What cultures today still dont have agriculture and what reasons to they have for not adopting it?

Question

what cultures today still have not adopted agriculture, and why have they chosen not to adopt it?

Answer 1

This is just off the top of my head and not nearly as detailed as your other answers, but I would think people living in the Arctic Circle aren't into agriculture because they depend on the fishing or fur industry.  Besides, it's too cold!

Answer 2

Hi Graham,  that is a pretty interesting question you’ve asked.  

As John H pointed out in recent American history there were some native American tribes that did not have agricultural practices as we know them today.  However, there are cultures today that do not use agriculture practices in the sense that they plant crops and hang around long enough to harvest them.

Generally any culture that subsists on a hunter-gatherer means of food production could be a candidate for what you are asking about.  And there are places in the world like South America, Papua New Guinea, and Borneo that have aboriginal-like tribes (like the Wopkaimin and Penan) that do not practice “agriculture” in the conventional sense.  

However, a more specific example would be the Bedouin tribes of the Middle East.  They are a nomadic people that rely on their animal husbandry techniques (camels, goats) to sustain their needs.  Indeed, the deserts and arid climates where they are usually found have little in the way of water or other resources to sustain what we would consider traditional agricultural practices.

For this particular culture you will find that they have a strong sense pride for their tribes and their way of life.  The reasons why they haven’t adopted another way of life could be simply that they like the way they live.  For example, the Saudi government built entire towns to be given to various tribes to give them a more “civilized” existence and infrastructure.  But those towns remain abandoned in the deserts – a ghostly reminder that a person’s culture and their heritage is not so easily changed if they are allowed free choice in their own destiny.

That is one possible outlook, but another one might be that regardless of the culture there is the simple reality that it takes a long time to transition over to an agricultural society or culture.  It can take generations to find what works best for any given area or set of resources because plants only grow so fast … if you are trying new things and they don’t work out then you generally have to wait until the next growing season to make adjustments.  A mistake can mean that there is the very real potential that a lot of people might not get enough, or anything for that matter, to eat that year.

So if a culture doesn’t have that sort of experience, or they don’t have a local or regional example to work with … then it might be easier to continue to do what they do and not try make that transition.  

Many nomadic and hunter-gather cultures are closer to nature than most agricultural societies.  Farming means changing the land in a very radical way to get what you want out of it.  This is usually at a pretty high cost to local species and local ecological diversity.  Some cultures don’t change because they do not want to destroy the thing that they love most – the forests, nature, or the landscapes that have provided for them for so long.  They would perceive it in the same way that you might react to someone telling you to go chop up your friends and family and use them for fertilizer in a garden.  That may seem a little extreme but some cultures are that close to the environment in which they live … and extremism is in the eye of the beholder.

Good luck with your endeavor.  I hope this was able to provide a few things to consider as you continue your research.  Take a look at the Penan tribe.  An interesting article about how they perceive how agricultural based societies are dealing with them.  The link can be found at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl... .  From their point of view why would they want to emulate the type of society (in this case industrial but still with an agricultural history) that is trying to destroy them?  The article might provide for some additional lines of thought worth noting in your research.

Hope this helps,

Y

Answer 3

Some people think that agriculture is a means of living for some people it is the gift from god and for some people  it is god. The history of agriculture is a very interesting one. If there are no farmers the people in the cities and towns can't eat. Developed independently by geographically distant populations, systematic agriculture first appeared in Southwest Asia in the Fertile Crescent, particularly in modern-day Iraq and Syria/Israel. Around 9500 BC, proto-farmers began to select and cultivate food plants with desired characteristics. Though there is evidence of earlier sporadic use of wild cereals, it was not until after 9500 BC that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax.

By 7000 BC, small-scale agriculture reached Egypt. From 9000 BC the Indian subcontinent saw farming of wheat and barley, as attested by archaeological excavation at Mehrgarh in Balochistan. By 6000 BC, mid-scale farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, with rice, rather than wheat, as the primary crop. Chinese and Indonesian farmers went on to domesticate mung, soy, azuki and taro. To complement these new sources of carbohydrates, highly organized net fishing of rivers, lakes and ocean shores in these areas brought in great volumes of essential protein. Collectively, these new methods of farming and fishing inaugurated a human population boom dwarfing all previous expansions, and is one that continues today.

By 5000 BC, the Sumerians had developed core agricultural techniques including large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, particularly along the waterway now known as the Shatt al-Arab, from its Persian Gulf delta to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. Domestication of wild aurochs and mouflon into cattle and sheep, respectively, ushered in the large-scale use of animals for food/fiber and as beasts of burden. The shepherd joined the farmer as an essential provider for sedentary and semi-nomadic societies.

Maize, manioc, and arrowroot were first domesticated in the Americas as far back as 5200 BC.[1] The potato, tomato, pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, Canna, tobacco and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America.

In later years, the Greeks and Romans built on techniques pioneered by the Sumerians but made few fundamentally new advances. The Greeks and Macedonians struggled with very poor soils, yet managed to become dominant societies for years. The Romans were noted for an emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade.

Answer 4

In the not so distant history some of the American Indian cultures didn't depend on agriculture.  Meat and fish were plentiful and that was their preferred diet.  The encroachment of civilization made the supply of wild game scarce and they were forced to adopt agriculture or starve.  I don't know of any cultures to day that don't use some form of agriculture, but there may be some tribes in the Amazon that depend solely on hunting and gathering wild foods.