5 ms·

In 1966, anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in the famous "Man the Hunter" symposium coined the term "the original affluent" society which he ascribed to the hunt

In 1966, anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in the famous "Man the Hunter" symposium coined the term "the original affluent" society which he ascribed to the hunter-gatherer peoples. His argument largely rested on studies conducted on the !Kung people of Southern Africa which found that the !Kung only needed to work about 15-20 hours a week to meet their daily needs. When compared to the 40 hour workweeks that (some) industrial nations enjoy (and have fought to achieve), they do indeed seem affluent However, a mistake in this analysis was quickly pointed out. That 15-20 hours figure only represented the time necessary to gather food. It ignored the time necessary to gather firewood, take care of children, prepare food, etc. So Sahlins went back to his analysis and took those factors into account. When taking those factors into account, the !Kung (and most San peoples that have maintained their traditional foraging societies) worked 40 hours to meet all their basic needs. However, when looking at the time spent by Western peoples outside of formal work doing informal work (laundry, cooking, etc), their workweek shot up to 80 hours. In the end, the San (and likely most foraging societies) worked half as much as us, enjoyed great health [1], and even had better food security [2] (contrary to common assumptions about foraging societies). The questions this opens up, in my view, are: 1) If our society is so much more efficient now than societies were before civilization, why is it that we have to work so much harder to meet our basic needs? 2) If it's not the majority benefiting from this increased efficiency, who is? 3) Is our industrial society more efficient after all? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511505 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511505 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/ edit: 15-20 hours a week not a day

McWobbleston 7y ago
In regards to number 2, it's those who do not need to sell their labor and instead purchase others. There is a power imbalance in the negotiation between those who sell labor and those who employ where those who sell their labor typically need employment to survive, but employers can survive without working. Because of this, those who employ are more likely able to set the terms where an employee produces more value than they personally need at a wage lower than the true value of the work. On a macro scale this means most of us are pushed towards working more than necessary at a lower pay while others accumulate the surplus
hnick 7y ago
> only needed to work about 15-20 hours a day to meet their daily needs Just replying in case anyone misses it while skimming, that's meant to be 15-20 hours per week not per day.
- tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
  Thanks for catching that
JamesBarney 7y ago
1) You can 100% meet your basic needs(in the !Kung sense) working 15-20 hrs/week. I imagine most Kung live with their family, don't have healthcare, no climate control, walk everywhere. Clothing, food and a place to live is not that expensive. A part time service job would give you about ~$700/month, which is more than enough to meet these basic needs. You could rent a room for as little as $200, live on $35/week on food, and easily be clothed $20/month. 2) We benefit by having more stuff, not working less. 3) It is definitely more efficient. You couldn't support anywhere near the world's population based on !Kung style hunting/gathering.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  You are missing the forest for the trees, they were not surviving, they were living. Do those $35 a week get you a healthy meal? Or will you eventually develop malnutrition? I live in a mid-sized city in UK, and back in my student days I rented a room for ~$300. It had rats, mould, and a leaking roof. Those people raised a family while working 20 hrs/week. Are you going to feed and house your kids with that part-time service job? Maybe you can, but that's not the point. After 4,000 of progress, the difference should be so vast, that the two experiences are totally incomparable. Since those barbaric days productivity went up over 10,000%, I should be able to survive working 2 hours a year!
  - jlawson 7y ago
    I think you're not really appreciating what a tribal lifestyle is actually like. Live in a rural area. No education except what you can do yourself. No travel. No books. No movies. No music except what you can make yourself. No shoes. No food that didn't grow within a few miles of you. You will eat the same 12 things your whole life. No spices, no seasoning, probably no salt either. No cooking oil. No refrigerator or freezer. Healthcare is whatever you can assemble at home. Dental problem? Sharp rock. Cancer? Goodbye. Infection? Goodbye. Same for your kids. Be sure to have extras to replace the ones who die. Wash your clothes by hand, if at all. No shampoo. No soap. No bed. You sleep on skins. No AC, ever. No thermostat. No heat but fire and body heat. No birth control. No retirement - work until death. No police. Someone threatening you? I hope your family can back you up. You will be called upon to do violence. There will be no morality in it, only advantage. --- You could easily - easily! - work 15 hours a week and live at this consumption level (in fact, far beyond). And, eating better than a !Kung would be extremely simple on $5 per day.

McWobbleston 7y ago

In regards to number 2, it's those who do not need to sell their labor and instead purchase others. There is a power imbalance in the negotiation between those who sell labor and those who employ where those who sell their labor typically need employment to survive, but employers can survive without working. Because of this, those who employ are more likely able to set the terms where an employee produces more value than they personally need at a wage lower than the true value of the work. On a macro scale this means most of us are pushed towards working more than necessary at a lower pay while others accumulate the surplus

hnick 7y ago

> only needed to work about 15-20 hours a day to meet their daily needs Just replying in case anyone misses it while skimming, that's meant to be 15-20 hours per week not per day.

tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
Thanks for catching that

JamesBarney 7y ago

1) You can 100% meet your basic needs(in the !Kung sense) working 15-20 hrs/week. I imagine most Kung live with their family, don't have healthcare, no climate control, walk everywhere. Clothing, food and a place to live is not that expensive. A part time service job would give you about ~$700/month, which is more than enough to meet these basic needs. You could rent a room for as little as $200, live on $35/week on food, and easily be clothed $20/month. 2) We benefit by having more stuff, not working less. 3) It is definitely more efficient. You couldn't support anywhere near the world's population based on !Kung style hunting/gathering.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
You are missing the forest for the trees, they were not surviving, they were living. Do those $35 a week get you a healthy meal? Or will you eventually develop malnutrition? I live in a mid-sized city in UK, and back in my student days I rented a room for ~$300. It had rats, mould, and a leaking roof. Those people raised a family while working 20 hrs/week. Are you going to feed and house your kids with that part-time service job? Maybe you can, but that's not the point. After 4,000 of progress, the difference should be so vast, that the two experiences are totally incomparable. Since those barbaric days productivity went up over 10,000%, I should be able to survive working 2 hours a year!
- jlawson 7y ago
  I think you're not really appreciating what a tribal lifestyle is actually like. Live in a rural area. No education except what you can do yourself. No travel. No books. No movies. No music except what you can make yourself. No shoes. No food that didn't grow within a few miles of you. You will eat the same 12 things your whole life. No spices, no seasoning, probably no salt either. No cooking oil. No refrigerator or freezer. Healthcare is whatever you can assemble at home. Dental problem? Sharp rock. Cancer? Goodbye. Infection? Goodbye. Same for your kids. Be sure to have extras to replace the ones who die. Wash your clothes by hand, if at all. No shampoo. No soap. No bed. You sleep on skins. No AC, ever. No thermostat. No heat but fire and body heat. No birth control. No retirement - work until death. No police. Someone threatening you? I hope your family can back you up. You will be called upon to do violence. There will be no morality in it, only advantage. --- You could easily - easily! - work 15 hours a week and live at this consumption level (in fact, far beyond). And, eating better than a !Kung would be extremely simple on $5 per day.