Homo sapiens did not evolve to engage in these tedious activities of caring for crops such as wheat, and were more adapted to climbing fruit trees or chasing prey rather than bending over to clear rocks and trying to carry buckets.

As a result, the human spine, knees, neck, and soles of the feet have to pay a price. Studying ancient bones has revealed that humans developed a large number of diseases after entering the agricultural age, such as herniated discs, arthritis, and hernias.

In addition, new agricultural activities took a lot of time, and humans were forced to settle permanently next to wheat fields. This has revolutionized the way humans live.

So in fact it was not we who domesticated wheat, but wheat who domesticated us?

What did wheat do to make Homo sapiens give up a good life and change it to another miserable lifestyle? What remuneration does it offer?

As far as the diet of Homo sapiens is concerned, it is actually no better. Don't forget, humans are omnivorous apes and eat a variety of foods. Before the Agricultural Revolution, cereals were only a small part of the human diet. Moreover, switching to grain-based foods not only does not consume enough minerals and vitamins and is difficult to digest, but also greatly harmful to teeth and gums.

And in terms of people's livelihood economy, wheat has not brought economic security.

Farmers are less secure than hunter-gatherers. Gatherers have dozens of different foods to survive, and even if they don't have food in stock, they don't have to worry about starving to death in a famine year. Even if the population of one species decreases, other species can make up for the required amount if they collect and hunt a little more.

Until modern times, however, the vast majority of agrarian societies relied on a handful of agricultural crops, and in many areas there was even only one staple food, such as wheat, potatoes or rice. So, if there is a shortage of water, a locust plague, or an outbreak of fungal infections, the death toll of poor peasants could even reach millions.

And in terms of human violence, wheat cannot provide personal safety. The peasants of the early agricultural era were not necessarily gentler than the gatherers of the past, and perhaps even more violent. After all, now they have more personal possessions, and they still need land to cultivate. If the land is robbed by the people nearby, you may fall from the paradise of food and clothing to the hell of hunger, so there is little room for compromise when it comes to land.

In the past, if the tribe of gatherers encountered a strong opponent, it could be solved by simply retreating and moving. It's difficult and dangerous, but it's at least a viable option. But if the peasants are confronted with a strong enemy, retreat means abandoning their fields, houses, and grain stocks. In many cases, this is almost doomed to starvation. As a result, farmers often have to defend their fields, and both sides fight to the death.

Many anthropological and archaeological studies have shown that human violence is responsible for 15 per cent of total deaths in agrarian societies with only basic village and tribal political structures, compared to 25 per cent among men. There are now two agrarian tribal societies in New Guinea where the percentage of male deaths due to violence is 30 per cent and 35 per cent, respectively. And about 50% of the Varani people in Ecuador will even die at the hands of another person's violence!

Slowly, human beings developed advanced social structures, such as cities, kingdoms, and modern states, and thus human violence was brought under control. However, it took thousands of years for such a large and effective political structure to be established.

Of course, rural life did bring some direct benefits to the first generation of farmers, such as less need to worry about wild beast attacks, wind and rain, but for the average person, it may actually do more harm than good.

Modern society is prosperous and rich, and it may be difficult for us to understand the disadvantages, after all, all this prosperity and security are based on the agricultural revolution, so we also think that the agricultural revolution is really a wonderful progress.

However, we cannot just look at these thousands of years of history from today's point of view. What did wheat give to a prehistoric farmer who was dying, starved, exhausted, and diseased?

For individuals, wheat is not at all a giveaway. But for Homo sapiens as a species, the impact of wheat is far-reaching.

Growing wheat provided more food per unit of land, and the number of Homo sapiens grew exponentially.

Around 13,000 B.C., when humans were still gathering and hunting for their livelihoods, a piece of fertile soil might be enough to support a hundred-member tribe, and the people were relatively healthy and well-nourished. By about 8500 B.C., the wilderness of wild plants had become wheat fields, which could support a village of about a thousand people, but the population density also increased, and the members were much more sick and malnourished than in the past.

If we want to measure the success of the evolution of a species, the criterion is the number of copies of its DNA helix in the world. If there is no longer a copy of the DNA of a species in the world, it means that the species is extinct. And if a species still has many individuals in the world with copies of its DNA, it means that the species has successfully evolved and is thriving.

From this point of view, 1,000 copies of DNA are always better than 100. This is the true essence of the agricultural revolution: to allow more people to live in worse conditions.

Hiding behind the abundant harvest in the farmland, behind the abundance of grain seeds, is actually a profound sociological problem.

The protagonist is sluggish in this regard, and he is not yet aware of the far-reaching effects of forcibly bringing ants from a gathering society into an agricultural society.

He just felt that by engaging in agriculture and animal husbandry, he could get more food, and that more food meant more ants, more powerful forces, and more ...... Security.

As for the future, the worker ants under their command can no longer spend only a small amount of time every day gathering or hunting, and then they can rest in the nest with nothing to do. They would later have to leave early and return late, and during the busy season, they would have to work through dense plants, even when they were not working, and they had to complete other tasks assigned to them from above: construction, transportation, military service, or other work.

He didn't think of these changes, and probably wouldn't care about them, he's the ruler, he's always been busy, another form of busy.

Ants are indeed hard-working creatures, but what kind of changes will occur in their social structure after being overworked, after being trained by labor to experience their minds and bodies, and to the extreme neglect of individuals?

On the other side of the ocean, the butterfly's wings have flapped again. What are the complex variables of a new storm catching up with a cold wave from the north?