-west axis not only affects the rise and spread of domesticables and food production, it affects all other innovations and sophistications and levels that a society can have.  It is the basic building block for having a civilized, stratified society, and it all starts with farmers on an east-west axis.  That is why the most important contributory element to the rise and spread of food production and domesticables is an east-west axis.

Imagine a banana tree growing in Siberia, or lichen in the rainforests of Ecuador.  This idea strikes the mind as ridiculous, as everyone knows bananas are tropical and wouldn’t survive in any drastically different climate, which may be only 300 miles north or south.  However, the same banana tree would grow 5,000 miles east or west of the region on the same latitude.  With this in mind, it makes much more sense that a landmass oriented east and west would offer many more opportunities for domestic growth.  The domesticable wouldn’t need to adapt drastically to the new environment, as it is already familiar with the climate and geography in most instances.  Therefore, it only makes sense that landmasses like Eurasia, which has an east-west axis, got a head start in food production, as domesticables were easily able to spread and grow.  “[Domesticates] were already adapted to the climates of the regions to which they were spreading” (185).  It also only makes sense that residents of North and South America and Africa found it hard to grow and spread domesticables because their major axes are north-south.  The climate change would be too different for a plant to easily survive and adapt.  Here is one such example: at first glance, it may seem like a great idea to a Canadian farmer trying to add variety to his diet to plant corn that he got in Mexico.  When the farmer toils and sows the corn seeds, only to have them thrust up shoots under feet of snow in March, it suddenly seems like a horrendous idea.  All that time and energy lost, only to have a food product that will die, if not from the climate, from lack of resistance to northern diseases (184).

The spread of food production and domesticables relies mainly on an east-west axis.  A region can have a great climate and many domesticables available to it, but if it is not able to spread, the region is limited to what it has.  This region can’t grow as well, and has no other sophisticated neighbors that they con conquer with their guns, germs, and steel that only a society with food production can have.  Even if they spread to these nomadic regions occupied by hunter-gatherers, there is no land immediately suitable for the types of crops they have already firmly established.  Contrast this with the land that has ample room for growth, and its neighbors also do.  The power of this stratified farmer society can grow exponentially, all because it has an east-west axis, instead of a confining, restricting north-south axis with climate barriers.  For instance, farming spread rapidly “from the Philippines east to Polynesia (at 3.2 miles per year)” (178).  Compare this with the growth of food production from Mexico to the United States southwest at an average rate of 0.2 miles per year (178).  Clearly an east-west axis is a huge advantage in the rise and spread of domesticables and food production.

Extra Credit PollDaddy:

Location demonstrates the most essential proximate cause needed for the development and spread of food production. Those who adopted food production earliest became fortunate because of their location. Other secondary factors only proved significant when the location was favorable. For example, different technologies and appliances had to be developed to plant and harvest crops, but they were useless unless the environment was suitable for the crops to grow. Certain indigenous animals such as cattle and sheep provided fertilizer from which crops grew, but again these species were initially only present in certain areas. “ It should come as no surprise that food production never arose in large areas of the globe, for ecological reasons that still make it difficult or impossible there today” (Diamond 93). Areas such as North America’s arctic, and deserts remote from sources of water for irrigation, were unable to develop food production (Diamond 93). Even with modern technologies most of these locations remain uninhabitable and without food production today.

Only certain areas of the world could support the Mediterranean Climate that enabled the growth of diverse cereals and pulses. These crops proved to be most suitable for independent domestication. They grow fast, are high in carbohydrates, and have a large yield (Diamond 125). “As a result, cereals today account for over half of all calories consumed by humans and include five of the modern world’s 12 leading crops” (Diamond 125). Consequently, areas such as the Fertile Crescent, which was able to support the growth of cereals and pulses, thrived over those that could not. The majorities of these crops were self-pollinating, and required less work on the part of the farmers. Unlike strawberries and other crops, these cereals and pulses could be preserved and consumed at a later date. Additionally, these crops provided more nourishment and energy to food producers, which in turn, led to increased production and diffusion of the crop out of the region. Possessing these desirable crops enabled members of the Fertile Crescent to gain a head start over other peoples because of their location, and before other areas were able to develop food production independently, it was already reaching them by diffusion.

“Just as some regions proved much more suitable than others for the origins of food production, the ease of its spread also varied greatly around the world” (Diamond 177). Extremely isolated areas, such as Australia, were last in acquiring food production. Likewise, most of the denizens of arid and arctic environments remained hunter-gatherers until modern times. The success of the itinerary that the domesticables would follow again depended on location. Those inhabiting Eurasia enjoyed the benefits of a major east to west axis. The relatively static climate throughout Eurasia allowed for the easy diffusion of crops throughout the continent (Diamond 183). Conversely, the diffusion of crops from north to south or vice versa often ended in failure resulting from drastic climate change. It was then out of pure circumstance that those inhabiting locations that supported the diffusion of crops, permitted them to enjoy the many benefits of food production. 

Check out these cool PollDaddy Polls:

http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24453
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24455
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24457
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24459
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24463

Why is it that hunter-gatherers converted to farmer-herders?  Jared Diamond provided countless reasons in his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.  The usual answer is that it is easier and less time consuming to produce your food than find it, but there is evidence that this may be untrue.  Diamond says, “Time budget studies show that they [farmer-herders] may spend more rather than fewer hours per day at work than hunter-gatherers do” (105).  In a previous blog, Agriculture: The Best Mistake in the History of the Human Race, I discussed how food production lowers living conditions for farmers, so what actually causes this change in philosophy?  Diamond suggests that there are five proximate causes for the development of food production: a decrease in wild foods, an increase in domesticable plants, the introduction of new technology, a rise in population density, and the spread of food production from other areas (110-112).  To fully comprehend the reason hunters changed from their lifestyle, we must take a closer look at the actual change.  Once we see how this change occurred, we can begin to understand why and what caused this change.

Let’s catapult back in time to 9000 B.C., before anyone had started food production.  A hunter-gatherer spends all day foraging through the forest, killing animals and picking roots, berries, and leaves that are edible.  Despite the common misconception, this human does not miraculously decide to stick the strawberry that he just picked in the middle of a field and water it.  No, instead he eats the strawberry, and some of the seeds pass through his digestive tract, getting planted in his waste.  The next year, he discovers a strawberry plant, ripe with fruit (115-117).  In this way, our hunter-gatherer has unconsciously started to become a food producer.  As food starts to become scarce (cause 1) because of an overpopulation of hunters (cause 4), our farmer realizes that he could increase his yield if he “planted” some of his berries in better spots.  Gradually, he plants more crops in his nomadic range (cause 2).  “Some modern nomads of New Guinea’s Lakes Plains make clearings in the jungle, plant bananas and papayas, go off for a few months to live again as hunter-gatherers, return to check on their crops, weed the garden if they find the crops growing, set off again to hunt, return months later to check again, and settle down for a while to harvest and eat if their garden has produced” (Diamond 106).  Through his planting of different crops, he will develop tools to help him harvest his crops (cause 3).  Finally the big day arrives, and the hunter-gatherer just decides not to move on.  The combination of his garden and wild foods has proved productive enough to feed him and his family for a whole year.  I’m not quite sure where he technically becomes a farmer-herder, but at this point he has definitely crossed the threshold, never to return to his hunter-ways.  Meanwhile, his neighbors see his success, and begin to try planting their own crop.  Thus, they become farmers as well (cause 5). 

Now that we have traced the beginning of food production, we see the true reason that hunters change to food production is because they are gradually forced to.  The hunters make decisions that lead to unknown consequences (106).  As shown above, all of Diamond’s proximate factors cause food production, so which one guarantees the rise of food production?  The answer is what happens first in the development process.  Food has to become scarce, otherwise the painstaking process of planting food to increase an areas yield would have been unnecessary.  As Diamond says, “People seek food in order to satisfy their hunger and fill their bellies.  They also crave specific foods. . .” (107). Without the hunter-gatherer requiring a certain food, he would never be driven to plant it.  Thus food production would never evolve, and the hunter would continue foraging.  But where did this decline come from?  Diamond suggests that the major cause of this drop is over-hunting, and he quickly implies a climate change (110).  This climate change, in the form of global warming, caused a loss of grassy plains.  In combination, human hunting and the climate caused a decrease in animal population, which facilitated the switch from the hunter-gatherer to the farmer-herder lifestyle (Laing).  Finally, without this initial development of food production, it would never spread to other areas.

The most important proximate cause of food production is the domestication of animals and plants. The benefits of animal domestication and herding help the hunter-gatherers. Through products such as meat, milk, and manure fertilization, the availability of calories are increased. This will then allow for more births in society. These births will lead to a larger population density. Also, storage for the extra food will be able to sustain the people. The animal fur provides warmth in order to withstand cold winters; the animals are also useful for transporting goods. A partial immunity developed from the animal derived germs, such as smallpox, measles, and the flu. This domestication helped hunter-gatherers to become more civilized as a society.
“At current rates…hunter-gatherer lifestyle.” Long ago, people relied on nomadic ways of hunting and herding. Today, however, food is produced by people themselves or by someone else (Diamond, 86).  The gradual change to another strategy was taken because of the decline in availability of wild fame, prestige, and technologies. Some animal resources became less abundant or even extinct. Wild game availability declined mainly because of the climate, and plant domestication became more rewarding. Technologies for collecting, processing, and storing wild foods also developed. This change in strategy did not happen all at once, but at a gradual pace.
The prosperity of food production also depended on the geography. The spread of food production in Eurasia was fast because of the climate, location, and disease conditions to migrants. However, the diffusion of food production differed greatly in the Americas, Africa, and New Guinea. The climate, deserts, diseases, and jungles made the spread of food production slower. The lack of the adaptation of domesticates slowed the diffusion in the New World. This is because of the continental differences in the axis orientation, latitude and longitude. Not only was food production affected, but also technology and writing. America’s song “America the Beautiful” refers more to Eurasia than the New World.

After reading Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, I believe the most contributory element that guaranteed the rise and spread of domesticables enabling food production was location. One key component of location was the availability of consumable calories in a given area. Only a small amount of wild plants were edible to humans. Some reasons why Diamond argues that certain plants were useless to humans were that they were “indigestible, poisonous, low in nutritional value, tedious to prepare, or dangerous to hunt” (88). There had to be a worthwhile quantity of edible food to make food production a viable option. For example, it made no sense to engage in food production if one expended more calories gathering the food than the actual food provided. The more abundant availability of food allowed for former hunter-gathers to change their ways and turn towards food production. Only with a surplus of food could people begin to settle in permanent villages and start to specialize and improve their farming tactics. When plants that pollinate themselves, “selfers”, were available, food production became a more feasible option. “Selfers” also occasionally cross-pollinated and allowed even more varieties for the people to select from (Diamond, 138). Yet another advantage in location were the number of annual plants. Annual plants are plants that follow a cycle of growing and dying each year. These plants provide a large quantity of consumable calories. In fact Diamond argues, “they constitute 6 of the modern world’s 12 major crops” (136). Annuals were great because unlike trees and shrubs the majority of them were edible (Diamond, 136). The availability of consumable calories definitely was needed to engage in food production; however, the growing conditions also had an enormous impact on the rise and spread of food production.

Location determines whether there are suitable conditions for growing necessary crops.  For instance, the location determines the climate of the environment. In the areas where the climate had a broad climate range such as, The Mediterranean climate, the growing ability of plants was easier. With the high diversity of climate there developed a high diversity of plants. For example, Diamond proves this point when he states, “the diversity in Eurasia allowed for it to contain 32 of the world’s 56 prize wild grasses” (139). The location also determines the range of altitudes and topographies within a short distance. A great range of altitude and topography was beneficial in making food production worthwhile. With mountains, lowlands, rivers, flood plains, and deserts suitable for irrigation a variety of plants could be grown. Among this variety were the essential eight founder crops; they were called founder crops because they were the spark that inspired agriculture. These included cereals emmer wheat, einkon wheat, and barley; the pulses lentil, pea, chickpea, and bitter vetch; and the fiber crop flax. Jared explains that some of the eight founder crops could only grow in certain parts of the world. In fact two out of the eight founder crops could only have grown in the Fertile Crescent. Jared proves through these statistics that the right location made a large impact on agriculture and food production. Without the founder crops the hunter gatherers might never have learned the methods for starting food production (Diamond, 141). Location also determines the axis configuration. Continents that had an East-West axis had a simpler ease at spreading food production; An East-West axis allowed for similar climates; therefore, crops could easily be transported to nearby countries. Also Diamond argues, “the growing season- that is, the months with temperatures and day lengths suitable for plant growth – is shortest at high latitude and longest toward the equator.” In this statement Diamond proves that location had a large impact on whether or not food production was a viable option. Suitable growing conditions based on location were necessary to allow food production, but the number of domesticable animals also was a large factor.

Location seems to have determined the number of domesticable animals on certain continents. Domesticated animals, in turn, helped guarantee the rise and spread of food production. For example, Eurasia held 72 domesticatable animals and 13 of them were able to be domesticated; Eurasia held the largest percentage of candidates to actually be domesticated. The fact that Eurasia’s location enabled it to have a large landmass and a diverse environment represents a major reason why so many domesticatable animals were found in Eurasia. For an animal to become domesticated it must have all the needed qualities; Eurasia held the most candidates. The importance of location on animal domestication can also be seen in the number of animals that were able to survive traumatic environmental changes. Diamond states, “Part of the explanation for Eurasia’s having been the main site of big mammal domestication is that is was the continent with the most candidate species of wild mammals to start out with, and lost the least candidates to extinction in the last 40,000 years” (163). Domestic animals allowed farmers to remain sedentary and still consume a healthy amount of animal protein in their diet. Keeping domestic animals replaced the need to hunt for wild game and they were able to be used as a source of food throughout their whole lifespan. For example, certain animals could provide milk or eggs which were calories that could be consumed with little effort. Diamond argues, “Those mammals served several times more calories over their lifetime than if they were just slaughtered and consumed as meat” (88).  This sedentary life gave farmers the opportunity to have more children, thus creating a denser population. This dense population then allowed for specialized professions, especially specialization in food production (Diamond, 89). Another way domestic animals aided in the adoption of food production was that the animals provided manure which was and still is a major source of fertilizer. Diamond stated domestic animals supplied a labor force for tasks such as “pulling plows and thereby making it possible for people to till land that had previously been uneconomical for farming.” Location, location, location was a major factor that allowed food production to transpire.

Extra Credit PollDaddy content-based Questions:
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24116
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24117
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=23648
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24118
http://www.polldaddy.com/p.asp?p=24119

Part 2 , chapters 4 through 10, examines the rise and spread of food production, noting many proximate causes of food production.  Which ONE proximate cause is the most important contributory element that guarantees the rise and spread of domesticables enabling food production?

Required Components:
*3 paragraphs of 8 sentences minimum
*1 direct quotation from the text in each paragraph (include internal citation)
*1 paraphrase of the text in each paragraph (include internal citation)
*2 links in paragraphs 2 and 3 to online sources that establish firmly your thesis statement (always 1 concept)

Extra Credit Option 1:
*Create a Blinklist account (free, fast, easy) at home (blocked at school because of proxy settings) and include 5 pieces of solid research about the rise of food production that supports your thesis; tag your research GGS
*When you have completed tagging your GGS research, do an internal search inside Blinklist for GGS; all your new research for GGS will appear together; use this URL to link to Extra Credit Blinklist
*On your blog, label your extra credit work Extra Credit Blinklist; link your GGS URL to Extra Credit Blinklist
*If you already have a Blinklist account, you will simply follow the same directions for tagging your GGS research and linking your GGS URL to Extra Credit Blinklist on your blog
*If you have a del.icio.us or diigo account, you would follow the same directions for tagging and use your GGS URL to link to Extra Credit del.icio.us (or Extra Credit diigo) on your blog

Extra Credit: Option 2:
*Create a survey (include 5 content-based questions) using Quimble or PollDaddy.  Click here to learn more about both survey options. (The link will take you to Discovery Education’s Digital Passports, and you are looking for the blog entitled: Audience Participation Required: Online Polls).

*Your final edited test is due 3-21 by 8:00 AM.

“Playing Small Does Not Serve the World.”

“Play big or stay home.” That’s a phrase we hear often. Well, I do anyway. It commonly relates to sports, but that’s not all. In fact, I have that mentality with almost everything I do.  My thinking is if you don’t play big, why play at all? If you don’t use everything you’ve got, why have it in the first place? Why do something half-you-know-what? Save yourself and everyone else the trouble—don’t do it at all. Success takes the use of both your brain and your heart. Your brain measures your ability. If your heart is in it, that ability is fueled by passion, therefore intensifying that initial ability. By solely using your brain, you are only “playing.” When passion is involved, that’s when “playing” transforms into “playing big.”

In today’s society, if you desire recognition, playing big is necessary. It’s your only option. I hate to bring him up, but Bill Gates did not stay home. He played huge and served the world. I’m sure if you asked 10 random people what the first thing that comes to mind is when they hear the name Bill Gates, most if not all will say “richest man in the world.” Yes, this true. However, most of his recognition comes from his wealth—his billions and billions of dollars—not from how he got those billions. Nevertheless, the guy is definitely known. I do not want to even think about life computer-less. YES, it’s that bad.
Props to you, Bill Gates--you played big and won. Being filthy rich doesn’t hurt either.

Got Passion?  If Not, I’ll Tell You What To Care About.

Here’s a question for all you teachers out there. It’s the one you hear on a regular basis, maybe even daily. It’s the one you dread most. “Can I go to the bathroom?” comes in close second, but you actually get pleasure in your witty response of “I don’t know, can you?” After all these years falling for that trap, I can assure you I will ask my future boss if I may go to the bathroom. Thank you for teaching me to talk properly concerning bathroom use. Anyway, enough of that crap.

“Why do we have to learn thisssss?” (said in a whiny, annoying voice) is a teacher’s worst nightmare. You would rather hear fingernails on a chalkboard, wouldn’t you? It’s that question that teachers don’t really answer, and I never bother asking. Why do we have to learn this, you ask? Well, why did our teacher have to learn it? To teach us the same useless information. It’s all one nasty cycle, really. What’s sad about teaching methods today is that we are still using the old-school way of raising our hands when we know the answer. Brainwashing students with memorization and repetition is another story, and tests are something else. They’re all about how much time a student is willing to spend memorizing fact after fact. Here’s something I know for a fact. Memorizing useless information won’t determine my future success. Why color inside the lines when you can think outside the box? I can’t have passion for every one of my subjects. It is impossible. So what if I don’t seem interested in what you’re teaching. At least I’m not sleeping like the kid next to me is. I can’t change what I’m passionate about, and I don’t want to either. You can tell me what to care about. I just won’t listen.

Technological advancements are wanted and also needed in the school environment. With advancements, school will not be made easier, but more efficient. There have been many technological additions to schools within the last 20 years. Many, almost all school’s have computers. This was a big addition to schools being that it helps both students and teachers in many ways. Students know have the ability to acess the WIDE WORLD WEB when doing homework or projects. The computer is the entire library at your fingertips, literally. Computers have also helped teachers in having easier, more efficient grading system. Were as before teacher’s had to use pencil and paper, add and subtract, now computers do all of that for you.
We as students need to have the ability to navigate through the non- stop information flow that today connects the global community. To keep us as students in an age of books and library’s when there is such great new technology is only hurting us. For students to thrive in a world that is enabled by informational technology, schools need curriculum that gives students the skills to make sense of and use the information that engulfs them. We need to be able to learn new technological skills as quickly as technology creates new challenges. This knowledge will only help and prepare our generation for a world-to-come that will be thriving of technology. That world is coming very soon, so we need to be prepared. I believe that technology should be as important as math and science are in schools. Now it is looked at as only a secondary class. I know of many students that already use computers and surf the web, but there is much more to educational technology than desktop computers.
Teachers and students need access to laptops and pocket pc’s, digital cameras and microscopes, web-based video equipment, graphing calculators, and even weather tracking devices. Schools need to become responsible and savvy users and purveyors of technological information. Schools need to learn how to collaborate successfully across miles and cultures. Making the tools of technology available in schools is important, but that’s just the first step. Fully preparing and supporting educators in the instructional use of technology is critical. Teachers (except for Mrs. Stangerlin) must know how to do more with technology than simply automate practices and processes. They need to learn to use technology to transform the nature of teaching and learning. Technology knows no boundaries, so let’s exploited it.
There have been many other drastic (big) changes when we look back in history, so why is this one looked at as different? By not accepting change, schools are depriving themselves in participation in the evolution of the future. The technological evolution will come to pass, whether we accept it or not. Most schools have a computer lab and a computer in every class room. Technology in schools is improving but at a slow pace. Hopefully in years to come it will get better. With the increasing need for technology, schools will soon have no choice but to better themselves. Teachers want it, students need it, now it is the schools turn to make technology more readily available. 

‘With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.’ Jared diamond believes that the development of agriculture is the worst mistake in the history of the human race. He notes that the development of agriculture creates social inequality. This is primarily seen with a rich elite forming in certain parts of the world. Diamond also believes that disease and destruction is a product of bringing agriculture into a society. As well as inequality and destruction, Diamond feels that agriculture makes individuals less healthy. Farmers would concentrate on harvesting foods that were high in starches and low in proteins.

Diamond supports the idea that agriculture creates a social hierarchy.  He believes that social classes are not based on the amount of work that one puts in, but rather the location that they have. I do not agree with Diamond on this aspect. I feel that the difference of soil and location creates more competition between the social classes. In the past century, new technologies have been invented to make soil better. The new technology gives everyone a fair advantage for growing more crops on decent soil. If we did not have agriculture in all parts of the world, society would not have the technology that it has today.

Similarly, Diamond believes that hunter and gathers obtain and perserve food in a more sanitary way. He supports this idea by stating that agriculture brings disease and destruction. Crops that are harvested are able to be stored and persevered for later. Diamond states that the storing process makes the crops vulnerable to germs. These germs in turn, spoil the food and make people sick and can destroy the entire yield harvested. I believe that Diamond is incorrect about this fact. I believe that the diseases were horrible but necessary. Without the diseases spreading, we would not have the storage and preservation systems that we have today. If we did not figure out how to prevent the diseases, our society would often have breakouts of famines and plagues. With the new technology that developed, food storage is now safer than ever before.

The main difference between hunter and gatherers and farmers that Diamond stresses is health concerns. Recent studies show that ancient hunter and gatherers were taller and stronger than farmers. Diamond stresses the fact that farmers produce starchy and high calorie foods only, while hunter gatherers have a varied diet. Diamond later states that because farmers depend on only a few crops that they are more prone to starvation if one crop fails. Diamond has a significant amount of information that support to his ideas; however, compared to the diets of today, his findings are not as strong. Today farmers are able to produce a variety of foods that provide the body with adequate nourishment. Foods can now be grown with essential minerals already in them. All of the foods that are not available on farms can be found in grocery stores. With new farming techniques and more food available to us, today’s society is healthier than ever before. Also with the rate that we can produce food, if one crop fails, society is not hurt by it because of the surpluses we have of other foods.

Overall, I feel that Diamond was correct with his research in relation to the immediate downfall of hunter gatherers. On the other hand, I feel that Diamond was incorrect with the idea that agriculture was the worst mistake in the history of the human race. Without the problems that the ancient farmers had while discovering agriculture, society would not be as successful (agriculturally) as it is today. If it was not for the difference of social classes and location, we would not have the technology to make land better and farming would remain in isolated areas. If diseases did not spread, we would not have the ability to store foods properly and safely, also famines would be a popular occurance. Finally, if it was not for the health depletion from hunting to farming, farmers would not have a varied diet. I strongly believe that agriculture is not the biggest mistake in the history of the human race.