The premise of the article: 1. "To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap

The premise of the article: 1. "To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times." 2. "There are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be "easily satisfied" either by producing much or desiring little." Following this definition, it's easy to accept hunters are affluent if it can be shown hunter-gatherer tribes worked as needed and desired nothing. The article makes no mention of whether this kind of society is sustainable over the long run, only that this kind of society, where it exists, is affluent. I like the thought - to perpetually chase the limitless with the limited does sound like a fool's undertaking.