- G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
- G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Under savagery I'd be living mostly outside, shivering, wondering if I could get enough food to live through the winter, and would have little hope of living past 40.
I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor, and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight. I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen.
I'd have to train with weapons constantly, and live in fear of the next tribe over attacking me and my family at any moment.
No thanks.
On average across time and space, the situation would be way less comfortable than modern life.
From what I've read about pre-contact bones, they did suffer from periodic episodes of famine.
I've read nothing specific about California Indians.
None of this is to say that they were without technology, because science and technology are definitively human traits. Boat tech was pretty decent for the Chumash, and they traded inland to the desert tribes.
But there's an attitude that civilization must be superior here among lots of commenters here, with an obvious ignorance of what uncivilized life was actually like. We have traded away free time, clean environments, and live with family; for medicine, safety, and iPhones. We have also traded infant mortality, exile, and ignorance; for anomie, prisons, pollution, and tyrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_the_indigenous_p...
You're right that primitive societies did not have prisons - they could not afford them. They either killed the miscreant or banished him.
Heck, how many can make a fire without matches? Who'd give up boots? How about that parka? and that lightweight tent? canteen? cotton underwear? pots and pans? jeans? steel knife? trail mix? rain gear? toilet paper? the backpack frame and straps?
I'm not particularly well-versed on hunter-gatherer societies in this regard, especially in Paleolithic societies rather than those that persisted to the modern day. But given that hunter-gatherers were generally nomadic and had a much more diverse source of foods than settled agriculturalists, you probably would have worried less about food lasting you through winter than if you had been in any agricultural civilization up until 100 years ago or so.
> would have little hope of living past 40
Lolnope. Hunter-gatherer societies had longer lifespans than sedentary agriculturists, and even the shortest-lived societies generally had life expectancies of over 50 years of age if you made it past 5 or so.
> I'd suffer from routine episodes of famine, backbreaking labor,
Once again, hunter-gatherers are probably more resistant to famine than settled agriculturalists. It is now well-known that hunter-gatherers spent very little time working: about 2-4 hours per day of work was required, far less even than modern society.
> and the tribe booting me out to die when I was no longer carrying my weight.
Probably not. Old people hold valuable knowledge, such as which foods are edible in extreme famine.
> I'd watch most of my children die young, and would fear all sorts of stupid mythical boogeymen.
Fewer on both accounts than you would in early settled agricultural societies.
While it used to be thought that agriculture was obviously superior to hunter-gatherer societies (not least because it was independently developed at least 9 times), more recent anthropological work has shown that on nearly every metric, hunter-gatherer societies outperform agricultural societies until about the 19th century.
"Traditional nomadic tribes often end up abandoning their elderly during their unrelenting travels. The choice for the healthy and young is to do this or carry the old and infirm on their backs — along with children, weapons and necessities — through perilous territory. Also prone to sacrificing their elderly are societies that suffer periodic famines. Citing a dramatic example, Diamond said Paraguay’s Aché Indians assign certain young men the task of killing old people with an ax or spear, or burying them alive."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/jared-diamond-on-aging-1505...
If you want to lop off 30 years of life expectancy to join your tribe, please include me out.
It's also worth pointing out that modern hunter-gatherer societies are not Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies. Those that remain today generally do so in part because the land they travel is too marginal for intensive agriculture, for example.
I've also seen other historians talk about nomadic tribes leaving the old behind to die, it's just that Diamond came up first in a search.
Other dangers and just the toll of harsher environments did much more to lower the life expectancy than ritualized murder of old people.
Well, yeah, the comment applied to nomadic people.
Where I live, the coyote population comes and goes, in reverse phase with the population of rabbits and other small creatures. The coyotes hunt till the game gets scarce, then they move on. They don't have a choice. Neither did nomadic people.
> Other dangers and just the toll of harsher environments did much more to lower the life expectancy than ritualized murder of old people.
Of course - not many people lived to be old. Neither scenario entices me to give up civilization for the life of a nomadic tribesman.
But what are you, the nomadic tribesman, going to do with the old man who can't walk when you've got to follow the caribou herd or die of starvation?
Downvote me all you like, but civilization gives us the luxury of choice, ethics, morality, etc. And so I choose civilization, because I don't want to be forced to leave the old people behind.
Especially because they had fewer children, since the human child is dependent on the mother for so long. So they focused more on getting each child to an age where they could start to take care of themselves before having another one.
And it also helped keep population low, which slowed the spread of disease and parasites, and also meant that a smaller food supply could feed people well.
I don't have a horse in the race, which is a silly one in any case. We are where we are and global civilisation can only be unpicked via cataclysm (which is a by no means remote possibility). And one can still see the human good in other cultures without wanting to abandon your own. I personally wouldn't be of that much use in a more communal society.
But I see no harm in starting with at least a modicum of knowledge, interpretive charity, and curiosity. When did the latter in particular become so undervalued in our society, as it seems to be on HN when this subject comes up?
A long time ago I saw a television documentary about a tribe of nomads living on the steppe in western Mongolia. They were supposedly distant descendants of the ancient Scythians, and living very much the same lifestyle their ancestors had for centuries -- a small tight-knit community, growing up on horseback, being highly skilled at archery, and so on.
During one particularly bad winter the tribe entered a Mongolian city at the edge of the steppe to seek shelter, and they never left. The filmmakers found the old women of the tribe working in an office building, sitting in cubicles and typing on computers. The only connection they had to the old ways was a horse archery show and competition they held in the streets of the city. The filmmakers asked the old women why the tribe had done this. Didn't they miss their traditional way of life?
They told him, of course we miss some aspects of our old life, and the freedom of living on the steppe, but what we don't miss is being cold and hungry all the time.
I think the evidence suggest hunter/gatherers lived longer than civilized people prior to modern medicine and sanitary practices, had more exercise, ate better, and didn't catch the same diseases (domesticated animals were a big source of disease).
That's not saying it's preferable. I have no way of knowing, having grown up with all the advantages of modern life. I do notice the large amount of overweight people, the preponderance of mental illness, and the various complaints about abuses from governments and corporations, the environmental impact of 7.x billion people, and the large number still living in abject poverty. Also the history of institutional slavery, war and genocide. So it's not all roses.
If I were forced to pick between medieval life in London or hunter/gather, I would pick the latter, unless I was nobility.
What is it doing to the environment to make your car? How about the electricity you use? How about the plastics/nylon in your clothes, shoes, food packaging, etc?
How about your children? What air will they breath? Water will they drink? How much more contaminated will the environment be? How many estrogen mimics will there be?
Keep in mind that the current bushmen are basically working half time jobs, are quite healthy (measuring blood values, percent fat, aerobic capacity, etc) AND they are living on extremely marginal land after been pushed out of more desirable land by cities and agriculture. If they weren't forced off the good land their quality of life would be even better.
A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Not sure the current society will last 200 years, and I'm afraid my kid is going to have a WAY tougher time of things than I had.
Sure it's great to be in the top few %, getting great health care, making over $100k, and not really having a serious unmet need. This however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it.
Australian indigenous nations managed a whole continent pretty successfully for 60,000 years. Agricultural-industrial civilisation has brought it to its knees in under 200. Our climate stability is collapsing at breakneck speed, the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, we have the most catastrophic mammalian extinction rate of any continent, our topsoil is being flushed out to sea, our great river systems are diminishing before our eyes.
(Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth).
> his however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it.
I see your point, but the poor are only being used as tools by the rich. It is the rich for whom our living planet is being sacrificed. They will buy themselves comfort for another 50-200 years, as our world collapses.
Where did you get that from? Everything I've ever read about indigenous Australians says they were hunter-gatherers, with only very limited agriculture.
Indigenous Australians certain used hunting and gathering amongst a variety of food-obtaining methods like fish farming and yam cultivation (very various in the different nations). But they did so in landscapes that they actively managed through a range of techniques (including but not limited to use of fire) to make the flora and fauna of their choice readily available in their country (and to keep them available throughout good & bad seasons).
Popular accounts of the contemporary research can be found in Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth and Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu. It's a fast-changing research landscape, though, with much left to be discovered.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
$50K/yr -> You’re in the top 0.31% richest people in the world by income.
But does all that matter? Pointing out that the rich are (almost literally) eating the world doesn't give any of us the instant means to change the system we live within. We can only do what we can do, but there's nothing to do without awareness.
And the thing about modern medicine versus prehistoric illnesses, is that you would nearly always be either "doing okay", or dead. And the majority of people who got past 30 had a decent chance of living to 60 in most cases. Especially since they were usually involved in child care, etc. while the younger adults did the hunter-gatherer thing.
If you want to find out about the reality, "The Old Way: A Story of the First People" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas is a fine start.