Comparing The Neolithic Revolution And The Industrial Revolution
Perhaps the most basic human need is eating. Over the course of human existence there has been a dramatic shift in the variety of food available and how it is obtained. More recently, revolutions in agriculture, industry and life-style have all inflated rates of obesity in developed nations, so much so that it can be effectively described as an epidemic. Transformations in agriculture, industry and life-style have also resulted in great environmental devastations, accentuating our interdependent existence within the ecosystem. No longer do we hunt for our food, there is a surplus and we are given the luxury of choice. However, this choice has many implications. In response to the obesity and environmental crisis, a vegan life-style is said
…show more content…
to be a ‘healthier’ option for both people and planet. This article will examine the consequences of our diet on ourselves and the environment, and how merely becoming vegan does not mean you and the world is ‘better off’.
Historically, when the human diet was restricted in some manner, nutrient deficiencies and disease soon followed. In the environmental sphere, devastation from crops rival that from livestock. Perhaps then, it is not about limiting what we eat, but creating sustainability in the way our food is produced, that offers some form of solution.
There has been many major transitions over the course of humanity, however two in particular have shaped much of what we eat and the way we eat today – The Neolithic Revolution and The Industrial Revolution. Both drastically altered people’s lifestyles, and in particular, their diet, health and ecology. Let us first examine the Neolithic transition, also known as The Agricultural Revolution. For most of the time here on Earth, our …show more content…
ancestors survived as hunter-gatherers. The effort needed to gather essential nutrients for life roughly equaled the energy gained from such enterprise . Thus they lived within the constraints of their bioregions and had to flexibly adapt their eating and subsistence in order to survive the climatic shifts. However, as human cultural, agricultural and technological evolution proceeded, the ability to leapfrog the limitations of place grew exponentially . Permanent, settled communities rose and so did food surplus. However, there was also a dramatic decrease in food variety. With the much heavier reliance on starchy foods that became the staples of the diet, tooth decay, malnutrition, and rates of infectious disease increased dramatically . Remains of fossil humans indicate decrease in health status after the Neolithic . Yet interestingly, this transition “brought about the most fundamental alteration in human history – and one which made possible all the subsequent developments in human society” (Ponting, 2007). This shift formed the foundation upon modern society was built, not only in terms of food production and consumption, but also the evolution of specialisation. Perhaps it is not only the type of food available, but also the way it is produced, that has far-reaching repercussions on society.
The second, and arguably the most influential revolution to hit humanity was The Industrial Revolution.
During this period, scientific advances and technological innovations fuelled the growth of agriculture and industry, and the two dominated society on a grand scale. After a long period of enclosures, new farming systems created an agricultural revolution that produced larger quantities of crops to feed the increasing population . New tools, fertilizers and harvesting techniques were introduced, resulting in increased productivity and agricultural prosperity . However, a large and exponentially increasing population places a very high demand for resources on the environment, resources that are ultimately finite. The need for food ultimately means the need for more arable land, exacerbating deforestation. There was also a rise processed and packaged food, inevitably accompanied by the rise in factories and industrial units. Together, deforestation is only compounded by the problem of carbon emissions. Whereas forests would help emit oxygen and refresh the levels of healthy gases in the air, factories are emitting poisonous emissions and eliminating the source of oxygen. Interestingly, these environmental problems have yet to be rectified in the modern era, despite the dire consequences so near their effects have become increasingly
palpable.
Although food production was increased, the transport and storage life of the products failed to cater for the immense demand from the exploding population. Urban growth and in particular new migration, places a strain on the resources available to the community, creating an imbalance between consumption and production. Although productivity did increase, means of transport and storage were inadequate, meaning not only was there not enough food, much of it could not last and so wasted away. As a consequence, mmalnutrition was rampant, undermining the immune response, directly increasing vulnerability to disease . Ttuberculosis, cholera and sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and gonorrhoea among the most common and most deadly. In addition, the illness itself, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, is always accompanied by the loss of many nutrients in the body, which further aggravates already existing nutrient deficiencies . Malnutrition is not only cause by starvation, a monotonous diet was also shown to be just as ill. This theme of disease was also seen in the agricultural sphere, no doubt exacerbating disease in the social domain. It is clear that the state of one’s diet influences the state of one’s health, and perhaps it serves as an accurate reflection. Nowadays, the problem of food storage and transport has been solved in the developed world, and no longer is there not enough food, there is a great surplus and great variety. Yet we now face a new problem; the plague of affluenza, causing an epidemic of obesity and ill health.
So how do we combat this dark and insidious epidemic?
Becoming a vegan can solve the problem. Or can it? Is it that simple? In response to the obesity and environmental crisis, a vegan life-style is said to be a ‘healthier’ option for both people and planet. Cutting out meat and all of its related products supposedly reduces obesity by cutting out the saturated fats (which is supposedly the cause of obesity and weight gain) contained in animal products. Reducing or ceasing the consumption of meat products is also said to benefit the environment because no longer do forests need to be deforested to make the land suitable for ruminants etc. Let us first examine the nutritional ‘benefits’ of a vegan lifestyle. Although well-planned plant-based diets can be rich in protein, iron, calcium and other essential vitamins and minerals , it also lacks many essential vitamins and minerals that can only be found in animal-based products in the required amounts. These include: vitamin B12, vitamin A, iodine, creatine, vitamin D3, carnosine docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and zinc . An effort to prove that a whole foods vegan diet is the ideal or foolproof diet of all humans gives rise to all kinds of potentially harmful myths . These include the unfounded position that vegans can meet vitamin B12 needs by consuming unwashed organic produce, or that we have lower calcium needs than omnivores, or that it’s been “proven” that no one needs long chain omega-3 fats in their diet . As a result, vegans must supplement their diet with synthetic vitamins and minerals, the environmental and financial cost of which greatly overshadows that of eating a well-balanced diet of both meat and plant foods.
Environmentally speaking, it is not so much the type of food produced, but how it is produced that determines its impact on the ecosystem. The agriculture of plants requires vastly more land to produce the same amount of food (measure in calories) than if that same land was used for the farming of ruminants, for example sheep or cattle. Also, grass-fed cows don’t compete for plants humans can eat, and animals grazing on non-irrigated pasture don’t compete for water that could be used to grow food . Ever since the industrial transition that revolutionized the way our food is produced, modern fruit and vegetable agriculture have become even more heavily industrialized. The rely on vast monocultures that require fertilizers and pesticides that are energetically costly to produce and apply as well as tillage practices that require heavy machinery and plenty of fuel . Of course the same can be said about the production of animal products. However, at the national level, there appears to be little meaningful difference between the energy intensity of animal-derived foods compared to fruits and vegetables, and some animal foods such as eggs and dairy products are actually less energy intensive . Thus, a vegan diet is not better for the environment than a diet incorporating meat products. Nor is a diet incorporating meat products better for the environment than a vegan diet. It all boils down to how the product is produced. Perhaps the only way to eat sustainably is to create sustainability from the roots, in both crop and livestock.
Ultimately, one’s health is a reflection of one’s diet. Over the course of humanity, most of our existence was based on the need to hunt and search of food. Naturally, the limited availability of resources also placed limitations on growth. Perhaps this was the greatest boundary our ancestors faced. However, the advent of agriculture shifted the way food was produced, allowing for greater productivity and an exponential rise in population. Yet despite this, the importance of variety in diet could not be more strongly emphasized during this period, where the devastation from disease was exacerbated by malnutrition. Although it did take centuries, agriculture eventually became so efficient that there is a surplus and we are now given the luxury of choice. However, this choice has many implications. In response to the obesity and environmental crisis, a vegan life-style is proposed by many as the solution to this crisis. However, this simple solution overlooks the complexities behind both the production and nutritional value of a plant-based diet. Perhaps it is not about limiting what we eat, but creating sustainability in the way our food is produced that offer some form of solution. Indeed, we are reminded of our interdependent existence within the ecosystem, and that our capacity to grow is limited by finite resources.
to be a ‘healthier’ option for both people and planet. This article will examine the consequences of our diet on ourselves and the environment, and how merely becoming vegan does not mean you and the world is ‘better off’.
Historically, when the human diet was restricted in some manner, nutrient deficiencies and disease soon followed. In the environmental sphere, devastation from crops rival that from livestock. Perhaps then, it is not about limiting what we eat, but creating sustainability in the way our food is produced, that offers some form of solution.
There has been many major transitions over the course of humanity, however two in particular have shaped much of what we eat and the way we eat today – The Neolithic Revolution and The Industrial Revolution. Both drastically altered people’s lifestyles, and in particular, their diet, health and ecology. Let us first examine the Neolithic transition, also known as The Agricultural Revolution. For most of the time here on Earth, our …show more content…
ancestors survived as hunter-gatherers. The effort needed to gather essential nutrients for life roughly equaled the energy gained from such enterprise . Thus they lived within the constraints of their bioregions and had to flexibly adapt their eating and subsistence in order to survive the climatic shifts. However, as human cultural, agricultural and technological evolution proceeded, the ability to leapfrog the limitations of place grew exponentially . Permanent, settled communities rose and so did food surplus. However, there was also a dramatic decrease in food variety. With the much heavier reliance on starchy foods that became the staples of the diet, tooth decay, malnutrition, and rates of infectious disease increased dramatically . Remains of fossil humans indicate decrease in health status after the Neolithic . Yet interestingly, this transition “brought about the most fundamental alteration in human history – and one which made possible all the subsequent developments in human society” (Ponting, 2007). This shift formed the foundation upon modern society was built, not only in terms of food production and consumption, but also the evolution of specialisation. Perhaps it is not only the type of food available, but also the way it is produced, that has far-reaching repercussions on society.
The second, and arguably the most influential revolution to hit humanity was The Industrial Revolution.
During this period, scientific advances and technological innovations fuelled the growth of agriculture and industry, and the two dominated society on a grand scale. After a long period of enclosures, new farming systems created an agricultural revolution that produced larger quantities of crops to feed the increasing population . New tools, fertilizers and harvesting techniques were introduced, resulting in increased productivity and agricultural prosperity . However, a large and exponentially increasing population places a very high demand for resources on the environment, resources that are ultimately finite. The need for food ultimately means the need for more arable land, exacerbating deforestation. There was also a rise processed and packaged food, inevitably accompanied by the rise in factories and industrial units. Together, deforestation is only compounded by the problem of carbon emissions. Whereas forests would help emit oxygen and refresh the levels of healthy gases in the air, factories are emitting poisonous emissions and eliminating the source of oxygen. Interestingly, these environmental problems have yet to be rectified in the modern era, despite the dire consequences so near their effects have become increasingly
palpable.
Although food production was increased, the transport and storage life of the products failed to cater for the immense demand from the exploding population. Urban growth and in particular new migration, places a strain on the resources available to the community, creating an imbalance between consumption and production. Although productivity did increase, means of transport and storage were inadequate, meaning not only was there not enough food, much of it could not last and so wasted away. As a consequence, mmalnutrition was rampant, undermining the immune response, directly increasing vulnerability to disease . Ttuberculosis, cholera and sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and gonorrhoea among the most common and most deadly. In addition, the illness itself, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, is always accompanied by the loss of many nutrients in the body, which further aggravates already existing nutrient deficiencies . Malnutrition is not only cause by starvation, a monotonous diet was also shown to be just as ill. This theme of disease was also seen in the agricultural sphere, no doubt exacerbating disease in the social domain. It is clear that the state of one’s diet influences the state of one’s health, and perhaps it serves as an accurate reflection. Nowadays, the problem of food storage and transport has been solved in the developed world, and no longer is there not enough food, there is a great surplus and great variety. Yet we now face a new problem; the plague of affluenza, causing an epidemic of obesity and ill health.
So how do we combat this dark and insidious epidemic?
Becoming a vegan can solve the problem. Or can it? Is it that simple? In response to the obesity and environmental crisis, a vegan life-style is said to be a ‘healthier’ option for both people and planet. Cutting out meat and all of its related products supposedly reduces obesity by cutting out the saturated fats (which is supposedly the cause of obesity and weight gain) contained in animal products. Reducing or ceasing the consumption of meat products is also said to benefit the environment because no longer do forests need to be deforested to make the land suitable for ruminants etc. Let us first examine the nutritional ‘benefits’ of a vegan lifestyle. Although well-planned plant-based diets can be rich in protein, iron, calcium and other essential vitamins and minerals , it also lacks many essential vitamins and minerals that can only be found in animal-based products in the required amounts. These include: vitamin B12, vitamin A, iodine, creatine, vitamin D3, carnosine docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and zinc . An effort to prove that a whole foods vegan diet is the ideal or foolproof diet of all humans gives rise to all kinds of potentially harmful myths . These include the unfounded position that vegans can meet vitamin B12 needs by consuming unwashed organic produce, or that we have lower calcium needs than omnivores, or that it’s been “proven” that no one needs long chain omega-3 fats in their diet . As a result, vegans must supplement their diet with synthetic vitamins and minerals, the environmental and financial cost of which greatly overshadows that of eating a well-balanced diet of both meat and plant foods.
Environmentally speaking, it is not so much the type of food produced, but how it is produced that determines its impact on the ecosystem. The agriculture of plants requires vastly more land to produce the same amount of food (measure in calories) than if that same land was used for the farming of ruminants, for example sheep or cattle. Also, grass-fed cows don’t compete for plants humans can eat, and animals grazing on non-irrigated pasture don’t compete for water that could be used to grow food . Ever since the industrial transition that revolutionized the way our food is produced, modern fruit and vegetable agriculture have become even more heavily industrialized. The rely on vast monocultures that require fertilizers and pesticides that are energetically costly to produce and apply as well as tillage practices that require heavy machinery and plenty of fuel . Of course the same can be said about the production of animal products. However, at the national level, there appears to be little meaningful difference between the energy intensity of animal-derived foods compared to fruits and vegetables, and some animal foods such as eggs and dairy products are actually less energy intensive . Thus, a vegan diet is not better for the environment than a diet incorporating meat products. Nor is a diet incorporating meat products better for the environment than a vegan diet. It all boils down to how the product is produced. Perhaps the only way to eat sustainably is to create sustainability from the roots, in both crop and livestock.
Ultimately, one’s health is a reflection of one’s diet. Over the course of humanity, most of our existence was based on the need to hunt and search of food. Naturally, the limited availability of resources also placed limitations on growth. Perhaps this was the greatest boundary our ancestors faced. However, the advent of agriculture shifted the way food was produced, allowing for greater productivity and an exponential rise in population. Yet despite this, the importance of variety in diet could not be more strongly emphasized during this period, where the devastation from disease was exacerbated by malnutrition. Although it did take centuries, agriculture eventually became so efficient that there is a surplus and we are now given the luxury of choice. However, this choice has many implications. In response to the obesity and environmental crisis, a vegan life-style is proposed by many as the solution to this crisis. However, this simple solution overlooks the complexities behind both the production and nutritional value of a plant-based diet. Perhaps it is not about limiting what we eat, but creating sustainability in the way our food is produced that offer some form of solution. Indeed, we are reminded of our interdependent existence within the ecosystem, and that our capacity to grow is limited by finite resources.