3 ms·

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 d

by 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...

by slphil 9y ago

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...