Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
On 8/21/2003, Steffen Hentrich wrote: I believe opportunity costs of ten humans pulling a plow are higher. So it is useful to employ horses. Which horse is able to teach a children, except to eat a piece of sugar? This may be true now, but the question is about subsistence farming, under which by assumption the opportunity cost of humans is roughly the cost to feed them. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
At 01:34 PM 8/22/2003 +0200, Steffen Hentrich wrote: This may be true now, but the question is about subsistence farming, under which by assumption the opportunity cost of humans is roughly the cost to feed them. But what is the difference between human intelligence or higher productivity in other uses now and before? I suppose there were always better opportunities for humans then to do the work of a horse. If it where not so, why bother to domesticate animals at all The issue is marginal productivity, not average productivity. The subsistence scenario is one where the supply curve of laborers is low and fat. The demand curve may rise to great heights, but eventually if falls down to meet such a low supply curve. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
The issue is marginal productivity, not average productivity. The subsistence scenario is one where the supply curve of laborers is low and fat. The demand curve may rise to great heights, but eventually if falls down to meet such a low supply curve. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Even when horses increase marginal productivity, that may not lift farmers above subsistence. If they don't own the land, they pay rent to a landlord, who might be able to absorb the wealth above the subsistence level, if there is no free land available of that quality. Every farmer gets a horse, but that is to achieve, rather than rise above, subsistence. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming (fwd)
Robert Book wrote: Maybe horses eat cheaper food than humans? That is, maybe you are right that horses eat 10x as much food by weight, but that doesn't mean it's 10x as much weight by dollar value. That's possible. Maybe having a horse pull a plow with one person holding it is more productive than 11 people trying to plow with hand tools. I'm not sure why taht's so hard to believe. Also possible, but perhaps surprising. 11 people are lots clever than one. So the returns to being clever must be very low here. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
At 12:20 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, Zac Gochenour wrote: Horses, though, are much more valuable for their mobility. An interesting tidbit: equestrian foraging developed as a subsistence pattern for the natives in the Great Plains and Argentina. These foragers acquired horses from the Spanish in the 1600s, and the nomadic groups became larger and more mobile, able to travel large distances and follow migrations of large animals such as bison over vast tracks of land and greatly expand the available food supply. OK, but then the question applies to transportation. Can a horse really move as much as ten people, or is it that they can eat foods that are cheaper than food humans can live on? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
OK, but then the question applies to transportation. Can a horse really move as much as ten people, or is it that they can eat foods that are cheaper than food humans can live on? The fact that a horse can consume and digest grasses is a contributing factor, but definitely not the whole picture. A horse, galloping flat out, can reach speeds in excess of 30 mph (the top speed is around 45 mph, but unsustainable). A horse can walk all day with very brief rest periods and can carry humans, tools, and food. A well conditioned horse can travel 50 or so miles a day with a rider and a small load. When moving large loads over long distances, humans are notoriously bad. This is mainly because we're bipedals. While our top running speed is reasonably high, our endurance is lacking. Adding the marginal human being does not make you move faster, and with any significant load, human speed is drastically reduced. Horses can also walk at a rather young age, I believe. I do not know at what age they begin to be useful as far as transportation is concerned, but I'm positive it is only a matter of a few years at best. Human males take upwards of a decade to become useful at all in farming or foraging. Simply speaking, 1 horse is clearly better than 10 humans. The populations of the pedestrian foragers exploded when they began learning riding techniques and using horses because of the drastic increase in the available food supply. Before using horses, no number of humans could ever catch a migrating pack of bison or other large herbivores. But in a farming subsistence pattern, there really is no room for the horse, where transportation is a non-issue and land may be limited. - Zac Gochenour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Horses and Subsistence Farming
Robin Hanson wrote: . . . it has come to my attention that a horse weighs about ten times as much as a human. It would seem that horses would eat about ten times as much as a human, . . . Quibble: appetite does not scale linearly with mass; some very small animals eat their own weight daily, but no big animal does. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
