Diamond Arguing that Agriculture is Connected to Government - Essay Example

?Diamond’s argument that agriculture is connected to government Diamond suggests that the emergence of agriculture is connected to the development ofgovernment in the city-state. The growth of agriculture in areas of highly populated region can be suggestive of the need of a strong central governing power to support the growth of innovation and knowledge where an industry is concerned. As agriculture benefited the state through both its purpose for trade and for feeding its local population, the government would need a symbiotic relationship with agricultural progress. However, it is clear that contemporary society has a symbiotic relationship between government and agriculture, the American system supporting the farmers in order to support the need for the distribution of food throughout the nation. As there is not a historically accurate record of regions such as Africa, the insinuation of beliefs upon those societies that are known to have existed can put into question the assumptions that have been made by modern archeological conclusions. It is likely; however, that as human history has shown a certain consistency that the emergence and existence of agriculture has been associated with the development of government. The argument that Diamond puts forth about the relationship of government to agriculture is more than likely an accurate assessment of the development of the agricultural sciences in prehistoric city-states. The growth of agriculture in areas that were highly populated can be described through a series of common sense assumptions. The first assumption that one might make is that because there were a larger than common gathering of people, the need for food production was such that larger forms were needed to accommodate all of the population. Therefore, small examples of growing food or creating a harvest of some sort were expanded to create a larger form of food production. Need drove the development of the production of food. The second assumption one might make is as larger forms of food growth emerged, the need for tools emerged alongside that of the need for more efficient production. Finally, the third common sense conclusion that one might make is that because of a collective of minds in larger populations that allowed for more interactive innovations for tools and agricultural knowledge, the inhabitants of larger cities would have a greater capacity for developing more technologically advanced agricultural practices than less populated regions of the world. Mesopotamia experienced the first rise of a city in Uruk where intellectual development advanced the knowledge that existed through innovation and thought with evidence of writing and art lends credence to the development of sophistication in the region. Agriculture benefited from controlled methods of sowing and the development of the plow which was pulled by oxen. The description of Mesopotamian agriculture is not that different from that of North America in the 17th century as the emergence of a new population was provided for through historic knowledge of growing methods. The development of irrigation methods supported the needs of the plants to grow, the control over the environment supporting the needed application of nature to intention so that crops were controlled and the desired amount of food could be relatively depended upon.1 When comparing the Mesopotamian emergence of agricultural control to that of the Mesoamerican emergence of crops, one can see that the development of technology was a made a distinct difference. The institution of trade and the need for civilizations to develop a way in which to distribute resources to minimize the impact of the unpredictability of local resources provided stimulation for the development of higher levels of technology to facilitate that need.2 In creating an economy in which distribution is at the core, there is a need to create a unique enough resource with which to create a trade. It may be that agriculture was developed in Mesoamerica created advancements in their agriculture as the need for a resource for trade developed. As Diamond suggests, the development of agriculture was based on a need to associate time and effort so that what was gained by effort was balanced by the time it took to create the production.3 As compared to Mesopotamia, the development of a larger network of cities in Mesoamerica was later in the 5000 year period in which agriculture emerged throughout the various centers of growth in the world. It can be argued that larger government emerged from needs that were developed because of a larger system of economic interdependency that emerged through trade. It can also be argued that large concentric gatherings of people all dedicated to the protection created a greater need for government in which collaborative issues supported need for authority. In hunting-gathering societies leadership emerged from wisdom. In city-states, however, it is likely that leadership emerged just as often from power as the ability to lead. Because government became larger, the decision making process was distributed among a larger collection of people, thus kingship was defined by power rather than wisdom. The evidence of this can be seen in the emergence of the development of boundaries in which defining lines of ownership of land began to create conflicts. Conflict requires power over wisdom. It is not that wisdom is not required, but that power asserts the ability to protect and defend. The growth of cities in Mesoamerica that emerged from the development of trade promoted the ability of its citizens to protect crops and secure their commodity that would be used for trade. It might be surmised that the connection between the rise of government was directly associated to the rise of agricultural knowledge as it emerged through a need for trade goods which is largely a wider community interest to be protected. In a discussion of Africa, the problem becomes centered on a lack of good information about the formation of city-states in the prehistoric periods.4 The Mesopotamian pre-historic record is clearly delineated through archeological finds that are almost indisputable (although everything has the potential to be disputed). The African record is not as clear as that which has emerged from the Mesopotamian area. This may be because the history as it has been emerged from that region is a part of the overall Western historical record through which oral histories as well as written evidence was preserved through the European interests. As well, the social development in those regions was consistent and the evidence of civilization was passed into the present through those preserved histories. The linguistic history also is relevant to the development of an understanding of how agriculture may or may not have emerged. The development of archeological evidence in India shows the relationship between trade and the development of the city state, creating a support for the symbiosis of agriculture to government.5 The lack of a history of large cities, despite the emergence of new archeological evidence that they may have existed, has disallowed a clear understanding of how the agriculture of the region could have emerged and through what purpose. Although the trade between African nations is suggested, there is little clear evidence of how the interconnectivity of the region developed. It is possible that the European prejudices that defined African communities as primitive and without the capacity to develop civilization has tainted the histories that may have led investigators towards a more distinct understanding of African prehistoric city-states and their governments. Therefore the argument in relationship to the development of government in relationship to that of Africa is unclear. This lack of good information from Africa can be used, however, to understand the relationship of perspectives of the present to those of the past. Certain developments, however, even though independent from one another have been shown to be similar. Agriculture developed through similar methods that seem almost mysterious as cultures created methods of planting and reaping that are very similar even though they occurred in very different parts of the world. It stands to reason that human nature and the development of societies would have very similar needs when presented through similar frameworks. Large cities cannot exist without governments that will protect and establish order in chaos. As the known example of Uruk shows, the development of government helped to establish an order that allowed for collaborative efforts that advanced knowledge. As shown through the example of trade from the economic development in Mesoamerica, it is clear that agriculture was important to the population as a commodity in which overall economic development could be established. Government must have power in order to operate and to gain power it must prove that it can both provide for a population and protect a population. It is only reasonable to understand that there would be a symbiotic relationship between agriculture and government. While the example of Africa shows that there are always unknowns when dealing with elements of the past that occurred before the written histories, the nature of human need provides for a framework of consistency in which the discussion of the relationship between government and agriculture can positively be related. Read More