Pros And Cons Of American Farming

The evolution of complex societies began when agricultural subsistence systems raised human population densities to levels that would support large scale cooperation, and division of labor. During the Archaic period, many Indians located in North America, in the highlands of Mexico spreading from north to east, adopted the new technologic practice of farming. Upon this new technology, the need for people to remain in close proximity to their agriculture led to the growth of established communities, which in turn cause a division in labor. At long last, uneven access, due to division in labor, to wealth and power ended in the surfacing of classes.

Historians believe that the act of living in one spot would have more easily allowed the growth of personal possessions and an attachment to certain areas of land and without this revelation in farming traditions, modern societies would have been far different, but with certain people, the act of foraging seemed more appealing. As different techniques became available, different cultures began to take into account its pros verses its cons. In the end, some tended to view farming as an increment of production of food while others
experienced a transformation into that of an urban civilization.
The development of farming first influenced the production of a sophisticated association.
The greater populations being formed lead to the grouping of separate clans liable for different social, political, and ritual positions. This in turn required some form of social organization: a chief or leader of the clan, who were mostly present to resolve crimes, but also aided in the resolution of disputes between families. These leaders, however, besides crimes and conflicts, could not aid in the stabilization of farming communities. The growth in population demanded larger supplies of foods and labor, which had led to warfare among neighborhoods. With property ownership becoming increasingly important to villagers, organized political activities and violence arose between clans and
tribes.

With the increase in importance of land, as well as the large amounts of climatological disruptions, such as droughts, occurring, social complexity reached to the point of political warfare and violence. Changes in climate drastically decreased the aptitude of farming to support the growth of municipal populations. Archeologists propose that the extended droughts and dryness provoked political conflict and significantly encouraged violence and social pandemonium. Warfare was not uncommon between farming communities who would desperately attempt to gain ancillary lands for cultivation. Hunters would systematically raid these lands in hope that their ascendancy would assistance them. This period of time was indeed an intense instance of confliction and war among the many city-states between the many farming countrysides. Eventually, as the cities collapsed, these many farming sites were completely abandoned. Colonization, nonetheless, continued among the people of the South.

All things considered, the development of farming goes hand in hand with that of social complexity as well as the politics of warfare and violence. From living to one spot, to the growth in population as well as diversified labors, leading to the making of weapons forming a relative complexity requiring some form of social organizational work unions, possibly ruled by religion, which would command the legions of professional soldiers formed by the dense population of the communities, ultimately leading to social complexity, or differences, causing violence and wreckage of all things worked for. With history played, it would seem a very considerable technical challenge to unhand farming, social complexity and political violence and warfare.