6 ms·

Personally, I'd argue there's a _lot_ more stability for someone in the modern West than a hunter/gatherer living on the plains. I'm not really sure what stabil

Personally, I'd argue there's a _lot_ more stability for someone in the modern West than a hunter/gatherer living on the plains. I'm not really sure what stability you're talking about in hunter gatherer societies, my understanding is that they generally existed on the edge of subsistence and would be absolutely mind boggled by amount of excess we enjoy today.

nine_zeros 2y ago
> Personally, I'd argue there's a _lot_ more stability for someone in the modern West than a hunter/gatherer living on the plains. I'm not really sure what stability you're talking about in hunter gatherer societies, my understanding is that they generally existed on the edge of subsistence and would be absolutely mind boggled by amount of excess we enjoy today. The hunter or the gatherer was not abandoned from the tribe/laid off/thrown on a PIP during a pregnancy for not finding enough fruits for the tribe CEO.
RestlessMind 2y ago
> I'm not really sure what stability you're talking about in hunter gatherer societies While the absolute conditions of hunter gatherers were abysmal compared to modern western standards, they didn't suffer relative decline in the living conditions due to pregnancy and child rearing. Their tribe took care of their house, food, security and child rearing. In other words, they had a community. Today with the nuclear family mindset, if you don't have parental benefits, you will be hard pressed to figure out your rent, food or insurance and you will see a relative decline in your lifestyle. Humans have big aversion to relative declines even if their absolute lifestyle would still be better than their hunter gatherer ancestors.
illiac786 2y ago
I’d say stability is irrelevant in the face of the absence of contraception… no matter how hard life is, humans have and will copulate, like other animals, and produce babies – unless contraception.

nine_zeros 2y ago

> Personally, I'd argue there's a _lot_ more stability for someone in the modern West than a hunter/gatherer living on the plains. I'm not really sure what stability you're talking about in hunter gatherer societies, my understanding is that they generally existed on the edge of subsistence and would be absolutely mind boggled by amount of excess we enjoy today. The hunter or the gatherer was not abandoned from the tribe/laid off/thrown on a PIP during a pregnancy for not finding enough fruits for the tribe CEO.

RestlessMind 2y ago

> I'm not really sure what stability you're talking about in hunter gatherer societies While the absolute conditions of hunter gatherers were abysmal compared to modern western standards, they didn't suffer relative decline in the living conditions due to pregnancy and child rearing. Their tribe took care of their house, food, security and child rearing. In other words, they had a community. Today with the nuclear family mindset, if you don't have parental benefits, you will be hard pressed to figure out your rent, food or insurance and you will see a relative decline in your lifestyle. Humans have big aversion to relative declines even if their absolute lifestyle would still be better than their hunter gatherer ancestors.

illiac786 2y ago

I’d say stability is irrelevant in the face of the absence of contraception… no matter how hard life is, humans have and will copulate, like other animals, and produce babies – unless contraception.