Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting facts, such as how it was only after humans started the agricultural revolution that what we view as pandemics became a problem, and many of the diseases humans now face is due to it, or that farmers work more hours than foragers. Our diet was much more balanced and we didn't have to worry about diabetes or the like, not to mention that we wouldn't have pollution and all these species we made extinct.
Was humans transitioning from Hunter-Gatherers to becoming more sedinatory with agriculture just bad overall for humans, nature and our planet?
We had average lifespans of less than 30 years, and those thirty years were marked with misery, disease, and the constant threat of starvation. I mean here you are worried about pandemics and diabetes, but the ravages of malnutrition don't seem to figure into your calculations one whit.
We had average lifespans of less than 30 years, and those thirty years were marked with misery, disease, and the constant threat of starvation. I mean here you are worried about pandemics and diabetes, but the ravages of malnutrition don't seem to figure into your calculations one whit.
Which means I would be dead almost twice over.
Average lifespans were low. Median lifespans were respectable given the low level of medical knowledge.
"Averages" are a poor way to reckon the lives of ancient peoples. Averages were brought down by the high rate of infant deaths. If you made it to 5 years old, you would likely make it to 30. If you made it to 40, you would most likely make it to your 60s or 70s.
Hunter-gatherer societies did not suffer malnutrition at the rates of more "advanced" agricultural societies. They were literally experts at thriving off of nature's bounty. The most common cause of death in pre-agricultural societies was not diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, all nutrition related conditions, it was traumatic injury from falls, childbirth complications, or being injured by predators.
I am not saying that in todays post agricultural, highly medically advanced society things are not better, but I would rather take my chances in a hunter-gatherer society than a more "advanced" medieval, agricultural society with a surplus of gruel day in and day out. The diverse diet of hunter-gatherers: meat, berries, green fibrous vegetables, was way more suited to human survival than three sqaures of wheat or barley porridge a day.
I think we’d be better off without the internet, specifically social media.
Every generation thinks the technological advances that come about after that generation's formative years are bad. And they think the 'sweet spot' of technological progress is - surprise, surprise! - about where thing were when they were coming of age.
And it's been that way at least as long as we've had writing to allow contemporary scribes to record for posterity their fearful thoughts in this regard.
If he had remained a hunter-gatherer society, many of the tools you take for granted would not have been invented. You would be living a shorter and far more restrictive life, that you wouldn’t really know any better.
The ultimate lesson is to try and adapt according to what we have and look at ways to overcome our limitations.
Interesting facts, such as how it was only after humans started the agricultural revolution that what we view as pandemics became a problem, and many of the diseases humans now face is due to it, or that farmers work more hours than foragers. Our diet was much more balanced and we didn't have to worry about diabetes or the like, not to mention that we wouldn't have pollution and all these species we made extinct.
Was humans transitioning from Hunter-Gatherers to becoming more sedinatory with agriculture just bad overall for humans, nature and our planet?
It wasn't bad for any of those. Humans - Humans became what is known as a "keystone species"; one that can, within limits, rearrange its environment to suit its needs. Humans became able to live longer lifespans since their lifestyles could support life without the level of physical activity necessary for, say, chimpanzees and gorillas to live. Their ability to domesticate the dog was largely responsible for increasing their physical safety. Dogs could warn of and in many cases drive off predators. Given their acceptance of humans as their "wolf-pack leaders" they could adapt themselves to what the humans wanted. The ability to grow food followed. As did the development of fixed villages, means of transportation and the other advances that we now take for granted. The diet may have been more "balanced" to the point of nonexistence or even starvation.
Nature and the planet - It took a long time for man to tame nature. Before that occurred wildfires ran rampant, creating much of the same destruction as humans do. At worst it's a wash. If we accept that man is a "keystone" species man fits into the natural scheme.
Summary - If indeed it is true that farmers work more hours than foragers, they have gainful uses for their non-work time. First for example primitive music was created. That has now evolved to rock bands and symphony orchestras. Other examples are the development of religion, and organized leisure. Who knows what "near-animals" did for their leisure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old96
I think we’d be better off without the internet, specifically social media.
The problem with the thread question is that it would require that humans had a much more limited intelligence to not figure out how to grow agriculturally.
I don't know if dumber is better....
So small bands of hunter gatherers struggling to survive in harsh conditions [...]
Who says they were struggling to survive? Depending on the environment, the average person in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle had much more leisure than modern people.
"Sahlins' argument partly relies on studies undertaken by McCarthy and McArthur in Arnhem Land, and by Richard Borshay Lee among the !Kung.[4][5] These studies show that hunter-gatherers need only work about fifteen to twenty hours a week in order to survive and may devote the rest of their time to leisure."[3]
"Sahlins concludes that the hunter-gatherer only works three to five hours per adult worker each day in food production.[6][7] Using data gathered from various foraging societies and quantitative surveys done among the Arhem Landers of Australia and quantitative materials cataloged by Richard Lee on the Dobe Bushmen of the Kalahari, Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer tribes are able to meet their needs through working roughly 15-20 hours per week or less."
When you consider that the societies these studies looked at, the !Kung of the Kalahari desert and the Aborigines of the great Australian desert, lived in some of the most harsh, unproductive areas on earth (the vast majority of lush, productive land in the modern world is in agricultural use, of course), the average hunter gatherer living in lush productive areas like temperate Europe, India, temperate North America, SE Asia, etc. had an even easier environment in which to subsist, and even greater leisure time.
[3] Sahlins, M. (2005). The Original Affluent Society [Online] in M. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics
[6] "The Original Affluent Society--Marshall Sahlins". www.primitivism.com. Archived from the original on 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
[7] Sahlins, Marshall (2009). "Hunter-gatherers: insights from a golden affluent age" (PDF). Pacific Ecologist. 18: 3–8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
