Final answer:
Agriculture required more labor and resulted in less leisure time compared to hunting and gathering, leading to a less diverse diet and increased social stratification. Yet, it enabled larger populations and sedentism. Some societies deliberately chose to remain hunter-gatherers even after being exposed to agriculture.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to the information provided, agriculture did not necessarily offer an easier life compared to that of hunting and gathering. Early hunter-gatherers are believed to have had more leisure time and were generally healthier, working only a few hours a day to acquire food. In contrast, the advent of agriculture required rigorous labor and resulted in long working hours, producing a less diverse diet and fostering social stratification due to the accumulation of wealth and social classes. The transition to agriculture allowed for the sedentary lifestyle, the domestication of animals, and greater food production, leading to increased population sizes. However, it's not right to assume that adopting agriculture was universally seen as a progression. Many societies chose to continue with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, assessing it as more fitting for their needs despite being aware of farming methods. This indicates that agriculture's adoption was a complex decision influenced by various factors, including perceived benefits, social structure, and environmental suitability.