4 ms·
It looks at several peoples. None of them are primitive enough, to your thinking? What are the peoples we should be looking at? Unfortunately, we can't go back
by solidsnack9000 5y ago
It looks at several peoples. None of them are primitive enough, to your thinking? What are the peoples we should be looking at?
Unfortunately, we can't go back in time to see what those people in the Americas, in the study you linked to, were actually doing, 9000 years ago.
One of the points of the study is that men provide a majority of calories in many types of societies -- that it is a relatively common finding. We'll never be able to visit people in the ancestral state -- starting 200000 years ago -- but this idea does dovetail with what we know about other species where there's long term pair bonding. Typically, the male in those species contributes a great deal of calories to the offspring.
- Retric 5y agoWe can look at historic documentation of primitive cultures and archaeological evidence, which is of course biased but hardly useless. Single parents with children are documented as being at a significant disadvantage, but that’s true after the loss of either parent. Food sharing between tribe members is also common, skilled labor like napping is rewarded. Food gathering is also highly variable with excess food is of limited value in times of plenty, significant amounts go to waste. Making food preservation a major long term benefit. Calculating lifetime contributions is therefore tricky especially if you try to account for lifespans. Hunting large animals is flat out dangerous.
- solidsnack9000 5y agoSo in your opinion, it is not correct to say that men did the majority of the hunting, or that men usually contribute a majority of calories? "skilled labor like napping"?