3 ms·
I question this idea. It seems like “common wisdom” that hunter-gatherers had “nasty, brutish, and short” lives but the author of Sapiens: A Brief History Of Hu
by kaycebasques 8y ago
I question this idea. It seems like “common wisdom” that hunter-gatherers had “nasty, brutish, and short” lives but the author of Sapiens: A Brief History Of Humankind argues that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were the “original affluent society.” They probably spent much less overall time on food than our agricultural ancestors. The H-Fs would spend 4-6 hours foraging, trapping, or hunting, and then have the rest of the day to do other stuff. They had a diverse food supply, meaning they probably got more nutrients.
Agriculturists, on the other hand, labored all day doing work that our bodies weren’t evolved for. They depended on a single crop. If anything went wrong with that crop, famine for many people was certain. And since they had less food diversity, they were comparatively malnourished.
- tyu100 8y agoStephen Pinker often talks about life in present day Papau New Guinea where tribal societies exist that are likely very similar to those that existed in all hunter-gatherer societies. Life mostly sucks and if you meet someone in a different tribe you spend most of your time deciding whether or not to kill that person.
- kaycebasques 8y agoYuval Harari [1] argues that the violence in New Guinea is an example of a "simple agricultural society with no political framework beyond village and tribe." In other words, yes, New Guinea is violent, but it doesn't represent a hunter-forager society. [1]: Sapiens, p. 82