In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).
Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.
We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.
There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.
> Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help
In many societies before (say) the 18th/19th Century, extended families would have been the norm, e.g. with elderly relatives living in the same household, helping with food preparation and clothes making. Harvests may have been community-wide affairs. Children would have had to dive in, as you say, but they wouldn't have had school to go to, and there would have been a wide age spread. Maternal mortality (death due to childbirth) was high, and many widowed fathers would have remarried, extending the family further (incidentally this is partly why there are so many step-sisters and step-mothers in folk stories).
Agreed, but I don't think you need to go as far back as the 19th century, even early 20th century it was the same in some places in eastern Europe. Out of 7 siblings in my Dad's family only one went to college. The spread between oldest and youngest was about 12 years. All went to school which was dismissed much earlier, after which children were expected to help in the fields with animals, house work, etc. before doing homework. The one pause, and really only time they wore nicer clothes, was on Sundays for church. The person who went to college would be back each summer to help with the grain and potato harvests. My life by comparison is a life of luxury.
The kids went to school in the winter, where there wasn't so much to do on the farm. That's why we still have summer "vacation", a holdover from needing the kids to work on the farm in the summer.
As kids in a rural area in Eastern Europe, summer "vacation" was sure to be filled with "fun" farm work. I recall being amused at hearing one of my friends towards the end of the summer say: "man, I can't wait for school to begin, so I can get some rest".
It used to be way more informal and less institutional, but I'm skeptical that it was more communal. We're still heavily dependent on community to raise our children (e.g. school, spots, etc). Sometimes to the point of absurdity.
"and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds"
Earlier. Picking berries, seeds or ears of grain is something very small hands can do.
"We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad."
But no. You are talking about a primitive (poor) agrarian society. That only started a couple of thousands years ago, while our species used fire since over a million years in a semi nomadic live style. And those tribes in good territory, they did not had so much back braking work, as long as big land animals were around. (Also, hearding cattle was for the most part a very chilled job as well, but that also started rather recent)
> And those tribes in good territory, they did not had so much back braking work, as long as big land animals were around
The population of paleolithic humans never reached anywhere close to that of agricultural humans, suggesting that many died before reproductive age. Multiple nomadic cultures independently decided to not only spend several hours a day picking and grinding grass seeds to eat, but also to cultivate them for thousands of years into grains that would still be barely palatable by the standards of today. Nobody would choose this life unless if they had to.
The big difference between agrarian and nomadic populations is that the latter is decentralized. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is generally very leisurely, but it's strictly limited in population viability. A tribe of some tens of people? Sure, no problem. A city of 5,000 people? It just doesn't work, because you'd end up wiping out the resources in your region faster than nature could replenish them.
So you're never going to see a massive hunter-gatherer population, essentially by definition. It doesn't say anything at all about their standards of life, which by most accounts were (and are) exceptionally high. [1]
I mean, what exactly are phrases like "strictly limited in population viability" and "never going to see a massive population" euphemisms for, exactly? High mortality, intense resource competition and survival of the fittest. Not what we normally associate with "exceptionally high standards of life". The higher the standard of life, the more procreation happens, the more demand there is for a constant supply of resources, and then starvation and warfare turns that supposedly noble savage into quite a vicious competitor.
Studies show a chaotic predator/prey relationship over time. When the ratio is small, it's fat times for the predators, and the predator population soars. Then they overhunt, and the prey diminishes, and the predator population crashes.
There are no euphemisms. The issue I think you're having is viewing things in a an artificially binary fashion. In reality it's all a lot fuzzier. If you don't have enough resources in one area it doesn't mean everybody just starves, it instead means you work a bit more, or just make do with a bit less. And that creates a voluntary pressure against fertility. Nature even has relatively tame 'stop-loss' measures here that further reinforce this like the fact that malnutrition directly reduces fertility. So if we graph population vs time, there's going to be a trend, but it'll look a lot like a relatively low amplitude sine wave. You'd only see sharps shifts after something like a plague.
"Nobody would choose this life unless if they had to."
You mean nobody would choose the half nomadic hunters life?
Hm, some indigenous cultures I spoke to disagree, but the choice is not there anymore, as the bison herds they sustained on got slaughtered. The conflict of the nomads vs sedentary is an old one and the establishment of the latter, made the old ways of life simply impossible.
You're completely missing my point. Without any external pressure, multiple peoples concluded that settling and eating grass was preferable to being nomads. Yes, this includes the ancestors of the bison hunting plains tribes. It was only with the population collapse due to smallpox and introduction of horses where the nomadic way of life became dominant again.
Until the invention of firearms, nomads had equal footing with settled people, if not an advantage (e.g. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan). The main advantage that agricultural civilizations had was population size.
"The main advantage that agricultural civilizations had was population size."
Metallurgy?
Not just firearms.
Stone axe vs bronze sword?
Bronze sword vs iron sword?
Iron sword vs steel?
Nomadic people got their advanced weapons usually through trade from settled ones. The nomadic horse archers dominance was rather an exception, also their kingdom included cities where the weapons they used were made.
"Without any external pressure, multiple peoples concluded that settling and eating grass was preferable to being nomads"
And there always was external pressure. Also .. our knowledge of that time is just fragmentary. We don't even know the real names of those cultures.
So yes, clearly there were benefits to settling and planting corn, otherwise humans would not have done it. But to my knowledge, it is not correct to call it a voluntarily process in general. Once there are fences, the nomadic lifestyle does not work anymore. Adopt or die out was (and is) the choice.
1 v 1, the average nomad could kill the average conscripted peasant who was physically weaker and less experienced. An iron vs a flint spear isn't going to make nearly as much of a difference. Superior numbers for the creation of a professional class of fighters that conquered the weaker nomads, but the steppe nomads remained superior in combat. The Roman, Chinese, Persian, and Muslim empires were only able to keep them at bay by turning them against each other. When they united, they were completely unstoppable.
With the Romans, the situation was the opposite. Their success was mostly based on the idea that conscripted peasants will eventually beat elite warriors. You just had to equip and train the conscripts instead of wasting the resources on the elites.
Because every man was expected to fight, the Romans had an effectively endless supply of experienced and well equipped soldiers. A society depending on a warrior class might win once or twice. But the Romans would still inflict some casualties. They would learn and adapt, and come back with another army next year. Sooner or later, the warrior class would be depleted, and Rome would prevail.
Eventually the Roman Republic grew large enough and successful enough to switch to a professional army. Not because it was better, but because the population was too large. There were not enough enemies to fight to make conscription useful.
Steppe nomads were far from unstoppable. They had occasional success in conquest, but their societies were set up to fail. The legitimacy of their leaders was based on personal relationships between the elites. When the leader of a large empire died, it was always unlikely that all leaders of note would support the successor. Most of the time, the empire would fracture into effectively independent polities. Sometimes there would be a figurehead leader on the top, but he would rarely have any real power over other leaders.
"Without any external pressure, multiple peoples concluded that settling and eating grass was preferable to being nomads."
Portraying it as an individual choice is inaccurate. The process of populations becoming sedentary(and agrarian) spans over multiple generations and wasn't really reversible. The early settlements likely only worked because they had some method to force people from leaving and the later settlements had to be sedentary because their neighbours were sedentary, it had a cascade effect. Oversimplified but that's the gist.
I am not claiming nomadic hunter gatherer societies were safe spaces, but there is a recurring misconception: people assume the nomadic lifestyle was harder and less desirable, otherwise humans wouldn't have made the transition to agrarian society.
Could perhaps slavery possibly be the bigger reason agrarian lifestyle "outcompeted" the nomadic lifestyle?
It's easy to proclaim a higher mean life quality in agrarian society if we discount the lives of the slaves.
With nomadic tribes, there is a constant churn of neighbor tribes, so hypothetical nomadic slavery would be much easier to escape than say the Roman Empire, where only near the boundaries of the Empire one might durably escape.
In an agrarian society neighboring villages etc use the same kinds of marks to discriminate the slaves from the citizens, so even if you escaped your master and the village, you'd end up needing to pass countless other villages which would recognize your assigned status, and turn you in for some reward / improved bilateral relations / ...
Today countless research indicates that permaculture, agroforestry, etc. are more productive than monoculture.
It is perfectly possible for nomadic cultures to be more efficient, and to provide more free time (a dangerous thing, since infighting and warring takes time), yet be "outcompeted" by systems of slavery!
For the leaders (of either nomadic tribes, or agrarian empires), the agrarian empire affords much more fruits of course!
Some hunters have elders rather than dedicated full time priests, and they can veer more rabbinical; they've got the stories and pass down the classics as food for thought and discussion.
On a superstition v superstition basis it's hard to get a photo finish between them and a Bishop.
Religion is not exclusive to agrarian societies. Indeed, much of proto-indo-European religion (ie the OG “sky father” [1]) was developed on the steppes in a pastoral lifestyle.
Exactly. It reminds me of all of the maundering about being "forced to work" (ie. having to earn some income in order to purchase some of the bounty with which we're surrounded) which usually comes along with the "hunter-gathering was a life of luxury" mindset. Literally nothing is stopping anyone from walking off into the forest and living off berries and grubs, except that (a) they don't have the required knowledge to live off the land, and (b) they're not willing to do so, because (c) it's a miserable existence compared with living in a house with hot and cold running potable water, strong walls and a lockable door, electric amenities, and a comfy bed and sofas. Nobody's forced to work, we choose to because all of the above are nice things that are worth some effort to maintain.
Nothing but the power of the state, which has claimed sovereignty over all the land, regulates what you can and cannot do with it, and will use deadly force against you if you fail to comply.
I once added up the total calorie content of all the yearly hunting it is legal to do where I live, if a hunter were maximally successful, and it would get one person through May.
All the land one could reasonably sustain a living on has long since been claimed, those claims being backed up by (you guessed it) the power of the state. The only land left that one can just walk off into is the land nobody wanted during the settlement period, because they could not find any way to live on it.
For hunting in a way you want? Not having to pay taxes? Raise your children in the nomadic hunter livestyle? I think schooling (and lots of other things) is mandatory in the US as well. And child protection service etc. exist. So it might be easier in the US to cosplay as a forest nomad for some time (and I know some people did it as eremits for a bit longer) but a real nomadic livestyle means living with other people together in a tribe. That does not work (just the rule to move camp after 2 weeks prevents that).
It isn't common but it definitely happens in some parts of the US.
There are no taxes to pay if you aren't earning anything. It is legal, if inadvisable, to raise children this way in much of the US. There is a "live and let live" ethos around it, especially in the western US. The true nomads are probably most common in the mountain West of the US in my experience. While the rule is two weeks in one location, in many remote areas there is no enforcement and no one really cares. They sometimes have mutually beneficial arrangements with ranchers in the area. These groups tend to be relatively small.
Alaska is famously popular for groups of families disappearing into the remote wilderness to create villages far from modern civilization. It is broadly tolerated there. Often many years will pass between sightings of people that disappeared into the wilderness.
I always wondered what a high-resolution satellite survey of the Inside Passage of Alaska and the north coast of British Columbia would find in that vast and impenetrable wilderness. Anecdotally there should be dozens of villages hidden in there that have been operating for decades.
I think I did read about it and met folks who are into that. I have never been in the US, though, but the main complaint I got is pretty much, state laws make it impossible. But I am open for reading suggestions.
There’s what is explicitly legal, there is what you can get away with, and there is moving between jurisdictions before they even know you’re there.
The US is large and if you keep your head down and homeschool to some level of competence I bet you could go many generations- especially if you were willing to blend in as necessary.
The agricultural people were able to produce, collect and store a surplus, which allowed them to raise armies. After that, it was all downhill for the hunter gatherers. They no so much chose the settled life, but were co-opted to it.
I would have thought herding or keeping large animals was quite dangerous, especially without modern technology. One of my wife's not-so-distant relatives was killed by a domestic pig.
Pigs are extremely dangerous for kids, but herding cows and goats is 100% something kids did. Source: I did it.
The village kids would get up, take the cows out to the road where the other cows also came, then together, a big group of kids and cows would head to a pasture and spend most of their day watching cows, playing games and messing about.
It was great.
Realistically the cows and goats took more care of the kids than the other way around.
A quick Google shows that ~20 people per year are killed by cows per year in the US. So not very dangerous, but not super safe either (cows kill more people than sharks - although that mostly shows how few people sharks kill).
Cows are very safe for their herders, assuming there are no bulls (and there never are, those require containment). They can get defensive or spooked and then they're very numerous very large animals with hooves and horns, but their herders won't be the target of their aggression even if the herders are very mean. At least not intentionally.
Pigs are extremely dangerous to children in all cases (they will eat body parts with no hesitation and no effort, like carrots).
Goats are incredibly awesome and accept you as part of their pack and defend you from predators. They can also be assholes but playfully. As with cows, female only herds, as males are dangerous.
I've never herded sharks so I'll go with your opinion on those.
20 people out of 350MM is pretty damn safe, even factoring for the relatively low numbers of people who actually interact with cattle. We as modern humans no longer have any sense of proportion when it comes to safety.
Dangerous at times yes(like most of premodern life was) And cows, or rather bulls are for sure more dangerous than herding sheep. But most of the times it just meant sitting and watching.
We hear this refrain, that hunter-gatherers lived lives of relative ease while early agrarians lived lives of backbreaking labour, but honestly it's never made any sense to me. Outside of a few garden-of-Eden scenarios, life as a nomad seems far more precarious than life in an established village. Maybe the good days were better but the bad days were inevitable, and far more terrifying.
Well, that is why most modern nomads I know go to the south in winter.
(but sure, native tribes also did this a bit, but were much more limited in range. So winter time in general did meant being cold and hungry often and the weak ones died. Might be the reason, why humanity started in africa and not scandinavia)
I've read book written by captain Kocebu, that was on duty to protect Russian holdings in Alaska. They visited San Francisco in 1805 and 1815, and several chapters described life of native people in the mission.
He described harsh conditions, hard work, no freedom at all, and very high death rates. Shocking even for a early XIX century naval officer. Once a year, those people allowed to visit their tribes and relatives. And they always came back!
So, the real hunter gathers, who had first hand comparison for both nomadic and agrarian life, prefer near slavery in mission to life in the wild.
> Also, hearding cattle was for the most part a very chilled job as well
I'm sorry but this strikes me as incredibly wrong and misleading. Herding cattle is anything but "a very chilled job" unless your frame of reference is "hunting Mammoths" and "facing Sable-tooth tigers". Sure, at moments it can be pretty straightforward, but as most jobs, the hassle comes from the situations that aren't straightforward, and they can get back-braking, hairy, dirty and outright taxing on you.
I have herded cattle - cows and goats when I was a child on my grandfather's farm. It was indeed a "chill job". But I had my grandfather's dog to accompany me and he did most of the work. I just lazed around.
Yes, frame of reference. But I actually meant dangerous at times, yes, but also chilled in comparison to the modern stressful average job, where you constantly have to do things. So when herding there were times of danger and stress (young bulls, wolves, other tribes coming to steal the animals), but most of the time it was sitting and watching.
> but also chilled in comparison to the modern stressful average job, where you constantly have to do things
I don't know if you mean "office work" as "modern stressful average job" or "food delivery as a freelancer and barely getting paid", but almost any physical job would be more taxing both mentally and physically than sitting in an office all day. Maybe my experience of only becoming a office worker after ~50% of my working life and before that doing other things, but I think most people (especially here on HN) don't realize how taxing physical labor is, even for the brain and the head.
Well, I worked all kinds of things, but office jobs I actually found more stressful than physical labour to be honest. What I meant is the expectation, that in modern jobs you have to be activly doing things all the time. (Or pretending to). While hearding your main activity was watching (and be ready for the need of action).
If you can, read Robert Caro's The Path To Power (Caro's The Power Broker has been a HN favorite ever since Aaron Swartz recommended it). It's the story of the first ~30 years of Lyndon B Johnson's life.
I forget which chapter it is, but Caro takes a detour where he describes the life of women during Johnson's childhood in the dirt-poor valley he was from: no electricity, no waterpower, everything in the house was done by women's hands, 24/7. There's a passage that stuck to me about how women in their 30s in that area looked like other area's women in their 70s, just a brutal life.
> Transplanted, moreover, to a world in which women had to work, and work hard. On washdays, clothes had to be lifted out of the big soaking vats of boiling water on the ends of long poles, the clothes dripping and heavy; the farm filth had to be scrubbed out in hours of kneeling over rough rub-boards, hours in which the lye in homemade soap burned the skin off women’s hands; the heavy flatirons had to be continually carried back and forth to the stove for reheating, and the stove had to be continually fed with new supplies of wood—decades later, even strong, sturdy farm wives would remember how their backs had ached on washday.
And what he left out of this book (and included in the memoir or in some interview) was that there was a scientific study of women in the area at the time which discovered that a very high percentage of women had birthing complications serious enough for hospitalization that went untreated as they had to go back to their chores next day and there was no hospital anywhere close.
Exactly what I thought of reading this, that chapter is genuinely one of the most affecting things I've ever read. The horror of it keeps growing as he continues to describe awful manual task after the other.
That series of blog posts is incredible, as is all his work. One thing that stuck with me is that while our deep evolutionary past is very important, the majority of humans who have lived have been peasants in an agrarian society
His blog posts are very high quality. It seems however that the average reader ignores his prolific disclaimers about how his work doesn't necessarily generalize and attempting to do so is fraught with peril and attempting to do so any later than the early modern period is laughable.
A small nitpick that doesn't take away from the rest of your comment: staying alive and fed was not necessarily a laborious activity for hunter-gatherers living in good climates [0]. It's our expansion into less hospitable environments that made it so.
> Woodburn offers this “very rough approximation” of subsistence-labor requirements: “Over the year as a whole, probably an average of less than two hours a day is spent obtaining food.”
> Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present--specifically on those in marginal environments--suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production.
The "original affluent society" theory is based on several false premises and is fundamentally outdated, but people keep it alive because it fits certain Rousseauean assumptions we have. I recommend reading this:
I just read the 'original affluent society' and (most of) your linked essay, I kind of agree with you. That said, the conclusions of Kaplan lead to estimates or 35-60 hours a week (excluding some depending on the group) and that surprised me a lot. That's very different from the image I got from some other comments in this thread talking about extremely long days with constant back-breaking work. Would you agree?
Constant, backbreaking work was not a feature of hunter-gatherer societies in the way it was of early agricultural societies, yes; at the same time, they still worked equal to or longer hours than we did, at things we would likely consider quite grueling and boring (mostly food processing), and what they got out of it was a level of nutrition even they regularly considered inadequate; moreover, a lot of the reason the average per day work estimate is so low, as the paper covers briefly, is that there were very often times, especially during the winter, where food simply wasn't accessible, or during the summer, where it was so hot it was dangerous to work, so there was enforced idleness, but that's not the same thing as leisure.
It's a detailed, complicated anthropological argument made by an expert — and he also does it in a very well-written way. I could attempt to lay out the argument myself, but ultimately everyone would be better served by just... reading the primary source, because I doubt I could do it sufficient justice. I recommend you actually just do the reading. But a general TLDR of the points made are:
- the estimates of how much time hunter-gatherers spent "working" were based on studies that either (a) watched hunter-gatherers in extremely atypical situations (no children, tiny band, few weeks during the most plentiful time of the year, and they were cajoled into traditional living from their usual mission-based lifestyle) or (b) didn't count all the work processing the food so it could even be cooked as time spent providing for subsistence, and when those hours are included, it's 35-60 hours a week of work even including times of enforced idleness pulling down the average
- the time estimates also counted enforced idleness from heat making it dangerous to work, or from lack of availability of food, or from diminishing returns, or from various "egalitarian" cultural cul de sacs, as "leisure" but at the same time...
- ... even the hunter gatherers themselves considered their diet insufficiently nutritious and often complained of being underfed, let alone the objective metrics showing that the were
The anthropological research that came up with 2-3 hours of work per day only looked at time spent away from camp gathering, hunting, and fishing. When you account for food processing, cooking, water collection, firewood gathering, tool making, shelter maintenance, and textile production the numbers go way up.
Yes, pretty much this. If they worked in the fields 12 hour per day as in a Victorian industrial setting, they would have perished from exposure, not having time to attend obligatory work around the house and to process the food and materials used to make food. Basically peasants worked all the time to maintain a level of "comfort" like in the article's picture: https://i0.wp.com/juliawise.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/S...
Also idealization of rural life and past rural life tends to come almost exclusively from city dwellers, basically people who never set foot in a rural area let alone grow or live there.
I grew up in rural Romania and even though the conditions were (and are) exponentially better than what the non-industrial non-mechanized non-chemical (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) past offered, all I thought growing up was get the funk out of there. Agriculture (and it's relatives, animal husbandry) sucks and I hate it! :)
And without mechanization it's incredibly labor intensive to tend to a farm. Just to keep the animals alive over winter you have to dry and deposit a lot of hay, but before that you gotta scythe it. Scything is no walk in the park and basically you gotta do a lot of that every day to cover enough area to keep the cattle fed. Then plowing without a tractor and using animals: not just dangerous but backbreaking work. Then hoeing the weeds, funking need to do it all the time because without herbicides, the weeds grow everywhere and by the time you "finished" going once over all crops, they've grown back where you first started. At some point my father had this fantasy of what is now called "organic" crops, in fact cheapskating at paying the price for herbicides, so I did so much hoeing that it got out of my nose. I don't recall me saying it but my mother told me that at some point in a middle of a potatoes hoeing session I said that I'd rather solve 1000 math problems than do even just another row of potatoes. Definitive moment in my career choice, which is a lot closer to solving math problems now than hoeing organic potatoes :)
Not necessarily back, but to the right environments. As quoted above, we see the same today in isolated tribes that live off of hunting and foraging. All of this also doesn't account for the lack of all other modern convenience such as medicine, hygiene, etc. So it isn't about chill and romantic, but rather the time commitment specifically.
Without modern entertainment devices, or even books, what else are they going to do? Some “work” could have a lot of crossover into hobby. Some people enjoy cooking, making tools, spending time with kids, etc. They need to do something to pass the time. The stuff is also for a clear purpose. Making a tool to solve a problem right in front of you feels different than performing a seemingly arbitrary task everyday because a boss says so.
The Bush People previously called The Pygmies are modern humans who eat the diet of the previous homonids and get stunted by the caloric deficits. The only thing they plant is hemp, which doesnt scale to actual agriculture.
I have read that hunter-gatherers generally had an easier life than peasants in agricultural societies. But the hunter gatherer lifestyle can only support small groups with a low overall population density. So the hunter-gatherers always lost out to agricultural societies, when they came into contact/conflict. Not sure how prevalent this view is amongst professional anthropologists.
I wonder if the hunter gather societies could have grown larger if they put in the same level of work as the agricultural societies?
One could debate what leads to a better quality of life. Is it more downtime and community, like we see with hunter gatherers. Is it the modern conveniences we end up with through larger societies and more work effort?
I watched a video of a polyglot who learned the language of a hunter gatherer tribe to spend some time with them. It was amazing to see how well adapted they were to the environment, both in terms of their bodies and skills. The outsider was getting eaten up by bugs and cut by every little branch or thorn, while the locals had thicker skin and seemed completely unaffected by all of this. They were running through the forest at night and it seemed effortless. While hunting they needed a bag at one point, so someone grabbed some stuff off a tree and quickly wove one together like it was nothing. What ends up being a survival realty show for us ends up looking quite convenient for them. If I need a bag I need to work to earn money, then depend on a whole supply chain to grow/manufacture the raw materials, weave the fabric, cut and assemble the fabric into a bag, and a retailer to sell it to me, as well as all of the shipping on trucks, boats, and planes along the way. It’s actually pretty crazy how much work goes into everything we buy.
>I wonder if the hunter gather societies could have grown larger if they put in the same level of work as the agricultural societies?
I think it is about organization and population density. A hunter gatherer society is not going to be able to field an army of tens of thousands of people, as an agricultural society can. Hunter gatherers are also limited in their technology by their continual movement.
The Mongols were a nomadic society and very successful militarily (for a while). But they kept large numbers of animals and weren't hunter gatherers.
I suggest reading The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow. They argue that there's not a true dichotomy between agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies. In fact, many societies practice(d) both.
This is actually one of the key points Yuval Noah Harari made in his landmark book 'Sapiens' (a must-read, probably the book I've recommended more than any other)
A book for which literally zero professional archaeologists or anthropologists were consulted and which promulgated more noble savage bullshit as a result. That "life of leisure" picture was based off of the work of one guy who wrote the hours literally spent hunting and gathering and none of the time spent processing food or maintaining tools and clothes, nor the hours per day spent collecting fresh water.
If agricultural life and cities were such a raw deal: why would people all over the world adopt it against their own self interest when humans were basically as intelligent (if not at all educated) as we are today?
>why would people all over the world adopt it against their own self interest
There was no easy going back. Once agricultural societies had settled there would be little if any free land to hunt/gather on. Also, much of the traditional knowledge would be lost in a few generations. Plus, peasants were often kept on their land by force.
Everything has tradeoffs and unforeseen effects and social structure is a slow moving ship. Food security is pretty obviously compelling, and creates a stability that allows a society to scale and grow more wealthy and powerful. The loss in autonomy and flexibility is part of the cost. Individuals see things different ways, but the only vote they get is within a social context that has its own momentum. What wins is not necessarily the society that the individual feels happiest in, but the one that is most evolutionarily fit over many generations and conflicts.
> [A] series ... looking at the structures of life for pre-modern peasant farmers and showing how historical modeling can help us explore the experiences of people who rarely leave much evidence of their day-to-day personal lives.
You seem to be ignoring the vast majority of human history before we developed farming. Agriculture societies are a relatively brief period of our collective history.
But it also contain the most people. Industrial age contains even more people but it hasn't defeated agricultural age yet because it's still so recent.
This wisdom is preserved for us in the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau was a hunter and Jacob was a farmer. When hunting went badly, Esau's desperation for protein, which Jacob could guarantee a supply of by cultivating lentils, was such that he gave up his whole birthright in exchange for the food.
The era in which humans chose whether to continue with a hunter gatherer life or join the new farming communities also seems to have influenced the stories of Adam and Eve ("cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread") and Cain and Abel.
Some have also suggested that archaic prohibitions against eating the food of fairies were a taboo designed to warn off young people from leaving farming or herding groups and joining hunter gatherer communities. They would be 'enchanted' by the easy going lifestyle but then end up hungry and sick.
The need to spend hours every day working a field, in a season when food was plentiful, in order to prepare for another season 6 or 9 months away, must have been a huge cultural crossroads, possibly a bigger break from our close animal ancestors than tool making, and its influence is still with us. Rules around not eating animals who are needed to supply milk and to reproduce the herd similarly cast a long shadow.
That is a very interesting take. Would you mind sharing some sources, preferably academic, that discuss the topic of agrarian/hunter-gatherer relations and its influence on historical stories and myths?
- The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture by Jacques Cauvin (1994/2000)
- Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods by David Lewis‑Williams & David Pearce (2005)
- Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth by Walter Burkert (1972/1983)
- Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion by HC Peoples et al. (2016)
- Subsistence: Models and Metaphors for the Transition to Agriculture by H. Starr (2005)
—————————————
Myths didn’t juts reflect the shift, they were also one of the cultural tools that made the shift psychologically possible.
For instance, the H&G worldview is cyclical (time repeats) but the agricultural worldview is linear. H&G myths emphasize eternal returns, cycles of creation and destruction, spirits of rivers, trees, animals. Agricultural myths introduce beginning of time, progress, destiny, apocalypse.
As animals became domesticated, their spiritual status from H&G mythology declines, while the status of plants and land rises under agriculture. There’s agricultural symbolism in Christ’s body being bread and his blood being wine.
The shift the agriculture produces surplus, property, inheritance, kings, priests, and so myth arise to justify social structures that don’t make sense in nomadic foraging bands.
Sacrifice is an agricultural logic. Classic pattern: god dies, god’s body becomes food, eating is communion. It is directly agricultural: plant dies when harvested, seed is buried (like a corpse), resurrection in spring. Sacrifice becomes cosmic agriculture.
The Garden -> Exile story is a pattern we see in Genesis (“By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread”) but also in Greek mythology; Kronos’ Golden Age changes when Zeus forces humans to work.
In H&G, the trickster gods (Coyote, Raven, Loki, Anansi) are central, but with damaging they become dangerous, marginalized, punished because agriculture requires law, calendar, taboo, not chaos.
Another pattern might be that, whereas oral culture matched the 'sufficient unto the day' ethos of hunter gatherers, writing reflected the new agricultural process of carefully building up and storing for the future. Rather than a neutral technological innovation, it embodied the psychological shift.
No, it was easier. Not just lower risk. It gave you advantages both in terms of self defence, resources and even aggression toward surrounding group if you were collectively assholes.
It was easier to make your numbers go up, raise more kids which made you stronger.
> People moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian society because the latter was easier.
Agriculture began from a convergence of climate stability, resource abundance, sedentary living, population pressure, and co-evolution with useful plants and animals.
Hunting and gathering alone cannot feed everyone. Farming is harder, less healthy, more labor-intensive but yields more calories per acre.
As a population grows, farming becomes the least bad option.
It looks more like agrarian society outcompeted hunter gatherer society because the agrarians got more surviving kids. This replacement and assimilation happened in Europe, for example, where it's visible in genetic and linguistic history.
The population increased because half of it wasn't dying off immediately. You have to include the half that dies off early in the calculations of QoL for hunter/gatherers.
It is actually the plants (barley, grain, grapes, millet, potatoes, taro, maize, rice, sorghum, manioc) that tricked the humans into cultivating (reproduce) them/
I think there’s a version of the Malthusian trap that has explanatory merit - the idea that as population increased, you got diminishing returns from more people farming the same land. Population would therefore increase until famine, after which there would be good times until the cycle repeated. This cycle was broken by the industrial revolution.
Isn't this the same "trap" that any living life "falls into"? It gets many offspring, and only those survive who can feed themselves. Exponential growth fills up the niche until there are no more resources: any successful species is trapped against some kind of resource or environmental ceiling, unfortunately.
Is there a ceiling in the industrial revolution era? Famously the 1972 book Limits to Growth says yes for that question.
>In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
On the plus side, they also didn't have to do the hard dangerous jobs like mining coal, building houses, and the like, nor did they have to go to the army, fight to defend their country (at least not as soldiers), and many other things.
Running the house was hardly "brutal", neither did it consume "all waking hours until the day she died".
Yeah, that it was "brutal" is a common misconception.
Beside the fact that duties were shared among extended family members, it was really not that brutal, and that's including "heavier" chores like bringing water from the well and firewood.
Another common misconception is that what they did "back then" is something ancient or medieval. People in the country did pretty much all the same chores with the same tools well into the 20th century. x
The men. Again, I'm writing there about what women didn't have to do.
>In most places and times, didn't all men just get conscripted into war frequently?
Yes, and thus what I wrote is that women didn't have to do it.
(My point was: "yes, women did the house tasks, but on the plus side, they didn't have to do those other far more dangerous and hard things").
>Why do you think it didn't consume all waking hours?
I don't think it didn't, I know it didn't. For starters it was shared among larger family units (including several kids). And even when it wasn't, like some people living on their own, it hardly took a few hours each day, and that's including maintaining a fire, cooking, some cleaning, feeding some nearby hens, bringing water, and things like that. Modern people over-dependent on modern conveniences overestimate how hard all those things were, as if it was some horror survival movie.
In these here parts, people in the country did all the same things people did in the 19th century or the 15th century well into the 20th century (with cars and electricity not reaching many places until the late 1950s), all with plenty of time to spare and socialize.
You're completely missing the single largest source of domestic work, which was clothing. Spinning thread and weaving by hand are incredibly time consuming and consumed 40% of women's working hours.
Here's an overview by an actual historian, who estimates that women in a medieval peasant household worked 3,760 hours per year, which averages out to 80 hours per week.
After that it gets pretty easy, just time consuming. Keeping an old school saw sharp would be far more challenging.
I grew up in a household without power tools, and helped gut rehab a few friends houses. Certainly not exactly comparable, but you learn pretty quick sawing is at least as much about technique and skill vs brute strength and stamina.
> In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
This was not true in the society my grandparents grew up in between 1900 and 1970. Both of my grandmothers and great grandmothers helped out tremendously on the farms, and my grandmother and mother were part of the new businesses when they immigrated to the US.
Based on all the women I have personally seen working in farms, and in videos, and in written accounts, I suspect your quote is only true for a very small slice of the world in a very small slice of time that was developed enough to have large farms with large machinery and scale such that the farm was earning enough profit to use automation to not need the women and allow them to only focus on the home, or hire poorer women so the farm owner could solely focus on the home.
Hell, I bet even today, even in the US, a good portion of farms need the labor of both spouses.
But by feodal times, you also had to also work a number of hours for your liege. Which modern idiots have perverted with the whole ”a peasant had more free time than you”-meme, where they only count the hours of mandatory service and ignore the hundred-hours-a-week part of keeping your own home running
The green revolution was vitally dependent on oil-gas based fertilizer trade - which means, doing away with manchester-style centralized trade empires who used cutting off trade as a tool of suffocating opponents.
The past never went away, it caught up to the present. All poverty is energy poverty - and exponential humanity, always fills that "gap" to the ressource roof with people.
The old, pre-harber-bosch world was a grim dark all against all where empires (themselves devices to keep civilization afloat in a few centralized places, while extracing at great missery elsewhere) fought wars of fertilizer and used one sided trading and food-exports to starve colonies out like vampires.
From travelling to different places I'm not sure about the women's work was brutal bit. The ones not in paid work tend to spend their time looking after the kids and cooking and cleaning and stuff regardless of the style of living. The main thing that's hard seems to be the kids going "mum! I want..."/"don't want to..." at all hours but that's human nature which doesn't change much.
That's because you haven't done that work and don't value it.
Women in agrarian societies do difficult manual labor like hauling water, milking, preserving food, tending livestock, laundry. Laundry before machines was backbreaking work nobody wanted to do, which is why the poor did it or women took in laundry if they needed money. If you had a hand free, you spun wool.
Also, they did all that while constantly pregnant or nursing, which is really hard on the body. Sure, women didn't have to go to war, but men didn't have to live with the fear that this year's baby might be the one that finally kills them.
When humans domesticated animals and started tending to the fields is when IMO it all went down hill. That change brought in modern civilization with all its advantages but moreeso its disadvantages and maladaptive behaviors of the human mind. We shoulda stayed hunter gatherers, I am almost certain we would have been happier.
It's kind of an interesting question. What makes us inherently unhappy?
I think if the theory goes that from a evolutionary standpoint we psychologically are still better equipped to be hunter gatherers, we should assume that our feelings towards homicide and child mortality are comparable. So how happy can a people be, when 40% of their children die and another 20% die by homicide?
If we follow that thread I would argue that it's very unlikely that people were happier back when or would be happier today, unless some other component of being hunter gatherers makes us fantastically ecstatic.
What makes us unhappy are the things that the modern world takes away from us. Sense of agency, sense of community, belonging, autonomy, recognition, and many other factors. The modern day human brain and mind is still lagging far behind our current predicament. We evolved to thrive in small village cohorts that condition for small social interactions that have real impact on our lives. Here's a striking example I remember. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFOhAd3THW4 There are better longer videos of the citation from the mothers side, where she talks about how alien and cold modern day society is compared to her humble village life. No amount of medicine, material possessions or modern day creature comforts could keep her in New York. she chose to leave and come back home because that's what made her happy.
That is a beautiful anecdote, but I don't see what we could reasonably generalize from that. It's fairly well established that access to good medical care and a certain degree of wealth make us happier.
Could a life radically and willfully different in many ways turn out to be better for most of us (which is critically what you claimed before)? It's certainly possible, given how few people take this route, but an appeal to nature is just not super convincing, unless you can back it up with data.
I can't help but notice you did not engage with how 40% of kids dieing and another 20% of us getting killed by some member of the cherished tribe could possible lead to high levels of life satisfaction. As far I can tell, on the whole, the good old days were cruel and rosy retrospection is just that.
The "miserable" existence ascribed by modern day humans to past human life is colored by their modern day psychological profile. If they were born and raised at that environment their psychological profile would be very different. A modern day human can be easily traumatized by something that past humans would consider trivial. Sure death was more common, possibly even violence, but that would not mean people were less happy. Satisfaction in human psychology has a certain profile, and that profile mainly follows the things i talked about. Close human relationships in small cohort groups, perception of agency, among a few other important factors. things that are missing among many citizens of modern day societies world wide. My point is that on average if you performed a statistical analysis of how happy people were, the claim is that they were happier back then then now.
To me, 100-500x higher death rates are simply not a detail that I can get past. Since we are basically of the same genetic makeup (which is also the cornerstone of you argument) that simply seems incompatible with a better life. It's possible I am lacking vision for how it all gels into the good existence you think it does.
What I think makes this idea interesting: We are not as fantastically happy today as we should be, if progress on the tangibles translated into happiness. So there's definitely something that is off and I can totally see what you are describing being part of it.
Many people did choose to live as hunter gatherers all over the world, until they were universally slaughtered and subjugated. We don't really know if industrial societies lead to more fullfilling lives or not, because they clearly lead to better and more expansive armies that quickly destroy anyone trying to live outside of that.
Stone age hunter-gatherers had better lives than stone-age farmers, assuming that they had enough land to hunt/gather on. Modern farming is usually far easier than modern hunting/gathering, although if you go far enough north you'll find that hunting is still the only viable option.
I would argue that with the invention of the rifle, it was easier IF you could find game, especially since others living in your vicinity were hunting also. Despite the risk of weather and insects, farming was much more predictable as a food source.
There was a brief period of time in which rifles were available and game was easy to find. 20 million bison were hunted to the brink of extinction within a couple decades.
In the "old" days, unused land was there to be had, but, depending on where you were, it was heavily treed or rock infested. There may have been hostel natives or bandits, making isolation potentially dangerous. Cattle ranchers, who would claim umpteenth thousands of acres were particularly testy. In the mid parts of the nineteenth century, "good" free land was hard to find for farming.
Oh, really? Then why did they choose farming? And no, it wasn’t a trap, they experimented with farming and could have gone back to hunting if as you imply it truly was better.
A lack of antibiotics wasn't sufficient reason to stay in western society for those members of the Pintupi Nine and other hunter gather families that came in, looked about, and left again.
Some can't imagine life without antibiotics, others can't fathom living with everything else that comes with it.
They had a place that was familiar and comforting to go return to.
Anyone who is of a modern industrialized society who is waxing poetically about becoming a hunter gatherer is both, looking at history thru very rose colored goggles and welcome to go find a place to do just that.
Many people that have lived side by side with indigenous people across northern australia, the islands, PNG, et al have a clear idea of exactly what living off the land entails.
A good many have done exactly that for extended periods, dropping in and out from one to the other.
They would have done this sans any condescending permission from those wishing them well - such opinions count for naught.
But you've selected one particular group. The thousands of groups and individuals who merged their way of life with that of farming/toolmaking/industrialised/modern human society do not have a name, they are just part of the human mainstream.
Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't. So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress, even at the cost of giving up their previous way of life, that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.
I used as examples some specific individuals of one named group, yes. I also had in mind other specific individuals of a few other families - all these groups share the same major language group.
There are other similar examples across the globe, of course, there's an entire island that famously prefers no contact- but I'm making a brief comment not writing a book.
> Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't.
If I were to pursue this I'd likely argue that a majority of adaptions happened with more force, less willingness, and at a pace faster than desired by the less technologically advanced side.
> So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress,
Indeed. Many are curious about water but didn't expect a hose shoved down their throats with a bucket load funnelled in endlessly with no off tap.
> that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.
I'm assuming this refers to those groups that want to retain autonomy but have difficulty doing so.
In many such cases that I'm aware of the problem stems less from former group members wanting to bring the outside in, more from outsiders (eg: loggers) wanting to clearfell habitat, miners wanting pits, etc.
eg: The entire West of PNG not wanting rule by Indonesia, various "Indonesians" not wanting their dense jungle homes cleared for palm oil plantations, various groups in Brazil, Native American Indians not wanting pipes to cross ther lands, giant copper mines on sacred grounds, etc.
You are focusing on the 0.01% of humanity which isn't part of mainstream modernity rather than the 99.99% which is. And you're discussing cases of extreme differential in technological knowledge and worldview (Amazon jungle, Papua New Guinea), rather than the vastly more common smaller gaps and asymmetries.
If a majority of adaptations happened with force, how do you explain the ones that didn't? Don't they suggest that even without any force there would have been convergence, just more slowly?
European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that. But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions. Arguably North Americans could not have ignored the written word or manufactured textiles in perpetuity, just as their societies adapted and mutated to accept the horse and steel tools.
Antibiotics were not a sufficient factor to stop some people from rejecting technological society.
I'm not seeing the two errors there you claim.
> European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that.
Cool. I mean that's not something I said, but hey, if you want to chuck that in, sure.
> But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions.
I'm not sure 400 years of war, conflict and asymetric resource exchange makes up for the genocide part.
The Javanese subjugation of West Papua was a lot faster and equally or more brutal, the Europeans were largely hands off for that one, although they did quietly nod along and ignored the severed tonges and familial violence that accompanied the staged plebiscite :
He wasn't talking about going back, he was talking about staying.
> And no cheating by bringing antibiotics with you.
I don't recall where I read this, but (probably hundreds of years ago) some explorer in Africa was on a boat with some hunter-gatherers. A bloated, rotting dead rat floated by, they picked it up, said "yum" and dug in. They didn't get sick. I've also read some speculation that (initially) fire wasn't needed so much for cooking meat, because hunter-gatherers can (and did) accomplish the same effect by letting meat rot a little. Fire was more useful for vegetables.
So actual hunter gatherers probably had less need for antibiotics than a modern person thrust into a similar situation.
Antibiotics and Insulin - those two things have saves untold lives.
Before about 1920, the difference between rich and poor and the likelihood to recover from disease had more to do with ability to rest and diet.
The rich and poor alike died to tuberculosis (which was often a death sentence until antibiotics), simple cysts, all sorts of very basic bacterial infections killed in droves.
At the risk of sidetracking this further - it was only after insulin where the idea that healthcare could be somewhat that could be a right became somewhat reasonable (before the late gilded age, doctors often did as much harm as good) - every lifesaving innovation we have made sense, were often very modest amounts of money is the difference between life and death make that argument stronger.
Hard to catch a disease when it’s always the same 15 people around you, with no communication to the outside world; and no factory farming that incubates most of these diseases.
Regarding your reference to how brutal and never-ending work was; As far as we know, many European medieval farmers had 1500-1800 working hours per year. It’s also a bit gloomy to assume the household was run by two parents and their kids - often, grandparents were colocated and helped until they couldn’t. What you‘ve described was certainly the case during famines and war, but not a permanent state.
>Hard to catch a disease when it’s always the same 15 people around you, with no communication to the outside world.
There’s plenty of bacteria hanging out in the dirt, water, the animals you eat, and on your own skin. Add in the parasites, and zoonotic viruses and it’s not very hard at all to catch a disease even as a solitary hermit in the wild.
>factory farms
Didn’t need factory farms for smallpox. Many animals live in large herds, which were larger in the past. If you read accounts from the 18th and early 19th century there are many reports of squirrel migrations involving hundreds of millions of squirrels in relatively small areas.
Small pox was way after hunter gatherer times, so I‘m not sure what point you are making. Huge farms were a thing even in medieval times, with hundreds of animals.
"Way after" is quite an overstatement. Smallpox is as old as agriculture. Most seem to agree that it was the transition into agrarian life that provided the necessary conditions for it to emerge, but it did so right as that transition took place.
My point is that factory farms aren’t a requirement for zoonotic viruses. Smallpox also predates the medieval period by thousands of years.
We also know that there are viral epidemics in animals that live in solitary animals and animals that live in groups smaller than the size of hunter gatherer tribes.
> There’s plenty of bacteria hanging out in the dirt, water, the animals you eat, and on your own skin. Add in the parasites, and zoonotic viruses and it’s not very hard at all to catch a disease even as a solitary hermit in the wild.
An hunter-gathers were probably a lot more robust to that than modern people.
Think about it: if what you say were that big of an issue, hunter-gathers would have been sickly and died out before getting to us.
There’s no reason to assume that. Antibiotics and anti-parasitic drugs have only been around for a century or so. That’s not enough time for our immune systems to have lost the ability to fight them.
>Think about it: if what you say were that big of an issue, hunter-gathers would have been sickly and died out before getting to us.
Most wild animals are riddled with parasites and it’s common for for animals in captivity to have 2x the lifespan of their wild counterparts.
You don’t need to make it to 70 to raise children. If 50% of people make it to 30 and each person has an average of 5 kids the math works out fine for population growth.
The immune response to diseases has to be developed over time, not to mention the fact that the introduction of those drugs drastically accelerated the evolution of the bacteria, viruses, etc. I can't speculate as to the health of hunter gatherer civilizations but modern diets and until recently the prevalence of antibacterial soaps and products in homes have definitely changed immune systems. Just look at covid, where in just a period of a few years the amount of infections due to other common diseases like influenza or strep have shot up due to kids not being exposed to germs during the lockdowns.
> The immune response to diseases has to be developed over time
The human immune system has both innate and acquired components. The innate systems are functionally the same between you and I or a hunter gatherer.
A hunter gatherer may have acquired immunity to viruses and bacteria that you or I haven’t been exposed to, but in most cases they would have become sick in the first place before they got that immunity. The majority of diseases don’t produce long lasting immunity. There’s a reason you get tetanus vaccines every 5-10 years.
We are also exposed to more pathogens than hunter gatherers not fewer because of the way we live. Plus we have vaccines, so if anything we have a more robust acquired immune system.
> introduction of those drugs drastically accelerated the evolution of the bacteria, viruses, etc.
Antibiotics accelerated the evolution of bacteria towards antibiotic resistance. Not towards greater virulence. Antibiotic resistance generally has a fitness penalty as well, so if anything modern bacteria would tend to be slightly less dangerous.
>antibacterial soap
Antibacterial soap can result in resistant bacteria and it also alters your bodies microbiome. Theres some evidence that it can make you more prone to autoimmune diseases, but no good evidence of a strong impact on your bodies ability to fight off diseases.
Certainly not to a level noticeable by an individual.
>look at Covid
The reason influenza infections went up was because people weren’t exposed to influenza, not because of lack of exposure to generic germs.
There weren’t more overall infections, they were just concentrated in time. If Covid hadn’t happened, those extra people who got the flu would have just gotten the flu earlier.
But as the parent comment suggests, if the adults were getting sick it is unlikely that they would be able to:
* Produce 5 kids in the first place.
* Take care of the kids that they were able to produce, making survival of even half them much less likely.
But in actuality, best we are able to determine hunter-gathers who made it into adulthood lived longer, healthier lives than those in agrarian lifestyles.
They were getting sick and died more often than us, but still enough survived to keep the population alive. There's no contradiction.
I admit they probably had a stronger immunologic system on average, by virtue of relying on it and "exercising" more often. Alternatively, people prone to getting sick just died early.
> They were getting sick and died more often than us
The comparison was with agrarian societies that were found in parallel, not "us", which presumably implies something about modern medicine. Have I misinterpreted you?
> There's no contradiction.
Was there reason to think that there was...? It is not clear what you are trying to add here.
> Take care of the kids that they were able to produce, making survival of even half them much less likely.
H-G societies tend to be smaller groups where everyone in the village helps with childcare, so if a parent was out of action for a while the children could still be gathered.
This is covered in the book Hunt, Gather, Parent by Michaeleen Doucleff, specifically with the Hadzabe people (Tanzania).
It's likely that was due to catastrophic events, and not general resilience. If a big meteor hits earth now, we'll likely by at a population of a few k or 10k as well.
insects, predator animals, cuts+bacteria all seem like quite hard-to-avoid disease vectors. we can spread disease quickly these days, but there are no shortage of ancient diseases you could've come across in a small hunter-gatherer society
I believe the modern world creates a lot of mental health problems, loneliness, and unhappines, but it's absolutely physically safer and more survivable (and more comfortable) for a huge percentage of the developed world. (It creates those mental problems unnecessarily, given the level of technology we have, but deeply baked into our fairly-antisocial individualistic culture)
I‘m not sure I agree on your second point. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and others are endemic to the developed world. My personal opinion here is that constant oversupply with calories is not something humans have been able to adapt to, yet.
We just live longer than back then and have way more opportunities to see these (mostly) late-life diseases. Same with cancer.
Yes, average life span was shorter back then because of child mortality. But the vast majority of surviving adults never reached age 80. Old age was 60-70 and many of these diseases only occur at 70+ in significant numbers.
Disease can also be zoonotic. E.g. North America supposedly saw disease spread by wild pigs through the indigenous population before direct contact with colonizing Europeans.
Parent specifically called out antibiotics, which are for bacterial infections, not diseases. Coupled with the increased number of things to step on or get cut by means you really need them.
You definitely don't automatically need antibiotics for something you step on, or get cut. Any topical antiseptic will do, and probably perform better.
What you say is only half true. I’m also thinking of injuries caused by animals and other people. Antiseptic isn’t going to fix the nasty kind of infections deep bite or knife wounds cause. A hunter gatherer society is definitely at greater risk of suffering these kinds of injuries than we are.
And also, even antiseptic treatment was in shorter supply than it is today, so it’s still a moot point.
There's sufficient evidence that hunter gatherer societies have indeed used various plant- and animal based antiseptics (honey, oils, tannins, resins, fungi,...) to treat wounds.
I said shorter supply than today, not totally unavailable. Pre-agrarian societies, by definition, were not growing and harvesting antiseptics in bulk. They’d not do much against an infection from a stab wound (yes, non-agrarian societies encountered, fought and killed each other).
Maybe it's a herd immunity thing or something and others are keeping me safe, but I'm 41 and Ive never taken an antibiotic and neither has anyone else in my family to my knowledge.
I still can't figure out if it's the chicken or the egg.. have I never been sick because I don't take part in the medical system, or do I not take part because I've never been sick..
Then again last time my cuticle got infected I sterilized a knife and drained it myself.
My friend said he had something similar and they gave him an antibiotic yet DIDNT drain it until it got worse and then they just did what I did.
But at least they got to sell some antibiotics.
Antibiotics should IMO be reserved for life threatening situations, or likely upcoming life threatening situations. In the 80s as a toddler I was given antibiotics for measles (they can’t possibly work on viruses), and had half a year of diarrhea afterwards.
It is funny you say that. Where do you draw the line?
I had what was most likely poison ivy. Covered both arms. And was spreading. What do you propose my nurse practitioner to do? Not prescribe any antibiotics? To what end? I should continue to suffer because of what reason?
Antibiotics do one thing, and one thing only - kill bacteria. They don't do anything for viruses, fungal infection, inflammation, chemical irritants or pain relief.
In the case of poison ivy, all antibiotics would do is lower the already slim odds of a secondary infection. They wouldn't prevent the contact dermatitis/inflammation from urishiol.
No. I had broken skin barrier. Pus coming out and dripping. The use of antibiotics was definitely warranted. Again, who do you want to decide whether the use of antibiotics is ok and under what conditions?
Should I be dying before you grant me antibiotics? What kind of nonsense is this?
For topical use, maybe an iodine spray would have been better suited. Iodine kills way more pathogens than antibiotics, and it's very good at that, and has no reported cases of resistance development.
Antibiotics don’t stop you suffering from poison ivy. At all. In other posts you say you had a broken skin barrier that’s vulnerable to infection, so you presumably know that this is not the same as actually having a bacterial infection, and that antibiotics are only a prophylactic, not a treatment. So stop making out that people are dying to deny you treatment.
When poison ivy spreads on skin, you have broken skin barrier with yellow liquid coming out. Then the places this yellow liquid touched also gets itchy and you now have multiple broken skin barrier everywhere.
When skin barrier gets broken like this, you are now vulnerable to bacterial infection.
I know people that have more skin lost than you'd care to look at from semi serious motorcycle crashes, and no they don't just take antibiotics for fun.
I can't believe someone gave you anti biotics for poison ivy.
At this point I genuinely consider the medical system about as bad as the service department at a car dealership. They'll sell you anything technically legal just to keep their stats high.
> At this point I genuinely consider the medical system about as bad as the service department at a car dealership. They'll sell you anything technically legal just to keep their stats high.
No, the service department has a bad reputation for a reason. They tried to tell me a wiper blade would cost me USD 80 with a straight face. Not even the whole set, a single wiper blade. It costs under USD 15 anywhere else other than the dealership.
My guess is they are counting on people not looking at the itemized bill.
Sorry, yes, I've had colds and a cough or two for sure. I don't think I've thrown up in 35 years though since I was a child.
When I meant sick, I meant like a longer sustained thing that needs treatment of some kind. I didn't mean I never stayed in bed watching the price is right for two days.
Staying hunter gatherer isn’t sustainable unless everyone does it, because of the larger population size enabled by agriculture. Larger groups can generally dominate smaller groups absent a technological difference, but here again agriculture has an advantage because it at least seems like it’s easier to develop technology when your stuff isn’t getting moved around all the time.
No matter what you think, and even if we build a super AI to ask it, about what we should do, the answer stays the same. We should build a mass driver on the moon.
"Deprivation of material things, including food, was a general recollection [of Zhu adults] and the typical emotional tone in relation to it was one of frustration and anger…. Data on !Kung fertility in relation to body fat, on seasonal weight loss in some bands, and on the slowing of infant growth after the first six months of life all suggested that the previously described abundance had definite limits. Data on morbidity and mortality, though not necessarily relevant to abundance, certainly made use of the term “affluent” seem inappropriate."
"While the !Kung way of life is far from one of uniform drudgery—there is a great deal of leisure in the !Kung camp, even in the worst time of the year—it is also true that the !Kung are very thin and complain often of hunger, at all times of the year. It is likely that hunger is a contributing cause to many deaths which are immediately caused by infectious and parasitic diseases, even though it is rare for anyone simply to starve to death."
"The give and take of tangibles and intangibles goes on in the midst of a high level of bickering. Until one learns the cultural meaning of this continual verbal assault, the outsider wonders how the !Kung can stand to live with each other …. People continually dun the Europeans and especially the European anthropologists since unlike most Europeans, the anthropologists speak !Kung. In the early months of my own field work I despaired of ever getting away from continual harassment. As my knowledge of !Kung increased, I learned that the !Kung are equally merciless in dunning each other."
"In reciprocal relations, one means that a person uses to prevent being exploited in a relationship … is to prevent him or herself from becoming a “have”…. As mentioned earlier, men who have killed a number of larger animals sit back for a pause to enjoy reciprocation. Women gather enough for their families for a few days, but rarely more …. And so, in deciding whether or not to work on a certain day, a !Kung may assess debts and debtors, decide how much wild food harvest will go to family, close relatives and others to whom he or she really wants to reciprocate, versus how much will be claimed by freeloaders."
"The !Kung, we are told, spend a great deal of time talking about who has what and who gave what to whom or failed to give it to whom (Wiessner 1982:68). A lot of the exchange and sharing that goes on seems to be as much motivated by jealousy and envy as it is by any value of generosity or a “liberal custom of sharing.” In his survey of foraging societies, Kelly (1995:164-65) notes that “Sharing … strains relations between people. Consequently, many foragers try to find ways to avoid its demands … Students new to anthropology … are often disappointed to learn that these acts of sharing come no more naturally to hunter-gatherers than to members of industrial societies.”"
> Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.
Orphanes did struggle but most families were not just two person, families were big and supported by community.
Life in the field, from the land, in the past, meant death from starvation.
Some unsung heroes:
- the person that discovered how to fix nitrogen in the soil saved more lives than every other people in history, combined.
- Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, saved more than 1 billion people from starvation.
Borlaug was a very important figure in global food security but he was a plant breeder, not the guy(s) who figured out how to fix nitrogen from the air into fertilizer. Nitrogen people were Haber and Bosch.
Millions of probably do owe their very existence to these men though, agree with that.
However part of me (maybe a slightly misanthropic part?) wonders if it might be a bit like feeding stray cats, and now we have a huge herd of cats that are rapidly outstripping the ultimate carrying capacity of their environment and it doesn't end well. But since I'm one of the cats, I say we just go with it and see what happens.
There's good arguments for the case that gatherer communities actually had generally better health and far more free time than farmers and agrarian society.
Farming provided the calories necessary for a population that hunting and gathering could not support (so no going back) but required basically working all day to make it work and survive less than ideal conditions. But prior to farming people often had significant more free time.
In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).
Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.
We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.
There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.