Were hunter gatherers healthier than we are?
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Do you break rocks in the yard? Great workout.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Interesting.
I read that book too.. But it was like 6 years ago
Yeah, he actually recounts an encounter with a woman in a modern day tribal/hunter-gatherer society (I don't remember the details) who had changed hands between four or five husbands through murder.
They were not friendly peoples.
This is ultimately a silly question, because there's so much contextual data that goes into explaining the difference between then and now that it's easy to just fall into the usual romanticizing of "the simpler life."
Truth of the matter is that while there were some people that were in better shape than a regrettable number of people in the modern world, the vast majority of peoples during those days were most definitely not better off than us. After all, things got so bad for early man that we nearly faced extinction when h&g wasn't enough to keep them alive.
Truth of the matter is that while there were some people that were in better shape than a regrettable number of people in the modern world, the vast majority of peoples during those days were most definitely not better off than us. After all, things got so bad for early man that we nearly faced extinction when h&g wasn't enough to keep them alive.
speculawyer
Member
No.
We have sanitation and that is probably the biggest advance of all medicine. (Clear water, properly disposing of our feces, clean food, etc.) And we have basic medicines like anti-biotics and immunizations.
However . . . yes, they were probably much healthier than us when it comes to diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, and other weight-related issues.
We have sanitation and that is probably the biggest advance of all medicine. (Clear water, properly disposing of our feces, clean food, etc.) And we have basic medicines like anti-biotics and immunizations.
However . . . yes, they were probably much healthier than us when it comes to diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, and other weight-related issues.
CornBurrito
Member
I read it last year. I should probably give it a reread.
It's also a problem with non-sedentary living, because you have to be even more careful about the state of your food supplies, because you never know when you can replace it if you accidentally let anything get ruined.
Yeah, we are healthier alright. Thanks to medical advancement and not worrying about getting enough nutrition. But we only have a much longer life expectancy because we live in a "safer" world. And even then we find ways to fuck that up. I imagine hunter-gatherers to be physically fit because they had no choice. But that is about how much healthy you can get in that time period.
I probably wouldn't last a week in the same environmental conditions those people had to go through to survive in their entire lives
I probably wouldn't last a week in the same environmental conditions those people had to go through to survive in their entire lives
Physically fit really isn't the best way to describe the state most of the people that lived back in where.
Just like you can develop ways of preserving food and removing waste from living areas.
Imagine that.
Trent Strong
Banned
Weren't there people in the recent past, or even people alive today, who lived lives that were very similar to hunter gatherers? And don't we have some data on how long they lived on average and how healthy they were, or something?
Yeah, I guess you're right. So...not fat? I don't know. All I know is they gotta be strong in some way
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No, we died a lot more back then to predation, injury, war, disease, and overpopulation
CornBurrito
Member
Overpopulation?
The human body is pretty resilient to illness and disease providing its had exposure to build up the necessary antibodies. General illness was probably not much of a factor back then due to natural immunity.
Today many are ocd germaphobes and in general we rely on vaccines and medication to stay heathy, without them we'd be fucked.
Today many are ocd germaphobes and in general we rely on vaccines and medication to stay heathy, without them we'd be fucked.
I'm watching Star Trek the original series for the first time, and holy shit I'm going to find some vintage porn later. The women on this show are fucking hot. Really short dress suits and I swear half of them aren't wearing a bra. Don't believe me? Google Tonia Barrows or Android Andrea.
But to the point, yeah everyone was fitter and sexier before 1970, at least in the United States.
evilromero
Member
Hunter gatherers were definitely doing more of what they were engineered to do. Like others said, their shorter lives were due to disease and other variables that we've overcome today (in many areas at least). But I think in their peak condition, given modern medicine, they would blow away humans today in terms of health (and most likely longevity). But that's in an ideal scenario.
speculawyer
Member
Well, relative the food supply. Until we figured out fertilizers, it wasn't so easy to grow lots of food. A bad harvest can wipe out an area.
This is a better point that it appears to be...
People in this day and age have the capacity to be much fitter, stronger and healthier than any hunter-gatherer in the day should they choose such a lifestyle.
I mean, atheletes have access to superb nutritional, exercise and mental resources, not to mention the drugs and hormone therapies that many of them undergo in a clandestine fashion.
JasonUresti
Member
Yeah, this is often overlooked. For all their grit and toughness, you weren't going to see any hunter-gatherer man from back in the day who happened to 6'4 and 290lbs of ripped muscle like Alexander Karelin, or see a 7'ft 300lbs athletic giant like Wilt Chamberlain or Shaq O'Neal walking around.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
We are better off now, but I think it has more to do with our improved healthcare, access to food and hygiene rather than our lifestyle and what we eat. I often see people doing so called "caveman diets" with mixed results. Some people end up with vitamin deficiencies, while others like this doctor claim to have cured MS with such a diet. I suppose a caveman diet, used alongside vitamin supplementation and optimal quantities of food (which real cavemen didn't have the luxury of) could be the healthiest way to live.
One question I like to ask is did hunter-gatherers suffer from depression or mental illnesses at the same rate as some of us in the first-world countries do? one area that might be interesting to explore in relation to their own personal health.
I'd argue that the thread title is a myth - and we are much pretty off because of the amount of choices we have in regards to our health - we can exercise at our own pace, able to eat a variety of different food sources with no risk of deficiencies, have access to vaccinations and anti-biotics etc. It is arguably that choice comes at a cost though, and having too much choice in regards to food can be a bad thing as it allow people to lead lazy overindulgent lifestyles which in turn leads to obesity to a certain degree.
I'd argue that the thread title is a myth - and we are much pretty off because of the amount of choices we have in regards to our health - we can exercise at our own pace, able to eat a variety of different food sources with no risk of deficiencies, have access to vaccinations and anti-biotics etc. It is arguably that choice comes at a cost though, and having too much choice in regards to food can be a bad thing as it allow people to lead lazy overindulgent lifestyles which in turn leads to obesity to a certain degree.
no.
the average human being is very healthy and lives atleast 25-35 years longer than the average man of the hunter gatherer age. They didn't have enough food and life was extremely hard if you planned on surviving into the future. They were stronger yes, but a lot more worn down. We're not as resilient, but we can manage to take care of ourselves if we moderate.
the average human being is very healthy and lives atleast 25-35 years longer than the average man of the hunter gatherer age. They didn't have enough food and life was extremely hard if you planned on surviving into the future. They were stronger yes, but a lot more worn down. We're not as resilient, but we can manage to take care of ourselves if we moderate.
Wiktor
Member
Their bodies were better. I remember reading that even their brains were actually bigger. Not to mention we can now sustain weak people and allow then to breed, which is great from humanitarian standpoint, but crappy for the whole spieces's evolutionary progress.
That said, we offset our inferior bodies with medical advancements.
That said, we offset our inferior bodies with medical advancements.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot sustain a large population, so once it gets too large, there is a die off. Agricultural societies have many safeguards against famine and thus are able to grow ever larger. They only get demolished (food supply-wise) in case of severe crop destruction or shitty central planning from the likes of Stalin or Mao.
How do you even try to combine the two? Our modern healthcare is intimately intertwined with our modern lifestyle. You can't just give ancient humans penicillin and call it a day. They are still subject to starvation, weather exposure, predation, and inter-tribal violence. If you give ancient humans "modern medicine", does that include neonatal care, supplements, and yearly checkups?
Possibly, but hardly any of them gave a shit about minor issues like that compared to starvation and war.
Nope. Just because they are physically weak, doesn't mean that they can't contribute to the betterment of the human race.
The Stephen Hawking of 10,000 years ago would have been eaten by tigers before accomplishing anything of merit.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Not just that. There was a TED talk that Steven Pinker gave on violence across history, and apparently people in hunter-gatherers were far more likely to die at the hands of another human than anybody in agriculture based ones, which is more or less at odds with the idealized hunter-gatherer many people think of.
Does OP just want to know if hunter-gatherer diet was healthier than typical modern ones? Because we don't have to compare the societies as a whole to answer a question like that.
Wiktor
Member
True, but not only this is extremely rare circumstance, but also...his live didn't provide much to improve our own bodies evolutionary. That was my point. Weak and sick people breeding is diluting the spiecies biological strenght. This doesn't mean we're not better off because of it as a civilization.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
well, i doubt they took insulin shots.
Eteric Rice
Member
Healthier probably. Longer life spans? Eh, considering that nature still made us her bitch (we got eaten by stuff, also disease), we probably died pretty young most of the time.
onadesertedisland
Member
Of course they were. That's why they developed technology, agriculture, and generally have societies that have survived for millennia. Oh, wait... That's right... They weren't. They had hard, short, harsh lives. The ones that developed technology and used their minds are our ancestors. Not the ones digging for berries in the fields that died off during harsh winters and droughts.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
The !Kung Bush-men are an interesting example. Most of the time they were doing much. The view by modern society was that Hunters and Gatherers had to work very hard and hardly had any time to do anything else. Most nutrition came from the women gathering, though everyone in the village loved to eat meat so the Hunters were praised. That classic video of the !Kung Bushmen going out to kill the giraffe was heavily edited and manipulative to try and make it appear that "primitive mans" methods were time intensive and inefficient. There is a narrative to justify why our Civilization is better than what the hunter and gatherers went though. They threw a Poisonous Spear at a giraffe and followed it until it got weak enough to try and take down. The video tried to make it look like they were tracking it endlessly, when most of the time they were just laying about. The giraffe honestly wasn't moving much. They had to wait until it was weaker because even a slightly poisoned Giraffe could kick a human quickly once and kill them. Farming helped our society expand and have a more assured means of getting food (Though of course this isn't always the case), and giving us a need to create better technology past better weapons to kill animal with, we didn't exactly have more time just because we were farming. Farming is a time intensive job anyway.
Yanomami get way too high. All day every day.
Pìnker wrote a book about violence called The Better Angels of our Nature, I think that TED talk is at least partially taken from it.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's intensive but each person becomes more productive, nutritionally. Farmers work long days, but you need fewer of them, and freeing large numbers of people from food-related jobs allows room for other professions to flourish.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Most definitely
But I don't believe everyone in a tribe was either doing scavenging or hunting. Each gathering and hunting group also likely had people improving their hunting tools, which couldn't exactly be done while out on a hunt. There was also most likely healers, the precursors doctors and nurses of today's times.
Though there isn't a lot of information to go by to determine this besides archaeological digs or the limited amount of H&G's we have to day.
We also don't really give our early ancestors a lot of credit for the advances before agriculture. Hunters and Gatherers weren't just blindly trying to scavenge stuff. Forest Gardening was the proto-agriculture system of selecting areas where fruits, nuts, and nutritional plants as well as preferred game, while doing our best to get rid of predators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening
shira
Member
Yeah but you didn't expend massive amounts of energy to kill the animal (I'm assuming). Why would you need that much protein when you probably just drove to the store and bought it.
Certainly, they had a lesser incidence of many chronic and lethal diseases associated with old age, since they generally died decades before most humans develop them. The reason cancer is so prevalent now is that we have eliminated or limited deaths from so many other causes that occur at younger ages that a disease so strongly associated with age is now such a prominent cause of death.
At the same time, modern society enables us access to a far greater variety of food than they would ever have had access to. We also have far more stability in our access to food in industrialized societies.
Less than 2/3 of children make it to the age of 15 in untouched hunter-gatherer societies. You are quite wrong that humans in general were better off. We have never been this well off, and things keep improving every year.
Is it really a question worth asking when the answer is this obvious?
At the same time, modern society enables us access to a far greater variety of food than they would ever have had access to. We also have far more stability in our access to food in industrialized societies.
Less than 2/3 of children make it to the age of 15 in untouched hunter-gatherer societies. You are quite wrong that humans in general were better off. We have never been this well off, and things keep improving every year.
If you don't take risks from the actual hunting and gathering itself into consideration, perhaps. That would be a rather strange thing to do however. The healthiest living person would be a person genetically less likely to suffer from various diseases who lives a healthy lifestyle with plenty of exercise in a modern society. Better still if it's in a place with relatively clean air.
Is it really a question worth asking when the answer is this obvious?
There was a recently found ancestor preserved in ice (I forget where) and autopsy showed he had significant atherosclerotic disease likely died of a heart attack in his mid 30s.
evilromero
Member
I think you regard the modern human too highly. The majority of us live a sedentary lifestyle, that I believe is hard to argue.
- Status