7 ms·

Hunter-gatherer societies have absolutely nothing to do with 'building a cabin in the woods' or poverty. They represent a highly social period in human develop

Hunter-gatherer societies have absolutely nothing to do with 'building a cabin in the woods' or poverty. They represent a highly social period in human development that lasted for tens of thousands of years. It has been argued that we have never been as happy or healthy ever since.[0] [0] http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

js2 10y ago
Also, for a philsophical take on it, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)
CydeWeys 10y ago
Hunter-gatherer societies don't allow for all the advantages of civilization, including modern medicine. So long as you don't over-eat yourself into obesity you're way healthier now than you would've been as a hunter-gatherer. Besiders, hunting/gathering is a dead end -- it doesn't lead off this planet, which is ultimately what we'll need in order to not be a forgotten about galactic footnote.
- gkya 10y ago
  We're going nowhere anyways.
- elif 10y ago
  [EDIT: removed the scientifically valueless bits] Almost all of my illnesses have been contracted either at work or from my partner who contracted it at work. I think it is also worth noting that our current capital-centric trajectory does not lead off of this planet either. We are far closer to global catastrophe than we are to extraterrestrial colonization.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Anecdata versus an increase in life expectancy from the mid-20s to around 80 isn't a very compelling argument against the benefits from modern medicine...
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      Most of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        > Most of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases. ... All of which have been driven by the application of lessons learned by public health doctors and scientists.
        WalterBright 10y ago
        Not the food one. That was driven by the agricultural revolution.
        Spooky23 10y ago
        The agricultural revolution was about feeding the massive postwar population boom. I'm talking about the 1890-1940 activity to make food safe. Stuff like mandatory pasteurization of milk, wholesomeness requirements for meats, etc. You had early 20th century Typhoid epidemics in NYC fueled by bad milk.
        WalterBright 10y ago
        I actually meant the mechanization of agriculture that began in the US starting around 1800. Tractors and such hugely improved yields. Trains enabled fresh food to be quickly shipped around the country year round. If you take a look at longevity and infant mortality statistics, they got dramatically better from 1800 to 1890.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Why are most of your contracted illnesses now viral and not fungal or bacterial? Because modern medicine has rendered the latter two nearly obsolete. People who contract them get treated for them and they're less likely to spread throughout your community. Even many viral infections are far less common thanks to vaccinations and early intervention/isolation. > Almost all of my illnesses have been contracted either at work or from my partner who contracted it at work. And this is a social problem, not a "modern medicine" problem. Idiots need to stop going to the office sick. One dumbass knocked out half my office 3 or 4 years back. Came in with a cold, 15 people sick over the next two weeks.
    - koide 10y ago
      And the idiots' bosses should encourage them not to go instead of pressuring them so much that they feel they have to go even when sick so they don't lose their job or their status. It's a complex problem, it's not just the sick to blame.
  - Vraxx 10y ago
    Interesting anecdote, although, as I never get tired of stressing, other people do exist and have different experiences. People are kept alive all the time by medicinal techniques that have been developed and just because your doctor visits have not saved your life does not mean that many others have not experienced the wonders of modern medicine. Also you're taking for granted all of the illnesses you avoided merely by being vaccinated for them as a child. Almost nobody in developed society contracts polio anymore, but that doesn't make it any less lethal to groups not acquainted with modern medicine.
  - a_c_s 10y ago
    You're ignoring all of the diseases you don't get due to vaccinations and other eradication efforts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diseases_eliminated_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diseases_eliminated_fr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    You're fortunate. When your hunter-gatherer alter ego gets wounded by a spear or an animal, there's a high probability that that wound is going to get infected, and a moderate probability that the wound turn into sepsis and kill you.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    That's because you've been vaccinated and centuries of disease outbreak management have decimated the prevalence of infectious disease. You're also far more likely to have medical problems from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle: frequent activity can lead to injury, frequent contact with animal life, and poor food sanitation. Not to mention that once you get sick you can't produce food, which means your tribe has to support you. Which would be okay if food is plentiful and only a few people are sick, but if there's an epidemic suddenly your half your tribe is sick and no one can gather food for the next two weeks.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    I'm sorry that you catch a cold every so often, but there's double digit chances that you would have already died prior to reaching adulthood in a hunter-gatherer society. The two aren't remotely comparable. And while anecdata don't prove points, let me present to you my opposing anecdote. I recently fractured my tibia in a fall. I had it properly treated by doctors, and not quite three months afterwards all that remains of my injury is a slight limp, which should be gone in another month with continuing physical therapy. Meanwhile, in a hunter-gatherer society, this type of injury would likely result in permanent lifelong lameness, and could easily be a death sentence. But for me it was just an inconvenience -- I only even lost a total of three days of work, because modern civilization thankfully affords me the opportunity to be a knowledge worker. I can deal with catching the occasional cold.
openasocket 10y ago
I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter-gatherers relative to people in the modern world?
- notahacker 10y ago
  It's a myth popularised by anthropologists like Diamond who compare it to primitive agriculture and conclude that the farmers were worse off in many respects. But even if hunter-gathering was a local optimum (which is questionable, considering that for the lifestyle to be sustainable neighbouring human tribes had to be killed off or driven away), I can't really conceive how a life expectancy of 26 with no fixed abode, education or lifestyle choice can be considered as anything other than poverty by today's standards.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    The 26 life-expectancy is an average, not when people actually die. It's brought down by high infant mortality.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Sure, and the level of infant mortality was dramatically higher than it is today, higher even than most societies living in extreme poverty. I doubt many hunter gatherers survived into their eighties either.
- forkandwait 10y ago
  The argument i have heard is that hunting gathering is far more intellectually stimulating and easier on your body than being a peasant or low skill factory worker, who probably don't have any more to eat or better Healthcare and shelter. Quite plausible for 80% of the population pre 1900.
wil421 10y ago
Happy? Healthy? I'm sure it was the happy hunter gatherers who built Stonehedge[1] and possibly used the area for happy human sacrifice[2]. Not to mention the probable rape and killing of groups of gatherers [3]. I can't even imagine the hunger and famine they had to endure if the herds didn't migrate in the same pattern one year. Or if a harsh winter killed off your gathering food. What about all the worms and parasites they probably had. If you look at hunter gatherers today they are all short and thin. [1]http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stonehenge-could-rewrite-british-history-experts-say http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stone... [2]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-was-this-man-sacrificed-at-stonehenge/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-wa... [3]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massac...
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The folks doing the pillaging and sacrificing were probably quite happy with themselves.
- beat 10y ago
  Not having "work" in the sense we have today isn't going to lead to plows and bandages ceasing to exist. To that point, there are many people who would, if freed from the need to "work for a living", happily be farmers. The happiest people I know are the farm family that provides our CSA food. And they take more pride in their farm than someone riding a tractor to spray Monsanto chemicals all day. They love their work. If someone gave them a million dollars and they would never need money again, they'd still run the farm just as they do now (although they might give the food away). Likewise, doctors! People become doctors to heal the sick, not to get rich. Virtually every doctor I've ever met is completely passionate about their job, frustrated mostly by the money-driven bureaucracy, not the patients. And they were taught by professors who couldn't be any happier than they are, teaching a new generation of doctors how to save lives. Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all.
shkkmo 10y ago
This is a red herring. The article in question is not advocating a return to hunter-gatherer societies, it is utilizing them as a means to look what a what a society without post-industrial-jobs might could look like in terms of daily life and hapiness.
andrepd 10y ago
It has been argued so by persons that cherry pick evidence to support that claim. The most straightforward explanations don't come to those conclusions.

js2 10y ago

Also, for a philsophical take on it, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

CydeWeys 10y ago

Hunter-gatherer societies don't allow for all the advantages of civilization, including modern medicine. So long as you don't over-eat yourself into obesity you're way healthier now than you would've been as a hunter-gatherer. Besiders, hunting/gathering is a dead end -- it doesn't lead off this planet, which is ultimately what we'll need in order to not be a forgotten about galactic footnote.

gkya 10y ago
We're going nowhere anyways.
elif 10y ago
[EDIT: removed the scientifically valueless bits] Almost all of my illnesses have been contracted either at work or from my partner who contracted it at work. I think it is also worth noting that our current capital-centric trajectory does not lead off of this planet either. We are far closer to global catastrophe than we are to extraterrestrial colonization.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Anecdata versus an increase in life expectancy from the mid-20s to around 80 isn't a very compelling argument against the benefits from modern medicine...
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Most of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      > Most of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases. ... All of which have been driven by the application of lessons learned by public health doctors and scientists.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        Not the food one. That was driven by the agricultural revolution.
        Spooky23 10y ago
        The agricultural revolution was about feeding the massive postwar population boom. I'm talking about the 1890-1940 activity to make food safe. Stuff like mandatory pasteurization of milk, wholesomeness requirements for meats, etc. You had early 20th century Typhoid epidemics in NYC fueled by bad milk.
        WalterBright 10y ago
        I actually meant the mechanization of agriculture that began in the US starting around 1800. Tractors and such hugely improved yields. Trains enabled fresh food to be quickly shipped around the country year round. If you take a look at longevity and infant mortality statistics, they got dramatically better from 1800 to 1890.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Why are most of your contracted illnesses now viral and not fungal or bacterial? Because modern medicine has rendered the latter two nearly obsolete. People who contract them get treated for them and they're less likely to spread throughout your community. Even many viral infections are far less common thanks to vaccinations and early intervention/isolation. > Almost all of my illnesses have been contracted either at work or from my partner who contracted it at work. And this is a social problem, not a "modern medicine" problem. Idiots need to stop going to the office sick. One dumbass knocked out half my office 3 or 4 years back. Came in with a cold, 15 people sick over the next two weeks.
  - koide 10y ago
    And the idiots' bosses should encourage them not to go instead of pressuring them so much that they feel they have to go even when sick so they don't lose their job or their status. It's a complex problem, it's not just the sick to blame.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  Interesting anecdote, although, as I never get tired of stressing, other people do exist and have different experiences. People are kept alive all the time by medicinal techniques that have been developed and just because your doctor visits have not saved your life does not mean that many others have not experienced the wonders of modern medicine. Also you're taking for granted all of the illnesses you avoided merely by being vaccinated for them as a child. Almost nobody in developed society contracts polio anymore, but that doesn't make it any less lethal to groups not acquainted with modern medicine.
- a_c_s 10y ago
  You're ignoring all of the diseases you don't get due to vaccinations and other eradication efforts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diseases_eliminated_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diseases_eliminated_fr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...
- Spooky23 10y ago
  You're fortunate. When your hunter-gatherer alter ego gets wounded by a spear or an animal, there's a high probability that that wound is going to get infected, and a moderate probability that the wound turn into sepsis and kill you.
- openasocket 10y ago
  That's because you've been vaccinated and centuries of disease outbreak management have decimated the prevalence of infectious disease. You're also far more likely to have medical problems from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle: frequent activity can lead to injury, frequent contact with animal life, and poor food sanitation. Not to mention that once you get sick you can't produce food, which means your tribe has to support you. Which would be okay if food is plentiful and only a few people are sick, but if there's an epidemic suddenly your half your tribe is sick and no one can gather food for the next two weeks.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  I'm sorry that you catch a cold every so often, but there's double digit chances that you would have already died prior to reaching adulthood in a hunter-gatherer society. The two aren't remotely comparable. And while anecdata don't prove points, let me present to you my opposing anecdote. I recently fractured my tibia in a fall. I had it properly treated by doctors, and not quite three months afterwards all that remains of my injury is a slight limp, which should be gone in another month with continuing physical therapy. Meanwhile, in a hunter-gatherer society, this type of injury would likely result in permanent lifelong lameness, and could easily be a death sentence. But for me it was just an inconvenience -- I only even lost a total of three days of work, because modern civilization thankfully affords me the opportunity to be a knowledge worker. I can deal with catching the occasional cold.

openasocket 10y ago

I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter-gatherers relative to people in the modern world?

notahacker 10y ago
It's a myth popularised by anthropologists like Diamond who compare it to primitive agriculture and conclude that the farmers were worse off in many respects. But even if hunter-gathering was a local optimum (which is questionable, considering that for the lifestyle to be sustainable neighbouring human tribes had to be killed off or driven away), I can't really conceive how a life expectancy of 26 with no fixed abode, education or lifestyle choice can be considered as anything other than poverty by today's standards.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  The 26 life-expectancy is an average, not when people actually die. It's brought down by high infant mortality.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Sure, and the level of infant mortality was dramatically higher than it is today, higher even than most societies living in extreme poverty. I doubt many hunter gatherers survived into their eighties either.
forkandwait 10y ago
The argument i have heard is that hunting gathering is far more intellectually stimulating and easier on your body than being a peasant or low skill factory worker, who probably don't have any more to eat or better Healthcare and shelter. Quite plausible for 80% of the population pre 1900.

wil421 10y ago

Happy? Healthy? I'm sure it was the happy hunter gatherers who built Stonehedge[1] and possibly used the area for happy human sacrifice[2]. Not to mention the probable rape and killing of groups of gatherers [3]. I can't even imagine the hunger and famine they had to endure if the herds didn't migrate in the same pattern one year. Or if a harsh winter killed off your gathering food. What about all the worms and parasites they probably had. If you look at hunter gatherers today they are all short and thin. [1]http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stonehenge-could-rewrite-british-history-experts-say http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stone... [2]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-was-this-man-sacrificed-at-stonehenge/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-wa... [3]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massac...

Spooky23 10y ago
The folks doing the pillaging and sacrificing were probably quite happy with themselves.
beat 10y ago
Not having "work" in the sense we have today isn't going to lead to plows and bandages ceasing to exist. To that point, there are many people who would, if freed from the need to "work for a living", happily be farmers. The happiest people I know are the farm family that provides our CSA food. And they take more pride in their farm than someone riding a tractor to spray Monsanto chemicals all day. They love their work. If someone gave them a million dollars and they would never need money again, they'd still run the farm just as they do now (although they might give the food away). Likewise, doctors! People become doctors to heal the sick, not to get rich. Virtually every doctor I've ever met is completely passionate about their job, frustrated mostly by the money-driven bureaucracy, not the patients. And they were taught by professors who couldn't be any happier than they are, teaching a new generation of doctors how to save lives. Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all.

shkkmo 10y ago

This is a red herring. The article in question is not advocating a return to hunter-gatherer societies, it is utilizing them as a means to look what a what a society without post-industrial-jobs might could look like in terms of daily life and hapiness.

andrepd 10y ago

It has been argued so by persons that cherry pick evidence to support that claim. The most straightforward explanations don't come to those conclusions.