Why was agriculture revolutionary?

Agriculture's revolutionary impact cannot be overstated — it transformed every dimension of human existence. Before farming, all humans lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers in small bands. After farming, entirely new forms of social organization became possible.

The most immediate effect was demographic. Farming could support 10 to 100 times more people per square mile than foraging. Populations exploded wherever agriculture took hold. This demographic advantage meant that farming populations inevitably expanded at the expense of foraging neighbors — not necessarily through violence, but through sheer numbers and the appropriation of land for cultivation.

Food surpluses created by agriculture had cascading social effects. For the first time, not everyone needed to be involved in food production. Surplus food could support specialists: potters, weavers, metalworkers, priests, soldiers, and rulers. This division of labor produced technological innovation, artistic achievement, and new forms of social organization — but also new forms of inequality and exploitation.

Permanent settlement — a direct consequence of tending crops that can't be moved — transformed human psychology and social relations. Property became meaningful. Inheritance mattered. Social hierarchies hardened into class systems. The concept of territory, defended by organized violence, became central to human affairs.

Yet the revolution came with significant costs. Early farmers worked longer hours, ate less diverse diets, suffered more infectious diseases (from proximity to animals and dense living), and experienced greater social inequality than their foraging ancestors. Agriculture was revolutionary in its consequences, but it was not an unambiguous improvement in human welfare.