3 ms·
Exactly. Neolithic people had pretty bad food security. To intentionally reduce overall efficiency of the system would be folly and everyone would know it. A
by throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Exactly. Neolithic people had pretty bad food security. To intentionally reduce overall efficiency of the system would be folly and everyone would know it.
After the third time you dump a rhino into the tribe's food processing pipeline and waste half of it before it can be eaten there will be a new directive or there will be a new chief.
- londons_explore 5y agoKnowing you have lots of people with the skill to kill a rhino could be good for food security. When other food sources are scarce, you can go use those rhino killing skills to feed yourselves, while other tribes who don't have experience fail to catch a rhino. This assumes that learning and practicing a skill is easier when food is abundant, and that skill can then be used in harder times. Armies do the same when they spend all day long practicing without actually going to war. By your argument that would be a waste of resources, but history shows that well trained armies win wars.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoDon't get me wrong, if they're looking for antelope and see a rhino they'll be all over the rhino. But they're not gonna waste good opportunities to get the food they need in order to go looking for a rhino. Just like everything else in life it's a bajillion variable tradeoff with potential second and 3rd order effects. I think it suffices to say that the guy in charge of the hunting party isn't gonna risk his team getting hurt going after a rhino unless there's a damn good reason to make that gamble.