Affluence in the Shadow of Catastrophe: Why Agriculture Was Not a Bad Idea After All

Résumé

Modern archeological findings strongly suggest that populations transitioning from hunting and gathering to agriculture almost invariably incurred a decrease in living standards. This has led many researchers to believe that the first farmers may have been lured by the prospect of more food, only to be thwarted by runaway population growth, so that per capita conditions actually decreased. Far from being one of the major milestones in H.Sapiens rise to civilization, agriculture is thus seen as a terrible mistake. This paper provides an alternative interpretation, by assuming that being part of a large population improves the chances for survival of the individual, and thus contributes to welfare just as much as food intake. Coupled with realistic assumptions on demography and environmental instability derived from previous work by Testart (1982), a model is presented in which a decrease in the seasonality experienced by a population improves the evolutionary fitness of individuals while simultaneously decreasing their consumption per capita. The paper also presents evidence in favor of this scenario: Harris Lines, which can be considered proxies for volatility, are the only indicator that is less present in farmers than in hunter gatherers, suggesting that stability in food consumption did indeed increase just as average conditions were worsening.