3 ms·
The avoidance of war was probably due to the low population numbers and the ability of groups of hunter/gatherers to avoid each other. As the population grew a
by at-fates-hands 11y ago
The avoidance of war was probably due to the low population numbers and the ability of groups of hunter/gatherers to avoid each other.
As the population grew and humans came into more frequent contact with each other, warfare was a natural by-product of the increased contact between groups.
- s_kilk 11y agoAgriculture also brought in a massive change in how humans regarded territory. For hunter-gatherer societies there was basically no impulse to fight over territory. Everything they needed could be foraged, and the things they foraged were plentiful. Once we switched from foraging in a bountiful nature to scrounging a meager living from the dirt, defending that dirt or seizing more of it became a much bigger thing.
- tosseraccount 11y agoDo you have any evidence that hunter gatherer societies have "basically no impulse to fight over territory"?
- mrec 11y ago> For hunter-gatherer societies there was basically no impulse to fight over territory I'd dispute that. Don't confuse sparse population density with "bountiful nature"; hunter-gatherer economies are severely limited in that they can only sustainably forage as much as the environment can regenerate. The fact that they're territory-limited rather than labour-limited gives ample incentive to fight over territory, and also explains the popular factoid that these societies had vastly more leisure time than we do.
- megaman22 11y agoSource for that? I remember reading that something like 25% of paleolithic skeletons bore signs of violence consistent with getting poked with spears or bashed with clubs.