4 ms·

It's (probably) true that the average quality of life declined during 15-4k BC as agriculture spread throughout Eurasia and North Africa-- agriculture made seve

by pg 16y ago

It's (probably) true that the average quality of life declined during 15-4k BC as agriculture spread throughout Eurasia and North Africa-- agriculture made severe and persistent social inequalities possible I would be cautious about drawing such a conclusion. I think if you were a typical neolithic farmer you would not be looking yearningly at the hunter-gatherers living in the mountains, wishing you could live like them. You'd probably feel that their life was pretty hard. If anyone wants to learn more about the realities of life for nomadic hunters, I'd recommend Elizabeth Marshall Thomas's The Harmless People (http://www.amazon.com/Harmless-People-Elizabeth-Marshall-Thomas/dp/067972446X http://www.amazon.com/Harmless-People-Elizabeth-Marshall-Tho...).

nbashaw 16y ago
There's a pretty lengthy section in the middle of "What Technology Wants" by Kevin Kelly that argues against romanticized portraits of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Here's the short version: Lifespans were short, so there were basically no old people. Old people are key carriers of institutional memory. Without them, you don't have much culture, and you can't learn from the past. Every generation is forced to reinvent the wheel. That's why they didn't develop technology or art. http://books.google.com/books?id=_ToftPd4R8UC&lpg=PT30&ots=nzg3-Udq4b&dq=what%20technology%20wants%20hunter%20gatherer&pg=PT30#v=onepage&q=what%20technology%20wants%20hunter%20gatherer&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=_ToftPd4R8UC&lpg=PT30&#...
- gnosis 16y ago
  "Lifespans were short, so there were basically no old people." I don't have a citation for this, but I've heard that the reason that the average lifespan in ancient times was so short was mostly due to the high rate of infant mortality. Those people who did manage to survive infancy actually lived much longer than you'd expect. And the maximum human lifetime back then was not much different than the maximum human lifetime today.
  - pg 16y ago
    I don't think KK is talking about averages that have been brought down by infant mortality. He's saying explicitly that among hunter-gatherers, lifespans were short. Which I believe from what I've read about them. It's also false that people who made it to maturity in preindustrial times lived as long as people do today. It was unusual to see 70.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
I would be cautious about drawing such a conclusion. I think if you were a typical neolithic farmer you would not be looking yearningly at the hunter-gatherers living in the mountains, wishing you could live like them. You'd probably feel that their life was pretty hard. I suspect there would never be such a comparative perception. I doubt a neolithic farmer is tending a field and thinking "gosh, should I just give this up and head back into the mountains?" As little as they probably even considered hunter-gatherers, they probably considered them something "other".

by pg 16y ago

nbashaw 16y ago

There's a pretty lengthy section in the middle of "What Technology Wants" by Kevin Kelly that argues against romanticized portraits of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Here's the short version: Lifespans were short, so there were basically no old people. Old people are key carriers of institutional memory. Without them, you don't have much culture, and you can't learn from the past. Every generation is forced to reinvent the wheel. That's why they didn't develop technology or art. http://books.google.com/books?id=_ToftPd4R8UC&lpg=PT30&ots=nzg3-Udq4b&dq=what%20technology%20wants%20hunter%20gatherer&pg=PT30#v=onepage&q=what%20technology%20wants%20hunter%20gatherer&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=_ToftPd4R8UC&lpg=PT30&#...

gnosis 16y ago
"Lifespans were short, so there were basically no old people." I don't have a citation for this, but I've heard that the reason that the average lifespan in ancient times was so short was mostly due to the high rate of infant mortality. Those people who did manage to survive infancy actually lived much longer than you'd expect. And the maximum human lifetime back then was not much different than the maximum human lifetime today.
- pg 16y ago
  I don't think KK is talking about averages that have been brought down by infant mortality. He's saying explicitly that among hunter-gatherers, lifespans were short. Which I believe from what I've read about them. It's also false that people who made it to maturity in preindustrial times lived as long as people do today. It was unusual to see 70.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

I would be cautious about drawing such a conclusion. I think if you were a typical neolithic farmer you would not be looking yearningly at the hunter-gatherers living in the mountains, wishing you could live like them. You'd probably feel that their life was pretty hard. I suspect there would never be such a comparative perception. I doubt a neolithic farmer is tending a field and thinking "gosh, should I just give this up and head back into the mountains?" As little as they probably even considered hunter-gatherers, they probably considered them something "other".