3 ms·
This is a weird argument as a benefit to hunter gatherers. The benefits you're discussing are only tied to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because of low population
by magicalist 11y ago
This is a weird argument as a benefit to hunter gatherers. The benefits you're discussing are only tied to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because of low population density. They would have the same issues if they were at the population density we are now...but they couldn't be, because the earth couldn't sustain them.
It's definitely not an argument in terms of looking to hunter gatherers for diet or fitness advice, though :)
- Retric 11y agoI agree, I am not saying the lifestyle was overall great or anything. Just that it was better than you might think. Though as to disease it's not just population density. Domesticated animals mostly birds, pigs, and cattle for example created a larger pool to spread disease. Though diseases will spread from primates to humans with minimal contact. PS: You could also have separate populations with minimal contact and have fewer diseases evolve. So, we could have high population density as long as people did not travel or keep animals.