3 ms·

I've read a lot about the history of the work, and what you say isn't described by any of the historians -- until the advent of the industrial revolution, that

I've read a lot about the history of the work, and what you say isn't described by any of the historians -- until the advent of the industrial revolution, that is. The time spent by hunter-gatherers is the least of all. Agrarian times -- when everybody farmed their own -- were more demanding but not all of the time for sure as the other commenter has pointed out. During times when people were required to work for an "employer" (e.g. landowner) for rent, and then subsist on the time left, yes, they worked hard, but that is not unlike what we have today (just much more extreme). As Clay Shirky describes in Here Comes Everybody, and you'll find in many other books as well, many skilled people would choose only to work as much as they had to get by, and spend the rest of their time in leisure or drunk.

baddox 15y ago
I suspect that hunter-gatherers did "worse" on other metrics like quality and duration of life. Obviously, no metric is somehow objectively better than another, but many people will argue that working harder is worth it if you live longer and healthier (i.e. you rarely or never have to truly worry about having enough food to survive). Clearly some (most) hunter-gatherers found that organized food production was a better alternative, since they were obviously the ones that became farmers.
- scarmig 15y ago
  It's complicated, but hunter gatherers typically lived longer than the first agriculturists. Infant mortality was the really brutal thing there--most people who made it to 15 would have a pretty long lifespan, comparable to what we. (Infant mortality was also very bad among the agriculturists, while they did not do as well in the years after 15.) Beyond that, it wasn't a one way street--people regularly transitioned from farmer to hunter gatherer. Neither was a particularly hellish existence, except in times of plague, famine, or war (all of which hunter gatherers usually could avoid more easily, through lower population density and less demand on natural resources). The hard evidence, as far as it exists, suggests that the typical hunter gatherer was, if anything, actually better off than the typical farmer. And for ages it was a constant back and forth. Where farming civilizations massively surpassed hunter gatherers was in the creation of the State and its associated violence-producing and self-perpetuating capabilities. Quantity (of people, of swords, of food) has a quality all its own. See Jared Diamond's "The Worst Mistake of the Human Race" for an interesting perspective. http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
  - baddox 15y ago
    I'm quite familiar with that article, and I really like the hypothesis. I suppose it really comes down to what "satisfaction" or "happiness" or "better off" actually means. The popular book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" discusses this a lot as well, although the author seems to realize the futility in calling certain lifestyles/societies/governments "better" than others.
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  Let me tackle your last argument with another example: Clearly some (most) junk-food-eaters found that eating junk food was a better alternative, since they were obviously the ones who kept eating junk food. That kind of argument simply doesn't hold water. Humans do things which negatively impact them in the short term and the long term, repeatedly, consistently, and with relish.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

baddox 15y ago

I suspect that hunter-gatherers did "worse" on other metrics like quality and duration of life. Obviously, no metric is somehow objectively better than another, but many people will argue that working harder is worth it if you live longer and healthier (i.e. you rarely or never have to truly worry about having enough food to survive). Clearly some (most) hunter-gatherers found that organized food production was a better alternative, since they were obviously the ones that became farmers.

scarmig 15y ago
It's complicated, but hunter gatherers typically lived longer than the first agriculturists. Infant mortality was the really brutal thing there--most people who made it to 15 would have a pretty long lifespan, comparable to what we. (Infant mortality was also very bad among the agriculturists, while they did not do as well in the years after 15.) Beyond that, it wasn't a one way street--people regularly transitioned from farmer to hunter gatherer. Neither was a particularly hellish existence, except in times of plague, famine, or war (all of which hunter gatherers usually could avoid more easily, through lower population density and less demand on natural resources). The hard evidence, as far as it exists, suggests that the typical hunter gatherer was, if anything, actually better off than the typical farmer. And for ages it was a constant back and forth. Where farming civilizations massively surpassed hunter gatherers was in the creation of the State and its associated violence-producing and self-perpetuating capabilities. Quantity (of people, of swords, of food) has a quality all its own. See Jared Diamond's "The Worst Mistake of the Human Race" for an interesting perspective. http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
- baddox 15y ago
  I'm quite familiar with that article, and I really like the hypothesis. I suppose it really comes down to what "satisfaction" or "happiness" or "better off" actually means. The popular book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" discusses this a lot as well, although the author seems to realize the futility in calling certain lifestyles/societies/governments "better" than others.
ahoyhere 15y ago
Let me tackle your last argument with another example: Clearly some (most) junk-food-eaters found that eating junk food was a better alternative, since they were obviously the ones who kept eating junk food. That kind of argument simply doesn't hold water. Humans do things which negatively impact them in the short term and the long term, repeatedly, consistently, and with relish.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]