This essay analyzes two readings containing opposing positions on the Neolithic revolution. In the reading “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” by Jared Diamond, he believes that moving from hunting-gathering to agriculture was a huge mistake. Diamond believes that hunter-gatherers had many positive factors that agriculture does not have. However, in The Economist's reading "Hunters-Gatherers: Noble of Savage", they believe that hunter-gatherers are violent and barbaric. They believe that agriculture is an important and necessary process for humans. In my opinion, reading “Hunter-Gatherers: Noble of Savage” was correct. Agriculture was a necessary and positive action for the future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay When reading the passage “Hunter-Gatherers: Nobles of the Wild,” there were two major points that farming was the best decision. The first is that violence is more common among hunter-gatherers than among people in modern times. Hunter-gatherers are barbaric and vicious. They are in a constant state of war between tribes. The passage states: “…nearly 90% go to war at least once a year” (The Economist). The mortality rate, especially among men, is extremely high. The reason it's usually men who die is because most of the time war is fought to fight for women. Additionally, incessant warfare allows the tribes to maintain a low population. The reason hunter-gatherers are so healthy is because the weaker members of the tribes have died off. This seems irrational because conversion to agriculture allows these weak members to stay alive. There is enough food for everyone and no one needs to die for it. Agriculture makes it possible to stop fighting and have a peaceful society. Furthermore, another major point is that agriculture allowed the population to grow because there was a surplus of food. Before the advent of agriculture, hunter-gatherers relied on slow-reproducing animals like horses and rhinos for food. However, these animals did not provide enough food for the tribes' growing population. So, they started tracking down faster reproducing animals like rabbits, turtles and hares (the economist). However, according to the second reading, famine began to appear during this dry millennium. Hunter-gatherers turned to vegetarian methods, which did not provide enough protein or nutrients. After this, some tribes converted to the new progressive path, agriculture. Agriculture allowed the domestication of crops and animals that produced a surplus of food. The population prospered and violence decreased. On the other hand, hunter-gatherers also had some profactors. For example, hunter-gatherers were much healthier than farmers. Farmers grow crops that are high in carbohydrates, which is bad for your health. Hunter-gatherers eat a varied diet of plants and animals, which help maintain a balance of protein and nutrients. Additionally, because farmers grow crops, they can't even predict whether there will be harvests that year, so they always worry about starvation. On the other hand, hunter-gatherers found their food in nature and almost never had to worry about going hungry. In addition, members.