5 ms·

I agree. But being a hunter gatherer or farmer is much easier than working in today's society. We are working very hard and have little time to invest in our na

I agree. But being a hunter gatherer or farmer is much easier than working in today's society. We are working very hard and have little time to invest in our natural interests. If you look at existing hunter gatherer societies, the actual time that is required to be invested in subsistence is much less than the 40 hour weeks of today's society. Capatilism doesn't give us the rewards of our labour, it only gives us enough to subsist at the maximum amount of output that we are able to provide. This is written into the dynamics of the system.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
This is so true. And also ironic, considering the massive amount of productivity increases we've seen in the last couple thousand years, at least 100 fold or more. But, the cause is not capitalism. There are many causes and all of them link back to regulation, government and an unwillingness to allow for lower cost options for (housing, transportation and medical insurance). For example in housing. Consider this: We could build the type of homes humans had 1000s of years ago very easily and it could be super cheap, only costing maybe a few dozen hours worth of wages to through up a couple of wooden walls and a ceiling but none of that is legally allowable. We've created an environment where only housing of the highest possible quality is legally allowable, thus forcing everyone to work long hours to afford all that whether they want it or not. this is further compounded by the fact that we're forcing people into a very tiny amount of land, thus driving up the cost of land needlessly when there's soo much empty space out there that can't be developed.
ksdale 7y ago
I think this is quite a rosy view of being a hunter gatherer or a subsistence farmer. From what I've read, there's like, a LOT of murder in existing hunter gatherer societies. And back when everyone was either a hunter gatherer or a farmer, lots of people starved to death all the time. It may be true that a farmer of 500 hundred years ago got to keep all of the rewards of their labor (though many... most(?) of them had to give up some portion to the local strongman), but those rewards generally amounted to barely enough to make it through the winter, and certainly not enough to survive, say, two bad harvests. As crappy as capitalism is sometimes, most people in the developed world are very, very far away from worrying about starving to death on a yearly basis. The biggest problem is that what we consider subsistence is way more expensive that what an existing hunter gatherer considers subsistence. If we were willing to live on nothing more than barely enough food and have almost no clothes, or housing, or possessions, we'd be able to work a lot less too.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  ...rosy view of being a hunter gatherer or a subsistence farmer. There is a vast difference between hunting/gathering and what you think of when encountering the phrase "subsistence farming". You're on the right track when considering "the local strongman". Sedentary farmers of scheduled-harvest process-heavy plants (most grains) are vulnerable to the predations of government in a way that people who live more in tune with nature are not.
double0jimb0 7y ago
In this imaginary hunter gather scenario, you certainly must account for life expectancy being what, 40 years? Infant mortality rate 50%? If given the choice, I think most beings would select into a stream optimizing for actual existence. Sounds strikingly close to evolution.
- firethief 7y ago
  But the math is different one you have already not died as an infant, isn't it?
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  You realize that the average life expectancy already includes the infant deaths, right? It does not mean that a healthy 18 year old is unlikely to live past 40. Only a newborn baby is.
  - double0jimb0 7y ago
    Does it? https://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/02/infant-mortalit.html#.XfvlBUdKhZc https://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/02/inf...
greggyb 7y ago
> If you look at existing hunter gatherer societies, the actual time that is required to be invested in subsistence is much less than the 40 hour weeks of today's society. 40 hours of work provides much more than subsistence, even at sub-minimum-wage income levels in the US.[0] The vast majority of people earning an income in the US earn greater than the minimum wage. Only 2.1% of hourly workers earn at or below the minimum wage in 2018, and it's been trending downward for decades.[1] Both a hunter-gatherer society and modern capitalist society offer opportunities for luxury[2] beyond subsistence. These are different. A value judgment between the two would be just that, and I don't want to fight about any differences among the things that you and I value. EDIT : updated BLS link to latest, and reference to 2018, instead of 2017. [0] Personal experience. I have lived at $10K/yr within the last decade in the US. My sister has, too. Note, this would be a full time $5/hr. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage [2] See my comment sibling to yours for this non-standard use. I don't have a better word. Here, I mean "luxury" as "beyond subsistence".

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

This is so true. And also ironic, considering the massive amount of productivity increases we've seen in the last couple thousand years, at least 100 fold or more. But, the cause is not capitalism. There are many causes and all of them link back to regulation, government and an unwillingness to allow for lower cost options for (housing, transportation and medical insurance). For example in housing. Consider this: We could build the type of homes humans had 1000s of years ago very easily and it could be super cheap, only costing maybe a few dozen hours worth of wages to through up a couple of wooden walls and a ceiling but none of that is legally allowable. We've created an environment where only housing of the highest possible quality is legally allowable, thus forcing everyone to work long hours to afford all that whether they want it or not. this is further compounded by the fact that we're forcing people into a very tiny amount of land, thus driving up the cost of land needlessly when there's soo much empty space out there that can't be developed.

ksdale 7y ago

I think this is quite a rosy view of being a hunter gatherer or a subsistence farmer. From what I've read, there's like, a LOT of murder in existing hunter gatherer societies. And back when everyone was either a hunter gatherer or a farmer, lots of people starved to death all the time. It may be true that a farmer of 500 hundred years ago got to keep all of the rewards of their labor (though many... most(?) of them had to give up some portion to the local strongman), but those rewards generally amounted to barely enough to make it through the winter, and certainly not enough to survive, say, two bad harvests. As crappy as capitalism is sometimes, most people in the developed world are very, very far away from worrying about starving to death on a yearly basis. The biggest problem is that what we consider subsistence is way more expensive that what an existing hunter gatherer considers subsistence. If we were willing to live on nothing more than barely enough food and have almost no clothes, or housing, or possessions, we'd be able to work a lot less too.

jessaustin 7y ago
...rosy view of being a hunter gatherer or a subsistence farmer. There is a vast difference between hunting/gathering and what you think of when encountering the phrase "subsistence farming". You're on the right track when considering "the local strongman". Sedentary farmers of scheduled-harvest process-heavy plants (most grains) are vulnerable to the predations of government in a way that people who live more in tune with nature are not.

double0jimb0 7y ago

In this imaginary hunter gather scenario, you certainly must account for life expectancy being what, 40 years? Infant mortality rate 50%? If given the choice, I think most beings would select into a stream optimizing for actual existence. Sounds strikingly close to evolution.

firethief 7y ago
But the math is different one you have already not died as an infant, isn't it?
boring_twenties 7y ago
You realize that the average life expectancy already includes the infant deaths, right? It does not mean that a healthy 18 year old is unlikely to live past 40. Only a newborn baby is.
- double0jimb0 7y ago
  Does it? https://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/02/infant-mortalit.html#.XfvlBUdKhZc https://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/02/inf...

greggyb 7y ago

> If you look at existing hunter gatherer societies, the actual time that is required to be invested in subsistence is much less than the 40 hour weeks of today's society. 40 hours of work provides much more than subsistence, even at sub-minimum-wage income levels in the US.[0] The vast majority of people earning an income in the US earn greater than the minimum wage. Only 2.1% of hourly workers earn at or below the minimum wage in 2018, and it's been trending downward for decades.[1] Both a hunter-gatherer society and modern capitalist society offer opportunities for luxury[2] beyond subsistence. These are different. A value judgment between the two would be just that, and I don't want to fight about any differences among the things that you and I value. EDIT : updated BLS link to latest, and reference to 2018, instead of 2017. [0] Personal experience. I have lived at $10K/yr within the last decade in the US. My sister has, too. Note, this would be a full time $5/hr. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage [2] See my comment sibling to yours for this non-standard use. I don't have a better word. Here, I mean "luxury" as "beyond subsistence".