The possibility of current Hunter-Gatherer Population

The possibility of current Hunter-Gatherer Population

The revolution of agriculture is frequently viewed as an essential procedure in encouraging humankind’s development. It has been attributed with a reasonable contribution in raising the living standards of individuals, the aptitude for the increased population of the human race, and the art establishment. However, in his article “The Worst Mistake in the History of Human Race,” Jared Diamond squabbles that the insurgency of agriculture was the commencement of the downward sky fall of humanity and the hunter gatherer’s preferred way of life. His argument seemed surprising because the revolt of farming was commonly considered as the reason for the increased quality lifestyle of humans; on the contrary, not decreasing. Jared’s article was very persuasive, primarily through the way he argued, research on the contrasting views, logos, and ethos.

The lifestyle of hunters and gatherers, as demonstrated by Diamond in his article, includes a tiny population of personnel. Like “one individual per ten square miles” and balanced nutrition that was very healthy comprising of 93g of proteins and 2140 calories each day, Diamond succinctly refers to this as more than average of what people consume today (Pg 2). Diamond continues to show us the advantages of the lifestyle of hunters and gatherers; he does this by evidence- taking the fecal samples and bones from ancient gatherers and hunters. He articulates that hunter-gatherer experience less risk of acquiring diseases, increased health generally, and considerable equality of gender (Pg 3). It appears to be dissimilar with the lifestyle and nutrition of the agrarian population. Jared persists in informing us that gatherers and hunters fed on healthy food, which consisted of carbohydrates, fats, and protein, while the diet of the agrarians mainly comprised of carbohydrates such as corn, potatoes, and wheat (Pg 3). Changing from gatherers and hunters to the agrarian way of life measured a revolution because of the fundamental change that came up after the introduction of agriculture. All of a sudden, it was easy for parents to look after multiple children with increased cheap food. After that, populations ascended enormously change of lifestyle because of less time consumed in acquiring food.

” How to Win Arguments Without Making Enemies,”  an article by Geoffrey James points out the meaning of rhetorical strategy, also known as “steel-manning” as the procedure of scrupulously sympathizing with the opposing points of view. It justifies the contrasting party because they experience hardships and assists an individual in building the “steel man” to argue against the different point of view, understanding them well. Both involved parties experience destitution, and real facts of the arguments are talked about when using the “steel-man” (James 2). In Diamond’s article, he epitomizes “steel-manning” by meticulously investigating counter-arguments. For instance, Jared repeatedly refers to the “progressive view,” meaning those who agree with the agricultural revolution. He progresses to the point of stating, “while the proof for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it is difficult to prove” (Diamond 2). By unequivocally stating that proof exists for the progressivist viewpoint, he continues to actively gain the reader’s trust, especially who favors the view. It is the best illustration of “steel-manning” that frequently occurs all over Diamond’s argument.

Diamond makes use of both logos and ethos in his article. Ethos is described as the author’s presentation in his/her section and how that creates trust with the reader (Instructor, Classical Rhetorical Concepts slide 3). Consequently, Logos refer to how well the author uses proof to cite their claims and maintain their argument (Fulton, “Classical Rhetorical Concepts” slide 7). Diamond’s options of external evidence in his article create firm logos and ethos with his addressees. Diamond directly cites some professionals in the paleopathology field from both professional publications and universities. The reference he uses indicates the highest level of logos and ethos in the article. In his article too, Diamond points out texts such as science-based magazines and Discover magazine. These citations, though, strengthen the material they do not point out much of ethos to the audience because most known magazines are not academically related. Although the writer mentions a good number of quality sources, it would be essential if he adds more sources on every presented fact for the sake of logos and ethos in an article. For instance, when the writer talks about the relationship with crowd migration as a result of agriculture and afflictions, he says, it is thought by “some archeologists that were crowding rather than…” (Pg 4). If the writer could have added specific professional archeologist cited from a scholarly article in the situation could have added ethos to the argument of the author and create trust with the reader.

The argument of the writer destabilized by his failure and avoidance of citing from the best sources in several instances lowers the trust. For example, Diamond says that farming women gets or have more children as compared to hunter-gatherer women as his argument to put more emphasis that agricultural revolution has to lead to inequality of gender, but on this occasion, he never points out a source (Pg 4). The only proof provided for this fact is a personal story concerning a woman in New Guinea carrying rice (Pg 4). The writer should have known that personal stories are subjective and do not support logos and ethos. The author’s conclusions heavily rely on pathos. In his last paragraph, he repeatedly makes use of emotional phrases and words rather than prominent language as the case in most articles. For instance, he uses words such as “tumbled,” “famine-stricken peasants,” and “mess.” These words and phrases build negative pictures on the mind of the reader about the agricultural revolution (Pg 5). The use of pathos in the conclusion Diamond’s article is indicated correctly because of the impulsive change in tone, which causes the audience to pay attention while at the same time trying so hard to show that the agricultural revolution resulted and will progress to cause tumult for the human race.

If the author’s conclusion about the agricultural revolution is right that it causes difficulties in the human race, then we have grave repercussions as humans. We could need to re-visit our thoughts on the way our current conditions are. If the majority of us are tired, overweight, sick, and starving as a result of the agricultural revolution, then we should make an effort to adapt lifestyles almost similar to hunters and gatherers. Our very first step would be funding global research to find out the effects of the agricultural revolution on humanity. It will need assistance from anthropologists, historians, sociologists, etc.

Furthermore, the commencement of research to explore the lifestyle of hunters and gatherers would give out the whole truth of their way of life. A good questionnaire should be used to be able to gather full information such as; what their chief values are, how satisfied they are with their way of life, and how they acquire their daily food. Besides, we few questions will run in our mind; could we currently survive without agriculture? Will the hunter-gatherer way of life applicable to the world of today? These opinions worth to be discussed, and if individuals cannot be maintained with the lifestyle of hunters and gatherers, will folks allow the majority of their suffering? If the side effect of implementing the agricultural revolution is the death of many would-be considered genocide. Another issue that may be of concern before making a decision is how hunters and gatherers control the population. Diamond says in his article that they use infanticide as a method of controlling the population (Pg 5). By adopting the lifestyle of hunter-gatherers, we will be forced to be murdering our children to control people. Diamond’s argument concerning the agricultural revolution is well explained. However, discoveries have to be conducted before considering the incidence of solemn o drive of change.

Change is tough to adapt, and it comes with effects. Changing to hunters and gatherers’ way of life seems to harm the survival of humanity, like infanticide. Although Diamond has strongly argued with quality citations, logos, ethos, and pathos, it is still not convincing fully.