6 ms·

> Surely the answer lies somewhere in-between, that we must rest, and we must move I think the biggest change we made that caught us completely unprepared, was

> Surely the answer lies somewhere in-between, that we must rest, and we must move I think the biggest change we made that caught us completely unprepared, was that we've committed ourselves to doing the same thing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, all year long, for decades. I don't think our bodies evolved for this kind of effort (and I use the word "effort" even when the activity requires a lot of sitting, which is appropriate as the article shows). If you look at hunter-gatherer societies, their activity is more "bursty", more casual. They go gather stuff for a couple hours, then rest; then perhaps do something else. They go hunt something, which is harder, and then rest a longer time. Etc. There might be periods of intense activity, then longer times of rest, or diminished effort. There are also seasonal variations. The executive functions behind our foreheads, with their long term planning and their delayed gratification, are really pushing us pretty hard in directions that we're not fully adapted to. Perhaps something similar happened to our diet. Three meals a day, every day, for decades - that's a very recent change in diet. It used to be a lot more "lumpy" throughout the whole evolutionary past that has shaped us.

slphil 9y ago
While nothing you said is inaccurate, be careful of falling for the "original affluent society" canard. Hunter gatherers do not work less than we do, and they do not get enough food. (Quillette recently did a good write-up on this.)
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  Right. Something that modern society is good at is smoothing out random variations. After a local catastrophe, the rest of the country (or, sometimes, the world) will lend you a helping hand nowadays. But back then, your whole tribe would get wiped out. Similar for non-life-threatening events. Food input decrease in your area? You barely notice it in the somewhat higher prices, because society is routing food to you from other places. But your hunter-gatherer ancestors would be hungry for days or weeks. We're better adapted for a harsh, variable environment, and it's funny how our cozy, temperature-controlled dwellings are causing a whole host of new issues.
- adrice727 9y ago
  The article you're referring to[1] only talks about a single group of hunter-gatherers, the !Kung. And all things considered, they do not work less than we do. . . . his original estimate of 12-19 hours worked per week did not include food processing, tool making, or general housework, and when such activities were included he estimated that the !Kung worked about 40-44 hours per week. How many people do you know that spend 44 hours or less per week working, commuting, grocery shopping, cooking, doing housework, running errands, etc.? [1] http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gathere...
  - slphil 9y ago
    Did you finish reading the article? It gets far worse than numbers of hours worked (and the !Kung score quite well on many metrics compared to other hunter-gatherers). Humans stopped being hunter-gatherers for a reason.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  It doesn't necessarily matter whether they were affluent or not. When trying to understand what conditions our bodies need to be healthy, lacking definitive wisdom on the subject it's rational to try to understand what conditions proto-man lived in. What foods he ate, how he spent his time, and so forth. Whether or not proto-man was affluent, he spent countless centuries in a certain kind of lifestyle, and in all likelihood his biology adapted to that lifestyle.
  - slphil 9y ago
    Of course. We should keep in mind that we are evolutionary creatures and that drastically changing our diet or environment probably has negative effects (sitting down too long, eating refined sugars, etc). Do keep in mind that evolution hasn't stopped recently, either. There are plenty of civilization-era evolutionary adaptations in the human genome as well. [1] [1]: https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429 https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accel...
lucaspiller 9y ago
I often read comments here comparing our lives to hunter-gatherers, but something to bear in mind is most humans haven’t lived like that for many thousands of years. We may have evolved from that, but our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that. Farming has been around for a long time, and a lot of that involves doing the same repetive tasks all day long, and having a relatively stable supply of food.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  > our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that True, but I think the differences can still be explained 99% by changes in lifestyle. Genetically we are still overwhelmingly similar - with a few tiny differences like lactose tolerance, etc.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Not so much “evolved” changes, but human bodies definitely undergo differences in shape depending on use and context. Just look at athletes who start playing different sports from a young age – some of the difference is genetic and selection effects, but training definitely also affects muscle mass, joint flexibility, etc. The nutrient-deficient and unvaried diet, poor hygiene/concentration of people, and difficult menial workload from farming gave us very high infant mortality rate, higher disease rate, shrinking height and all sorts of health problems, repetitive strain leading to bodies just completely worn out by age 50, etc. As people started eating better etc. after getting away from a peasant lifestyle, average height increased by 30cm, infant mortality went way down, life expectancy and quality of life for elderly people went way up, etc. Our bodies to some extent started reverting to their “natural” shape, but of course being bottle-fed, wearing rigid shoes, sitting inside all day staring at close work from birth onward, a diet with increasing amounts of refined sugar/starch and plenty of alcohol etc. has certainly had its physical effects, and is leaving us with small jaws, dental caries, warped feet, inflexible ankles (unable to squat e.g.), decreasing levels of physical strength, back problems, diabetes, dementia in old age, ....
sandworm101 9y ago
>> I don't think our bodies evolved for this kind of effort... Our bodies evolved to stay alive long enough for our kids to have kids of their own, somewhere between 30 and 40ish. There is no grand plan, no set lifestyle that will perfectly suit our bodies. Such concepts tough on quasi-religious ideas of grand designs and lost edens. Evolution is a dirty and unplanned mess of factors without any plan. Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle. The bit of evolution that gave me wisdom teeth had in fact a very different plan. That doesn't mean I should return to the 'natural' lifestyle of not taking care of my teeth. Sitting too much is no doubt bad for our hearts, but there is no idealized 'balance' between sitting and jogging, a form of exercise that didn't even exist until maybe 1800.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle. According to some dentists I've talked to, this is a consequence of modern diet. Eat a lot of raw carrots and other basic foods, and you wouldn't really need to brush.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    Go look at some old skulls in any museum. Tooth infections, leading to bone infections, were common before sugar and bread were a thing. Wild animals still get cavities. A chip here, a broken tooth there, and you've got an entry point no matter how many carrots you chew.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

slphil 9y ago

While nothing you said is inaccurate, be careful of falling for the "original affluent society" canard. Hunter gatherers do not work less than we do, and they do not get enough food. (Quillette recently did a good write-up on this.)

Florin_Andrei 9y ago
Right. Something that modern society is good at is smoothing out random variations. After a local catastrophe, the rest of the country (or, sometimes, the world) will lend you a helping hand nowadays. But back then, your whole tribe would get wiped out. Similar for non-life-threatening events. Food input decrease in your area? You barely notice it in the somewhat higher prices, because society is routing food to you from other places. But your hunter-gatherer ancestors would be hungry for days or weeks. We're better adapted for a harsh, variable environment, and it's funny how our cozy, temperature-controlled dwellings are causing a whole host of new issues.
adrice727 9y ago
The article you're referring to[1] only talks about a single group of hunter-gatherers, the !Kung. And all things considered, they do not work less than we do. . . . his original estimate of 12-19 hours worked per week did not include food processing, tool making, or general housework, and when such activities were included he estimated that the !Kung worked about 40-44 hours per week. How many people do you know that spend 44 hours or less per week working, commuting, grocery shopping, cooking, doing housework, running errands, etc.? [1] http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gathere...
- slphil 9y ago
  Did you finish reading the article? It gets far worse than numbers of hours worked (and the !Kung score quite well on many metrics compared to other hunter-gatherers). Humans stopped being hunter-gatherers for a reason.
sliverstorm 9y ago
It doesn't necessarily matter whether they were affluent or not. When trying to understand what conditions our bodies need to be healthy, lacking definitive wisdom on the subject it's rational to try to understand what conditions proto-man lived in. What foods he ate, how he spent his time, and so forth. Whether or not proto-man was affluent, he spent countless centuries in a certain kind of lifestyle, and in all likelihood his biology adapted to that lifestyle.
- slphil 9y ago
  Of course. We should keep in mind that we are evolutionary creatures and that drastically changing our diet or environment probably has negative effects (sitting down too long, eating refined sugars, etc). Do keep in mind that evolution hasn't stopped recently, either. There are plenty of civilization-era evolutionary adaptations in the human genome as well. [1] [1]: https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429 https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accel...

lucaspiller 9y ago

I often read comments here comparing our lives to hunter-gatherers, but something to bear in mind is most humans haven’t lived like that for many thousands of years. We may have evolved from that, but our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that. Farming has been around for a long time, and a lot of that involves doing the same repetive tasks all day long, and having a relatively stable supply of food.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that True, but I think the differences can still be explained 99% by changes in lifestyle. Genetically we are still overwhelmingly similar - with a few tiny differences like lactose tolerance, etc.
jacobolus 9y ago
Not so much “evolved” changes, but human bodies definitely undergo differences in shape depending on use and context. Just look at athletes who start playing different sports from a young age – some of the difference is genetic and selection effects, but training definitely also affects muscle mass, joint flexibility, etc. The nutrient-deficient and unvaried diet, poor hygiene/concentration of people, and difficult menial workload from farming gave us very high infant mortality rate, higher disease rate, shrinking height and all sorts of health problems, repetitive strain leading to bodies just completely worn out by age 50, etc. As people started eating better etc. after getting away from a peasant lifestyle, average height increased by 30cm, infant mortality went way down, life expectancy and quality of life for elderly people went way up, etc. Our bodies to some extent started reverting to their “natural” shape, but of course being bottle-fed, wearing rigid shoes, sitting inside all day staring at close work from birth onward, a diet with increasing amounts of refined sugar/starch and plenty of alcohol etc. has certainly had its physical effects, and is leaving us with small jaws, dental caries, warped feet, inflexible ankles (unable to squat e.g.), decreasing levels of physical strength, back problems, diabetes, dementia in old age, ....

sandworm101 9y ago

>> I don't think our bodies evolved for this kind of effort... Our bodies evolved to stay alive long enough for our kids to have kids of their own, somewhere between 30 and 40ish. There is no grand plan, no set lifestyle that will perfectly suit our bodies. Such concepts tough on quasi-religious ideas of grand designs and lost edens. Evolution is a dirty and unplanned mess of factors without any plan. Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle. The bit of evolution that gave me wisdom teeth had in fact a very different plan. That doesn't mean I should return to the 'natural' lifestyle of not taking care of my teeth. Sitting too much is no doubt bad for our hearts, but there is no idealized 'balance' between sitting and jogging, a form of exercise that didn't even exist until maybe 1800.

sliverstorm 9y ago
Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle. According to some dentists I've talked to, this is a consequence of modern diet. Eat a lot of raw carrots and other basic foods, and you wouldn't really need to brush.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  Go look at some old skulls in any museum. Tooth infections, leading to bone infections, were common before sugar and bread were a thing. Wild animals still get cavities. A chip here, a broken tooth there, and you've got an entry point no matter how many carrots you chew.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]