Life was far better before agriculture, and still better than it is now, on the whole, for humanity

The headline of the debate is: "Life was far better before agriculture, and still better than it is now, on the whole, for humanity"You even backed the headline up with the opening statement:"on the whole, more people are suffering now than before agriculture."However, within your first argument:"i concede is that at this particular time, the last 50 years, and in the few advanced countries in the world, people like me and you who use the Internet, are possibly better off than pre-agricultural people."This is essentially what I came to debate, and you conceeded your side on it.Personally, I didn't come to debate any other era, but I think I can still do it. So, let me begin.C1: Pre-agriculture was inefficientWithout agriculture, the way you would eat was through hunting, and picking what was found. Living off the land was the only way to sustain a tribe. The notible effect of this was that it was neccesary to move commonly. An area that was inhabited by a tribe would become uninhabitable for a notable amount of time.The main point of this is that before agricuture, the ecological niech for humans was abnormally poor, for any type of animal. Even a small tribe would over populate an area. A hunter gatherer tribe had a population of approximately 30-50 people. The chances of a tribe being knocked out due to lack of food would have been notibly high.The other point worth taking from this is that you're constantly on the move. You cannot build any permanent housings. Imagine winters where you have to move from the longhouse because there's no food. Yeah. I'm sure many tribes died this way.As I said, no permanent housings. People slept very close to one another. They ate the same things everyone else ate. Preagricultural tribes were exteremely succeptible to disease. Small-pox literally killed off the stone-age.You say that the psychological health of a tribe was better than that of a civilized society. Though I can see where you're coming from, I can also think of many points that go against this. Namely, the short term lifestyle, the difficulty in sustaining food, and those awful winters.C2: Agricutural life has advantagesThe main push for agriculture was, undoubtably, alchohol. A large difference between the Europeans and Iroquois is that the Europeans could drink. The trades between the civilized peoples and tribal peoples often consisted of guns, woven materials, and alchohols.As silly as it may seem, the ability to drink alchohol is one of the founders of civilization. The ability to take a night off to get tipsy is the main improvement.A wider availibility of things to eat should be the obvious one. We now have a large amount of crops, and notibly, spices. Everything that people eat doesn't have to be so bland. People can finally eat things for enjoyment of taste.Because of the ability to build permanent settlements, we start to see people who live together but don't work together. The size of a settlement can grow beyond Dunbar's Number. This allows people to build selective relationships. This alone would make me much happier than being stuck with the same people all the time.In Summary:The agricultural revolution gave birth to living for enjoyment. Drinking alchohol and eating tasty, various food. Finally, you have friends and not people you MUST be near. This type of thing was not possible for tribes.