3 ms·

Even hunter gatherer societies had social structure and norms. And in those societies people far outside the norm were probably treated much worse than they are

Even hunter gatherer societies had social structure and norms. And in those societies people far outside the norm were probably treated much worse than they are in today's society.

x5n1 11y ago
Nothing as it is today. If you could hunt or gather you had a place. And you were related to everyone in your tribe by blood. So it is a similar relationship to the one that you have with your family or extended family. So yes to an extent you are right, but at the same time the social cohesion was much greater. In modern society if you are out you are out, you have no recourse at all. Hunter gatherer societies probably not as much. But I am sure if you did certain things in some of those groups that were out of the social norm they would kill you. But lots of things that you would get in trouble for today would not raise a brow in their societies. There are lots of trivial things that you can get in trouble for in mass societies that are of no concern to someone living in a tribal setting today for instance.
- CJefferson 11y ago
  I suspect (I don't have evidence I will admit, I'd be interested in any real evidence that exists!) that you have far too rosy a view of hunter / gather lifestyle. Mostly, it was more important for people to follow the rules, or people die. You (for example) couldn't keep quiet when you had to (while hunting, or hiding)? Food would escape, people would die. You felt some days you couldn't face going outside to hunt or gather? There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    Hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian than today's, this much is agreed upon by the anthropological community. It's just a result of small group size and homogeneity, along with a lack of specialization. What you're talking about is real, that if you couldn't fit into the norms of the group you would be shunned. Typically you wouldn't have trouble fitting into those rules, because they would have been all you were ever exposed to. You would have no reason to ever doubt them. Some people would be better than others at various tasks, for example, keeping quiet on a hunt, but then they would just do something else. Maybe you're worse than useless on a hunt, but instead you have a good eye and can spot and identify a mushroom better than anyone else. There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again. These small societies were built on reciprocity. In the short term you would be supported by general human goodness. If you simply couldn't contribute to collecting food, there were other things you could do as well. If you were too fond of animals to kill them, you might be coralled into some kind of medicinal role. If you were afraid to leave the settlement, you might find yourself weaving ropes, or maybe building weapons, fixing roofs.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    That's incorrect. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distribution_Among_Hunter-Gatherers_in_Northern_Siberia_Tests_of_Evolutionary_Hypotheses_Invited_Session_New_Research_in_the_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Food_Transfer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distr... Societies which operate purely on self-interest tend to be very bad at survival. Altruism and compromise are essential for evolutionary success.
  - joshmarlow 11y ago
    Not directly to your point, but I feel it's relevant: there's a hypothesis that ADHD is a remnant feature (not a bug!) from hunter-gatherer times. So actually the hyperfocus of ADHD would actually make quiet hunting easier (if that's what the hunter is hyperfocused on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis

Even hunter gatherer societies had social structure and norms. And in those societies people far outside the norm were probably treated much worse than they are in today's society.

x5n1 11y ago

Nothing as it is today. If you could hunt or gather you had a place. And you were related to everyone in your tribe by blood. So it is a similar relationship to the one that you have with your family or extended family. So yes to an extent you are right, but at the same time the social cohesion was much greater. In modern society if you are out you are out, you have no recourse at all. Hunter gatherer societies probably not as much. But I am sure if you did certain things in some of those groups that were out of the social norm they would kill you. But lots of things that you would get in trouble for today would not raise a brow in their societies. There are lots of trivial things that you can get in trouble for in mass societies that are of no concern to someone living in a tribal setting today for instance.

CJefferson 11y ago
I suspect (I don't have evidence I will admit, I'd be interested in any real evidence that exists!) that you have far too rosy a view of hunter / gather lifestyle. Mostly, it was more important for people to follow the rules, or people die. You (for example) couldn't keep quiet when you had to (while hunting, or hiding)? Food would escape, people would die. You felt some days you couldn't face going outside to hunt or gather? There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again.
- adrusi 11y ago
  Hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian than today's, this much is agreed upon by the anthropological community. It's just a result of small group size and homogeneity, along with a lack of specialization. What you're talking about is real, that if you couldn't fit into the norms of the group you would be shunned. Typically you wouldn't have trouble fitting into those rules, because they would have been all you were ever exposed to. You would have no reason to ever doubt them. Some people would be better than others at various tasks, for example, keeping quiet on a hunt, but then they would just do something else. Maybe you're worse than useless on a hunt, but instead you have a good eye and can spot and identify a mushroom better than anyone else. There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again. These small societies were built on reciprocity. In the short term you would be supported by general human goodness. If you simply couldn't contribute to collecting food, there were other things you could do as well. If you were too fond of animals to kill them, you might be coralled into some kind of medicinal role. If you were afraid to leave the settlement, you might find yourself weaving ropes, or maybe building weapons, fixing roofs.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  That's incorrect. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distribution_Among_Hunter-Gatherers_in_Northern_Siberia_Tests_of_Evolutionary_Hypotheses_Invited_Session_New_Research_in_the_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Food_Transfer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distr... Societies which operate purely on self-interest tend to be very bad at survival. Altruism and compromise are essential for evolutionary success.
- joshmarlow 11y ago
  Not directly to your point, but I feel it's relevant: there's a hypothesis that ADHD is a remnant feature (not a bug!) from hunter-gatherer times. So actually the hyperfocus of ADHD would actually make quiet hunting easier (if that's what the hunter is hyperfocused on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis