English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-09 22:14:55 · 3 answers · asked by Kenneth B 1 in Science & Mathematics Botany

3 answers

if you eat you are part of agriculture without it you don't develop

2006-11-10 03:37:56 · answer #1 · answered by old_brain 5 · 0 0

First of all - you have to define development. If you mean the move from "hunter-gatherer" to today's technological niche, then yes, agriculture is important.

In the beginning, mankind was a hunter-gatherer society. What this means is that units (meaning families, or extended family/clans) worked together to accumulate enough food to sustain life. It was pretty hard, not leaving much time for anything else.

Along comes the development of agriculture - and now a handful of people can supply enough food for themselves AND OTHERS. Those others, freed from having to eke out their own foodstuffs, can now turn their attention to everything else - from the wheel through to politics.

Therefore, without agriculture there would be no socio-economic development.

2006-11-10 18:13:30 · answer #2 · answered by CanTexan 6 · 1 0

I could tell you the long answer... please don't force me to it...

Agriculture is not important concerning development.

First of all think of what's development: everybody has money in their pockets, so they are developed. Nope, Norway would be the most developed country in the world and it has one of the highest rates of suicide.

Did you know that one of the most acquire way of comparing countries development is to know the price of bigmac on each one? It tells you the relative price of many other things.

On another hand, development is to see peoples happiness. Yes, happiness. And that my friend is one of the most difficult things to measure. Probably that's why i didn't finish my degree in economics...

You know... I'm happy... to the hell with my degree!

V

2006-11-10 06:28:01 · answer #3 · answered by another911 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers