농업의 진화: 영향과 결과

1만 5천 년 동안 인류는 수렵에서 농업으로 전환하면서 세상을 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 변화시켰습니다.

### 농업 혁명: 수렵에서 농업으로의 여정
* 🌾 1만 5천 년 전, 인류는 **수렵과 사냥에서 농업으로 전환**하면서 복잡한 사회와 문명을 창조할 수 있는 발판을 마련했습니다.
* 🍔 존 그린은 더블 치즈버거를 예로 들어 **현대 식품 시스템의 복잡성과 그 의미**를 설명합니다.
* 🏞 수렵인들은 상대적으로 건강하고 여유로운 라이프스타일을 즐겼으며, **일하는 시간을 줄이고 예술과 스토리텔링에 더 많은 시간**을 투자한 것으로 나타났습니다.
* 🌍 농업은 **통제 가능한 식량 공급**을 제공하고, **식량 잉여**를 창출하며, 도시의 성장과 전문화된 노동력을 지원했습니다.
* 🐮 목축업은 수렵과 농업의 대안으로 등장하여 **동물성 제품과 이동성의 이점**을 제공했습니다.
* 🌽 전 세계 사람들이 자립적으로 현지에서 구할 수 있는 작물을 이용한 농업을 채택하면서 **환경과 사회에 큰 변화**를 가져왔습니다.
* 🔄 역사학자들은 농업 혁명의 원인에 대해 **인구 압박부터 더 많은 식량에 대한 욕구**까지 다양한 이론을 제시하며 논쟁을 벌이고 있습니다.
* 🔮 역사를 공부하면 **혁명은 현재 진행형**이라는 사실을 깨닫게 되고, 과거의 결정이 오랫동안 지속되는 영향과 이를 이해하는 것이 중요하다는 점을 강조하게 됩니다.

Hello, learned and astonishingly attractive pupils. My name is John Green, and I want to welcome you to Crash Course World History. Over the next forty weeks together, we will learn how in a mere fifteen thousand years humans went from hunting and gathering... Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Is this gonna be on the test? Yeah, about the test: The test will measure whether you are an informed, engaged, and productive citizen of the world, and it will take place in schools and bars and hospitals and dorm-rooms and in places of worship. You will be tested on first dates; in job interviews; while watching football; and while scrolling through your Twitter feed. The test will judge your ability to think about things other than celebrity marriages; whether you'll be easily persuaded by empty political rhetoric; and whether you'll be able to place your life and your community in a broader context. The test will last your entire life, and it will be comprised of the millions of decisions

that, when taken together, make your life
yours. And everything — everything — will be on it. I know, right? So pay attention. [theme music] In a mere fifteen thousand years, humans went
from hunting and gathering to creating such improbabilities as the airplane, the Internet,
and the ninety-nine cent double cheeseburger. It's an extraordinary journey, one that I
will now symbolize by embarking upon a journey of my own ... over to camera two. Hi there, camera two ... it's me, John Green.
Let's start with that double cheeseburger. Ooh, food photography! So this hot hunk of
meat contains four-hundred and ninety calories. To get this cheeseburger, you have to feed,
raise, and slaughter cows, then grind their meat, then freeze it and ship it to its destination;
you also gotta grow some wheat and then process the living crap out of it until it's whiter
than Queen Elizabeth the First; then you gotta

milk some cows and turn their milk into cheese.
And that's not even to mention the growing and pickling of cucumbers, or the sweetening
of tomatoes, or the grinding of mustard seeds, etc. How in the sweet name of everything holy did
we ever come to live in a world in which such a thing can even be created? And HOW is it
possible that those four-hundred and ninety calories can be served to me for an amount
of money that, if I make the minimum wage here in the U.S., I can earn in ELEVEN MINUTES?
And most importantly: should I be delighted or alarmed to live in this strange world of
relative abundance? Well, to answer that question we're not going
to be able to look strictly at history, because there isn't a written record about a lot of
these things. But thanks to archaeology and paleobiology, we CAN look deep into the past.
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.

So, fifteen thousand years ago, humans were foragers and hunters. Foraging meant gathering fruits, nuts, also wild grains, and grasses; hunting allowed for a more protein-rich diet ... so long as you could find something with meat to kill. By far the best hunting gig in the pre-historic world, incidentally, was fishing, which is one of the reasons that if you look at the history of people populating the planet, we tended to run for the shore and then stay there. Marine life was: A) abundant, and B) relatively unlikely to eat you. While we tend to think that the life of foragers was nasty, brutish, and short, fossil evidence suggests that they actually had it pretty good: their bones and teeth are healthier than those of agriculturalists. And anthropologists who have studied the remaining forager peoples have noted that they actually spend a lot fewer hours working than the rest of us, and they spend more time on art, music, and storytelling. Also, if you believe the classic of anthropology, NISA.

they also have a lot more time for skoodilypooping.
What? I call it skoodilypooping. I'm not gonna apologize. It's worth noting that cultivation of crops
seems to have risen independently over the course of millennia in a number of places... from
Africa to China to the Americas... using crops that naturally grew nearby: rice in
Southeast Asia, maize in Mexico, potatoes in the Andes, wheat in the Fertile Crescent,
yams in West Africa. People around the world began to abandon their foraging for agriculture.
And since so many communities made this choice independently, it must have been a good choice...
right? Even though it meant less music and skoodilypooping. Thanks, Thought Bubble. All right, to answer that question, let's take a look
at the advantages and disadvantages of agriculture. Advantage: Controllable food supply. You might
have droughts or floods, but if you're growing

the crops and breeding them to be hardier,
you have a better chance of not starving. Disadvantage: In order to keep feeding people
as the population grows, you have to radically change the environment of the planet. Advantage: Especially if you grow grain, you
can create a food surplus, which makes cities possible and also the specialization of labor.
Like, in the days before agriculture, EVERYBODY'S job was foraging, and it took about a thousand
calories of work to create a thousand calories of food ... and it was impossible to create
large population centers. But, if you have a surplus, agriculture can
support people not directly involved in the production of food. Like, for instance, tradespeople,
who can devote their lives to better farming equipment, which in turn makes it easier to
produce more food more efficiently, which in time makes it possible for a corporation to turn a
profit on this ninety-nine cent double cheeseburger. Which is delicious, by the way. It's actually
terrible. And it's very cold. And I wish I

had not eaten it. I mean, can we just compare
what I was promised to what I was delivered? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, this is not that. Some would say that large and complex agricultural
communities that can support cities and eventually inexpensive meat sandwiches are not necessarily
beneficial to the planet or even to its human inhabitants. Although that's a bit of a tough
argument to make, coming to you as I am in a series of ones and zeros. ADVANTAGE: Agriculture can be practiced all
over the world, although in some cases it takes extensive manipulation of the environment,
like y'know irrigation, controlled flooding, terracing, that kind of thing. DISADVANTAGE: Farming is hard. So hard in
fact that one is tempted to claim ownership over other humans and then have them till
the land on your behalf, which is the kind of non-ideal social order that tends to be
associated with agricultural communities.

So why did agriculture happen? Wait, I haven't talked about herders. Herders,
man! Always getting the short end of the stick. Herding is a really good and interesting alternative
to foraging and agriculture. You domesticate some animals and then you take them on the
road with you. The advantages of herding are obvious. First, you get to be a cowboy. Also,
animals provide meat and milk, but they also help out with shelter because they can provide
wool and leather. The downside is that you have to move around
a lot because your herd always needs new grass, which makes it hard to build cities, unless
you are the Mongols. [music, horse hooves] By the way, over the next forty weeks you
will frequently hear generalizations, followed by unless you are the Mongols [music, hooves]. But anyway one of the main reasons herding
only caught on in certain parts of the world.

is that there aren't that many animals that
lend themselves to domestication. Like, you have sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, horses, camels,
donkeys, reindeer, water buffalo, yaks, all of which have something in common. They aren't
native to the Americas. The only halfway useful herding animal native to the Americas is the
llama. No, not that Lama, two l's. Yes, that llama. Most animals just don't work for domestication.
Like hippos are large, which means they provide lots of meat, but unfortunately, they like
to eat people. Zebras are too ornery. Grizzlies have wild hearts that can't be broken. Elephants
are awesome, but they take way too long to breed. Which reminds me! It's time for the
Open Letter. Elegant. But first, let's see what the Secret
Compartment has for me today. Oh! It's another

double cheeseburger. Thanks, Secret Compartment.
Just kidding, I don't thank you for this. An Open Letter to elephants. Hey elephants. You're so cute and smart and awesome.
Why you gotta be pregnant for 22 months? That's crazy! And then you only have one kid. If
you were more like cows, you might have taken us over by now. Little did you know, but the greatest
evolutionary advantage: being useful to humans. Like here is a graph of cow population, and
here is a graph of elephant population. Elephants. If you had just inserted yourself into human
life the way cows did, you could have used your power and intelligence to form secret
elephant societies, conspiring against the humans! And then you could have risen up,
and destroyed us, and made an awesome elephant world with elephant cars, and elephant planes! It would have been so great! But noooo. You
gotta be pregnant for 22 months and then have

just one kid. It's so annoying! Best wishes, John Green. Right, but back to the agricultural revolution
and why it occurred. Historians don't know for sure, of course, because there are no
written records. But, they love to make guesses. Maybe population pressure necessitated agriculture,
even though it was more work, or abundance gave people leisure to experiment with domestication,
or planting originated as a fertility rite - or as some historians have argued - people needed
to domesticate grains in order to produce more alcohol. Charles Darwin, like most 19th century scientists,
believed agriculture was an accident, saying, a wild and unusually good variety of native
plant might attract the attention of some wise old savage. Off topic, but you will
note in the coming weeks that the definition of savage tends to be not me. Maybe the best theory is that there wasn't
really an agricultural revolution at all, but that agriculture came out of an evolutionary
desire to eat more. Like early hunter-gatherers.

knew that seeds germinate when planted. And,
when you find something that makes food, you want to do more of it. Unless it's this food.
Then you want to do less of it. I kinda want to spit it out. Eww. Ah, that's much better. So early farmers would find the most accessible
forms of wheat and plant them and experiment with them not because they were trying to
start an agricultural revolution, because they were like, you know what would be awesome:
MORE food! Like on this topic, we have evidence that
more than 13,000 years ago humans in southern Greece were domesticating snails. In the Franchthi
Cave, there's a huge pile of snail shells, most of them are larger than current snails,
suggesting that the people who ate them were selectively breeding them to be bigger and
more nutritious. Snails make excellent domesticated food sources,
by the way because A) surprisingly caloric
B) they're easy to carry since they come with

their own suitcases, and
C) to imprison them, you just have to scratch a ditch around their living quarters. That's not really a revolution, that's just
people trying to increase available calories. But one non-revolution leads to another, and
pretty soon you have this, as far as the eye can see. Many historians also argue that without agriculture,
we wouldn't have all the bad things that come with complex civilizations like patriarchy,
inequality, war, and unfortunately, famine. And, as far as the planet is concerned, agriculture
has been a big loser. Without it, humans never would have changed the environment so much,
building dams, and clearing forests, and more recently, drilling for oil that we can turn
into fertilizer. Many people made the choice for agriculture
independently, but does that mean it was the right choice? Maybe so, and maybe not, but,
regardless, we can't unmake that choice. And that's one of the reasons I think it's so
important to study history.

History reminds us that revolutions are not events so much as they are processes; that for tens of thousands of years people have been making decisions that irrevocably shaped the world that we live in today. Just as today, we are making subtle, irrevocable decisions that people of the future will remember as revolutions. Next week, we're going to journey to the Indus River Valley - whoa - very fragile, our globe, like the real globe. We're going to travel to the Indus River Valley. I'll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself, and our graphics team is Thought Bubble. If you want to guess at the phrase of the week, you can do so in comments. You can also suggest future phrases of the week. And if you have a question about today's video, please

leave it comments where our team of semi-professional
quasi-historians will aim to answer it. Thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown,
Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

The Agricultural Revolution: Crash Course World History #1

At Crash Course, we believe that high-quality educational videos should be available to everyone for free! Subscribe for weekly videos from our current courses! The Crash Course team has produced more than 50 courses on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from the humanities to sciences and so much more! sciences. We also recently teamed up with Arizona State University to bring you more courses on the Study Hall channel.


CrashCourse

믿을 수 없는 인간 발달의 여정

인류는 수렵과 채집에서 불과 1만 5천 년 만에 인터넷과 더블 치즈버거와 같은 현대의 경이로움을 창조하는 데까지 발전했습니다.

진행자는 이러한 풍요와 효율성의 세계가 어떻게 생겨나게 되었는지 의문을 제기하며, 이에 대해 기뻐해야 할지 아니면 경악해야 할지 딜레마를 제기합니다.

이 질문에 대한 답을 찾기 위해서는 고고학과 고생물학을 통해 기록된 역사를 넘어 과거를 깊이 파고들어야 합니다.

1만 5천 년 전에는 수렵과 사냥이 인류의 주요 식량 공급원이었으며, 그중에서도 낚시가 가장 수익성이 높았습니다.

수렵에서 농업으로 전환하면서 식량 공급을 보다 통제할 수 있게 되었고, 식량 잉여를 창출할 수 있게 되면서 더 큰 공동체의 발전과 노동의 전문화가 가능해졌습니다.

농업은 인구 증가와 도시의 부상에 도움이 되었지만 급격한 환경 변화를 요구했고 예술, 음악, "스커딜리포핑"과 같은 여가 활동을 위한 시간이 줄어드는 것을 의미하기도 했습니다.

농업과 목축업이 인류 사회에 미친 영향

농업은 전 세계적으로 실천할 수 있지만 광범위한 환경 조작을 수반하며, 비이상적인 사회 질서와도 연관되어 있습니다.

목축은 육류, 우유, 쉼터를 위한 재료를 제공하지만 동물 선택의 폭이 제한되어 전 세계적으로 채택되는 데 한계가 있었습니다.

아메리카 대륙에서는 동물의 행동과 토착종 등의 요인으로 인해 라마를 제외하고는 목축용 동물의 가축화가 가능하지 않았습니다.

코끼리에게 보내는 공개 서한: 놓친 진화적 기회

코끼리의 긴 임신 기간과 낮은 출산율은 코끼리의 개체 수 증가와 진화적 우위를 제한했습니다.

인간 사회에 적응한 소와 달리 코끼리는 인간에 대항하여 자신들만의 선진 문명을 창조할 기회를 놓쳤습니다.

농업 혁명은 갑작스러운 변화가 아니라 초기 인류가 영양 섭취를 늘리기 위해 달팽이 등 다양한 먹이를 길들인 것에서 볼 수 있듯이 더 많은 식량을 생산하려는 진화적 욕구에 의해 주도된 것일 수 있습니다.

농업으로의 전환은 인구 증가와 복잡한 문명의 부상으로 이어졌습니다.

농업은 종종 가부장제, 불평등, 환경 파괴와 같은 부정적인 결과로 비난받기도 합니다.

농업을 채택하기로 한 결정은 세계를 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 변화시켰으며, 이는 역사 공부의 중요성을 강조합니다.