agricultural revolution essay

Women harvest wheat with sickles in Tras os Monte, Portugal.

What was the Neolithic Revolution?

Also called the Agricultural Revolution, the shift to agriculture from hunting and gathering changed humanity forever.

The Neolithic Revolution—also referred to as the Agricultural Revolution—is thought to have begun about 12,000 years ago. It coincided with the end of the last ice age and the beginning of the current geological epoch, the Holocene . And it forever changed how humans live, eat, and interact, paving the way for modern civilization.

During the Neolithic period , hunter-gatherers roamed the natural world, foraging for their food. But then a dramatic shift occurred. The foragers became farmers, transitioning from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a more settled one.

Why settle down?

Though the exact dates and reasons for the transition are debated, evidence of a move away from hunting and gathering and toward agriculture has been documented worldwide. Farming is thought to have happened first in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, where multiple groups of people developed the practice independently . Thus, the “agricultural revolution” was likely a series of revolutions that occurred at different times in different places.

A farmer winnows grain in a field near the Pyramid of Meidum, in Egypt.

There are a variety of hypotheses as to why humans stopped foraging and started farming. Population pressure may have caused increased competition for food and the need to cultivate new foods; people may have shifted to farming in order to involve elders and children in food production; humans may have learned to depend on plants they modified in early domestication attempts and in turn, those plants may have become dependent on humans. With new technology come new and ever-evolving theories about how and why the agricultural revolution began.

Regardless of how and why humans began to move away from hunting and foraging, they continued to become more settled. This was in part due to their increasing domestication of plants. Humans are thought to have gathered plants and their seeds as early as 23,000 years ago , and to have started farming cereal grains like barley as early as 11,000 years ago. Afterward, they moved on to protein-rich foods like peas and lentils. As these early farmers became better at cultivating food, they may have produced surplus seeds and crops that required storage . This would have both spurred population growth because of more consistent food availability and required a more settled way of life with the need to store seeds and tend crops.

Animal domestication

As humans began to experiment with farming, they also started domesticating animals. Evidence of sheep and goat herding has been found in Iraq and Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) as far back as about 12,000 years ago. Domesticated animals, when used as labor, helped make more intensive farming possible and also provided additional nutrition via milk and meat for increasingly stable populations.

A man on a donkey leads sheep down a path in Syria.

The agricultural revolution had a variety of consequences for humans. It has been linked to everything from societal inequality —a result of humans’ increased dependence on the land and fears of scarcity—to a decline in nutrition and a rise in infectious diseases contracted from domesticated animals. But the new period also ushered in the potential for modern societies—civilizations characterized by large population centers, improved technology and advancements in knowledge, arts, and trade.

FREE BONUS ISSUE

Related topics.

• SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
• ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS
• ANCIENT PERSIA

You May Also Like

This Persian marvel was lost for millennia

5 fascinating facts about Zoroastrianism

What declassified Cold-War spy photos tell us about ancient Rome

This 9,000-year-old necklace is remarkable. Who wore it is even more surprising.

They were seeking a mythical oasis. They found a Stone Age surprise instead

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet
• History & Culture

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Neolithic Revolution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: October 4, 2023 | Original: January 12, 2018

The Neolithic Revolution, also called the Agricultural Revolution, marked the transition in human history from small, nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers to larger, agricultural settlements and early civilization. The Neolithic Revolution started around 10,000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent, a boomerang-shaped region of the Middle East where humans first took up farming. Shortly after, Stone Age humans in other parts of the world also began to practice agriculture. Civilizations and cities grew out of the innovations of the Neolithic Revolution.

Neolithic Age

The Neolithic Age is sometimes called the New Stone Age . Neolithic humans used stone tools like their earlier Stone Age ancestors, who eked out a marginal existence in small bands of hunter-gatherers during the last Ice Age .

Australian archaeologist V. Gordon Childe coined the term “Neolithic Revolution” in 1935 to describe the radical and important period of change in which humans began cultivating plants, breeding animals for food and forming permanent settlements. The advent of agriculture separated Neolithic people from their Paleolithic ancestors.

Many facets of modern civilization can be traced to this moment in history when people started living together in communities.

Causes of the Neolithic Revolution

There was no single factor that led humans to begin farming roughly 12,000 years ago. The causes of the Neolithic Revolution may have varied from region to region.

The Earth entered a warming trend around 14,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. Some scientists theorize that climate changes drove the Agricultural Revolution.

In the Fertile Crescent , bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea and on the east by the Persian Gulf, wild wheat and barley began to grow as it got warmer. Pre-Neolithic people called Natufians started building permanent houses in the region.

Other scientists suggest that intellectual advances in the human brain may have caused people to settle down. Religious artifacts and artistic imagery—progenitors of human civilization—have been uncovered at the earliest Neolithic settlements.

The Neolithic Era began when some groups of humans gave up the nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle completely to begin farming. It may have taken humans hundreds or even thousands of years to transition fully from a lifestyle of subsisting on wild plants to keeping small gardens and later tending large crop fields.

Neolithic Humans

The archaeological site of Çatalhöyük in southern Turkey is one of the best-preserved Neolithic settlements. Studying Çatalhöyük has given researchers a better understanding of the transition from a nomadic life of hunting and gathering to an agriculture lifestyle.

Archaeologists have unearthed more than a dozen mud-brick dwellings at the 9,500 year-old Çatalhöyük. They estimate that as many as 8,000 people may have lived here at one time. The houses were clustered so closely back-to-back that residents had to enter the homes through a hole in the roof.

The inhabitants of Çatalhöyük appear to have valued art and spirituality. They buried their dead under the floors of their houses. The walls of the homes are covered with murals of men hunting, cattle and female goddesses .

Some of the earliest evidence of farming comes from the archaeological site of Tell Abu Hureyra, a small village located along the Euphrates River in modern Syria . The village was inhabited from roughly 11,500 to 7,000 B.C.

Inhabitants of Tell Abu Hureyra initially hunted gazelle and other game. Around 9,700 B.C. they began to harvest wild grains. Several large stone tools for grinding grain have been found at the site.

Agricultural Inventions

Plant domestication: Cereals such as emmer wheat, einkorn wheat and barley were among the first crops domesticated by Neolithic farming communities in the Fertile Crescent. These early farmers also domesticated lentils, chickpeas, peas and flax.

Domestication is the process by which farmers select for desirable traits by breeding successive generations of a plant or animal. Over time, a domestic species becomes different from its wild relative.

Neolithic farmers selected for crops that harvested easily. Wild wheat, for instance, falls to the ground and shatters when it is ripe. Early humans bred for wheat that stayed on the stem for easier harvesting.

Around the same time that farmers were beginning to sow wheat in the Fertile Crescent, people in Asia started to grow rice and millet. Scientists have discovered archaeological remnants of Stone Age rice paddies in Chinese swamps dating back at least 7,700 years.

In Mexico , squash cultivation began about 10,000 years ago, while maize-like crops emerged around 9,000 years ago.

Livestock : The first livestock were domesticated from animals that Neolithic humans hunted for meat. Domestic pigs were bred from wild boars, for instance, while goats came from the Persian ibex. Domesticated animals made the hard, physical labor of farming possible while their milk and meat added variety to the human diet. They also carried infectious diseases: smallpox, influenza and the measles all spread from domesticated animals to humans.

The first farm animals also included sheep and cattle. These originated in Mesopotamia between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. Water buffalo and yak were domesticated shortly after in China , India and Tibet.

Draft animals including oxen, donkeys and camels appeared much later—around 4,000 B.C.—as humans developed trade routes for transporting goods.

Effects of the Neolithic Revolution

The Neolithic Revolution led to masses of people establishing permanent settlements supported by farming and agriculture. It paved the way for the innovations of the ensuing Bronze Age and Iron Age , when advancements in creating tools for farming, wars and art swept the world and brought civilizations together through trade and conquest.

The Development of Agriculture; National Geographic . The Seeds of Civilization; Smithsonian Magazine .

HISTORY Vault: Prehistoric Monsters Revealed

99 percent of all animal and sea creatures who ever lived have become extinct. Meet some of the most bizarre, including a strange amalgam of bird and sloth, a 7-foot shrimp, saber-toothed cats, mastodons, and wooly rhinoceros.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• History & Overview
• Meet Our Team
• Program FAQs
• Social Studies
• Language Arts
• Distance Learning
• Population Pyramids
• World Population “dot” Video
• Student Video Contest
• Lower Elementary (K-2)
• Upper Elementary (3-5)
• Middle School (6-8)
• High School (9-12)
• Browse all Resources
• Content Focus by Grade
• Standards Matches by State
• Infographics
• Articles, Factsheets & Book Lists
• Population Background Info
• Upcoming Online Workshops
• On-Demand Webinar Library
• Online Graduate Course
• Request an Online or In-person Workshop
• About Teachers Workshops
• About Online Teacher Workshops
• Pre-Service Workshops for University Classes
• In-Service Workshops for Teachers
• Workshops for Nonformal Educators
• Where We’ve Worked
• About the Network
• Trainer Spotlight
• Trainers Network FAQ
• Becoming a Trainer
• Annual Leadership Institutes
• Application

A Timeline of the Three Major Agricultural Revolutions in History

By Irene Park | December 13, 2022

The world’s food systems have been influenced greatly by unexpected changes – both big and small – throughout history. Among such changes are three major agricultural revolutions. Together, they not only shaped how we grow, buy, and eat food today; they also transformed our societies, economies, and relationships with the Earth.

The First Agricultural Revolution: From Hunting & Gathering to Settlement

When: Around 12,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age.

Where: Historically, we’ve positioned the First Agricultural Revolution almost exclusively in Sumer, a Mesopotamian civilization in present-day southern Iraq. However, archaeologists have found over time that similar phenomena were occurring independently in dozens of other places globally, including in East Asia, Mesoamerica, Western and Eastern Africa, South India, and more.

What Changed, and Why?

In the Neolithic period, humans foraged for food. They were nomadic, following food sources as needed. However, as the Ice Age of the Neolithic period came to a close around 11,700 years ago, humans were greeted with much warmer and milder conditions. With a more hospitable environment, humans could settle and grow food on their own accord.

In tandem with the changing environment are multiple other hypotheses for why humans chose to settle and farm. For example, the pressures of a growing population may have created the need for cultivating new foods, or perhaps the increasing sophistication of stone tools made effective agriculture a real possibility.

Though we can’t be sure of exact reasons, we do know that people began domesticating plants and animals to fulfill human needs. Crops including wheat, barley, rice, and maize, as well as the origin of livestock, can be traced back to this first agrarian revolution. Villages and communities of varying sizes also blossomed due to the need for cooperative labor in food production.

How Did The First Agricultural Revolution Impact History?

One of the greatest impacts of the First Agricultural Revolution was the ability for large numbers of people to live in one place alongside one another. On a farm, people needed to work together to produce food for everyone. Then, the availability of large amounts of food with little effort (compared to the time and physical intensity of hunting and foraging) led to further population growth within the community. Thus came civilizations and all that follows: social and political structures, arts, culture, knowledge, a burgeoning economy, and technology.

However, in addition to the richness of culture that came out of civilizations, some scholars argue that the first settled societies set the tone for social inequality , which persists to this day. Farming for many people raised questions about fair distribution and divisions of labor. Governing a large population also resulted in hierarchies and suppressing rights for certain groups in the name of maintaining order.

In addition, agriculture was hard on the environment . Hunter-gatherers had a limited environmental impact; they typically took what they needed from one location and then moved on to another, allowing for natural resources to regenerate after each stop. By contrast, farmers manipulated the environment to increase productivity, livestock would often overgraze, and land was altered to make building easier.

The Second Agricultural Revolution: Business, Not Just Subsistence

When: Between 1500 and 1850, coinciding in later years with the Industrial Revolution .

Where: Mainly Britain, though its impacts were felt globally.

As societies grew larger and more complex, the British looked for new ways to maximize productivity in farming. To produce the greatest amount of food in the smallest amount of land, farmers replaced low-yield crops like rye with higher-yielding ones like wheat, barley, and turnips. Throughout this 2nd agricultural revolution, they also developed chemical fertilizers and used advanced tools and machinery to increase output.

Aided by the flourishing of trade and the rise of capitalism, farmers were also able to sell their crops to more distant regions experiencing food shortages, and at higher costs. Agriculture was no longer just about feeding neighbors; it was an opportunity to make a profit in an expanding market. To be financially successful, farmers had to become cost-effective producers, innovators, and managers.

How Did The Second Agricultural Revolution Impact History?

The Second Agricultural Revolution was both a contributing factor and consequence of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in the 1700s-1800s. As labor productivity and agricultural technology use increased and the population boomed due to a growing food supply, many people were left without land or work in rural areas. Thus, they migrated to the city, typically to find work in manufacturing.

In addition, the focus on productivity and profit fueled economic changes . It led to “ enclosures ,” meaning that land use was restricted to the owner and closed to public use. Landowners of large, productive plots grew wealthier, while the number of small landholders decreased, often selling their plots to larger ones. Issues of land and privatization would grow extremely contentious in the decades to come, and they continue to be a source of controversy today.

The Third Agricultural Revolution: The Rise of Bioengineering

When: Between 1950 and the late 1960s.

Where: Mexico is considered the birthplace of the Third Agricultural Revolution , also known as the Green Revolution. However, green revolutions popped up all across the world, particularly in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, some inspired by Mexico and others on their own.

In Mexico, the Green Revolution began as a quest for self-sufficiency in supplying food for a growing and urbanizing population. In India , it was sparked by mass famine. Specifics varied by country, but each developed new technologies that made it possible to feed large populations. These innovations included things like modern irrigation systems, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers. Scientists also genetically engineered high-yielding and hybrid crops that were less susceptible to disease and climate.

How Did The Third Agricultural Revolution Impact History?

The Green Revolution greatly increased crop productivity and significantly reduced hunger and poverty worldwide. Studies show that without it, global caloric availability would actually have declined by 11-13%. More food allowed the population to grow as well. Since the Green Revolution began in the mid-twentieth century, the global population has more than doubled.

From an environmental standpoint, these agricultural innovations have been somewhat damaging. Pesticides and fertilizers are leeching into and contaminating freshwater supplies and depleting nutrients in soil. Most crops introduced during the Green Revolution are water-intensive and thus accelerating water scarcity. Several varieties of indigenous rice and wheat have gone extinct or are endangered, and pollinators are at risk as well.

Is There a Fourth Agricultural Revolution?

As we make our way through the 21 st century, evidence suggests we may be on the brink of a fourth agricultural revolution, this time driven by artificial intelligence. Already, we’re seeing autonomous machines distribute agrochemicals, pick crops, weed, milk cows, and more.

We have yet to fully understand this Fourth Revolution and its impacts, but as we’ve seen with the first three, the consequences will undoubtedly include both positive and negative components that may change the course of our future. Heavy stuff! But don’t fret, we get a say right now in how this turns out.

Teaching About Changing Agriculture

So, as we move forward, challenge yourself and your students to think critically about food and agriculture and all their interconnections: technology, global (in)equalities, labor, health, environmental impacts, and more. To get started, use our high school lesson, Good News, Bad News , to delve deeper into current issues in agriculture.

Image credits: Ice Age ( Ice age fauna of northern Spain by Mauricio Anton is licensed under CC BY 2.5 ); Egypt ( Egyptian Civilization by 2040241shrirambala is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 ); Threshing machine ( Taos County, New Mexico. Threshing wheat by machine, Canyon. Use of threshing machine costs renter.. . by the National Archives and Records Administration); Men in wheat field ( UN Photo /Jean Pierre Laffont); Agricultural robotics ( Robotics engineer with agricultural robots by This is Engineering is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 )

About Population Education

Population Education provides K-12 teachers with innovative, hands-on lesson plans and professional development to teach about human population growth and its effects on the environment and human well-being. PopEd is a program of Population Connection. Learn More About PopEd .

Privacy Overview

Ch. 25 The Industrial Revolution

Effects of the agricultural revolution, 25.1.4: effects of the agricultural revolution.

The increase in agricultural production and technological advancements during the Agricultural Revolution contributed to unprecedented population growth and new agricultural practices, triggering such phenomena as rural-to-urban migration, development of a coherent and loosely regulated agricultural market, and emergence of capitalist farmers.

Learning Objective

Infer some major social and economic outcomes of the Agricultural Revolution

• The Agricultural Revolution in Britain proved to be a major turning point, allowing population to far exceed earlier peaks and sustain the country’s rise to industrial preeminence. It is estimated that total agricultural output grew 2.7-fold between 1700 and 1870 and output per worker at a similar rate. The Agricultural Revolution gave Britain the most productive agriculture in Europe, with 19th-century yields as much as 80% higher than the Continental average.
• The increase in the food supply contributed to the rapid growth of population in England and Wales, from 5.5 million in 1700 to over 9 million by 1801, although domestic production gave way increasingly to food imports in the 19th century as population more than tripled to over 32 million.
• The rise in productivity accelerated the decline of the agricultural share of the labor force, adding to the urban workforce on which industrialization depended. The Agricultural Revolution has therefore been cited as a cause of the Industrial Revolution. As enclosure deprived many of access to land or left farmers with plots too small and of poor quality, increasing numbers of workers had no choice but migrate to the city. However, mass rural flight did not take place until the Industrial Revolution was already underway.
• The most important development between the 16th century and the mid-19th century was the development of private marketing. By the 19th century, marketing was nationwide and the vast majority of agricultural production was for market rather than for the farmer and his family.
• The next stage of development was trading between markets, requiring merchants, credit and forward sales, and knowledge of markets and pricing as well as of supply and demand in different markets. Eventually the market evolved into a national one driven by London and other growing cities. Commerce was aided by the expansion of roads and inland waterways.
• With the development of regional markets and eventually a national market aided by improved transportation infrastructures, farmers were no longer dependent on their local markets. This freed them from having to lower prices in an oversupplied local market and the inability to sell surpluses to distant localities experiencing shortages. They also became less subject to price fixing regulations. Farming became a business rather than solely a means of subsistence.

Significance of the Agricultural Revolution

The Agricultural Revolution in Britain proved to be a major turning point, allowing population to far exceed earlier peaks and sustain the country’s rise to industrial preeminence. Although evidence-based advice on farming began to appear in England in the mid-17th century, the overall agricultural productivity of Britain grew significantly only later. It is estimated that total agricultural output grew 2.7-fold between 1700 and 1870 and output per worker at a similar rate. The Agricultural Revolution gave Britain at the time the most productive agriculture in Europe, with 19th-century yields as much as 80% higher than the Continental average. Even as late as 1900, British yields were rivaled only by Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium. But Britain’s lead eroded as European countries experienced their own agricultural revolutions, raising grain yields on average by 60% in the century preceding World War I. Interestingly, the Agricultural Revolution in Britain did not result in overall productivity per hectare of agriculture that would rival productivity in China, where intensive cultivation (including multiple annual cropping in many areas) had been practiced for many centuries. Towards the end of the 19th century, the substantial gains in British agricultural productivity were rapidly offset by competition from cheaper imports, made possible by the exploitation of colonies and advances in transportation, refrigeration, and other technologies.

Social Impact

The increase in the food supply contributed to the rapid growth of population in England and Wales, from 5.5 million in 1700 to over 9 million by 1801, although domestic production gave way increasingly to food imports in the 19th century as population more than tripled to over 32 million. The rise in productivity accelerated the decline of the agricultural share of the labor force, adding to the urban workforce on which industrialization depended. The Agricultural Revolution has therefore been cited as a cause of the Industrial Revolution. As enclosure deprived many of access to land or left farmers with plots too small and of poor quality, increasing numbers of workers had no choice but migrate to the city. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, however, rural flight occurred in mostly localized regions. Pre-industrial societies did not experience large rural-urban migration flows, primarily due to the inability of cities to support large populations. Lack of large employment industries, high urban mortality, and low food supplies all served as checks keeping pre-industrial cities much smaller than their modern counterparts. While the improved agricultural productivity freed up workers to other sectors of the economy, it took decades of the Industrial Revolution and industrial development to trigger a truly mass rural-to-urban labor migration. As food supplies increased and stabilized and industrialized centers moved into place, cities began to support larger populations, sparking the beginning of rural flight on a massive scale. In England, the proportion of the population living in cities jumped from 17% in 1801 to 72% in 1891.

Drawing of a horse-powered thresher from a French dictionary (published in 1881).

The development and advancement of  tools and machines decreased the demand for rural labor. That together with increasingly restricted access to land forced many rural workers to migrate to cities, eventually supplying the labor demand created by the Industrial Revolution.

New Agricultural Market Trends

Markets were widespread by 1500. These were regulated and not free. The most important development between the 16th century and the mid-19th century was the development of private marketing. By the 19th century, marketing was nationwide and the vast majority of agricultural production was for market rather than for the farmer and his family. The 16th-century market radius was about 10 miles, which could support a town of 10,000. High wagon transportation costs made it uneconomical to ship commodities very far outside the market radius by road, generally limiting shipment to less than 20 or 30 miles to market or to a navigable waterway.

The next stage of development was trading between markets, requiring merchants, credit and forward sales, and knowledge of markets and pricing as well as of supply and demand in different markets. Eventually the market evolved into a national one driven by London and other growing cities. By 1700, there was a national market for wheat. Legislation regulating middlemen required registration, and addressed weights and measures, fixing of prices, and collection of tolls by the government. Market regulations were eased in 1663, when people were allowed some self-regulation to hold inventory, but it was forbidden to withhold commodities from the market in an effort to increase prices. In the late 18th century, the idea of “self regulation” was gaining acceptance. The lack of internal tariffs, customs barriers, and feudal tolls made Britain “the largest coherent market in Europe.”

Commerce was aided by the expansion of roads and inland waterways. Road transport capacity grew from threefold to fourfold from 1500 to 1700. By the early 19th century it cost as much to transport a ton of freight 32 miles by wagon over an unimproved road as it did to ship it 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

With the development of regional markets and eventually a national market aided by improved transportation infrastructures, farmers were no longer dependent on their local markets and were less subject to having to sell at low prices into an oversupplied local market and not being able to sell their surpluses to distant localities that were experiencing shortages. They also became less subject to price fixing regulations. Farming became a business rather than solely a means of subsistence. Under free market capitalism, farmers had to remain competitive. To be successful, they had to become effective managers who incorporated the latest farming innovations in order to be low-cost producers.

Attributions

• “British Agricultural Revolution.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution . Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 .
• “Rural flight.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_flight . Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 .
• “Urbanization.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization . Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 .
• “Enclosure.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure . Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 .
• “Industrial Revolution.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution . Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 .
• “Batteuse_1881.jpg.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Batteuse_1881.jpg . Wikipedia Public domain .
• Boundless World History. Authored by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

You may opt out or contact us anytime.

Zócalo Podcasts

California Needs an Agricultural Revolution

From the ojai valley, i can see the state’s post-carbon future—and it looks like the ancient past.

Orange orchard in Ojai Valley. Image by Stephanie Pincetl.

by STEPHANIE PINCETL | January 12, 2022

The Ojai Valley in Ventura County is a magical place. Consider its elements: the sweet and intoxicating smell of California citrus blossoms in the spring, the open space preserved by orchards, the seasonal creeks that run free through the cultivated lands, the surrounding chaparral covered hills and mountains.

But the Ojai Valley is also a place in peril. That’s because the water source that keeps this inland Ventura hamlet thriving is nearly dry.

Lake Casitas reservoir was built in the late 1950s when decades of plentiful rain hid the true nature of California’s arid climate. Back then, the official projections for water-resources potential were pretty optimistic. Today, that story has changed dramatically, and any other approach to water supplies seems beyond our conventional ways of water management.

I came to the Ojai Valley with my husband about 15 years ago, when the disruptions to the climate regime still seemed distant. But two consecutive deep droughts have brought water uncertainty front and center.

It’s this fear of water shortages that is dominating conversations and creating antagonisms: farmers versus city dwellers, farmers against farmers, water officials vs. everybody. We all know that the snowpack in the mountains is dwindling, so if we run out of water and average temperatures continue to climb, what then?

I am a professor at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability with several decades of research on California land use, water, energy and the question of sustainability and climate change. I’ve done research with biologists, hydrologists, engineers, climate scientists and public health experts looking at environment and sustainability, environmental justice, policy and politics, and conducted a great deal of quantitative research on water resources. I am also a native Californian, in love with the state.

Thinking about the state’s future and its magnificent resources and agricultural productivity, the fact that much of agriculture today is intertwined with dependence on hydrocarbons—from fertilizers, fumigants and pesticides to diesel and plastics—poses a predicament. These don’t just override the natural conditions, but damage them, seriously. This means that continuing to grow crops and rear livestock using highly consumptive 20th-century methods in a leaner, dryer 21st century will compound ecological crises and implode the agricultural sector. It’s inescapable that in order for California agriculture to survive, and even flourish, with less water and fewer hydrocarbons, we need nothing short of a revolutionary re-envisioning of the future without carbon.

The politics of this change will be enormously contentious, difficult, and protracted. But consider the alternative: The path of agriculture today is toward extinction. A changing climate is here, and water is not something that can be manufactured. With more dry years, and more groundwater extraction, the path toward groundwater depletion is clear. That’s why though what I propose below may seem fanciful and impossible, I offer them as thought pieces, as sketches of a possible future that provides livelihoods and sustenance, a future that the current trajectory cannot deliver.

Before globalization, which is dependent on being able to rapidly ship products anywhere across the world using fossil fuels, people ate far more seasonally. It was unimaginable to eat bell peppers in the wintertime in northern climates, for example. But now, the global south grows crops for the global north to ensure foodstuffs are available all year round. Reduce or eliminate fossil fuels, and a new agriculture will have to emerge for a post-hydrocarbon fuel world that will rely on local and regional resources. People will eat more seasonally and will eat fewer high-energy dense foods, such as meat. Different regions across the U.S. and the world will return to growing what can be grown in those places , supplemented by hot houses heated with compost (for example) in cold regions, or eat mostly tropical crops in tropical regions.

This means California will no longer be a large exporter of food, domestically or, especially, internationally. California agriculture will be primarily destined for Californians. Food will be more expensive and perhaps our diets will be more limited, but that does not mean there necessarily will be less to eat. Rather, we will simply not be able to source the world for our food, often to the detriment of growers here, in Mexico, South America, Africa and elsewhere.

One of the most challenging issues, fundamental to the type of transition described above, will be the question of corporate large-scale land holdings, and the price of land. With dramatically less water available, and the shift away from hydrocarbon agriculture, land prices may plummet on their own. But it may also be that big farms will break up, as they will no longer be viable without water and without the ability to cultivate lands using large-scale, fossil fuel intensive machinery.

Corporate owners might be compensated, but at the pre-water development land costs, and perhaps subtracting the cost of land and water remediation necessary because of the extensive chemical contamination. (Under the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized federal water projects, farmers were to sell acreage above 160 acres, or 320 for married couples, at pre-water prices, or pay for the full cost of their share of the project. They never did, and under President Reagan that law was overturned, handing over to large-scale corporate agriculture the investment of the American taxpayer in water delivery systems.) If the return on investment for corporate growers declines, they will exit. And since water will be scarce and fuel for commuting non-existent, turning farmland into housing subdivisions will not be an option.

A new agroecological agriculture will, however, create many new jobs. Though lands that were brought into production by the sheer application of fossil energy will go out of production, and the footprint of agriculture in the state will shrink, many more people will work the land. This has the potential to allow us to adopt more sustainable farming practices, modeled on historical examples of regions with climates such as ours, like the Eastern Mediterranean region where water systems were managed by experts adept at passive water systems, where and when the resource was available.

Peasant farmers grew crops based on knowledge about seeds and traditional practices passed from generation to generation and developed over many centuries. Each skill- and knowledge-base was specific to place—to the soils, flora and fauna, climate, slopes, light, and seasons. Practicing small-scale intensive agriculture, growing a diversity of crops, and applying organic inputs to increase or maintain soil fertility, these land artisans were decision makers responsible for feeding their families and others in the community.

We have such land artisans today, although their skills and knowledge are rarely appreciated. They anchor small towns. They create local economies and connected communities. And they have been advocating for such work for decades.

Back in 1996, the international peasants’ movement came together during the Food and Agriculture Organization World Food Summit in Rome to lay the foundation for a 21st-century approach via a policy framework. The coalition, comprised of working-class farmers—known globally as peasants—and Indigenous communities around the world, pointed to the urgent need for an organized, international response to the crisis facing agriculture. They advocated for practices based on agroecology—agriculture that respects local ecologies and fosters wholesome and productive interactions between plants, animals, and humans in order to keep ecosystems healthy and grow food for humans.

The agriculture movement they have built is based on the understanding of the mutual benefits that accrue when farming and livestock rearing practices respect the long-term need for ecosystem functions to endure. Around the world, organizations like the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S., the Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance , Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa , and Nyéléni Europe and Central Asia Food Sovereignty Network are leading this campaign, which calls for food sovereignty, participation in agricultural policy, and land reform so that workers can retain their land. In addition to farming itself, this movement encompasses occupations including composting, raising beneficial insects, bee keeping, building and maintaining small-scale irrigation systems, manufacturing and maintaining new electric-powered agricultural machinery and processing equipment, food processing, weaving, the making of rope and twine, technical assistance, and local commerce such as distribution, retail, and social services.

Vibrant, modest, local economies will eventually thrive as a result of this agriculture. But none of it will be possible without a politics for a new future, a politics of reclaiming California for the common good, a politics that posits a positive future against an apocalyptic one. It is difficult to construct alternatives within the dominant system, but change does occur, the past is not the present, nor is it destined to be the future.

Take worker cooperatives, for example, which have been growing rapidly, by a net of 35.7 percent since 2013 ; such cooperatives have an average pay ratio, between the highest and lowest paid workers of 2:1, in contrast to the average pay ratio in the corporate world of 303:1. Current labor trends—including people seeming to prefer to stay home than work for poor wages—also represents a possible shift in thinking about commitment to the current system, which may lead to the kind of transformation that enables other shifts.

All we have to do is look to the Central Valley, which produces a quarter of the nation’s food, including 40 percent of the nation’s fruits, nuts and other table products, for the problems California will face if we continue to follow the path we’re headed down now. There, small towns are shrinking or have disappeared. The workers who live near the fields are served by archipelagos of franchise restaurants, gas stations, and chain hotels. Highway 99 rumbles through these towns, often below grade, both destroying the urban fabric and by-passing it, causing the Valley to reek of pollution from heavy truck traffic and diesel-burning locomotives in addition to the tractors and irrigation pumps whose toxic mix of pesticides and herbicides are contaminating the water or the air.

This story of poverty and ill-health will become the story of our state unless we develop a different ethics of practice, one where modesty, and living within our means is the foundation of a better and wholesome future where life of all kinds thrives. It is a pathway along which it will be possible to repair the rift between humans and nature and reconnect humans with the rest of life, upon which we so ineluctably depend. The driving force of this new ethics is about loving place.

I see glimpses of this other future in the Ojai Valley. Ojai is a transliteration of the Chumash word A’hwai or “moon,” and vestigial ancient oaks that the Chumash lived with still dot the orchards and town. For those who choose to live here, learning to farm within the limits of this small place will ensure the viability of the town and the surrounding agricultural land.

This means learning about place. It means learning about its groundwater resources—how to reinfiltrate stormwater effectively when it does rain (and it will, buckets), and then applying it carefully through up to date and well-maintained drip systems, and ensuring there is enough mulch to maintain soil moisture and build soil fertility. And it means planting locally appropriate plants in gardens, refraining from building individual swimming pools, being thoughtful and aware of limited water resources, and treating it as precious and life-giving.

The idea of living with limits needs to reach the Valley. In response to our changing climate, rather than bring in more water, despite the obvious fact that water from elsewhere does not exist and/or has been long promised to others ahead in the hopeful queue, the Valley should invest in proven and reliable groundwater resources that do exist here and can be managed for long-term sustainable yield. This does not represent hardship; it represents recognition of place and living in that place, fully.

Similarly, a new path for California may seem revolutionary in its vision as it will mean dissolving current systems, reappropriating land through expropriation for the benefit of the many, and insisting on mutualism and collaboration for new social organizations. But it’s a vision that can be possible if we decide this is the future we want, and resolve to follow a new ethic, one of mutual respect, one of compassion, and one that is aimed toward nurturing life.

Send A Letter To the Editors

Please tell us your thoughts. Include your name and daytime phone number, and a link to the article you’re responding to. We may edit your letter for length and clarity and publish it on our site.

(Optional) Attach an image to your letter. Jpeg, PNG or GIF accepted, 1MB maximum.

By continuing to use our website, you agree to our privacy and cookie policy . Zócalo wants to hear from you. Please take our survey !-->

Get More Zócalo

No paywall. No ads. No partisan hacks. Ideas journalism with a head and a heart.

The People, Ideas, and Things Journal

Feeding Global Warming: Assessing the Impact of Agriculture on Climate Change

This essay examines the ways in which agricultural practices have influenced global climate change. Beginning with the Neolithic Revolution (12,000 years ago), and continuing through the Columbian Exchange (1492), Industrial Revolution (1760-1820s), and Green Revolution (1940s- ‘60s), agricultural practices have expanded and intensified. As these revolutions led to the domestication, diversification, and plant reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, the emission of greenhouse gases increased, and is still rising. Although it is known that these greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, contribute to climate change, many people believe they only come from industrial developments like factories and cars. However, since these gases are also emitted from agricultural practices, global warming may be influenced by more factors than the general public is aware. It can be concluded that previous agricultural advancements have been beneficial in supplying food, but while they are feeding the growing human population, agricultural practices are also feeding global climate change.

Introduction

Agriculture has always been essential to human life but is becoming detrimental to the environment. Food is one of the most basic needs for people around the world, but it may be contributing to climate change more than the general public is aware. Agriculture has been fundamental to civilization since our nomadic ancestors discovered how to domesticate crops and live off the land. However, with agricultural revolutions, including the Neolithic Revolution (12,000 years ago) and the Green Revolution (1940s-’60s), agricultural practices have become destructive. Other historical events including the Columbian Exchange (1492) and the Industrial Revolution (1760-1820, 1840s) have increased agricultural output, but have also increased greenhouse gas output. Today’s expansive and intensive agricultural practices are contributing to global climate change through increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

Global warming can be attributed to three primary greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. While research has proved that fossil fuels are responsible for most of the recent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, fossil fuels are not the only contributors. An increasing number of studies in Nature, a respected research journal, argue that agricultural practices contribute large amounts of methane and nitrous dioxide to the atmosphere; these gases will have longer lasting effects on the environment than carbon dioxide. While it cannot be denied that agriculture emits these gases, few researchers have looked at the root of these practices so that we can better understand the increased rate of these emissions. Researchers like W. Neil Adger and Katrina Brown argue that most of the greenhouse gases produced by agriculture come from mass production of livestock, manure use, and fertilizer use. Deforestation and soil degradation, both results of agricultural expansion, emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Livestock, manure, and fertilizers contain large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, making them primary emitters of these gases (Foley et al.). The harmful impact agriculture has on the environment will only increase with time, especially since the world population is continuing to rise, and with it rises the danger of food scarcity.

Before debating this topic in greater depth, it is important to understand basic agricultural practices. For example, intensive agricultural practices refer to systems of cultivation that use “large amounts of labor and capital relative to land area” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Labor and capital are required for the large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water that maintain the land. Capital is also required to purchase and maintain high-efficiency machinery. Intensive agriculture is practiced primarily in developed countries. In developing countries or lower-income regions of the world, subsistence agriculture is the primary cultivation technique. Subsistence farmers are “those who produce only enough crops to feed their family” (Rosenberg). This type of farming uses minimal amounts of fertilizers and relies on small amounts of labor. Intensive and subsistence agriculture differ primarily in their goals—to make a commercial gain versus to make dinner.

Past Research and Research Gaps

The events I plan on analyzing have been discussed in previous research. Because the Neolithic Revolution marks the beginning of agriculture, it is cited by many scientists as the starting point for current agricultural practices (Ruddiman; Adger and Brown). Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, humans were hunters and gatherers. Although this lifestyle did have some impact on the environment, it was not until the domestication of crops that carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide began to be released from the soil (Ruddiman). The results of the Neolithic Revolution’s innovations are major factors of greenhouse gas emissions (Ruddiman). Although researchers agree on this topic, my research will connect this event with other events that have had larger impacts on climate change.

The Columbian Exchange is a unique event in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. While researchers do not think the event itself was a cause of negative agricultural practices, the spread of crops caused by the exchange pushed us toward intensive agriculture (Shmoop). However, this subject is controversial as some researchers disagree that the Columbian Exchange contributed to global warming. There are differing opinions about the effects of the exchange. Some researchers believe the Columbian Exchange led to intensive agriculture, but the significance of their studies is minimal.

Researchers analyzing this topic argue that the Columbian Exchange caused agriculture to become more intensive as farmers grew crops that were not indigenous to their respective regions. As continental drift occurred, so did the evolution of crops (Richmond). Therefore, the plants traded in the Columbian Exchange required more intensive agriculture in order to meet wanted yields.

Researchers agree that the Industrial Revolution is one of the greatest causes of global warming, although only some relate this to greenhouse gases emitted from new agricultural practices (Adger and Brown; Grimm; Davidson). However, it is undeniable that the Industrial Revolution caused agriculture to expand into more rural areas as cities grew and caused agriculture to become more intensive in order to support the developed world’s growing population (Davidson). The Industrial Revolution was a step forward for humanity but a destructive force on the environment. The Earth is significantly hotter now than it would have been without the greenhouse gases emitted by the Industrial Revolution (Grimm). The Industrial Revolution’s effect on agriculture led to greenhouse gas emissions just as detrimental as the emissions of the factories being built at the same time.

The most recent shift in agricultural practices was caused by the Green Revolution, an agricultural renovation in the 1940s that incorporated manufactured fertilizers and high-yielding crops into existing agricultural practices (Andrews). Because this revolution is more recent, researchers have more data on how this event has begun to impact global warming than any other agricultural revolution. Without the increased yield of crops caused by the Green Revolution, the greenhouse gases that would have entered the planet’s atmosphere “would have been equal to as much as one third of the world’s total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution” (Hill). While this shows that the Green Revolution has reduced emission levels, this does not negate the intensive agriculture practices it caused. These practices include the use of fertilizers and pesticides that emit greenhouse gasses.

Agriculture has undergone many changes since the Neolithic Revolution as a result of technological advances, although some of these advances may be costly down the road. The Neolithic Revolution brought about the widespread practice of agriculture, the Columbian Exchange facilitated the spread of nonindigenous crops to many regions around the world, the Industrial Revolution led to agricultural expansion into forests, and the Green Revolution increased the amount of fertilizers and reduced crop diversity. All these events contributed to global warming. Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas emissions is an indirect result of revolutions that brought about positive change for humans but negative change for the environment.

The Neolithic Revolution

The history of agriculture begins with the Neolithic Revolution, an event that occurred around 12,000 years ago but is still having lasting impacts. The warming of the Earth in this post-Ice Age period allowed humans to stay in one place where crops were planted and animals were domesticated (Gascoigne). Although the Neolithic Revolution allowed populations to flourish and cities to develop, it can also be held accountable for the beginning of poor agricultural practices.

The Neolithic Revolution was sparked by climate change. The earth warmed up; as a result, plants were more abundant and animals migrated to colder regions. Some humans began cultivating the surplus of crops, while others continued the practice of hunting and gathering. Jericho is the first known region where crop cultivation occurred, and it is also the first known town, with a population of 2,000 people (Gascoigne). While the adoption of crop cultivation helped civilizations like Jericho develop and increase their populations, there is a negative side to crop cultivation. The change in land use from forests to farmland released carbon into the atmosphere. Because trees absorb carbon, tearing them down causes their stored carbon to be released into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, this carbon can undergo a chemical reaction and become carbon dioxide (Adger and Brown). Jericho is one example of how agricultural practices led to increased populations, further contributing to global warming through deforestation.

Another type of agricultural change caused by the Neolithic Revolution was the domestication of livestock, which allowed humans to become less nomadic. Villages and towns were able to develop and survive off of nearby resources. However, the domestication of livestock caused resources to go to animals instead of humans, meaning more crops had to be produced (Foley et al.). Another negative result of livestock is the amount of manure produced, which contains large amounts of methane. While carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide levels were not severely influenced by the Neolithic Revolution, they have experienced increases in the past 8,000 years that have caused the Earth to be warmer than it would have been without anthropogenic influences (Ruddiman). This revolution marks the beginning of a rise in anthropogenic gases and also created the groundwork for future agricultural practices that have had greater impacts on global warming.

The Columbian Exchange

Most of the world’s crop diversity is a result of evolution and the Columbian Exchange. To fully understand the evolution of agriculture, it is necessary to look back at a pre-agriculture environment. Approximately 200-270 million years ago, the same species of certain plants and animals were present on multiple continents. An example of this is Glossopteris, a tropical forest fern that has been found fossilized in South America, Africa, India, and Australia (Richmond). However, today there is no plant like Glossopteris; there are no single plant species that inhabit multiple regions of the world. Some plants may be closely related, but none are the exact same species (Akioyamen). Species that are present on multiple continents were indigenous to one area and then transported around the world by humans.

Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution are most commonly used to explain the diversity of animals and other active creatures. However, Darwin’s theories can also be used to analyze the idea that crops have adapted and evolved to be successful in their environments. This idea is supported by the plant Brassica oleracea. By selecting for certain traits like leaf size and amount of flower development, this plant has been used to create broccoli, cabbage, kale, and cauliflower (Courteau). This can be applied to the wide variety of crops present today. At some point in time, there may have been similar crops like Glossopteris on multiple continents, but the differing environments after the split of Pangaea most likely selected different traits for each plant so that, after many generations, the plants became unique species distinct from similar crops in other regions of the world (Darwin).

When Columbus arrived to the “New World” in 1492 there were new exotic crops that had very small resemblance to the plants grown in the “Old World.” Therefore, it follows that the crops present in the “New World” and “Old World” were the best suited for their environments and should have been cultivated there, and only there (Foley et al.). While it may be argued that some crops are able to produce higher yields in nonindigenous areas, it is important to consider the technology available in different regions of the world. For example, developed countries have more access to fertilizers and large plows than developing countries. Therefore, developed countries are able to produce higher yields, but at a greater environmental cost.

Expanding different crops to more regions of the world has caused intensification to become necessary to keep yields high. Because the Columbian Exchange was responsible for spreading crops to regions where they were not as successful, agriculture expanded to produce the needed yields and caused increased deforestation. Therefore, the Columbian Exchange increased emissions of carbon dioxide. While the Columbian Exchange has been identified as an extremely important event in facilitating trade between two worlds, recent research regarding intensification and expansion of agriculture supports the claim that, in some ways, the Columbian Exchange caused the use of land practices that have contributed to global warming.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in 1750 and spread to the entire US in the 1860s. This introduced new agricultural technology, including more efficient plows and devices that allowed more seeds to be planted at one time. The time saved on preparation allowed larger amounts of crops to be planted at one time. The development of meat processing factories that occurred after the Industrial Revolution caused livestock production to increase. Both crop and meat production led to the expansion and intensification of agriculture. As the population increased, urban sprawl also occurred and more areas were deforested to make room for croplands and living spaces. All of these events caused methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide levels to increase.

The Industrial Revolutions of Britain and the United States are known for increasing carbon dioxide emissions; however, it is possible that they led to the emission of other greenhouse gases through expansion and intensification of agriculture. The Industrial Revolution caused cities to expand and populations to increase. As a result, agriculture was moved further from cities and spread into more rural areas. During the Industrial Revolution the population reached 1 billion people, making more intensive agricultural practices necessary (McLamb). From 1960 to 1999 methane concentrations grew six times faster than during any other 40 year span. This was a result of human influences including emissions from natural gases and livestock production (“Greenhouse Gas Sources”). Following the Industrial Revolution, there was also an increase in nitrous oxide as agriculture was adapted to meet population needs, although the increase was not as great as the change in methane emissions. The use of nitrogen-based fertilizers and the cultivation of soils in tropical regions have been the primary contributors to nitrous oxide emissions (Davidson). However, without these practices food production would not be as efficient and more people would go hungry.

The Green Revolution

While the Green Revolution is known for increasing crop yields in developing regions where populations were growing faster than food production, the Green Revolution is also responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. During the time of the Green Revolution, India was close to a major famine, but a modified type of rice allowed more food to be produced with less land. So how can something so beneficial be so detrimental? The real debate on this topic is whether the impact of greenhouse gases is greater now, after the Green Revolution, or if it would have been worse without the Green Revolution, if we had just maintained post-industrial land use practices.

The Green Revolution transformed agricultural practices by making them more intensive, thereby reducing the amount of land needed. However, the amount of gases being produced by intensive agricultural practices is still dangerous to the environment without the expansion of agriculture (Hill). Although decreasing the rate of deforestation is beneficial because it reduces carbon emissions, decreasing deforestation will not succeed long-term because the world population continues to grow. Even after the implementation of “green” practices which reduced deforestation, carbon dioxide has experienced a seasonal rise of 15% over the past five decades (Andrews). This can be attributed to the larger seasonal range in crop growth that was caused by the Green Revolution. With modified crops, farmers are able to produce crops for a longer period of time, meaning crops release more and absorb less carbon dioxide (Andrews).

If the Green Revolution had not occurred and the agricultural processes of the industrial age had continued, the emission of greenhouse gases would not have undergone severe fluctuation. The combination of agricultural practices and deforestation during the Industrial Revolution would have released slightly more greenhouse gases than the intensive agriculture of the Green Revolution. Even with this information, it is difficult to determine which agricultural practices are better. The use of modified crops and fertilizers is harmful to the environment, but for many developing countries, these practices are the only way to feed their nations. Developing new techniques that maintain the current level of crop production will be the only way to transition away from the harmful practices of the Green Revolution.

While agriculture’s impact on the environment cannot be completely prevented, researchers have proposed practices that would reduce the impact. Some of the most promising solutions are reducing waste by shifting diets and increasing agricultural resource efficiency (Foley et al.). The solutions differ between developed and developing countries because agricultural practices are dependent on the amount of technology. Different countries contribute different concentrations of each greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

Because raising livestock contributes more harmful gases than producing crops, reducing the amount of meat-based diets would lessen the emission of greenhouse gases from agriculture and land use practices. Another solution that primarily targets developing countries is increasing resource efficiency or implementing more sustainable agricultural practices. Since fertilizers are responsible for polluting water and emitting nitrous oxide, using them more efficiently would reduce their impact (Foley et al.). There are many solutions for reducing agriculture’s emission levels, but they will only be effective when countries enforce new policies.

While these ideas seem feasible, many countries are unsuccessful in implementing policies because they are not sure if the benefits will outweigh the loss in food production. Foley et al. negates that argument by saying more people would be fed if less resources went to livestock. Because livestock must also be fed, large amounts of agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for cows, pigs, chickens, and other mass-produced animals. Redirecting this food to humans could counteract the decrease in calorie consumption caused by eliminating meat from one’s diet. Researchers agree that implementing policies to reduce emissions will be worth it in the future, but the short-term impacts turn many diplomats away from reform.

While the lasting effects of global warming are not fully understood, the causes are widely accepted to be the emission of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have always been present in Earth’s current atmosphere; however, the concentration levels have undergone severe fluctuation. The advantages brought by the Neolithic Revolution, Columbian Exchange, Industrial Revolution, and Green Revolution must be weighed against their contributions to greenhouse gases.

The domestication, diversification, spread, and intensification of crops all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most successful, change-inducing events in human history are indirect causes of global warming. Is it possible to develop agricultural practices into something more environmentally friendly? Perhaps the cavemen of the Pliocene Epoch in the Tertiary Period (5 to 1.8 million years ago) were more aware of their impact on their surroundings than we are today. Our collective lack of empathy for the environment may lead to the end of our time on Earth. Of course, this apocalypse will not be experienced by our generation, or even our grandchildren. But one day, our descendants will face the consequences of our neglect. The earth is always changing, and we have only begun to understand it. Too often environmental scientists look at future emissions and the ways in which global warming has increased within the last decade. Maybe it is time to look deeper in the past. How have events only mentioned in textbooks influenced lifestyles today? Are we really better off than the hunters and gatherers of the pre-Neolithic age? At what point will our knowledge and technology become too great for our own good? We may never know, but our great-great grandchildren will surely face the impacts of the path we have chosen.

*Photo courtesy of Jane Boles: https://www.flickr.com/photos/janeboles/3895515737

Adger, W. Neil, and Brown, Katrina. Land Use and the Causes of Global Warming. United Kingdom: Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1995. Print.

Akioyamen, Sele. “Artificial Selection: Survival of the Fittest.” Things Should Be Made as Simple as Possible. Things Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, 31 Jan. 2010. Web 01 Apr. 2015.

Andrews, Candice G. “When Going Green Isn’t Good.” Good Nature Travel. Natural Habitat Adventures, 16 Dec. 2014. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.

Courteau, Jacqueline. “Brassica Oleracea.” Brief Summary from Jacqueline Courteau. Encyclopedia of Life, 6 July 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Davidson, Eric. “The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860.” Nature Geoscience 2 (2009): 659-662. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Intensive Agriculture.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, 03 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Foley, Johnathan, et al. “Solutions for a cultivated planet.” Nature 478 (2011): 337-342. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

Gascoigne, Bamber. “Hunters-gatherers to Farmers.” History World, 2001. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

“Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks.” Sources and Sinks – American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society, (2015). Web. 02 Mar. 2015

Hill, Joshua S. “Unexpected Impact of Green Revolution on Climate Change.” PlanetSave. PlanetSave, 14 June 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

McLamb, Eric. “Impact of the Industrial Revolution.” Ecology Global Network. Ecology Global Network, 18 Sept. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2015.

“Plant Evolution.” Wyrdscience. WordPress, 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Rosenberg, Matt. “Geography of Agriculture.” About Education. About.com, (2015). Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Richmond, Elliot. “Continental Drift.” Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research, (2002). Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Ruddiman, William F. “How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?” Scientific American. Scientific American, (2005). Web. Feb. 2015.

Emma Layman

Environmental Studies and Hispanic Studies

Tags: agriculture climate global warming history

Recent Posts

• Next story  Competitive Youth Sports and the Rise of Overuse, Burnout, and Career-Ending Injury
• Previous story  Mind Games: Exploring and Analyzing the Mind of an Athlete

The Mental Health Gap: Addressing Racial Disparities in Mental Health Care at Predominantly White Universities

A color-tural experience: the role of color in the emperor’s new ​​groove, malaria: difficulties contributing to eradication efforts within central africa, navigating navigation: assessing the relationship between airline elasticities and price setting, milk to mylk: the growing popularity of plant-based milk alternatives.

art athletics biology climate college community culture disease economics education elections food football gaming gender genetics health history HIV law literature media medicine music North Carolina nutrition philosophy poetry policy politics psychology public health regulation religion rhetoric sex sexuality social society sports statistics students technology urban violence

Similarities between Agriculture and Industrial Revolution

This essay about the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions explores their profound impacts on human history. Highlighting their similarities, it examines how both revolutions transformed economies, altered societal structures, and shifted labor dynamics. These periods also spurred demographic changes and technological advancements, fundamentally reshaping human civilization. The essay illuminates the parallel developments in these epochs, emphasizing their roles in driving the evolution of societies and economies through innovation and adaptation.

How it works

In the intricate mosaic of human history, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions stand out as particularly resonant and intriguing chapters. Although these revolutions are separated by significant spans of time, they exhibit striking similarities that highlight the complex interplay of human progress. Both revolutions transformed economies and fundamentally altered societal structures, providing a fascinating perspective from which to examine the evolution of human civilization.

At their core, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions represent monumental shifts in how humans interact with and exploit their environments for growth and survival.

The Agricultural Revolution, beginning around 10,000 BCE, marked the shift from nomadic life to settled agricultural societies through the domestication of plants and animals. This change allowed communities to produce food surpluses, leading to the establishment of permanent settlements and complex social hierarchies. In a similar vein, the Industrial Revolution, which started in the late 18th century, signaled the onset of mechanization and mass production, transforming labor and ushering in the modern industrial age with innovations like steam power.

A key parallel between these eras is their impact on labor dynamics. The Agricultural Revolution introduced specialized roles within communities, such as artisans and traders, essential for the growth of civilizations. The Industrial Revolution created the factory system and transformed workers into a proletariat, pulling them into new urban centers for industrial work. Both revolutions drastically altered labor relations, moving from feudal systems to capitalist economies based on wage labor.

Both revolutions also significantly influenced demographic trends and population dynamics. The Agricultural Revolution’s surplus production led to increased population growth by improving food security and supporting larger settled communities. This set the stage for more complex societal developments, including urbanization and job specialization. Similarly, the Industrial Revolution fueled a demographic explosion due to advancements in healthcare and sanitation, which improved life expectancy and reduced mortality rates. This resulted in a massive migration from rural areas to cities, transforming urban environments and social structures.

Additionally, these periods initiated major shifts in societal hierarchies and power dynamics. The Agricultural Revolution established hierarchical structures with centralized power and social stratification, where control over land and resources determined wealth and influence, leading to the emergence of monarchies and caste systems. Conversely, the Industrial Revolution concentrated economic power in the hands of a few industrialists who grew wealthy from labor exploitation, sparking social movements that demanded political reforms and workers’ rights.

Both revolutions were also catalysts for technological and scientific advancements. The Agricultural Revolution brought innovations like irrigation, crop rotation, and metallurgy, which significantly boosted agricultural efficiency. The Industrial Revolution introduced critical technologies such as steam engines, textile machinery, and railways, transforming production, transportation, and communication, and setting the stage for ongoing scientific and technological progress.

In summary, despite their temporal distance and different catalysts, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions share numerous similarities that highlight the interconnected nature of human history. These revolutions not only reshaped labor, demographics, and societal structures but also drove technological and scientific breakthroughs, leaving a lasting impact on human societies and economies. Understanding these parallels provides valuable insights into human development and the continuous drive for innovation and improvement.

Cite this page

Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/

"Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/ [Accessed: 26 Apr. 2024]

"Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 26, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/

"Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/. [Accessed: 26-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Similarities Between Agriculture And Industrial Revolution . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/similarities-between-agriculture-and-industrial-revolution/ [Accessed: 26-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Agricultural Revolution Essay

Agriculture

Agriculture (accommodation geography) is the second leading sector of material production. It includes crops and animal breeding. In the world about 1,1 billion people work at this field.

Agricultural revolution

Agricultural revolution is a term used in science to determine the period of changes in agricultural production.

The transition from gathering and hunting to agriculture started in the moment when people started to sow the seeds in the mountainous areas around Mesopotamia. It happened about 10 thousands years ago during the New Stone Age. The agricultural revolution was in fact technological revolution, due to which people became civilized.

Agricultural revolution was an epoch-making event outside the normal technological development. She gave birth to almost all of the factors necessary for the further development of mankind. Development of the tools from stone to iron through bronze or informational development from writing to electronic memory devices through paper and printing – all this is nothing comparing with the agricultural revolution. Of course, tools and informational progress are compatible with the agricultural revolution. But it should be mentioned that the value of the agricultural revolution will be underestimated if it is considered at the same level as development of the tools and various means of information.

The agricultural revolution, as well as the industrial revolution, provoked significant socioeconomic changes during the human history . These two revolutions can be correlated with the development of tools and information, but the first one produced a much greater effect. It is well seen when we study the features of three stages of history: the era of hunting and gathering, agricultural era and the industrial age.

The most essential feature of the agricultural revolution was artificial circulation mechanisms to produce the basic needs items. These mechanisms allowed people not only to consume agricultural products, but also to keep a great amount of seeds for future production. So the emergence of agriculture can be regarded as the emergence of a new type of work implying periodicity, due to which people have made an irreversible leap from the animal status. The agricultural revolution improved the language, art, moral values. It also caused more systematical use of fire, tools, agricultural experience, and food distribution.

Languages and tools were available even in the Old Stone Age, but the agricultural revolution raised them to a new level of quality, from which people began their long way of their own culture creation. The agricultural revolution required deep understanding of life processes and growth, and it was possible only through the accumulation of past experience. When people got language, they became creatures that differ from animals absolutely dependent on natural environment. And, finally, the agricultural revolution established human subjectivity.

With the help of the agricultural revolution people got everything they needed to become cultural creatures. Breeding crops required various knowledge of astronomy and astrology that leaded to the birth of the primitive mathematics. Like the instruments of labor, the most essential feature of the human language was its frequency. The agricultural revolution caused much success on the way of the language development allowing people to reach cultural level. This frequency did not have that much value in the period of hunting and gathering.

Some people claim that the Neolithic stone tools provoked the agricultural revolution. However, the agricultural revolution could happen without stone tools; the fact that some areas remained on the stage of hunting and gathering even when they got the iron tools proved it. Considering Neolithic tools as a background for the agricultural revolution, we come too close to the historical point of view, based on tools development that is superficial interpretation of human history, supported by archeological evidence of Stone Age.

The appearing of the language facilitated the development of communication means: writing. paper and printing methods. However, the development of communication means had less importance than the emergence of language. Ivan Pavlov (1849 – 1936) used to say that language was the second signal system. Due to this second signal system people were separated from nature. Although, the communication means development has played an important role in human history, the language initiated this development.

The agricultural and industrial revolution

With the change in cooking technology a man moved from appropriating economy to producing. It was the beginning of human separation from nature. The use of the gifts of nature later turned into legalized looting.

The first centers of agriculture emerged in the following areas of the globe: in the Middle East, Egypt, India and China. The agricultural revolution was a turning point in human evolution. Now human needed only 1 hectare of land (not 500 hectare as human gatherer needed), and he became able to feed not only himself, but also his family. The agriculture required to create new tools, methods of products processing, utensils for storage of crops and seeds. It made the man settled. And, as a result, the division of labor, exchange of products of labor and trade appeared. The places for change became the prototypes of the cities. There were special men who were responsible for the rules of change, settlement of the disputes, producer’s protection; they were officials and soldiers, i.e. the authority. In such a way the civilization was forming, and along with it human attitude to nature was changing as well. The man gradually began to think that he was the master of nature. The rate of agricultural technologies spread gradually grew. In the first millennium, these technologies occupied Europe and Asia, and after the Great Geographical Discoveries, which began with the discoveries of new continents by the Europeans, the technologies spread all over the world. Since the 16th century people began to write treatises on agriculture, develop ways of fertilizers and soil reclamation, later agricultural equipment on the horse drawn were created. There was an active change of cultural plants between the continents: in Europe and Asia potatoes, tomatoes, corn from America became widespread, in the countries of America – wheat, oats, barley and so on.

The discovering of new areas by the Europeans provoked the progress of science and technology. The first steam engine was invented. The man began to use fossil fuels, coal, to produce energy. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution is considered to be 1830 – the time when the building of the first railway network in Great Britain was finished. The world gradually turned to the industrial production. Mass production of products with the participation of a large number of people developed in large enterprises. If the agricultural technology needed several thousand years to spread all over the world, the industrial technology made it in 150 years only. There are almost no countries in the world that do not have factories and power plants, where no railways or highways, and especially there are no countries where the army and police is not equipped with modern firearms.

Today world is in the era of information technology development that became global in only 20 years. There is a destruction of the wild flora and fauna in the field of agricultural development, but the man partially replaces them with cultural plants and pets. In the areas of industry development wild nature is destroyed, and roads, aerodromes etc. are built.

Truly grand human activity, conquest of the entire land surface, bowels of the Earth and World Ocean, and eventually penetration into space provoked human belief in unlimited possibilities of the science and technology, in human ability to solve any problem. As a result, the gods were sent to the heaven for good and all, and on the land their place was taken by other god – science and technology.

I hope this agriculture essay is just what you need. If you need something else, visit our website then! It is one of the best essay writing services on Internet, where highly qualified team of professional writers is always ready to give you a hand!

Our dear customers! We are happy to introduce our new design. We tried our best to make it as user-friendly and comfortable to use as possible! If you have any comments or ideas, we would be delighted to hear them! Thank you in advance.