3 ms·

> Is this why African countries were so prosperous before the scramble for Africa kicked off in the 1870s? African countries were prosperous. In sub-Saharan A

> Is this why African countries were so prosperous before the scramble for Africa kicked off in the 1870s? African countries were prosperous. In sub-Saharan Africa, hunter-gatherer bands often worked less than 40 hours a week (as observed by anthropologists even after the Scramble for Africa). This prosperity exceeded that of many programmers working in the San Francisco Bay area today.

aksss 4y ago
Hunter-gatherer cultures were also only ever one bad season away from starvation/famine, highly dependent upon very specialized workers. Agriculture required more work in quantity of hours, but there are decided advantages to it - general prosperity being the primary one. Humanity has voted on this. By and large, cultures have moved in one direction on this question, consistently, for eons.
- VictorPath 4y ago
  > Hunter-gatherer cultures were also only ever one bad season away from starvation/famine Huh? Famines, disease outbreaks and such were much more common at the beginning of the agricultural revolution. Hunter-gatherer bands were much safer from famine than early agricultural workers. This was true from the beginning, to the Irish famine in the UK 170 years ago. And insofar as epidemics - we are in at least one right now, if the monkey pox one doesn't get set to make two. Insofar as general prosperity - the inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was a half century ago. This also pre-dates the recent inflation and Covid. I don't see how wages falling over the past 50 years is some sort of general prosperity.
  - aksss 4y ago
    This is about the shaky existence one group of people will have living the H/G lifestyle. Animal populations fluctuate naturally, disease and accidents affect skilled workers, affect animals, plants. Droughts the same. H/G populations are highly vulnerable to these whims of nature in a way that agricultural societies are more insulated from. Sure bad things happen to agricultural societies too, but it is (evidently) more a more stable and prosperous existence in the main. In terms of general prosperity, you're comparing some metrics today to 50 years ago, and I'm not sure I understand the relevance. We were no more a H/G society 50 years ago than we are today. Do you know of any H/G societies that exist today? How does their prosperity compare to the poorest of the developed world? Do you know any developed nations that are still hunter/gather societies? Do you think this is merely coincidence or perhaps a big conspiracy?
ChadNauseam 4y ago
very impressive, now show me their infant mortality
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Kiro 4y ago
Can't tell if this comment is sarcasm or not.
ralusek 4y ago
This thread now spans from the predictable 4channer talking about racial IQ all the way to this person talking about how sub-Saharan Africans were prosperous due to working less than 40 hours. This conversation officially wins my "this oughta be good, just from the title" award. Reader, ye be warned, you'll find nothing of value here.

aksss 4y ago

Hunter-gatherer cultures were also only ever one bad season away from starvation/famine, highly dependent upon very specialized workers. Agriculture required more work in quantity of hours, but there are decided advantages to it - general prosperity being the primary one. Humanity has voted on this. By and large, cultures have moved in one direction on this question, consistently, for eons.

VictorPath 4y ago
> Hunter-gatherer cultures were also only ever one bad season away from starvation/famine Huh? Famines, disease outbreaks and such were much more common at the beginning of the agricultural revolution. Hunter-gatherer bands were much safer from famine than early agricultural workers. This was true from the beginning, to the Irish famine in the UK 170 years ago. And insofar as epidemics - we are in at least one right now, if the monkey pox one doesn't get set to make two. Insofar as general prosperity - the inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was a half century ago. This also pre-dates the recent inflation and Covid. I don't see how wages falling over the past 50 years is some sort of general prosperity.
- aksss 4y ago
  This is about the shaky existence one group of people will have living the H/G lifestyle. Animal populations fluctuate naturally, disease and accidents affect skilled workers, affect animals, plants. Droughts the same. H/G populations are highly vulnerable to these whims of nature in a way that agricultural societies are more insulated from. Sure bad things happen to agricultural societies too, but it is (evidently) more a more stable and prosperous existence in the main. In terms of general prosperity, you're comparing some metrics today to 50 years ago, and I'm not sure I understand the relevance. We were no more a H/G society 50 years ago than we are today. Do you know of any H/G societies that exist today? How does their prosperity compare to the poorest of the developed world? Do you know any developed nations that are still hunter/gather societies? Do you think this is merely coincidence or perhaps a big conspiracy?

ChadNauseam 4y ago

very impressive, now show me their infant mortality

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Kiro 4y ago

Can't tell if this comment is sarcasm or not.

ralusek 4y ago

This thread now spans from the predictable 4channer talking about racial IQ all the way to this person talking about how sub-Saharan Africans were prosperous due to working less than 40 hours. This conversation officially wins my "this oughta be good, just from the title" award. Reader, ye be warned, you'll find nothing of value here.