Which of the below is not a characteristic of a food collecting foraging society?

• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Geography & Travel
• Health & Medicine
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Literature
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• Science
• Sports & Recreation
• Technology
• Visual Arts
• World History

• On This Day in History
• Quizzes
• Podcasts
• Dictionary
• Biographies
• Summaries
• Top Questions
• Week In Review
• Infographics
• Demystified
• Lists
• #WTFact
• Companions
• Image Galleries
• Spotlight
• The Forum
• One Good Fact

• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Geography & Travel
• Health & Medicine
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Literature
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• Science
• Sports & Recreation
• Technology
• Visual Arts
• World History

• Britannica Classics
  Check out these retro videos from Encyclopedia Britannica’s archives.
• Demystified Videos
  In Demystified, Britannica has all the answers to your burning questions.
• #WTFact Videos
  In #WTFact Britannica shares some of the most bizarre facts we can find.
• This Time in History
  In these videos, find out what happened this month (or any month!) in history.
• Britannica Explains
  In these videos, Britannica explains a variety of topics and answers frequently asked questions.

• Student Portal
  Britannica is the ultimate student resource for key school subjects like history, government, literature, and more.
• COVID-19 Portal
  While this global health crisis continues to evolve, it can be useful to look to past pandemics to better understand how to respond today.
• 100 Women
  Britannica celebrates the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment, highlighting suffragists and history-making politicians.
• Britannica Beyond
  We’ve created a new place where questions are at the center of learning. Go ahead. Ask. We won’t mind.
• Saving Earth
  Britannica Presents Earth’s To-Do List for the 21st Century. Learn about the major environmental problems facing our planet and what can be done about them!
• SpaceNext50
  Britannica presents SpaceNext50, From the race to the Moon to space stewardship, we explore a wide range of subjects that feed our curiosity about space!

With agriculture comes a large increase in the amount of people that can be supported. Rather than the low 100s, agricultural systems support in the thousands, and not even just low thousands. The more advanced the agricultural technology, the larger the population that can be supported. So, we can find agricultural societies in the 100s of thousands to even low millions. This is possible because a single agricultural farm can support more than just the people who work that farm. This produces a surplus that can be used to support others who do not have access to farmland and subsequently do not farm. This allows many people to start to specialize. Prior to the development of agriculture, everyone did everything. You as an individual had to produce/gather/hunt your own food, make your own tools, build your own dwelling, etc. In agriculture this is not the case. Because there is a surplus of food, some people do not have to make their own food--they can trade for food. These people are then free to specialize in other areas. In agriculture the first specialists we start to see are religious specialists, government officials, architects and carpenters, bakers, tradesmen and laborers.

"THE WORST MISTAKE IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE"

In 1987, Jared Diamond, a well known multidisciplinary scholar currently faculty in the physiology department of the UCLA medical school, wrote an article stating that the development of agriculture was "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race." Although we do know that agriculture did allow for rapid population growth even in areas that previously were somewhat uninhabitable and that agriculture, because of storage, provided a more reliable diet on a daily basis, Diamond identifies a number of reasons why the negatives associated with agriculture outweigh the benefits. There is much archeological and paleopathological evidence to support the claim that the shift from a foraging lifestyle to an agricultural lifestyle had negative health consequences. These negative health effects stem from three consequences of agriculture. The first is malnutrition. In the shift from foraging to agriculture, in order to feed a growing population, we forsook quality for quantity. As a forager, our diet was highly varied, providing a more balanced diet. In agriculture we tend to specialize on one or two starchy crops that don't provide all the essential nutrients. Even the meat products are not as good for us. Foragers eat wild game that is very lean. Agriculturalists eat domesticated animals that tend to have a much higher saturated fat content. Evidence of this malnutrition is seen in the bones and teeth. Skeletal analysis of pre- and post agricultural shift populations from the same area indicate a great decrease in height with the rise of agriculture as well as more dental anomalies. These along with other analyses of bone composition are indicators of malnutrition. Beyond just the loss of variety causing malnutrition, it turned out that even though on a day to day basis food is fairly reliable, the risk of starvation is much more real in an agricultural society. This also is due to the lack of variation in the diet. In an agricultural society only one or two crops are grown and the majority of calories come from those primary crops. If those few crops fail, then starvation is almost inevitable. In a foraging society, however, although each day you have to search for food, the chances of prolonged starvation are minimal because since there is such a varied food source, chances are that some food source will be available. Starvation in a foraging society is very rare. A second health consequence associated with agriculture is an increased rate of infectious disease. In addition to just increased population, agriculture is associated with increased population density--more people in a smaller area. This is the perfect atmosphere for the spread of infectious disease--for any of you ever living in the dorms or sending your children off to school it's the same principle. If one person in that environment has a cold, everyone gets it because they are in such close proximity. However, for the time period we are talking about, we are not just talking about colds--we add much more debilitating and infectious diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, influenza among others. Having all these people in close proximity caused other problems too--namely waste. We are talking about two types of waste. First, there are no sewage systems in the earliest of these agricultural systems. People in these early agricultural societies are coming into close contact with human waste, increasing exposure to unhealthy bacteria such as e. coli. Non-human waste also accumulates attracting vermin that carry disease and fleas and ticks that can pass diseases, such as the bubonic plague, from an animal host to the human population. Because there are low population densities and people are constantly moving around leaving behind both their human and other waste, infectious disease is not an issue for a traditional foraging society. The third health consequence was the development of bone conditions such as arthritis due to increased labor. Whereas in a foraging society an individual has to work at low intensity approximately 2-3 hours a day to produce subsistence, in agriculture days are extended to 9-12 hours of high intensity work. In the archeological record this is shown by higher rates of arthritis which can be observed as pitting of the bones at the joints. An additional negative consequence that Diamond identifies has nothing to do with health, but rather the development of social inequality. We are producing more food than we need and trading it for goods. Because we are tied to the land, we are also staying in one place allowing for the accumulation of goods. In this type of society we start to see the development of haves and have nots. In foraging societies, everyone has equal access to the goods they need for survival. That is not the case in an agricultural society. We start to see extreme class divisions where the elites have access to an over abundance of what they need to survive while those of the lower classes barely scrape by. The rise of agriculture is directly related to the introduction of poverty.

Industrialism

Although we are probably most familiar with an agricultural system, with less than 2% of America's population working in food production, the loss of the family farm and development of agribusiness, and the shift to greater and greater mechanization in all that we do, we have effectively shifted to an industrial society. Well, actually that isn't true either. We, and all the developed countries, are actually in a transitional stage from industrialism to post-industrialism, but the transition is not complete so we don't have that stage well defined yet. While we figure that out, let's explore what it means to have been an industrial society.

Two additional features of industrialism are individualism and globalization. Unlike in agriculture where the economic unit is the family and there are well defined gender roles for how that economic unit should function with the man being the farmer/worker and the female being the caregiver, in industrialism this is transcended. While women still do tend to be the caregivers, the division of labor is determined by function. We get the jobs that we, as individuals, are uniquely qualified for due to specific training and we work, get paid, and get rewarded through advancement (or fired) because of our individual achievements or failures, not those of our entire family. The final feature is that industrialism is a truly global system. Although we can identify independent societies, these societies (such as America) have populations in the millions and, although discrete, they are intricately connected to the rest of the world through trade. This trade is especially important because of our mechanization. We need to keep the machines running and often we do not have the raw materials within our borders to do this--global trade to get those goods is the solution. Without it, industrilism would crash. These international resources are so important to the functioning of an industrial society, that industrial societies will go to war when access to those resources are threatened. Some of the more cynical among you (I have to admit--I'm among you) may even be thinking that that is a primary reason (perhaps not the only one, but a big one) why we went to war with Iraq and participated in Desert Storm before Iraq.

Distribution

Now that we know how people produce what they need to survive, now we must explore the second component of an economic system: How people distribute those goods throughout the community. There are three general types of distribution: Reciprocity; Redistribution; and Market Exchange. Although each of these types of distribution are primarily associated with a particular adaptive strategy, as the adaptive strategies get more and more complex, these systems coexist with one strategy predominating.

In addition to being associated with the different adaptive strategies, we also find that the type of exchange that occurs is also related to how closely related you are to the people involved in an exchange. Since we don't lose any of these distribution systems as society becomes more complex, although we primarily use market exchange, we also have elements of all these different distribution types within our society.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity involves the giving and taking without the use of money and is most closely associated with foraging, horticultural and pastoral societies. It is important to note that these are the three types of adaptive strategies that are also based on kinship--that is, relatedness. We tend only to find reciprocity in situations where people have close ties, such as kinship. This is because there needs to be trust between the people involved in order for this type of system to work. All individuals must be accountable. Reciprocity can be further divided into two basic types: Generalized Reciprocity; and Balanced Reciprocity.

GENERALIZED RECIPROCITY: Generalized reciprocity is the purest form of giving and is the primary form of distribution found within foraging societies. In this type of distribution system all goods are pretty much shared. People give without the expectation of return, but, in the end, it all balances out. This type of distribution system is extremely important for a foraging system where whether or not you as an individual are able to find food each day is rather chancy. Although the odds that you find food are chancy, the odds that at least someone within the foraging group finds food is pretty high. Basically, with generalized reciprocity, if one person eats, everyone eats. However, this only works when people are closely related because there has to be a high level of trust and accountability to make sure food is distributed evenly. In order for this to work you have to be sure that everyone will share unselfishly and not put themselves above anyone else. Often foraging societies have mechanisms to ensure that people do not view themselves as being better than others--something that would endanger this system. If someone thinks that they are better than someone else there runs a risk that that individual will feel that they have entitlement to more resources. This is unacceptable in the foraging lifestyle. Even though there are differences in hunting ability among foragers, even the best hunter will not get a kill every time he hunts. Even the best hunter has to rely on the group to get resources at least some of the time. To ensure that the good hunters, however, do not "get a big head," or become arrogant and decide not share, they tend to belittle the hunting accomplishments of anyone to level people out.

Although not the primary form of distribution in our society, we do see examples of this in our society. Think about it. Many of you have children. Are you keeping track of every cent you spend on them with the expectation of getting that in return? For those of you without children, when you turned 18, did your parents present you with a bill? No. Parents give to their offspring without the expectation of return, but over time, what a parent gets from a child is just as valuable as what the child gets from the parent. Although in our society it may not work out like this, in a true industrial society this even works out economically. In a true industrial economy, parents take care of their children when small, but then children are expected to care for their parents as they age. This expectation is waning in our post-industrial society.

BALANCED RECIPROCITY: Unlike generalized reciprocity where there is no real expectation of return, with balanced reciprocity, as its name implies there is an expectation of return. Balanced reciprocity is the primary distribution form used among horticulturalist and pastoralists. It is also used by foragers when they are dealing with other foragers not in their immediate group. Like generalized reciprocity, because the exchange is not immediate, this type of distribution system generally only occurs among people who are accountable to each other--generally this means people who are related to some degree. Think about it, who are you going to trust to reciprocate? Some stranger, or someone for whom you share lots of acquaintances/family members who you can go to if that someone does not fulfill their obligation.

Redistribution

Redistribution is the primary form of distribution for agricultural systems. In a redistribution system a centralized authority accumulates goods from the people of the society and subsequently distributes those goods as that centralized authority sees fit. Often these resources are used for community good such as the development of sewage systems, roads, irrigation, military or to help the less advantaged in society. These are all things that the resources (fiscal, planning and labor) of any one individual would not be able to accomplish. Only by pooling resources is this possible. However, a key point to be made is that the people actually contributing to the centralized authority have little to no say in how the resources will be used. Because there is a centralized authority associated with this system, we only start to see this system where there is a hierarchical social structure with leadership figures--this primarily means agriculture. We really do not see those attributes at all in foraging and only minimally in pastoralism or horticulture. However, just as we find that foragers use one type of distribution system within their immediate group (generalized reciprocity) and another for dealings between groups (balanced reciprocity), the same is true for horticulturalists and pastoralists. As mentioned, their primary form of distribution within their group is balanced reciprocity, but between groups, they tend to rely on redistribution where a central figure accumulates goods and then holds a festival where those goods are not necessarily distributed among his own people, but distributed to the other group. The video to the left depicts a Potlatch, a redistribution system found among the Kwakuitl Indians of Northwest North America. (If you do not see the video, refresh the page and allow active X content or Click Here.) The Potlatch is an excellent example of a redistribution system that is used between two groups so that the leader can gain prestige. In addition to gaining presitige, this type of redistrbutin found between groups is also often viewed as a source of competition or even warfare between the groups.

While in an agricultural system redistribution primarily works through the payment of tribute, in our system it is an issue of taxation. What is the difference? With tribute you are contributing a portion of your product to the system. If you are a farmer you provide a portion of your crop; if you are a barrel maker you provide so many barrels. For us, since we are wage laborers, we pay in a portion of our income in the form of money to the centralized authority--the government. Our government then decides what to do with that money.

Market Exchange

Market Exchange is the type of distribution system found in industrial societies. In this type of system we do not directly exchange goods for goods. We sell our goods (labor counts as a good) for money that we then use to purchase other goods. Another unique feature of the market exchange system is that the value of a good is not fixed. It is determined by the rules of supply and demand. In this system, nothing has any intrinsic value--it all depends on how much is available, and how much people want it. If demand is high and supply is low, value will be high. If demand is low and supply is high, value will plummet. Because of this the value of any product is highly variable.

Consumption

Consumption is the third part of an economic system. Consumption technically refers to how goods are used, but is often also associated with the pattern of distribution of goods within a society. Unlike production and distribution where there are distinct categories associated with each adaptive strategy, there are not categories for consumption. But, consumption patterns do vary with adaptive strategy. Before we discuss this, however, we have to understand what we are concerned with when looking at consumption.

When discussing consumption, we are primarily concerned with capital and how it is used. Capital, at its simplest, can be defined as goods used to produce other goods. In a market exchange system such as ours, capital includes money as well as machines, but societies that do not have either money or machines still have capital goods. In societies without money, anything that will help to get goods is a capital good. So capital goods include any weapons used for hunting, digging sticks, baskets, etc. One of the defining features of adaptive strategies is the extent to which people have equal access to capital goods. As a general trend, as we move from less complex (foraging) societies to more complex (industrial societies) we find more and more differences in the access to these capital goods. Everyone can have a digging stick--just go out in the woods and find yourself one, but not everyone can have that high-tech machine that makes cars or prints newspapers. But, someone owns those machines. Back to this point in a moment.

In foraging and horticultural societies, technology and materials are simple. Tools are made by hand out of raw materials available in the natural environment. Every adult has equal access to capital. No one is deprived the means necessary to produce food and/or other goods necessary for survival. This is not the case in more complex societies. In agriculture and industrialism access to goods falls into the hands of the ruling class. Ownership is limited to a very small group. Here's a statistic: The wealthiest 10% of our population owns over 70% of U.S. capital. Compare that to this statistic: The poorest 40% of our population owns approximately 0.5% of U.S. capital. Having so much capital gives the wealthiest people power over others because they control the means of their (the others) economic production. Lots of people may work in a factory, but none of them own the capital of that business (the machines that produce the goods) or the profits those goods then produce that can be used to further increase wealth.

This issue of differences in access to capital goods is directly related to poverty. In agricultural societies and market economies where there is the accumulation of goods there are also high rates of poverty. Some have, some have not. In societies where there is no accumulation of goods, however, there really is no such thing as poverty, or at least not true poverty. You are probably thinking this woman is crazy--look at those other societies, they have nothing--they are the essence of poverty. Our idea of poverty, however, is very ethnocentric. In fact, many have referred to foraging societies as the "Original Affluent Society" meaning everyone in these societies is wealthy. This is an issue of how we define wealth. How DO we define wealth? How do we recognize if someone is wealthy? It is based on the stuff they have managed to accumulate. My neighbor is driving a brand new Mercedes Benz while I am driving my '95 Ford Escort--That person is wealthy. I'm poor. This is an issue of relative deprivation. I see what is possible and I cannot attain it, so I am poor. Is this the case for a forager? Traditionally, everything that a forager needs or even knows to want, they can get from their natural environment. If you don't know to want a Mercedes Benz do you still want one? No. We can define wealth as having everything that you need and/or want. If we define it that way, foragers are wealthy indeed while the majority of people living in industrialized countries have not attained wealth and probably never will.

Which of the following is not a characteristic of food collecting societies?

What are foraging societies characterized by?

Which of the following characteristics are typical of foraging societies?

Which of the following is most characteristic of foragers?