206k views
1 vote
One advantage of hunting and gathering is that it is able to support a larger population than agriculture. T OR F

User Micha
by
8.2k points

1 Answer

1 vote

Final answer:

The statement that hunting and gathering can support a larger population than agriculture is false. Agriculture allows for larger populations due to a stable food supply and the possibility of creating surpluses, leading to population growth and societal development.

Step-by-step explanation:

One advantage of hunting and gathering is that it is able to support a larger population than agriculture. This statement is false. Agriculture, in contrast to hunting and gathering, allows for a much larger population. It provides a more stable and consistent supply of food with the potential for a surplus that can be stored. This, in turn, enabled the establishment of cities and larger communities, as a significant surplus of food is required for a large group to remain in a single place for an extended period.

Despite the benefits of a diverse diet and more leisure time found in hunting and gathering societies, these societies maintained relatively static population levels due to the lack of a surplus of food. With the advent of agriculture around 12,000 years ago, humans could increase the carrying capacity of their environment, supporting the growth of larger societies. Hence, while hunter-gatherers had the advantage of a varied diet and less work time, agriculture had the distinct benefit of enabling population growth and the development of more complex societal structures.

User Congusbongus
by
7.5k points

No related questions found