Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake (4th time)

My Case: 1. Agriculture has made it possible for an extremely high population. Hunting and gathering could only provide for a very small percentage of today's population. It could only sustain about 1 person per square mile[1], while Europe currently has about 132 people per square mile[2]. The country with the lowest square density in the world is Mongolia. It has 4.2 people per square mile[2]. Bangladesh has a population density of 2,200 people per square mile, and Monaco has a population density of 43,000 people per square mile[2]. Agriculture has allowed mankind to flourish and exist at concentrations far higher than anything allowed by a hunter gatherer lifestyle. In fact, most of you reading this probably wouldn't be alive, as only agriculture could allow for such a high population. In fact, none of you would be reading this because agriculture has allowed for technological growth, which brings me to my second point. 2. Agriculture has lead to extremely high technological growth. If you look around, you will see many things which make life a lot easier. Agriculture has made this possible. Everybody was needed with a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Hunter gatherers couldn't even maintain a surplus, let alone feed non-food producers such as craftsmen[3]. With agriculture came surpluses, and with surpluses came specialization. In a hunter gatherer society, no one could specialize in making pottery or houses, let alone things like computers and cars. In the 2,000,000 years after stone tools and before agriculture, technology was fairly stagnant. They had axes, bows, atlatls, fire, and other basic tools made out of wood and stone[4]. After the development of agriculture, technology exploded. The potter's wheel, the wheel, copper and bronze tools, permanent housing, the plow, and many more were invented after the development of agriculture[5][6]. Notice also how regions like America and the Mediterranean, which did not develop agriculture like that of Europe, remained in the Neolithic, while countries like Europe where in the Iron Age[5]. Without agriculture, it is doubtful we would have even invented simple things like iron, let alone inventions such as the lightbulb, car, and indoor heating and plumbing which have vastly improved the quality of life. Even if hunter gatherers somehow, against all odds, did develop iron tools, they would not have enough spare people to manufacture. Before agriculture, everyone had to work at producing food, and there wasn't any specialization so that people could focus solely on inventing on manufacturing. Today, about 99% of the population can focus on inventing and manufacturing goods to improve our quality of life[7]. This technological growth has vastly improved our quality of life. For example, during modern times, only about 50% of children make it to 15 in groups of hunter gatherers without access to technology made possible by agriculture[8]. This is because these groups do not have medicine and other technology to help them survive. Not only that, it has made life much more comfortable- when we think of winter, we don't think of a cold struggle for survival. Comforts like indoor heating and permanent housing has made it so we can live at 70 degrees throughout a winter in Minnesota. Refutations I will only address claims that have not been addressed by my case. 1. Farming does not produce more food than hunting and gathering? "It may sound like farming produces more food, but if you look at it, it doesn't. There is edible food that grows in the wild, and populations of mammals live in these habitats. There was a significant amount of food ready for the taking already in existence before the development of agriculture, and for the most part, all you have to do if find it and pick it." Completely and utterly false. As I have shown, hunting and gathering can support about 1 person per square mile, while agriculture can support 73,000 people per square mile[9]. This is because with agriculture you can make a place filled with food. In a cornfield, there is a piece of corn every few inches. A forest never has been and never will be as filled with food as a cornfield. 2. Work "Farming required hard work preparing the field, planting, harvesting, and everything else you had to do." We must not only look at the years immediately following the development of agriculture. One modern farm can feed 100 people with relatively little effort compared to hunting and gathering. 1 person driving a tractor can feed 100 people, while 100 people hunting and gathering could feed 100 people. 3. Starving "If one thing goes wrong in farming, farmers would often starve, so why did people begin to turn to agriculture if it was LESS reliable and required more work?" As I said, we must look at not only the past. No one starves now. Eating too much is more of a problem than eating too little. Farmers are producing so much that the government pays them to not produce. If crops fail, we worry about a slight bump in price, not starvation. Conclusion The only argument against agriculture my opponent has offered is that 1,000's of years ago, agriculture required more work and was less secure than hunting and gathering. None of these are relevant, as the modern benefits vastly outweigh the few negatives of the past. My opponent stated in round 1 that he is supposed to "prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 10,000 BCE)." He has shown that for a short while, agriculture was bad. However, he has not shown at all that ancient hunting and gathering is preferable to our modern life. Unless he can do that, I urge you all to vote Con. Sources [1] http://books.google.com... pg 12 [2] http://geography.about.com... [3] http://www.angelfire.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.epa.gov...] [8] http://www.marksdailyapple.com... [9] http://www.demographia.com...