4 ms·

I disagree. Leisure time for the masses is a recent development. If one observes modern small farmers and seasonal agricultural laborers, reads history on peasa

by jlb 18y ago

I disagree. Leisure time for the masses is a recent development. If one observes modern small farmers and seasonal agricultural laborers, reads history on peasants, pre and industrial laborers then one should take away the observation that these people work and worked all day long most if not all their lives. Even for hunter gatherers, they spend most of their time half-starved scratching for food.

zasz 18y ago
Hunter gatherers actually had plenty of food and leisure time and were much better nourished than their agricultural compatriots. Jared Diamond wrote a good article summarizing their lifestyle: http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/ http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/ Seasonal farmers in Europe and Russia spent half the year doing nothing. Even if they had to work their asses off during the growing season, they had nothing BUT leisure time during the winter. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html
- pg 18y ago
  If hunter-gatherers had such great lives, you have to ask why they took up agriculture. Presumably it made their lives better or they wouldn't have done it. I think one problem with pre-agricultural life was that it was so unpredictable. You had plenty of food, until you didn't. Another downside was what hunter-gatherers had to do to their parents when they got too old to travel, and to children born too close together.
  - lg 18y ago
    well, you have to ask why some of them took it up. but once that initial tribe did, they could've spread their way of life by conquest, since agriculture generally supports bigger populations than hunting. that newfound power might answer the why-keep-it-going question. as to why they'd even start (assuming they didn't decide to switch based on theories about population growth), i recall hearing a plausible-sounding hypothesis that hunter-gatherers experimented with agriculture to keep rare drug-producing plants in supply.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      I've also heard the theory that alcohol production was one inducement to settlement.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    There is a well known study of Native American cultures in the Mississippi valley where we have access to skeletal remains over many hundreds of years. We can see the health of individuals decline as they made their switch to corn agriculture from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In fact, there are considerable increases in disease and a shortening of lifespan. The reason why the agricultural lifestyle won-out was because it was capable of supporting larger populations with ruling theocratic elites who could then organize manpower for military and other purposes. Hunter-gatherers, despite being healthier individually, couldn't compete.
    - pg 18y ago
      The reason why the agricultural lifestyle won-out was because it was capable of supporting larger populations Think what that implies. If the hunter-gatherer mode of life couldn't support a large population, how was that limit enforced? It had to be by people dying. But that wasn't what I was asking anyway. I wasn't asking why agriculture won, but why it started. The first agriculturists must have switched from being hunter gatherers. Why, if life wasn't better? (I realize the switch was a matter of degree, so consider the preceding question as an abbreviation for asking why about each degree of switch.)
      - asdflkj 18y ago
        Could be because life was better in the (relatively) short term, but ended up worse overall. Maybe it also seemed better than it actually was. Evolution had prepared us to see and fear the hazards of hunter-gatherer lifestyle (such as hunger), but not of agricultural lifestyle (such as eventual disease).
      - ingenium 18y ago
        I would think that it would have been more gradual than that. Some people in the community probably started growing the plants that they usually went out and gathered, since it was easier. Maybe during a time when they weren't moving as much. Or maybe they migrated between different areas depending on the season, so they planted, say, berries at all the different sites. I think it would have started more like that. Then because there was more food available from this, more people started doing it, and eventually it won out over migrating all the time or even staying in one place and hunting and gathering.
  - zasz 18y ago
    People don't do what's always in their best long-term interest. They don't always even act in their best interest in any form. Re predictability: You could say that about agriculture too. Think about the great potato famine in Ireland. Agriculture's not immune to famines from droughts or pests.
sdurkin 18y ago
A hunter who hunts twice as much doesn't eat twice as much, he starves to death.

by jlb 18y ago

zasz 18y ago

Hunter gatherers actually had plenty of food and leisure time and were much better nourished than their agricultural compatriots. Jared Diamond wrote a good article summarizing their lifestyle: http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/ http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/ Seasonal farmers in Europe and Russia spent half the year doing nothing. Even if they had to work their asses off during the growing season, they had nothing BUT leisure time during the winter. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html

pg 18y ago
If hunter-gatherers had such great lives, you have to ask why they took up agriculture. Presumably it made their lives better or they wouldn't have done it. I think one problem with pre-agricultural life was that it was so unpredictable. You had plenty of food, until you didn't. Another downside was what hunter-gatherers had to do to their parents when they got too old to travel, and to children born too close together.
- lg 18y ago
  well, you have to ask why some of them took it up. but once that initial tribe did, they could've spread their way of life by conquest, since agriculture generally supports bigger populations than hunting. that newfound power might answer the why-keep-it-going question. as to why they'd even start (assuming they didn't decide to switch based on theories about population growth), i recall hearing a plausible-sounding hypothesis that hunter-gatherers experimented with agriculture to keep rare drug-producing plants in supply.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    I've also heard the theory that alcohol production was one inducement to settlement.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  There is a well known study of Native American cultures in the Mississippi valley where we have access to skeletal remains over many hundreds of years. We can see the health of individuals decline as they made their switch to corn agriculture from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In fact, there are considerable increases in disease and a shortening of lifespan. The reason why the agricultural lifestyle won-out was because it was capable of supporting larger populations with ruling theocratic elites who could then organize manpower for military and other purposes. Hunter-gatherers, despite being healthier individually, couldn't compete.
  - pg 18y ago
    The reason why the agricultural lifestyle won-out was because it was capable of supporting larger populations Think what that implies. If the hunter-gatherer mode of life couldn't support a large population, how was that limit enforced? It had to be by people dying. But that wasn't what I was asking anyway. I wasn't asking why agriculture won, but why it started. The first agriculturists must have switched from being hunter gatherers. Why, if life wasn't better? (I realize the switch was a matter of degree, so consider the preceding question as an abbreviation for asking why about each degree of switch.)
    - asdflkj 18y ago
      Could be because life was better in the (relatively) short term, but ended up worse overall. Maybe it also seemed better than it actually was. Evolution had prepared us to see and fear the hazards of hunter-gatherer lifestyle (such as hunger), but not of agricultural lifestyle (such as eventual disease).
    - ingenium 18y ago
      I would think that it would have been more gradual than that. Some people in the community probably started growing the plants that they usually went out and gathered, since it was easier. Maybe during a time when they weren't moving as much. Or maybe they migrated between different areas depending on the season, so they planted, say, berries at all the different sites. I think it would have started more like that. Then because there was more food available from this, more people started doing it, and eventually it won out over migrating all the time or even staying in one place and hunting and gathering.
- zasz 18y ago
  People don't do what's always in their best long-term interest. They don't always even act in their best interest in any form. Re predictability: You could say that about agriculture too. Think about the great potato famine in Ireland. Agriculture's not immune to famines from droughts or pests.

sdurkin 18y ago

A hunter who hunts twice as much doesn't eat twice as much, he starves to death.