4 ms·

without doing work, you die. if you're alone, quite literally, as you would starve to death. modern man is disconnect from nature and questions work. modern ma

without doing work, you die. if you're alone, quite literally, as you would starve to death. modern man is disconnect from nature and questions work. modern man is also very surprised when nature strikes back. a simple camping trip can suddenly become a life and death situation. we live in a world of massive division of labor. hence questions like yours. money is abstract. so go on try living our there for a while, produce your own food and drink. effing hard work i tell you. a full time job.

philwelch 15y ago
The Bushmen were some of the last people on earth to live as hunter-gatherers, in largely the same way that all humans did before we fucked everything up with civilization and technology. They lived very communal lives, but they didn't work anywhere close to 40 hours a week, and spent most of the day chatting and making music. They seemed pretty happy until the civilizations around them came in and ruined their culture.
- learc83 15y ago
  That's also completely controlled by where you live. There are a few places on Earth naturally abundant enough(and with climate friendly enough) to support a population with less than 40 hours per week per person, but I'd bet most of the planet doesn't fall into that category.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    We can do it more or less anywhere, it's just a question of population density. A tribe that needs a few hundred square miles of tundra could live as well off of a few dozen acres of tropical forest. Here's a bit of trivia for you-- the most "abundant" place on the planet, the place once home to the highest density of exclusively foraging peoples, is the area now known as Northern California.
    - learc83 15y ago
      >We can do it more or less anywhere, it's just a question of population density. A tribe that needs a few hundred square miles of tundra could live as well off of a few dozen acres of tropical forest. Yes, it's definitely doable--I'm not arguing with history. I'm arguing with this >they didn't work anywhere close to 40 hours a week, and spent most of the day chatting and making music A tribe that lives in the tundra is going to have to devote a substantial portion of their time to preparing for winter. Which isn't going to allow them the vast leisure time enjoyed by African bushmen living close to the equator.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nikatwork 15y ago
    The Bushmen live in Africa. I would hardly call that environment abundant with a friendly climate.
    - learc83 15y ago
      It is very abundant and has a very friendly climate relative to a great deal of the planet. By friendly climate, I don't mean pleasant 72 degrees year round. I mean you don't have to spend all summer chopping wood, and preserving food so you can survive through the winter, which is a vast swath of the planet.
      - nikatwork 15y ago
        Wikipedia suggests the Bushmen need to store nuts for the winter, and during early spring the only available food is game (all the plants are dead). But great point about not having to deal with snow.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Africa is a huge continent. It has almost every climate and environment available on earth. The other thing Africa has is a collection of populations who have lived in their respective parts of Africa for millennia. So while the environment the Bushmen lived in may have been relatively friendly to them, it wouldn't be so friendly to a Kenyan or Egyptian, or a Serb, or a Cherokee.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Absolutely--some humans were forced into civilization by the poverty of their surrounding environment. Instead of adapting to suit their environment, they had to adapt their environment to suit them. But in almost every measurable sense, life in civilization was far more impoverished than the lives of hunter-gatherers. The only reason it won out is because it led to an immense consolidation of power--but it was centuries if not millennia until the typical member of a civilization had a quality of life comparable to that of a bushman, and even then it's an open question who's really happier.
DrCatbox 15y ago
People didnt live alone in the woods, so thats a straw man argument there. Going about it to live together as a commune in the nature, that is success. Just cant be done today, as civilized people would be right there behind and kill them all/take their food/poison them and so on, just as is being done to hunters and gatherer communities who are left today. People can live together and strive without working, when you consider hunting and foraging/gardening to be a game, and hunting is not considered work even by civilized people, it is something "recreational". Hunting or gathering food is usually done around 2 hours per day at most, depending on season and so on. Its just a fun life, the kind of life humans where made to live. Our bodies are not adapted to working at all. Our bodies and minds break down when working, even in nice office environments without much physical labor.

philwelch 15y ago

The Bushmen were some of the last people on earth to live as hunter-gatherers, in largely the same way that all humans did before we fucked everything up with civilization and technology. They lived very communal lives, but they didn't work anywhere close to 40 hours a week, and spent most of the day chatting and making music. They seemed pretty happy until the civilizations around them came in and ruined their culture.

learc83 15y ago
That's also completely controlled by where you live. There are a few places on Earth naturally abundant enough(and with climate friendly enough) to support a population with less than 40 hours per week per person, but I'd bet most of the planet doesn't fall into that category.
- Cushman 15y ago
  We can do it more or less anywhere, it's just a question of population density. A tribe that needs a few hundred square miles of tundra could live as well off of a few dozen acres of tropical forest. Here's a bit of trivia for you-- the most "abundant" place on the planet, the place once home to the highest density of exclusively foraging peoples, is the area now known as Northern California.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >We can do it more or less anywhere, it's just a question of population density. A tribe that needs a few hundred square miles of tundra could live as well off of a few dozen acres of tropical forest. Yes, it's definitely doable--I'm not arguing with history. I'm arguing with this >they didn't work anywhere close to 40 hours a week, and spent most of the day chatting and making music A tribe that lives in the tundra is going to have to devote a substantial portion of their time to preparing for winter. Which isn't going to allow them the vast leisure time enjoyed by African bushmen living close to the equator.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nikatwork 15y ago
  The Bushmen live in Africa. I would hardly call that environment abundant with a friendly climate.
  - learc83 15y ago
    It is very abundant and has a very friendly climate relative to a great deal of the planet. By friendly climate, I don't mean pleasant 72 degrees year round. I mean you don't have to spend all summer chopping wood, and preserving food so you can survive through the winter, which is a vast swath of the planet.
    - nikatwork 15y ago
      Wikipedia suggests the Bushmen need to store nuts for the winter, and during early spring the only available food is game (all the plants are dead). But great point about not having to deal with snow.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Africa is a huge continent. It has almost every climate and environment available on earth. The other thing Africa has is a collection of populations who have lived in their respective parts of Africa for millennia. So while the environment the Bushmen lived in may have been relatively friendly to them, it wouldn't be so friendly to a Kenyan or Egyptian, or a Serb, or a Cherokee.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Absolutely--some humans were forced into civilization by the poverty of their surrounding environment. Instead of adapting to suit their environment, they had to adapt their environment to suit them. But in almost every measurable sense, life in civilization was far more impoverished than the lives of hunter-gatherers. The only reason it won out is because it led to an immense consolidation of power--but it was centuries if not millennia until the typical member of a civilization had a quality of life comparable to that of a bushman, and even then it's an open question who's really happier.

DrCatbox 15y ago

People didnt live alone in the woods, so thats a straw man argument there. Going about it to live together as a commune in the nature, that is success. Just cant be done today, as civilized people would be right there behind and kill them all/take their food/poison them and so on, just as is being done to hunters and gatherer communities who are left today. People can live together and strive without working, when you consider hunting and foraging/gardening to be a game, and hunting is not considered work even by civilized people, it is something "recreational". Hunting or gathering food is usually done around 2 hours per day at most, depending on season and so on. Its just a fun life, the kind of life humans where made to live. Our bodies are not adapted to working at all. Our bodies and minds break down when working, even in nice office environments without much physical labor.