RE:RE Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake

Con has said that for the focus of this debate, he wants to look at how the quality of life would not be the same, I assume via technological advances, and how there would be too much competition over food due to over population. For the first statement I will discuss how the quality of life could be the same, if not possibly better, and how technological advances would still be as abundant as today. Today we have all sorts of technology that helps make our lives easier, some of which include; computers, the internet 3 and 4 G, cell phones, televisions, cars, aircraft, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc. If you think of a twenty first century hunter and gather, would they really need all of these things? Having some of these things like a better means of communication and transportation could help, but everything else would be of no use to them. When new things like cell phones, computers, and iPads are advertised, they focus on showing how portable they are and how they can still connect to the internet when they are nowhere near civilization. Technologies that would make life better for a hunter and gather would be things like; better communication, better ways of tracking, better was of hunting, better protection. The Hittites where successful if military conquest because everyone they conquered was using bronze weapons, while they had the advanced technology of iron. Hunter and gathers did not have wars so their battle would be between man and beast. Having a better way of hunting would defiantly benefit a hunter and make the quality of life better for him. In Neolithic times a new advanced technology was the spear, it enable a hunter to attack they dangerous pray while staying at a safer distance. There is evidence that pre-agricultural time peoples where capable of making new technologies that could improve their quality of life, but because their lifestyle started to be pushed out by farming communities, and they lost their way of life over 10,000 years ago, it only makes sense that their technology was nowhere near as good as it is today. In my previous arguments I have stated that before the invention of agriculture led to things that made the quality of life worse such as wars, desires and epidemics, bad health, social injustice, and racism. Con stated that hunter and gathers where also on the move, which is partly true, but there are a lot of misunderstandings. Hunter and gathers followed the animals that they hunted. Why did the animals move? The animals that they hunted moved south when it got cold, and north when it go warm, they also moved when there was no food to be had in an area. If hunter and gathers found a place that was abundant with game, they would not hunt for the day and continue on, they would stay there until they could no longer get the food they needed to survive. Hunting and gathering is usually assumed to mean nomadic people, but that is no always the case. An example of this is when humans migrated to Australia and New Zealand. There was an abundance of wild life in Australia, but there was much less in New Zealand. Once the people who migrated to New Zealand where unable to get the food they needed by hunting and gathering, they either left or started to develop agricultural communities. They people of Australia did not develop agriculture because they had no need for it. In conclusion, hunters and gathers had the same quality of life, and most of the time better, than they people who turned to agriculture.