Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




Ever since the invention of the rifle, hunting has been far easier than farming.

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.

Yes, but history tells us that most of that meat was left in the sun to rot.

That same logic should be applied to farming. Where would you find free farmland that nobody else is claiming?

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.

Farming supports war better than hunter gathering does.

Translation: farming supports larger populations and more complex lifestyles better than hunter gathering.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: