Jared Dimond's thesis, that the way civiliations advanced, base simply on geographical luck does seem a bit to straight forward, seams like there has to be something more. but when you look at the facts, it is a pretty well based assumption. the Afro-Eurasian land mass is very suitable for life, animals plants ans humans alike. the first civilisations sprung up in Mesopotamia and since the land was on almost the same latitude line, the conditions for the plants and animals were almost the same where ever they went. This luck, when thought through, can explain for why the people in the mesopatamin region at the time farming began to spread were in fact put in a better place. with that first step they were able to get a head and shoulders above the rest of the world, and eventually when adavnced enough to decome the dominant race.

1.Do the Advantages of farming outweigh the Disadvantages of farming.

Yes, the advantagesd do out weigh the negatives of agriculture. Sure it is possible for hunter-gathers to collect food faster than a farmer can tend to his farm. However, the Hunter-Gather life stile can onlys uport that muhc people. As civilazations advance, and localize people become profetionals in a certain thing. Farmers, instead of spending less time and feed a small comunity, spend all their time farming, but now can support the other parts of thier civilazatoins. In this way they are being a citzen, having order to their sociotyl. All in all for a small group the Hunter-Gatherer works well, but if you want to advance your community , agriculture is need to feed a vast number of people. If its any proff all major ancient, and present for that mater, suck as the Romans, Greeks, Hebrews they al used agriculture, and in their respective times and areas, they stoped out competition.