5 ms·

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 l

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.
lawpoop 10y ago
Not better for your or me, just that it's better or comparable to the most of the world who lives in poverty and squalor. As far as measuring happiness, one method would be levels of stress hormones in the blood.
- openasocket 10y ago
  The global average life expectancy is still much better today than in a hunter-gatherer society, as is infant mortality, prevalence of infectious diseases, etc.
  - yaks_hairbrush 10y ago
    Life expectancy is better today, but life expectancy as a hunter-gatherer was probably better than you think. [0] suggests a modal adult age of 68-78 years for hunter-gatherers. Infant mortality is indeed way down, and that's a big point in our favor (and the biggest driver of the life expectancy difference). Infectious diseases, though, are very much a product of agricultural society, as is starvation/famine. We might be living through the century (or possibly, have just lived through the century) where our technology finally enables us to fix these two problems caused by our ancestors' conversion to agriculture. [0] http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...
rsync 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?" I don't "get" why we're arguing about it at all - we don't need to. In 2016 there exist authentic, functioning hunter gatherer societies and it is possible to witness and document them. Here is some witness and documentation: http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/ http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/ ... perhaps scroll down to the photos of women being cut open and burned at the stake for witchcraft, or the mutilated survivors of tribal justice. Looks like a real party.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  The article was not about the hunter-gatherer life being better as a whole, it was about how what is natural to human beings is a life with a good deal of play.
pragmar 10y ago
It's a value argument. You've framed it in terms of stability, life expectancy, rule of law; someone else may frame through a different lens (family, leisure, etc.). You can substitute hunter/gatherer for 1960s or 80s political nostalgia and find a similar argument.

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.

lawpoop 10y ago

Not better for your or me, just that it's better or comparable to the most of the world who lives in poverty and squalor. As far as measuring happiness, one method would be levels of stress hormones in the blood.

openasocket 10y ago
The global average life expectancy is still much better today than in a hunter-gatherer society, as is infant mortality, prevalence of infectious diseases, etc.
- yaks_hairbrush 10y ago
  Life expectancy is better today, but life expectancy as a hunter-gatherer was probably better than you think. [0] suggests a modal adult age of 68-78 years for hunter-gatherers. Infant mortality is indeed way down, and that's a big point in our favor (and the biggest driver of the life expectancy difference). Infectious diseases, though, are very much a product of agricultural society, as is starvation/famine. We might be living through the century (or possibly, have just lived through the century) where our technology finally enables us to fix these two problems caused by our ancestors' conversion to agriculture. [0] http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...

rsync 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?" I don't "get" why we're arguing about it at all - we don't need to. In 2016 there exist authentic, functioning hunter gatherer societies and it is possible to witness and document them. Here is some witness and documentation: http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/ http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/ ... perhaps scroll down to the photos of women being cut open and burned at the stake for witchcraft, or the mutilated survivors of tribal justice. Looks like a real party.

woodandsteel 10y ago
The article was not about the hunter-gatherer life being better as a whole, it was about how what is natural to human beings is a life with a good deal of play.

pragmar 10y ago

It's a value argument. You've framed it in terms of stability, life expectancy, rule of law; someone else may frame through a different lens (family, leisure, etc.). You can substitute hunter/gatherer for 1960s or 80s political nostalgia and find a similar argument.