4 ms·

Life might not be nasty, brutish, and short for some lucky bushmen, but for most it sure seems to suck: "Bushmen health, in general, is not good though: 50% of

Life might not be nasty, brutish, and short for some lucky bushmen, but for most it sure seems to suck: "Bushmen health, in general, is not good though: 50% of children die before the age of 15; 20% die within their first year (mostly of gastrointestinal infections). Average life expectancy is about 45-50 years"

ThomPete 9y ago
It important to remember though that the reason average life was 45-50 was because of all the people who died early in life. If you actually managed to hit 30 there was a good chance you would make it up in your 60-70ies.
- radicaldreamer 9y ago
  Those are current stats, only 10% of bushmen live past 60.
  - jonnycomputer 9y ago
    most bushmen aren't healthy hunter-gatherers any more.
msabalau 9y ago
High childhood mortality, and adult life expectancy until the 40s doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as nasty or brutish. It was the norm for most of human existence, until the new stone age (When the undergraduate simplification "old people live until 70, and life expectancy is really about child mortality" kicks in.) Perhaps unexpectedly, anthropologists visiting such societies often perceive them as remarkably vibrant and healthy, because so much of the population is in their teens and twenties. “Were they beautiful? We were all beautiful. We were in our twenties.” ― Steve Martin
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > High childhood mortality, and adult life expectancy until the 40s doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as nasty or brutish. > It was the norm for most of human existence The second statement isn't an argument against the first. In fact the original 'nasty, brutish, and short' quote, I think by Winston Churchill, stated that it was the norm. Slavery and monarchy, not freedom and democracy, was the norm for most of human history. Epidemics and famine, not the CDC and obesity, used to be the norm.
  - Zuider 9y ago
    The quote is from 17th-century British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes who argued that in the state of nature, life was a matter of: “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. He proposed that the solution was the voluntary creation by means of a 'social contract' of an absolute state ruled by a monarch who was above the law. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-summary/ http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-summ...
    - lsc 9y ago
      True, but that quote is often used by all who oppose the anarchists; all who believe that in order to have civilization, we have to give up some rights. I have noticed an uptick in the number of ideological anarchists lately, though, both right and left, within my social sphere. I do think that is one of those interesting "horeshoe" situations in politics; the right anarchists and the left anarchists, in many ways are the extremes of the right and the left, but they have so much in common; they both believe that people can function without being forced to give up any of their own rights (though they deeply disagree as to what rights a person has.) Most people, I think, agree that that part of Hobbes' argument is not weakened by the fact that Hobbes wasn't able to see (or that the political realities of his situation made it difficult to write about[1]) political systems other than absolute rule. [1]A contemporary, the incredible poet John Milton, actually wrote a paean to regicide. "On the tenure of kings and magistrates" or something like that, which I read as "Please don't kill me, see? I'm on your side" - existing as an intellectual during times of revolution can be a tricky thing. I personally think "Paradise lost" is a better introduction to Milton, but the point remains.
- jonnycomputer 9y ago
  It is not unusual to go to a hunter-gatherer group and see quite a few gray hairs.
unscaled 9y ago
The average life expectancy in Thomas Hobbes' days was even less, generally estimated between 35-40. When historians claim that hunter-gatherers generally had a better life than farmers, they don't have modern urban middle classes typing on their PC in mind as the archetype of hard-up farmers. It's also worth saying that the Kalahari San probably don't represent a good archetype for hunter-gatherers. They live in a semi-arid savannah, while prehistorical hunter-gatherers generally lived in more abundant areas.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  Either you live in an environment that can hardly support human life, in which case the enemy you contend with is nature itself, or you live in an environment which can support abundant human life, in which case the enemy you contend with is other humans. All life expands to fit its ecological niche. For this reason, the only time when life hasn’t been fraught with peril is now; this ephemeral moment in our history when our ability to produce food has exploded at the same time that our fertility rates have collapsed.

ThomPete 9y ago

It important to remember though that the reason average life was 45-50 was because of all the people who died early in life. If you actually managed to hit 30 there was a good chance you would make it up in your 60-70ies.

radicaldreamer 9y ago
Those are current stats, only 10% of bushmen live past 60.
- jonnycomputer 9y ago
  most bushmen aren't healthy hunter-gatherers any more.

msabalau 9y ago

High childhood mortality, and adult life expectancy until the 40s doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as nasty or brutish. It was the norm for most of human existence, until the new stone age (When the undergraduate simplification "old people live until 70, and life expectancy is really about child mortality" kicks in.) Perhaps unexpectedly, anthropologists visiting such societies often perceive them as remarkably vibrant and healthy, because so much of the population is in their teens and twenties. “Were they beautiful? We were all beautiful. We were in our twenties.” ― Steve Martin

forapurpose 9y ago
> High childhood mortality, and adult life expectancy until the 40s doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as nasty or brutish. > It was the norm for most of human existence The second statement isn't an argument against the first. In fact the original 'nasty, brutish, and short' quote, I think by Winston Churchill, stated that it was the norm. Slavery and monarchy, not freedom and democracy, was the norm for most of human history. Epidemics and famine, not the CDC and obesity, used to be the norm.
- Zuider 9y ago
  The quote is from 17th-century British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes who argued that in the state of nature, life was a matter of: “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. He proposed that the solution was the voluntary creation by means of a 'social contract' of an absolute state ruled by a monarch who was above the law. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-summary/ http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-summ...
  - lsc 9y ago
    True, but that quote is often used by all who oppose the anarchists; all who believe that in order to have civilization, we have to give up some rights. I have noticed an uptick in the number of ideological anarchists lately, though, both right and left, within my social sphere. I do think that is one of those interesting "horeshoe" situations in politics; the right anarchists and the left anarchists, in many ways are the extremes of the right and the left, but they have so much in common; they both believe that people can function without being forced to give up any of their own rights (though they deeply disagree as to what rights a person has.) Most people, I think, agree that that part of Hobbes' argument is not weakened by the fact that Hobbes wasn't able to see (or that the political realities of his situation made it difficult to write about[1]) political systems other than absolute rule. [1]A contemporary, the incredible poet John Milton, actually wrote a paean to regicide. "On the tenure of kings and magistrates" or something like that, which I read as "Please don't kill me, see? I'm on your side" - existing as an intellectual during times of revolution can be a tricky thing. I personally think "Paradise lost" is a better introduction to Milton, but the point remains.
jonnycomputer 9y ago
It is not unusual to go to a hunter-gatherer group and see quite a few gray hairs.

unscaled 9y ago

The average life expectancy in Thomas Hobbes' days was even less, generally estimated between 35-40. When historians claim that hunter-gatherers generally had a better life than farmers, they don't have modern urban middle classes typing on their PC in mind as the archetype of hard-up farmers. It's also worth saying that the Kalahari San probably don't represent a good archetype for hunter-gatherers. They live in a semi-arid savannah, while prehistorical hunter-gatherers generally lived in more abundant areas.

toasterlovin 9y ago
Either you live in an environment that can hardly support human life, in which case the enemy you contend with is nature itself, or you live in an environment which can support abundant human life, in which case the enemy you contend with is other humans. All life expands to fit its ecological niche. For this reason, the only time when life hasn’t been fraught with peril is now; this ephemeral moment in our history when our ability to produce food has exploded at the same time that our fertility rates have collapsed.