# data[].attributes.body
Apple could have included the benefits of eating a variety of foods that came with the hunter gatherer lifestyle. A lot of times agricultural societies subsist mostly on a single crop, which keeps them from getting certain nutrients that are not included in whatever crop it is they eat the most. The Diamond article mentions that hunter gatherers received a good amount of nutrition from the variety of foods they ate.

# data[].attributes.body
PC, you could've argued in Apples last statement that sure they created social classes but yet why did hunters and gatherers still fight over territory and food just to come together to help one another ?(Sniff sniff) . Smells like the making of farmers and agriculturalists to me who helped one another do to trade. If one farmer had what another desired, rich or poor, they would have traded to help society as a whole because maybe another farmer needed what the last farmer had and etc. all this leading up to a thriving survive society.

# data[].attributes.body
PC, you should bring up the fact that because of agriculture, trade was able to come about. You mentioned that farmers could share crops, but trading for crops was another aspect you could have elaborated upon. I think talking about how the surplus food, and eating more ended up resulting in a bigger brain.

# data[].attributes.body
Going off of what "Apple" said on the second time he/she argued when the Paleolitic people migrate to another area they can get more foods when they get more foods they can also discover new foods sources to live off on. Plus, when they migrate it's a good way to move around and get healthy.

# data[].attributes.body
Agriculture also did cause Tobaco and obesity (from eating too much). The things agriculture created was harmful to the human body. Diamond talks about how after agriculture people's heights decreased and people became smaller. Hunter and gathering had a much better view. With hunting and gathering, people had more time to do other things because they aren't tending crops.

# data[].attributes.body
Farmers could possibly trade with others, but with farming came social classes that split people into the rich and the poor. Would richer farmers really be willing to help poor farmers? Screw you, social classes. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Farmers would likely live in an area where other farmers also lived. So if one farmer's crops went bad, there could be another farmer down the road who had a successful harvest. Although not each individual farmers crops had all the vitamins needed, they could trade with other farmers to get crops that contained the missing nutrients. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Some hunter-gatherers may have had to resort to cannibalism, but that still leaves at least a few people to survive so they can look for more food elsewhere and help rebuild the number of people in their band. What about farmers? If all of their crops end up in failure, what do they eat? They would fight amongst themselves too. Or, if their crops did survive, would they really continue to survive? As Diamond writes, farmers' crops were "deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life." If their crops couldn't support farmers with the vitamins they needed, they'd turn against each other too. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Okay, you got me. but one other thing, so what if the hunter-gatherers were short of food, they hadn't eaten in days because they couldn't find anything. Wouldn't they have to fight and/kill each other if it came to starvation? Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Some bands may have had to abandon a few members who couldn't keep up, such as young children, but, as Diamond writes, "...nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals..." That means that mothers would have a child around every 5 years. That gives a lot of time for their previous children to grow up into a strong person, so there's a lesser chance that mothers will have to abandon their kids who can't survive the conditions they're in. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree that diseas cannot catch up with them, but many times they end up killing each other because if there's too many infants, and the mother cannot support them all, they will get killed. Same with the elderly people. If they could not keep up with the band, then they would get left behind to starve. Disease may not have killed them, but they killed each other nonetheless. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
True, but the hunter-gatherers can still move around and as long as they're moving from place to place, disease can't catch up with them, which allows them to keep surviving and moving along to survive. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
True, although the Howells article states, "..the size of the band soon reaches a point at which it presses too hard on the food supply. There will simply not be enough food within their radius of action around the camp, or the band itself will not be able to move fast enough and far enough to tap the resources it needs." Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Although they couldn't conserve food, they could pack up, go migrate, and get more food. Farmers can't pick up all of their stuff and move to a new place. If all of their crops die, they probably die too. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Although agriculture caused those things, it also led to a more reliable food source. People were finally able to have a food supply at their fingertips. Hunter-gatherers had no way to conserve food. If there was a food shortage, they could possibly starve. Done.

# data[].attributes.body
Humans were better off when they hunted and gathered foods. With agriculture came social and sexual inequality and diseases that killed quickly. Done.