NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

Inner-Outer Circle Discussion Questions

1) What group conquered the Egyptians and establish themselves as pharaohs temporarily by using the advantage of having horses? The Hyksos.

2) What is one of the benefits that came with domesticating animals? They provided people with milk and meat.

3) How were hunter/gatherers able to get enough food without farming? First, hunter/gatherers did exactly what their title says: they hunted animals and gathered foods such as berries and nuts. The other way hunter/gatherers got enough food was by trading with civilizations. Since they were able to move from place to place, they obtained tools or other equipment/technology from one civilization, brought it to another, and traded it for food.

4) How did food surplus lead to advanced civilizations? Once there was food surplus there was time to think of other things and come up with new ideas because, basically,since there was already food, people had the opportunity to create/uptake new jobs (metallurgist, artist, etc.). These workers then worked together efficiently to create towns with architectural structures and a diversity of jobs. This also gave them the opportunity to establish leaders for the society; hence political structure began forming among civilizations. These political entities are essentially the backbones of governmental leadership today. With the formation of governmental leaders, religion came into play. Those who were deemed in closest relation with the Gods were put at the top of the governmental structure. The leader was treated with utmost respect and was generally said to have immediate passage into heaven/utopia of afterlife. Social hierarchies were implemented after religion. The king, of course, was at the top, with the kings assistants next, and then the army, working class, and vagrants. The classification I provide is a bit more specific than some of the hierarchies, such as that of Mesopotamia, which only had an upper, middle, and lower class. After this technological advancements came. Stronger tools, more efficient plows, and, in the case of the Indus, even plumbing was created. There were, of course, many more technological advancements than these three, but the point is that with the extra time that came from a well-functioning society, individuals, groups, or even entire civilizations were able

NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

to implement new technology or advancements to existing technology, and use these in order for the civilization to run even more efficiently.

5) What if horses were never domesticated? If horses were never domesticated, then it s very possible that tanks, cars, or tractors wouldn t be existent today. Horses were the animals that revolutionized warfare, travel, and farming efficiency. Let s look at warfare first: horses allowed armies to fight against others more efficiently because they allowed for more power and speed within battle. Eventually, horse drawn chariots were created, which can easily be traced to tanks today. The chariots not only provided protection, but they also increased attacking efficiency in that people had more control over what they were doing (shooting arrows, throwing spears, etc.). Tanks today fulfill this same basic concept: they provide protection and allow increased battle speed and efficiency. If the idea of horse use within warfare was never initiated, then tanks may have been non-existent today, and armies would be fighting solely with their feet, guns, and bulletproof jackets with no large amounts of damage occurring. Next, look at travel: horses provided ten times faster travel than feet. They efficiently took man from one place to another, carried supplies on their backs, and required some sort of energy (generally grass or hay) to do it all. This is clearly traced to cars today: they take man from one place to another efficiently and quickly, they have the ability to take objects, equipment, etc. with them, and they require some form of energy (gasoline/petroleum) to run. It s highly probable that we d all still be trying to get everywhere solely on our feet if it wasn t for the domestication of horses. Finally, look at farming: horses allowed man grow crops in a much more efficient manner. Not only were they able to pull plows around, but they even give the land natural fertilizer. Tractors today do the very same thing, they plow land and distribute fertilizer. It s possible that without horses, farmers would never be able to grow the amount of crops they can today because they d still be using their hands and feet to plow the land and distribute fertilizer.

NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

6) Was settling and creating a society based on farming a good idea in terms of minimizing suffering? There are two ways to evaluate this: The benefits/detriments of being a nomadic group and the benefits/detriments of being a sedentary society (all from a generalized standpoint). The end results will be weighed against each other in order to find which style of living consists of less suffering. In a nomadic society, life was tough. Food would often be hard to come across, due to the fact that there weren t many things that grew naturally in abundance that were edible. Animals weren t very easy to kill either, because many were dangerous or too quick. Large animals, such as bears, were especially a threat due to the fact that they could kill very easily, and also steal food with little trouble. Food surplus was essentially impossible to achieve because they always moved from place to place with no assigned protection for any food that may be in abundance. It is for this reason that hunger was persistent among nomads. The winters were spent with clothing that most likely wasn t enough to keep one warm, and many nomads died from hypothermia as a result. The summers were long and hot, without many materials to keep cool, thus heat stroke was also common. The child mortality rate was higher among nomadic society due to the fact that there often wasn t enough food to keep children healthy; hence the population of these societies was never very large. Another reason for a small population is the fact that they only had children during four year gaps because the women couldn t keep track of multiple children while moving from place to place. Sedentary societies, on the other hand, didn t face many of these problems. They had food surplus due to the fact that they could store food because they didn t move around, and were able to keep themselves fed, so hunger wasn t a problem. They had the ability to create clothes that could keep them warm during the winters, and they were able to use the water source that they settled near to keep cool during the summers. The population within these societies was large since they were able to have children freely (but still normally only every two years) because they didn t need to worry about moving them from one place to another. They were also able to keep the children healthy because they had enough food to feed them. Another perk of living within a sedentary society was the fact that they had the time to develop tools and use metallurgy, which made their lives easier. They were also able to have a range of workers which diversified their communities so they were able to function more efficiently. Living within a sedentary society wasn t all great, though. Technological advancement was difficult because they were not able to go to other societies and advance what they had and share ideas. The sanitation was the major problem, with one reason being domesticated animals. The people that lived with these animals basically lived in their waste, which is rather disgusting and disturbing. Another reason was the fact that they lived in a confined area, which led to much more interaction between people, which led to major spreading of diseases. The

NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

fact that these people defecated openly also contributed to lack of sanitation, because, as can be seen from the modern example of India, this leads to further spreading of diseases or development of fungus. Basically, those within a sedentary society lived within filth. All of these factors contributed to an increased death rate within said societies. The nomads didn t face these problems. They were able to travel from place to place, hence they too had the ability of technological advancement, except their way pertained obtaining technology from different civilizations, and hence they technically had a greater ability to advance in technology. They then had the advantage of trading their newly obtained technology to different civilizations in exchange for food. They also didn t have many diseases from lack of sanitation, because they didn t stick around in a single area for too long. They also had the benefit when it came to war: They were not only more experienced in killing than the civilizations, but they also had the ability to run away when threatened, a perk that sedentary societies did not have. Now the question comes into play: which way of living caused less, or minimized, suffering? Suffering can be evaluated by connection to death: so basically, which way caused less death? This can t truly be evaluated, and it must be concluded that they each had similar amounts of death: nomads from hunger, and civilizations from lack of sanitation. The question must now be taken a step further: which form of death caused less suffering? Hunger is, of course, one of the most awful and excruciating ways to die. It is prolonged and painful, and it causes emotional suffering as well as physical. Death due to disease or sickness from lack of sanitation, however, isn t as bad. It has the potential of sometimes being as bad, but diseases generally don t take too long to cause death, and if they do take long, then the disease would be considered prolonged but painless until towards the end. Therefore, the way of living that causes a smaller amount of human suffering is that of sedentary agriculture, or the civilized way.

7) What was the main reason Europeans were able to conquer so many areas? The Europeans had the advantage of germs, because diseases and infections such as small pox, measles, and flu literally lived on them. When the Europeans went to the Americas, Africa, Pacific Islands, and Australia they spread these diseases to other groups that lived on those islands. The Europeans initially obtained the infections and diseases from the relatives of the germs that came from the animals they domesticated. Living with these animals caused the Europeans to get these germs, primarily from the filth that those animals created. At first, much of the population began dying out, but eventually the Europeans evolved and became immune to the bacteria that came from said animals.

NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

When the Europeans went to other areas in an effort to conquer them, they had the upper hand because they spread the diseases and infections they had grown immune to to the foreigners. This caused the foreigners to grow weak and not have the necessary man-power to retaliate, and thus the Europeans conquered them.

8) What detriments came with domesticating animals? The detriment that resulted from the domestication of animals is simple: disease. Humans living with animals was very unsanitary because the animals left their waste everywhere, made everything dirty, and in turn made the humans dirty as well. The animals had bacteria that caused diseases and infections such as the flu, measles, and small pox. The humans easily caught these bacteria due to the fact that they were living with said animals, in all their disgusting glory. These diseases and infections caused massive death rates among human populations within civilizations. The humans that obtained these bacteria eventually grew immune to it, but when they traveled to other areas, the people there inherited these bacteria, and the sick cycle started all over again, until finally, people were typically able to resist the effects of these bacteria all over the world.

9) What benefit did Eurasia have that allowed it to be successful? The benefit that Eurasia had was geography, because the area of Eurasia was filled with good soil, and terrains that supported all kinds of animals, which were definitely in abundance. Because there was such good soil, growing crops was rather easy. Also, the abundance of animals made hunting them for meat or domesticating them simple. The result of this was food surplus. Food surplus then led to Eurasia having advanced civilizations that were able to manipulate their surroundings in order to advance on several levels, due to the fact that food surplus allowed a wider variety of jobs and creativity for technology. The Eurasians then went on to conquer many parts of the world using their technological advancements, ideas, and intellect. They trumped almost all other civilizations because other civilizations didn t have technology or ideas as advanced and efficient as those of the Eurasians.

NikunjSoni September 7, 2010 Fitz period 7

10) What happened to the Indus? They left their cities because they got conquered. While it s known that the Indus were quite advanced in technology, there is no saying whether or not they had any sort of an army, or an form of power whatsoever. It has been established that the Indus civilization was most likely egalitarian, so there wasn t a king. Without an exact leader to command, chances are that the army (if they even had one) of the Indus was a weak one that didn t have much coordination or strength. It s possible that a stronger civilization, or maybe a group of nomads, came to the Indus and conquered them, and then forced them out of their cities. They were then most likely taken to a civilization as slaves and traded for something, maybe food. This explains why the Indus would just randomly leave everything behind and not leave many clues of where they went.