Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

What percentage of the world's population is that? And how many of them have traded sneakers and shit from contact with the outside world?

It's not the same as before 10,000-12,000 years ago when we ALL lived like that and probably had a lot of space to roam.

So you want me to compare a thousand people to 7 billion?

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Hunter-gatherers in a world where sedentary people have locked down 99.9999% of the resources on "property" do not have the same opportunity that a H-G once had.... Before, they could just migrate somewhere else if they weren't eating well. Now, there is nowhere else.

Hunter-gatherer living works okay but there's a reason we became sedentary farmers.

 

[BocoDragon]

These people haven't moved much when they were able to. They're sedentary but gather.

Then they aren't traditional hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers are nomads by definition.

Humans only stay in one place because 1. they have a farm or 2. they have a crazy enough abundance in one place to become an "affluent forager" (these were rare).

Doesn't sound like these New Guineans are affluent. The old pattern would be for them to move on. Wouldn't you? But there probably is no place to go.

 

[Kinitari]

So you want me to compare a thousand people to 7 billion?

Bro, what's the problem? The question is asking about hunter gatherers - you (kind of snarkily) brought up that there are hunter gatherers today - if you want to bring them into the discussion, you can - but don't get all pissy at someone who elaborates on your original thread of thought.

 

[Ashes]

Well, I think that hunter gatherers today are obviously different than the hunter gatherers of 16,000 - unless they live in total isolation, but it's still interesting to see how they live too - it's not an either or question.

As for your other questions, in any capacity, and comparison - dealers choice.

I think you need to restate your question so as to allow a more specific response. A large percentage of the US population is clinically obese.

 

[Devolution]

But even the adults had to deal with injuries, diseases, poor quality of water of food, terrible hygiene etc. How many of them honestly grew past 50? Nowadays dying at 65 seems too young.

What makes you assume diseases and water were so shit back then? Disease came from exposure to other populations. The quality of water was certainly better before large populations, mining, industry etc.

 

[Ashes]

Bro, what's the problem? The question is asking about hunter gatherers - you (kind of snarkily) brought up that there are hunter gatherers today - if you want to bring them into the discussion, you can - but don't get all pissy at someone who elaborates on your original thread of thought.

Not getting pissy. I've attemped to answer this question before.

 

[Kinitari]

I think you need to restate your question so as to allow a more specific response. A large percentage of the US population is clinically obese.

What significant barrier are you having to answering the question? It's vague intentionally, to let people come in (like you) and bring up non-specific arguments. If you want to make an argument in any particular direction - please feel free - but I am intentionally not holding your hand through the process.

 

[Ashes]

What significant barrier are you having to answering the question? It's vague intentionally, to let people come in (like you) and bring up non-specific arguments. If you want to make an argument in any particular direction - please feel free - but I am intentionally not holding your hand through the process.

Ahh I see.

 

[Slo]

From a medical/hygenic standpoint? No. From a diet and fitness standpoint? Absolutely.

 

[jerry113]

Considering a significant % of these hunter-gatherers died shortly after childbirth, I would say no.

The importance of handsoap and clean water is not to be underestimated.

 

[iamblades]

I don't know about infection, but those other problems were negligible to the point of being non-existent.

I dunno about that, but the real big one is certainly not negligible:

The modern food system forces cooperation and interdependence which reduces violence drastically. Hunter gatherers have astronomic rates of violence because they compete for all of their food.

I'll take eating shitty starches and having to rely on artificial forms of exercise and medicine to prevent heart disease if the alternative is being murdered for food.

I'm not even sure it's accurate that hunter gatherers had any better health than modern humans, with the exception of type II diabetes, which is pretty hard, probably impossible to develop in a natural setting. Every thing else it's hard to find good numbers on, as anyone who hasn't been reached by modern foods likely hasn't been reached with modern medical diagnosis technologies either.

 

[BocoDragon]

Hunter-gatherer living works okay but there's a reason we became sedentary farmers.

Farming was typically sparked by rare conditions, though... it wasn't necessarily an improvement to H-G. There is a lot of patience and logistics involved (defense, village construction, social organization, etc). You'd probably be likely to say "fuck it I'm going over there to hunt.. this is a waste of time".

But once farming gave rise to states and the concept of property, we were forced to stay sedentary and farm forever after. Moving around to new lands to hunt wasn't possible.

 

[Ty4on]

Hunter-gatherer living works okay but there's a reason we became sedentary farmers.

That's AFAIK still not an answered question. Why did we really say fuck it to the old way of living and became farmers that eated crap and got sick. It made sense in the long run, but did we do it in the short run because of too little food?

 

[Lesath]

Well, I think that hunter gatherers today are obviously different than the hunter gatherers of 16,000 - unless they live in total isolation, but it's still interesting to see how they live too - it's not an either or question.

As for your other questions, in any capacity, and comparison - dealers choice.

Let's not forget that the more isolated societies, if managing to just avoid the problems of host-specific transmissible disease, are also thus more susceptible to the problems that arise from genetic drift. Additionally, while more active lifestyles result in bodies that are less susceptible to diseases associated with the sedentary lifestyle, such lifestyles are also doubtlessly more susceptible to certain acute environmental stressors, such as malnutrition or starvation.

 

[FutureZombie]

I don't understand how ancient people didn't constantly have scurvy. Wouldn't it have been difficult to find enough vitamin C in many parts of the world?

 

[BocoDragon]

So you want me to compare a thousand people to 7 billion?

No. We want to compare the way 99.999999% of the way people live now to the way that 100% of people lived before 12,000 years ago.

The question restated is really "was life better before, or after, the Neolithic Revolution?"

 

[Kurdel]

That's AFAIK still not an answered question. Why did we really say fuck it to the old way of living and became farmers that eated crap and got sick. It made sense in the long run, but did we do it in the short run because of too little food?

Knowing the trick to constantly get food without risking starvation usually is persuasive enough to keep people sedentary.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

What makes you assume diseases and water were so shit back then? Disease came from exposure to other populations. The quality of water was certainly better before large populations, mining, industry etc.

Because having a cure to an illness was less likely back then. Plus, you don't only get diseases from other people, you can get it from the food you eat, the conditions you live in (I imagine there are more rodents in a cave than an apartment), or even fluctuations in weather. No doubt there were more diseases in the agricultural post-hunter-gatherer societies where there was no advance in medicine but there were people living in closer quarters, but compared to the modern day where we can even keep people born without kidneys alive? I don't think there's a comparison.

Water is cleaned and the bacteria removed before the water gets to our homes. I'm sure it's more cleaner than even untouched-by-humans natural water.

 

[iamblades]

That's AFAIK still not an answered question. Why did we really say fuck it to the old way of living and became farmers that eated crap and got sick. It made sense in the long run, but did we do it in the short run because of too little food?

We said fuck it to the old way because farming societies could feed more people, which means they could survive in larger and larger groups. Larger groups > smaller groups in warfare, so hunter gatherer societies died out.

 

[Cousteau]

I see many hunters name their sons hunter so I'll say probably.

 

[Devolution]

I dunno about that, but the real big one is certainly not negligible:

The modern food system forces cooperation and interdependence which reduces violence drastically. Hunter gatherers have astronomic rates of violence because they compete for all of their food.

I'll take eating shitty starches and having to rely on artificial forms of exercise and medicine to prevent heart disease if the alternative is being murdered for food.

I'm not even sure it's accurate that hunter gatherers had any better health than modern humans, with the exception of type II diabetes, which is pretty hard, probably impossible to develop in a natural setting. Every thing else it's hard to find good numbers on, as anyone who hasn't been reached by modern foods likely hasn't been reached with modern medical diagnosis technologies either.

Proof?

Also people have fought wars over farming resources as well.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

The benefits of eating no processed food and exercising and having a natural instinctual burn for survival is much healthier than the filthy pigs we are these days, but then the dangers of basic medical and physical harm were much higher.

 

[iamblades]

I don't understand how ancient people didn't constantly have scurvy. Wouldn't it have been difficult to find enough vitamin C in many parts of the world?

You don't need that much vitamin C to get by, and fresh animal products have plenty of vitamin C, it is destroyed by certain methods of cooking and preservation though.

 

[iamblades]

Proof?

Also people have fought wars over farming resources as well.

Uh, this is not true *at all*

Several archaeologists and anthropologists now argue that violence was much more pervasive in hunter-gatherer society than in more recent eras. From the
!Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.

At first, anthropologists were inclined to think this a modern pathology. But it is increasingly looking as if it is the natural state. Richard Wrangham of Harvard University says that chimpanzees and human beings are the only animals in which males engage in co-operative and systematic homicidal raids. The death rate is similar in the two species. Steven LeBlanc, also of Harvard, says Rousseauian wishful thinking has led academics to overlook evidence of constant violence.

Not so many women as men die in warfare, it is true. But that is because they are often the object of the fighting. To be abducted as a sexual prize was almost certainly a common female fate in hunter-gatherer society. Forget the Garden of Eden; think Mad Max.

Constant warfare was necessary to keep population density down to one person per square mile. Farmers can live at 100 times that density. Hunter-gatherers may have been so lithe and healthy because the weak were dead. The invention of agriculture and the advent of settled society merely swapped high mortality for high morbidity, allowing people some relief from chronic warfare so they could at least grind out an existence, rather than being ground out of existence altogether.

http://www.economist.com/node/10278703

There has certainly been fighting over farming resources, but farming supports such a higher population density that it is much much less of an issue.

 

[BocoDragon]

Also it's not exactly health, but traditional hunter-gatherers would be free from: haves/have nots, monarchs, patriarchy, state armies, organized religion, slavery.

I kind of see all of these things as "humans controlling other humans", and they all flowed from farming and "civilization".

Obviously it's not all bad (video games!!) but dealing with the power people have over others is the big theme of humanity for the last 12,000 years....

 

[Ashes]

@Op:

The premise of the question requires two points of data. Data regarding hunter gatherers and data regarding 'us'.

I don't think there is such as thing as an average human being even though we have a wealth of data on people across the world.

And data regarding hunter gatherers from 10,000 years ago are largely guesses - educated guesses, but I am disinclined to take them close to the riguers of being factual.

We can however compare modern hunter gatherers living in the world today such as the Hadza people, and researchers have already done so.

The idea that exercise is more important than diet in the fight against obesity has been contradicted by new research.

A study of the Hadza tribe, who still exist as hunter gatherers, suggests the amount of calories we need is a fixed human characteristic.

Source.

Further, the idea of health is problematic. It is no one little thing of course. Do we compare life expectancies? Generally speaking, we live longer now. Our social wellbeing? More people live in more communities, but more people are more socially isolated. So who wins in that table. And the same applies to our mental health: we have a huge pharmaceutical industry spending trillions of dollors on health. the science is in our favour too. If you have the money to afford drugs.

Arguably, reduced to our lowest common denominator, I would suggest, through genetic diversity (where applicable, such as Brazil) > a tribe of a few thousand in colony x and z. But even there I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Zaptruder]

Another point against the romanticization of hunter gatherers is the very high rate of infanticide...

Due to practical reasons; women couldn't really carry more than a single child at a time, so would be forced to kill any infants that were born within a few years of their last child.

But... even that wasn't really the reason infants died in droves. It's just bloody hard to care for a child on the move, and with greater susceptibility to disease and hardship... the infant mortality of humans during the H-G era somewhat resembled the massive breeding strategies of some species.

i.e. pump out as many as possible, and some will survive!

 

[iamblades]

Also it's not exactly health, but traditional hunter-gatherers would be free from: haves/have nots, monarchs, patriarchy, state armies, organized religion, slavery.

I kind of see all of these things as "humans controlling other humans", and they all flowed from farming and "civilization".

Obviously it's not all bad (video games!!) but dealing with the power people have over others is the big theme of humanity for the last 12,000 years....

The only thing that changes between hunter-gatherer societies and modern societies is the scale.

The strong still dominate the weak in an HG society, and I'd argue it's to an even greater degree, as there is no one to prevent it as there is in modern societies.

 

[User Name Here]

Well they most likely didn't die from cancer left and right. I'll tell you that much!

 

[Dr Prob]

Was watching this documentary on Ötzi the Iceman where they thawed him down, extracted his goop and studied it. While perhaps not particularly of interest to the OP, despite an above-average level of activity for his time, he still had a bunch of health problems, including hardening of the arteries and being killed by another unnamed Iceman.

DID YOU KNOW? Not only is Ötzi the Iceman the first known carrier of Lyme disease, but also the first known carrier of a walkman.

 

[Lesath]

Well they most likely didn't die from cancer left and right. I'll tell you that much!

I see what you did there.

 

[Ashes]

Another point against the romanticization of hunter gatherers is the very high rate of infanticide...

Due to practical reasons; women couldn't really carry more than a single child at a time, so would be forced to kill any infants that were born within a few years of their last child.

But... even that wasn't really the reason infants died in droves. It's just bloody hard to care for a child on the move, and with greater susceptibility to disease and hardship... the infant mortality of humans during the H-G era somewhat resembled the massive breeding strategies of some species.

i.e. pump out as many as possible, and some will survive!

How do you know this? The last time I looked the guesses ranged from between fifteen and half the babies born. And by that time I gave up on the numbers.

 

[BocoDragon]

The only thing that changes between hunter-gatherer societies and modern societies is the scale.

The strong still dominate the weak in an HG society, and I'd argue it's to an even greater degree, as there is no one to prevent it as there is in modern societies.

But that's quite a scale.

Rich people used to mean the guy who had caught the most food in a given day. The scale of inequality today is utterly insane (Warren Buffet and starving ethiopians on the same planet), and before it was trivial. And without power structures with "laws" and "property", no one would hold onto wealth of any scale for too long. That Ethiopian could have a shot at Buffet's wealth, but now the power of institutions would make that impossible.

A king used to be a tribal leader... much more like a tribal parent than a would-be deity. Again, what a "leader" is today is insane (and it was worse in the age of kingdoms and empires), before it was just the informal leader of a small group.

And tribes were small with much less formal organization. There would have been some dominance, but it would be like a strong family structure. And if everyone knows everyone, there was much less of an incentive to do inhuman things to one another.

 

[grumble]

Combine their diet and lifestyle with our modern medicine, and we get a much fitter, healthier person.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I'm pretty sure hunter-gatherers of today are incomparable for "ancient" ones due to the ecosystem being different.

 

[iamblades]

But that's quite a scale.

Rich people used to mean the guy who had caught the most food in a given day. The scale of inequality today is utterly insane, and before it was trivial.

A king used to be a tribal leader... much more like a tribal parent than a would-be deity. Again, what a "leader" is today is insane (and it was worse in the age of kingdoms and empires), and before it was just the informal leader of a small group.

And tribes were small with much less formal organization. There would have been some dominance, but it would be like a strong family structure. And if everyone knows everyone, there was much less of an incentive to do inhuman things to one another.

If you're in the group, sure. If you are in the next group over? They would kill you for fun and not even think about it, because you are the competition.

I have trouble worrying about increasing scales of inequality when the poorest are better off as well. It's either starving to death or being killed for your food in a HG society vs. having to suck up to the rich leader of your society to get barely enough to survive, I know which I'm picking.

 

[Zaptruder]

How do you know this? The last time I looked the guesses ranged from between fifteen and half the babies born. And by that time I gave up on the numbers.

I'm not quite understanding your question or comment.

But I am inferring the information from knowledge about 'how many humans have ever existed' (Ans: Roughly 100 billion). Most of those humans were infants that died quickly.

Apparently the average human lifespan across all generations, not removing infant mortality from the number is something ridiculously low... like single digits low.

This is information I remembered from a thread we've had in the past discussing this topic. I may be wrong and inaccurate as a result.

 

[dinazimmerman]

were hunter-gatherer women hotter?

 

[Ashes]

I'm not quite understanding your question or comment.

But I am inferring the information from knowledge about 'how many humans have ever existed' (Ans: Roughly 100 billion). Most of those humans were infants that died quickly.

Apparently the average human lifespan across all generations, not removing infant mortality from the number is something ridiculously low... like single digits low.

This is information I remembered from a thread we've had in the past discussing this topic. I may be wrong and inaccurate as a result.

Oh that's fine. I presumed you were following up on anthropologists commenting on infanticides writing about an era closer to the 10,000 years mark.

edit: Anyway, I'm done with this topic... hope you find what you are looking for op.

 

[IceCold]

Fitness wise? 100% yes. The healthiest thing you can do your body is to have a active lifestyle.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Also it's not exactly health, but traditional hunter-gatherers would be free from: haves/have nots, monarchs, patriarchy, state armies, organized religion, slavery.

I kind of see all of these things as "humans controlling other humans", and they all flowed from farming and "civilization".

Obviously it's not all bad (video games!!) but dealing with the power people have over others is the big theme of humanity for the last 12,000 years....

Have/have nots - as opposed to survival of the fittest?

Monarchs - I'm pretty sure HGSs had their own form of unfair social hierarchies

Patriarchy - most HGSs had clearly defined sexual roles and I'm sure most of them were male dominated

State armies - everyone was in the army back then. But I guess I can agree that there's a good chance you don't get dragged into a conflict you don't want to be a part of.

Organized religion - well I don't known what the religions were like back then but to say religions back then didn't cause hardship or war would be naive.

Slavery - I'm sure they had some form of thankless roles and abuse back then.

It's all perspective.

 

[BocoDragon]

If you're in the group, sure. If you are in the next group over? They would kill you for fun and not even think about it, because you are the competition.

That's true in many cases. And not always. Sometimes tribes met and ignored each other or traded.

I have trouble worrying about increasing scales of inequality when the poorest are better off as well. It's either starving to death or being killed for your food in a HG society vs. having to suck up to the rich leader of your society to get barely enough to survive, I know which I'm picking.

The poorest aren't better off.. We're not the poorest. We're inside the king's court. The poorest are worse off now, cordoned off into states with weak economies and no opportunity to suck up to the boss. Before they could migrate where they like and determine their own direction... now there is nowhere else. There's a border over there, "owned" by someone (an individual or a state), and they don't have any ability to go in there and start living off the land.

But sure, it might be better in the king's court than in the wild.

 

[D6AMIA6N]

Not even close. Modern man has the longest life span yet.

 

[Devolution]

were hunter-gatherer women hotter?

If you like hair.

 

[rando14]

were hunter-gatherer women hotter?

lol what do you think? Look at photos from just 50 or 100 years ago and you tell me what the trend is.

 

[BocoDragon]

Have/have nots - as opposed to survival of the fittest?

Survival of the fittest is equal. Now we are born into unequal situations.

Monarchs - I'm pretty sure HGSs had their own form of unfair social hierarchies

But how far could they get? No permanent institutions means that a domineering tribal leader was very limited in its scope... and dissenters could just slip away. There was no "property" that he held so how much cohesion would a ruler have? Almost none.

Patriarchy - most HGSs had clearly defined sexual roles and I'm sure most of them were male dominated

They were sexist. But there was less domination by one over another. Look at native societies. While the men were the warriors, that fact alone didn't give them political direction for the tribe. The women had a say.

State armies - everyone was in the army back then. But I guess I can agree that there's a good chance you don't get dragged into a conflict you don't want to be a part of.

And it wasn't so much an "army" as it was you and your hunting buddies/family.

Organized religion - well I don't known what the religions were like back then but to say religions back then didn't cause hardship or war would be naive.

Again... how far could these religions get? Nothing written down. Nothing that really got out of hand or affected any large scale of people. It would have been lightweight animist superstition.... not hard rules that persisted and sparked Holy Wars.

Slavery - I'm sure they had some form of thankless roles and abuse back then.

Yeah... like chores in a household. That's pretty much eternal.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

And tribes were small with much less formal organization. There would have been some dominance, but it would be like a strong family structure. And if everyone knows everyone, there was much less of an incentive to do inhuman things to one another.

In Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond he talks about how members of separate tribes that are known to one another, when meeting in the wilderness, will try to find if they are in any way related to each other through family. If they are, it'll look bad if they start fighting, if they're not, they'll probably try to kill each other.

Death by violence was the #1 killer of hunter gatherer peoples.

 

[zero_suit]

In Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond he talks about how members of separate tribes that are known to one another, when meeting in the wilderness, will try to find if they are in any way related to each other through family. If they are, it'll look bad if they start fighting, if they're not, they'll probably try to kill each other.

Death by violence was the #1 killer of hunter gatherer peoples.

Yup, I'm reading that book right now.

 

[TAJ]

Hunter-gatherers would break you in half. That it was a much more dangerous world is a different subject entirely.
How long do you think you'd last if you were sent thousands of years into the past? Who's fit now? lol