6 ms·

Or just hunger in general. Before the agriculture revolution starvation was the primary cause of human death.

by xkjkls 6y ago

fjeoyk 6y ago
I would have thought the opposite would be true, hunter gatherers are generally well fed from a variety of food sources, would have lived in low densities and would have been highly mobile, so in the event one food source become scarce they could move elsewhere, or switch foods. Early agriculturalists would have been stuck in once place reliant on a single, or few, food source/s and therefore vulnerable to failed harvests for a variety of reasons, droughts, natural disasters, theft (of stores, if they are lucky enough to farm food that can be stored) etc.
- soledades 6y ago
  You would be correct. Preagricultural peoples exerted reproductive control so they were not vulnerable kind of population crunches that affect other species. Diverse food webs were also more reliable and nutritious than what was available to the early agriculturalists, as you say.
jacobr1 6y ago
Are there good studies that show this? Like a big survey of recovered bone/dental evidence over centuries? It certainly seems plausible to me, but I'd be fascinated to review the data and how it correlates to time and geography.
ckosidows 6y ago
Was it? I know a couple books[1] that suggest life prior to the agricultural revolution wasn't nearly as famine-stricken as we tend to think it was. These books claim hunter gatherers were quite proficient at finding enough sustenance. Obviously starvation was still possible and likely, but was it the primary cause of death? Is there some more evidence that humans were suffering from starvation before agriculture? Wouldn't populations thin out and stabilize accordingly if starvation was such a problem? [1] - _Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind_ and _Sex at Dawn_
- nmz 6y ago
  "Thin out" is this another word for dying?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    It could also mean just spreading out. So less dense civilizations, but the same amount of people.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      In could, but that's generally not what it means when applied in this way. You don't thin out a a herd (which is where I think that phrase is most often used in English) by spreading it over a larger area, but by removing a percentage of the individuals that make up the herd.
  - adolph 6y ago
    If you have lived a good life, is dying a problem?
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Dying from starvation (and watching the people you love also suffer and some die from it)? Yes, I'd say it's a problem.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Starving to death together with the rest of your tribe - your parents, your siblings, your friends, your kids - must be mentally excruciating. Famine has been considered one of the worst curses of humanity since the dawn of written records at least. How happy are we who have never experienced that! How would our ancestors envy us!
      - adolph 6y ago
        Truly if one was to know the excruciating pain of those who have gone before these things of today thought of as worthy of attention would fade to nothingness. Would our ancestors envy us or be happy for the fruit of their effort? There are setbacks and frustrations about the slow state of progress sometimes for certain. Maybe they would also be sad for the material orientation of many people and the loss of spirituality that gave them much hope and fortitude.
runarberg 6y ago
Was it? I wasn’t aware of that? Is this also the case of non-human omnivores? If not, at which point in our evolution did this start to be the case, e.g. during Australopithecus or Homo Erectus? And is it also the case for humans that don’t live in agricultural or industrial societies today (such as tribes deep in the jungles of Papua New Guinea)?
soledades 6y ago
This is incorrect: > "The bones of 'domiciled' Homo sapiens compared with those of hunter-gatherers are also distinctive: they are smaller; the bones and teeth often bear the signature of nutritional distress, in particular, an iron-deficiency anemia marked above all in women of reproductive age whose diets consist increasingly of grains" from Against the Grain see also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  Mineral deficiency is a chronic lack of a particular nutrient, starvation is an acute lack.
  - soledades 6y ago
    There is such a thing as chronic starvation, and the smaller bones reflect that, not mineral deficiency. The linked article addresses famine more specifically.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      It does not.
asdff 6y ago
I don't think having the poor in cities like SF root in trash for nutrients counts as solving starvation

Or just hunger in general. Before the agriculture revolution starvation was the primary cause of human death.

by xkjkls 6y ago

Or just hunger in general. Before the agriculture revolution starvation was the primary cause of human death.

I would have thought the opposite would be true, hunter gatherers are generally well fed from a variety of food sources, would have lived in low densities and would have been highly mobile, so in the event one food source become scarce they could move elsewhere, or switch foods. Early agriculturalists would have been stuck in once place reliant on a single, or few, food source/s and therefore vulnerable to failed harvests for a variety of reasons, droughts, natural disasters, theft (of stores, if they are lucky enough to farm food that can be stored) etc.

soledades 6y ago
You would be correct. Preagricultural peoples exerted reproductive control so they were not vulnerable kind of population crunches that affect other species. Diverse food webs were also more reliable and nutritious than what was available to the early agriculturalists, as you say.

jacobr1 6y ago

Are there good studies that show this? Like a big survey of recovered bone/dental evidence over centuries? It certainly seems plausible to me, but I'd be fascinated to review the data and how it correlates to time and geography.

ckosidows 6y ago

Was it? I know a couple books[1] that suggest life prior to the agricultural revolution wasn't nearly as famine-stricken as we tend to think it was. These books claim hunter gatherers were quite proficient at finding enough sustenance. Obviously starvation was still possible and likely, but was it the primary cause of death? Is there some more evidence that humans were suffering from starvation before agriculture? Wouldn't populations thin out and stabilize accordingly if starvation was such a problem? [1] - _Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind_ and _Sex at Dawn_

nmz 6y ago
"Thin out" is this another word for dying?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It could also mean just spreading out. So less dense civilizations, but the same amount of people.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    In could, but that's generally not what it means when applied in this way. You don't thin out a a herd (which is where I think that phrase is most often used in English) by spreading it over a larger area, but by removing a percentage of the individuals that make up the herd.
- adolph 6y ago
  If you have lived a good life, is dying a problem?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Dying from starvation (and watching the people you love also suffer and some die from it)? Yes, I'd say it's a problem.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Starving to death together with the rest of your tribe - your parents, your siblings, your friends, your kids - must be mentally excruciating. Famine has been considered one of the worst curses of humanity since the dawn of written records at least. How happy are we who have never experienced that! How would our ancestors envy us!
    - adolph 6y ago
      Truly if one was to know the excruciating pain of those who have gone before these things of today thought of as worthy of attention would fade to nothingness. Would our ancestors envy us or be happy for the fruit of their effort? There are setbacks and frustrations about the slow state of progress sometimes for certain. Maybe they would also be sad for the material orientation of many people and the loss of spirituality that gave them much hope and fortitude.

runarberg 6y ago

Was it? I wasn’t aware of that? Is this also the case of non-human omnivores? If not, at which point in our evolution did this start to be the case, e.g. during Australopithecus or Homo Erectus? And is it also the case for humans that don’t live in agricultural or industrial societies today (such as tribes deep in the jungles of Papua New Guinea)?

soledades 6y ago

This is incorrect: > "The bones of 'domiciled' Homo sapiens compared with those of hunter-gatherers are also distinctive: they are smaller; the bones and teeth often bear the signature of nutritional distress, in particular, an iron-deficiency anemia marked above all in women of reproductive age whose diets consist increasingly of grains" from Against the Grain see also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/

Godel_unicode 6y ago
Mineral deficiency is a chronic lack of a particular nutrient, starvation is an acute lack.
- soledades 6y ago
  There is such a thing as chronic starvation, and the smaller bones reflect that, not mineral deficiency. The linked article addresses famine more specifically.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    It does not.

asdff 6y ago

I don't think having the poor in cities like SF root in trash for nutrients counts as solving starvation