4 ms·

Risky Food-Finding Strategy Could Be a Key to Human Success

66 points by diodorus 5y ago

master_crab 5y ago
VeninVidiaVicii 5y ago
How can hunting and gathering be “inefficient” when the rate of return is “enormous”?
- zeckalpha 5y ago
  How much of your food is from hunting and gathering?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  I believe they meant to argue that it is high-risk because it is inefficient in the sense that you expend a lot of energy which may or may not pay off. But since it is both high-risk and high-reward, I was also wondering why they used the word inefficient there.
- tokai 5y ago
  I think the journalist got it backwards. The lead sentence of the Science article is Efficiency leads to leisure. And the word inefficient doesn't even appear. Gambling by putting more energy in, for the change of quicker and larger payout is definitely not inefficiency.
- scratcheee 5y ago
  They're using efficiency in a different (and certainly confusing) sense. Their gas guzzling car example explains their thought process: humans, whilst hunting, are running hot. They're inefficient at the task of maintaining themselves between meals. That's made irrelevant by the fact that they're collecting more food on average, so they're actually more efficient overall, but that only becomes true once you factor in food intake. Sort of like saying that a lorry is a less efficient way to travel than a car. True until you mention that the lorry has many tons of cargo which must make the journey with you (or in subsequent trips), _then_ the reverse holds.
cestith 5y ago
Individual risk of not finding food is higher, but because the risk is spread across the clan, tribe, or village the overall risk is abated. The high reward when part of the group is successful is plenty for everyone when shared. They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale.
- 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
  I am this | | close to starting a co-op just for the heck of it. We need more of them, if only just to make them seem more approachable and have people ask for them more.
  - nanomonkey 5y ago
    I've lived in a few co-ops while living in Berkeley, and now own my own home. I have to say that I prefer the co-op model, as you can spread the luxuries and responsibilities amongst a number of people. When a problem comes up the folks that deal with it are those that are effected, with the resources of the whole house behind them, instead of a property management company or one sole individual. The burden and pleasure of a huge tv room, hot tub and guest bedrooms all become something that other's can utilize instead of something that you feel guilty about having and not using. Quite a nice model.
    - EricE 5y ago
      "When a problem comes up the folks that deal with it are those that are effected, with the resources of the whole house behind them, instead of a property management company or one sole individual." You don't have friends or family? They drive the model you describe - and have for millennia - without fancy constructs like co ops. Or sacrificing personal space/privacy.
- adventured 5y ago
  > They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale. That depends on your individual capabilities. What you're capable of producing and the value of that production. If you're around the median or below, there may be an argument for that cooperative style of existence. In a modern, industrial civilization where people in the top tiers of competency are highly rewarded (and sometimes very far beyond that), it makes no sense to stick yourself in a cooperative small scale living context if you're in the top 1/3 to 1/4 or so of competency (you'd become a net charity entity, which is fine, however you'd just be better off donating a share of your surplus output in a manner of your choosing instead (which we've turned into taxation); or alternatively you'd be dragged down to the median output level or below by the cooperative tribe, in the style of crab mentality, they would not long tolerate your exceptionalism unless they get to ride you far beyond their fair share).
gbronner 5y ago
I think that the implication is that if each individual hunts individually, they mostly get nothing, and every so often get an entire animal which is too large for one person/family to eat, so the expected value of this strategy is low. By pooling high risk strategies with big payoffs, the expected value of the whole is greater.

66 points by diodorus 5y ago

master_crab 5y ago

VeninVidiaVicii 5y ago

How can hunting and gathering be “inefficient” when the rate of return is “enormous”?

zeckalpha 5y ago
How much of your food is from hunting and gathering?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fxtentacle 5y ago
I believe they meant to argue that it is high-risk because it is inefficient in the sense that you expend a lot of energy which may or may not pay off. But since it is both high-risk and high-reward, I was also wondering why they used the word inefficient there.
tokai 5y ago
I think the journalist got it backwards. The lead sentence of the Science article is Efficiency leads to leisure. And the word inefficient doesn't even appear. Gambling by putting more energy in, for the change of quicker and larger payout is definitely not inefficiency.
scratcheee 5y ago
They're using efficiency in a different (and certainly confusing) sense. Their gas guzzling car example explains their thought process: humans, whilst hunting, are running hot. They're inefficient at the task of maintaining themselves between meals. That's made irrelevant by the fact that they're collecting more food on average, so they're actually more efficient overall, but that only becomes true once you factor in food intake. Sort of like saying that a lorry is a less efficient way to travel than a car. True until you mention that the lorry has many tons of cargo which must make the journey with you (or in subsequent trips), _then_ the reverse holds.

cestith 5y ago

Individual risk of not finding food is higher, but because the risk is spread across the clan, tribe, or village the overall risk is abated. The high reward when part of the group is successful is plenty for everyone when shared. They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago
I am this | | close to starting a co-op just for the heck of it. We need more of them, if only just to make them seem more approachable and have people ask for them more.
- nanomonkey 5y ago
  I've lived in a few co-ops while living in Berkeley, and now own my own home. I have to say that I prefer the co-op model, as you can spread the luxuries and responsibilities amongst a number of people. When a problem comes up the folks that deal with it are those that are effected, with the resources of the whole house behind them, instead of a property management company or one sole individual. The burden and pleasure of a huge tv room, hot tub and guest bedrooms all become something that other's can utilize instead of something that you feel guilty about having and not using. Quite a nice model.
  - EricE 5y ago
    "When a problem comes up the folks that deal with it are those that are effected, with the resources of the whole house behind them, instead of a property management company or one sole individual." You don't have friends or family? They drive the model you describe - and have for millennia - without fancy constructs like co ops. Or sacrificing personal space/privacy.
adventured 5y ago
> They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale. That depends on your individual capabilities. What you're capable of producing and the value of that production. If you're around the median or below, there may be an argument for that cooperative style of existence. In a modern, industrial civilization where people in the top tiers of competency are highly rewarded (and sometimes very far beyond that), it makes no sense to stick yourself in a cooperative small scale living context if you're in the top 1/3 to 1/4 or so of competency (you'd become a net charity entity, which is fine, however you'd just be better off donating a share of your surplus output in a manner of your choosing instead (which we've turned into taxation); or alternatively you'd be dragged down to the median output level or below by the cooperative tribe, in the style of crab mentality, they would not long tolerate your exceptionalism unless they get to ride you far beyond their fair share).

gbronner 5y ago

I think that the implication is that if each individual hunts individually, they mostly get nothing, and every so often get an entire animal which is too large for one person/family to eat, so the expected value of this strategy is low. By pooling high risk strategies with big payoffs, the expected value of the whole is greater.