It has long been taken for granted that the introduction of agriculture had been an unequivocal progress. This is now questioned in view of findings by archaeologists and paleopathologists showing that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and that their life expectancy may well have been shorter too, in part due to diseases and harder work. Hunter-gatherers must have covered their food needs with about 20 hours work a week, while agriculture required much more and was at least as uncertain. The hunter-gatherers' diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5'10" (178 cm) for men and 5'6" (168 cm) for women to 5'5" (165 cm) and 5'1" (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels.[55] Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.[56]

However, the decrease in individual nutrition was accompanied by an increase in population.

The traditional view is that agricultural food production supported a denser population, which in turn supported larger sedentary communities, the accumulation of goods and tools, and specialization in diverse forms of new labor. The development of larger societies led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization. Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making.[57] Jared Diamond (in The World Until Yesterday) identifies the availability of milk and/or cereal grains as permitting mothers to raise both an older (e.g. 3 or 4 year old) child and a younger child concurrently, whereas this was not possible previously. The result is that a population can significantly more-rapidly increase its size than would otherwise be the case, resources permitting.

Recent analyses point out that agriculture also brought about deep social divisions and in particular encouraged inequality between the sexes.[58]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3281632&forum_id=2#30899319)

on the other hand, "men" in sedentary civilizations were busy sitting at home writing poetry and jerking off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3281632&forum_id=2#32931533)

Dats why they took the shitty agriculture revolution deal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3281632&forum_id=2#32931545)