3 ms·

That directly contradicts a position the article takes and supports with citations. One contributing factor to the play-like quality of hunter-gatherer work is

That directly contradicts a position the article takes and supports with citations. One contributing factor to the play-like quality of hunter-gatherer work is that the work was not excessive. According to several quantitative studies, hunter-gatherers typically devoted about 20 hours per week to hunting or gathering and another 10 to 20 hours to chores at the campsite, such as food processing and making or mending tools (e.g. Lee, 1972; Sahlins, 1972 ). All in all, the research suggests, hunter-gatherer adults spent an average of 30 to 40 hours per week on all subsistence-related activities combined, which is considerably less than the workweek of the typical modern American, if the American’s 40 or more hours of paid employment is added to the hours spent on domestic chores. One anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins (1972), famously characterized hunter-gatherer societies collectively as “the original affluent society.” An affluent society, by Sahlins’s definition, is one in which “people’s material wants are easily satisfied.” Hunter-gatherers were affluent not because they had so much, but because they wanted so little. They could provide for those wants with relatively little work, and, as a result, had lots of free time, which they spent, according to one observer of the Ju/’hoansi (Shostak, 1981), at such activities as “singing and composing songs, playing musical instruments, sewing intricate bead designs, telling stories, playing games, visiting, or just lying around and resting.”

hef19898 3y ago
Especially the last paragraph sounda like pure entitlement, by the author, not the observed people. Something tells me, that Shostak was pretty happy with all the things modern society provided him with: an academic career, a roof over his head, ample food, the ability to travel, healzh care... And yet, he and Sahlins seem to be completely oblivious to what is necessary to provide all of that. Instead, they seem to look at some "noble primitives", see that thosep seem to live a simpler live, and glorify that. After said observation, they return to their offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist and write papers and books about what they observed... It is almost ironic, isn't it?
- InSteady 3y ago
  What a weird mix of assumption, projection, and non sequitur.
- galdosdi 3y ago
  > offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist Those are not the big gotchas you think they are. They are luxuries that only have value in the context of our western society, but don't intrinsically. Think about it. 1. Office -- if you live in a nice climate, a climate controlled building is not much of a draw, in fact hanging out outside most of the time is more fun 2. Grocery store -- not much of a need for this if you can get all your food from the nature around your home 3. Dentist -- this is mostly to solve problems of civilization. Eating lots of grains, especially refined ones and refined sugars, leads to cavities. The causes of cavities mostly got introduced to our diet when grain was adopted 10000 years ago, and again in the mid 20th century with the advent of ultra processed food. What else are you going to list? A car that you don't need in a walkable village? Then there's healthcare. Most healthcare in the west today deals with lifestyle diseases caused by modern processed food, obesity, etc. Then there's infectious diseases-- again mostly an urban problem, really starts taking off when agriculture and sedentism began 10000 years ago. Lot of living packed together in close proximity with plenty of animals. Admittedly advanced healthcare for accidents and other freak health conditions other than modern obesity or infectious diseases, would be an undeniable luxury. But it really represents a small percentage of health care services, both these days and in the past.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    No food shortages, like never? Health care, including dentists, that render almost all health problems that killed our crippled our ancetors harmless? Vaccines and anti-biotics? A warm roof over our heads, all year long? I don't know, I personally like all of those things. Especially since I wouldn't be around anymore without them, neither would be my wife or my son. There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival." Just like the idea of the noble savage is wrong and hard to get rid of, so is this idea. It was never a constant struggle for survival. Depending where the tribe lived, there were indeed times of hardship, like winter or draught. Or war. And hunting some animals is and was dangerous - but so is driving with a car and wars we also still got. Oh and times of hardship are still a thing: "828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021". But most of the time, it was lots of free time in a pleaseant environment without toxins and plastic garbage and fresh air among your trusted friends. It might have been cold at night, but the more you enjoyed the sun at day. And nothing tastes as good as self hunted meat, when you are hungry. This is the reason, why this archaic livestyle is romanticised - and our genes were optimized for it - not for the air conditioned office living.
Aunche 3y ago
And yet here we are on a venture capitalist forum instead of huddled around a communal campfire. If life was so great back then, why would we change? The narrative of anarcho-primitivists claims that the transition to civilization forced by the will of the elites. However, that characterizes everyone else as helpless victims without any agency.
- lukas099 3y ago
  It's possible that individual lives were happier for hunter-gatherers than agriculturalists, but that groups of agriculturalists outcompeted groups of hunter-gatherers.

hef19898 3y ago

Especially the last paragraph sounda like pure entitlement, by the author, not the observed people. Something tells me, that Shostak was pretty happy with all the things modern society provided him with: an academic career, a roof over his head, ample food, the ability to travel, healzh care... And yet, he and Sahlins seem to be completely oblivious to what is necessary to provide all of that. Instead, they seem to look at some "noble primitives", see that thosep seem to live a simpler live, and glorify that. After said observation, they return to their offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist and write papers and books about what they observed... It is almost ironic, isn't it?

InSteady 3y ago
What a weird mix of assumption, projection, and non sequitur.
galdosdi 3y ago
> offices, go grocery shoping, see a dentist Those are not the big gotchas you think they are. They are luxuries that only have value in the context of our western society, but don't intrinsically. Think about it. 1. Office -- if you live in a nice climate, a climate controlled building is not much of a draw, in fact hanging out outside most of the time is more fun 2. Grocery store -- not much of a need for this if you can get all your food from the nature around your home 3. Dentist -- this is mostly to solve problems of civilization. Eating lots of grains, especially refined ones and refined sugars, leads to cavities. The causes of cavities mostly got introduced to our diet when grain was adopted 10000 years ago, and again in the mid 20th century with the advent of ultra processed food. What else are you going to list? A car that you don't need in a walkable village? Then there's healthcare. Most healthcare in the west today deals with lifestyle diseases caused by modern processed food, obesity, etc. Then there's infectious diseases-- again mostly an urban problem, really starts taking off when agriculture and sedentism began 10000 years ago. Lot of living packed together in close proximity with plenty of animals. Admittedly advanced healthcare for accidents and other freak health conditions other than modern obesity or infectious diseases, would be an undeniable luxury. But it really represents a small percentage of health care services, both these days and in the past.
- hef19898 3y ago
  No food shortages, like never? Health care, including dentists, that render almost all health problems that killed our crippled our ancetors harmless? Vaccines and anti-biotics? A warm roof over our heads, all year long? I don't know, I personally like all of those things. Especially since I wouldn't be around anymore without them, neither would be my wife or my son. There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival." Just like the idea of the noble savage is wrong and hard to get rid of, so is this idea. It was never a constant struggle for survival. Depending where the tribe lived, there were indeed times of hardship, like winter or draught. Or war. And hunting some animals is and was dangerous - but so is driving with a car and wars we also still got. Oh and times of hardship are still a thing: "828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021". But most of the time, it was lots of free time in a pleaseant environment without toxins and plastic garbage and fresh air among your trusted friends. It might have been cold at night, but the more you enjoyed the sun at day. And nothing tastes as good as self hunted meat, when you are hungry. This is the reason, why this archaic livestyle is romanticised - and our genes were optimized for it - not for the air conditioned office living.

Aunche 3y ago

And yet here we are on a venture capitalist forum instead of huddled around a communal campfire. If life was so great back then, why would we change? The narrative of anarcho-primitivists claims that the transition to civilization forced by the will of the elites. However, that characterizes everyone else as helpless victims without any agency.

lukas099 3y ago
It's possible that individual lives were happier for hunter-gatherers than agriculturalists, but that groups of agriculturalists outcompeted groups of hunter-gatherers.