According to theories of evolution, our ancestors they abandoned the search for food, and instead of being collector beings, they took the evolutionary step of being agricultural beings, who cultivated the land to obtain resources. It is true that this evolutionary departure is one of the thorny issues of the theory, as is the faculty of speech. This issue has been debated and discussed countless times.
A new study by Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, argues that early agriculture was no more productive than foraging, but people took it for social and demographic reasons. This makes us think that it is still something more illogical this evolutionary leap, because our ancestors began to obtain less food. What they may have noticed is the fact that it was a safer way to obtain such foods.
In past issues of the science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bowles discussed what it would take to begin producing food grown in primitive conditions. At the same time, he concluded that agriculture was only capable of producing about three-fifths of the food that could be acquired by looking for food.
This determines us that the fact that our ancestors decided to settle down and start growing food, was not having discovered agriculture, but the fact that it was a more comfortable way to support the family. Seeing that food could be stolen or looted, these communities joined forces in defense of other communitiesTherefore, here the concept of an army begins to be devised in favor of caring for a common good.
From what we have seen they were rather social and demographic factors those that led people to settle in their places to achieve a better quality of life, although in return they had to go a little hungry. It is true that a priori, the decision that our ancestors made does not seem very logical, but thanks to that today we have our agriculture system that has been perfected over the centuries.