4 ms·

>They may well have been matrilineal because prior to IVF etc, you could be certain who the mother was but not the father. According to research I've read, pre

>They may well have been matrilineal because prior to IVF etc, you could be certain who the mother was but not the father. According to research I've read, pre-agricultural societies, and even more recent tribal hunter-gatherer societies, frequently had no concept of monogamy at all, and didn't worry about who people's fathers were, because children were raised by tribes/villages at large. Monogamy was an invention that came about with agriculture, because that's when the concepts of land ownership and inheritance came about. >Most likely, quality of life went up for most people thanks to agriculture. Actually, no: human height dropped about 30cm with the introduction of agriculture, because nutrition in an agriculture-based society is much worse than in a hunter-gatherer society. It took many millennia (as in, only very recently) for human height to get back to pre-agricultural levels.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
I notice you didn't rebut my assertion that some portion of the population was murdered or banished (banishment being a thing that can also result in death). So perhaps most people were better off, except those that were murdered and perhaps except those who mourned those who were murdered and missed them. Also, I'm unaware of hunter-gatherer societies inventing much in the way of technology. Technological progress seems to require settled cultures. I happen to like modern tech and don't desperately wish I lived in a hunter-gatherer culture.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Yes, apparently one factor that prevented malnutrition from claiming more lives in the pre-agricultural era is that 30% of the population was culled through homicide, leading to the population remaining below the environment's carrying-capacity.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >30% of the population was culled through homicide, leading to the population Is that from murder, or war (presumably inter-tribal), or both? We're not exactly doing much better in modern times. See Russia's war against Ukraine, or the 100M+ killed in WWII.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      The source I read said inter-tribal warfare was a major source of homicides, but I can't recall if intra-tribal murder was a major factor as well.
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's certainly odd that such a seemingly important fact(?) doesn't appear at all in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer You should considering adding that factoid and your backing evidence.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Unfortunately I don't remember source where I read about this and a quick search didn't produce any results. I may have even found the article on HN.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Does it sound like something that would be true and provable for all hunter gatherers across the entire planet for some two million years? ( From first humans to present day hunter gatherers ) Is it true for present day hunter gatherers? How could it be determined for (say) hunter gatherers in modern western Europe? Would that be via skulls and bones from major outbreaks of conflict every so often or would it establish a pattern true for all generations, etc? To be honest it sounds more like missionary type comment on uncivilised savages.
        ETH_start 3y ago
        That homicide rates for hunter gatherers are much higher than for people in agrarian and industrial societies is firmly established by the evidence, which is spread out across thousands of years of pre-history and a diverse array of geographical locations. It is also consistent with what we see in the closest relatives of humans: chimpanzee. https://archive.li/uP7Ax https://archive.li/uP7Ax
        defrost 3y ago
        > That homicide rates for hunter gatherers are much higher than for people in agrarian and industrial societies is firmly established by the evidence Cool. That's what I'm asking for ... do you have any? ( Bear in mind, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, The Boer Wars, Crimea (old and new), Ukraine, et al set the bar on homicide in agrarian and industrial cultures )
defrost 3y ago
That's at best specific to particular groups and at worst speculation based on what exactly? ( By all means do provide some indication of your research ) Within Australia, so clearly within Australia, traditional pre agricultural hunter gathers are still walking about and can talk for themselves. Moieties | skin groups | kinship is much more complex than anything you've likely experienced and detailed knowledge of { father, mother, grandfathers, grandmothers } (at the very least) form a determination of who is eligible to marry | mate with who. It's a system that largely maximises outbreeding and mixing. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship

DoreenMichele 3y ago

I notice you didn't rebut my assertion that some portion of the population was murdered or banished (banishment being a thing that can also result in death). So perhaps most people were better off, except those that were murdered and perhaps except those who mourned those who were murdered and missed them. Also, I'm unaware of hunter-gatherer societies inventing much in the way of technology. Technological progress seems to require settled cultures. I happen to like modern tech and don't desperately wish I lived in a hunter-gatherer culture.

ETH_start 3y ago
Yes, apparently one factor that prevented malnutrition from claiming more lives in the pre-agricultural era is that 30% of the population was culled through homicide, leading to the population remaining below the environment's carrying-capacity.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >30% of the population was culled through homicide, leading to the population Is that from murder, or war (presumably inter-tribal), or both? We're not exactly doing much better in modern times. See Russia's war against Ukraine, or the 100M+ killed in WWII.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    The source I read said inter-tribal warfare was a major source of homicides, but I can't recall if intra-tribal murder was a major factor as well.
- defrost 3y ago
  It's certainly odd that such a seemingly important fact(?) doesn't appear at all in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer You should considering adding that factoid and your backing evidence.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Unfortunately I don't remember source where I read about this and a quick search didn't produce any results. I may have even found the article on HN.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Does it sound like something that would be true and provable for all hunter gatherers across the entire planet for some two million years? ( From first humans to present day hunter gatherers ) Is it true for present day hunter gatherers? How could it be determined for (say) hunter gatherers in modern western Europe? Would that be via skulls and bones from major outbreaks of conflict every so often or would it establish a pattern true for all generations, etc? To be honest it sounds more like missionary type comment on uncivilised savages.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        That homicide rates for hunter gatherers are much higher than for people in agrarian and industrial societies is firmly established by the evidence, which is spread out across thousands of years of pre-history and a diverse array of geographical locations. It is also consistent with what we see in the closest relatives of humans: chimpanzee. https://archive.li/uP7Ax https://archive.li/uP7Ax
        defrost 3y ago
        > That homicide rates for hunter gatherers are much higher than for people in agrarian and industrial societies is firmly established by the evidence Cool. That's what I'm asking for ... do you have any? ( Bear in mind, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, The Boer Wars, Crimea (old and new), Ukraine, et al set the bar on homicide in agrarian and industrial cultures )

defrost 3y ago

That's at best specific to particular groups and at worst speculation based on what exactly? ( By all means do provide some indication of your research ) Within Australia, so clearly within Australia, traditional pre agricultural hunter gathers are still walking about and can talk for themselves. Moieties | skin groups | kinship is much more complex than anything you've likely experienced and detailed knowledge of { father, mother, grandfathers, grandmothers } (at the very least) form a determination of who is eligible to marry | mate with who. It's a system that largely maximises outbreeding and mixing. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship